ro,kJo_.

s
<r- 17.3
98 1< A T E C L A R 1<

archies and librarics: Olailable e1idencc proicct. RcJort Lo Muscums Lib ..

. 1 , 'aJJcs and
(MLA) by th c Robcrt Gorclon Unncrsitv, Abcrclccn. Rctric,ecl 1 '\r
http: // 1\'W\\' .m la. gov. uk / information / c,iccncc.
WCCD (Worlcl Commission on Culture ancl Dc,cloJmcnt) 1995. Ou e .
. r reatr~e D
Summary rctn cYccl 26 Dcccmbcr ?005 from http // \\ww uncsco
' - .org cu l
clcvclopmcnt /ocd /occl.html. tur
WSSD (World Summit on Sustainablc DcYclopmcnt) 2002. Plan if lmplementation.
March 2006 from http: // www.johanncsburgsummit.org.
www .hcritagclink .org.uk. Assessing Values in Conservation
Planning
Methodological issues and choices

Randall Masan

nation decisions - whether they are concemed with giving a building 'heritage'
1
d iding which building to invest in, planning for the future of a historie site, or

hin' a ueatment to a monument - use an articulation of heritage \'alues, often called
ltur<~l ,ignificance' (Marquis-Kyle ancl Walkcr 1992; Tainter ami Lucas 1983; Tomlan
~ a~ reference point. Assessment of U1e values atbibuted to heritage is a very
portJnt actiYity in any conservation effort, since values sbongly shape U1e decisions that
macle. Ilowever, even cl10ugh val u es are widely und erstood to be critica! to under -
dmg and planning for heritage conservation, there is littl e knowledge about how, prag
u lly, the whole range of heritage values can be assessed in the context of planning and
on making. This chapter aims to exp lore nlue assessment as a particular aspect of
nation planning ami management.

Characterizing values
a pr lude to specific discussions of val u e assessment, this section del ves into
'rizing th e notion of val u e as a guiding id ea in heritage conservation. One of
r d.! sumptions of this chapter is the uscfulness of th e 'values' perspect ivc to illumi -
<uru erYation and management planning issues and make cl1ese activitics more

Yalues in conservation

u i mo t often used in one of two senses : first, as morals, principies, or otht>r ideas
~ :ne ~ guides to action (individual and coll ective); and second, in reference to U1e
llld 111 and charactcristics seen in things, in particular the positive characteristics (actual
poktrnual). This chapter is concerned directl)' with thc seconcl clefinition. The persJec-
la ln h . .
filll . er IS an anthropologJcal one, and 1t valu es the attempt to und erstancl cl1e full
o 1 values anc1 va umg
processes attachecl to hentage
. - as opposed to the normat1ve,.
 .LUU f< A 1~ lJ A L l MA S ON
A S S E S S I N G V AL U E S I N C O N S E R V A TI O N P LA N N I N G 101
art historical view common in UJe .
historical values over otlJeJs. consenatJon fleld, which a priori priYilcges artistic and Val u es in heritage conserration have traditionally been treated in one of t wo ways: ( 1)
ne kind of value pre-dominates anci blots out consideration of otl1ers; or (2) values are
Value suggests usefulness ancl b ,fi 1_ _. . .
]Jrise bt' t b ecause (as one aspect of ene ts.. l leJlJtage IS ,-aluecl notas an mtellectual ent er. ~eated as a black box, with all aspects of heritage nlue collapsed into 'significancc.' Thc
otller l'unctions in wciety. This willn~atena e~ tu re) bitlpiays instrum ental, symbolic, and first ueaon ent is problematic because whole categories of value can be excl ud ed a priori.
vaiue are described. eco me e eaJer e o\\' as cJfferent types ol' heritage For instance , if tl1e economic use value of a historie site is allowed to predominat e, tlw
In tl1e sphere of materi l 1 - ti . wurism activity tl1at maximizes tl10se economic values caJl quickly obscure or erode tlle
tlling?' prolokes l l a lefJitage, le snnple cueslion of ' What is tlle value of th site's historical ,a lues (visitor traffic destroys historie context ancl even tl1e resources
L a w 10 e range 0 ans , . c. l JS
aJl imp t t . . 1 . "ers, a meanmgiU aJld legitima te - and tllerein themsehes , perhaps by careless visitors climbing on ruins or taking fragments as sou -
01 aJl 1ssue. 11 a g 1ven momc t . . 1 . . L . . 1es
number of difrerent Yalues ascribed l n, a ~nen leJ ltage Slte, buddmg, or object has a renirs). The second kind of treabnent (tl1e 'black box ') is problematic because in collaps-
hypoiliet"cal old l - 1 . 1 . o Jt - entage Js mult.Jvai ent. As aJl exmnple take ing all val u es loan aggregate statement of significance, tl1e different types of heritage val u e
' ClUlCJ Jt 1as spn-t ' a
because of the events th~t ha,:e ~ ' u~ ;~ ue as a P. ace of worship; it has historical value are mystified or rendered seconclary ancl are thus negl ected. An example of tl11s would be a
,-alue because it is beaut"ftll ~'lcl a:lspn ec klefr e (or Slmply beca use it is old); it has aesilietic historie church or mosque tl1at is classiflecl by autl1orities m1d underslood by the secular
' ~ a une wor o archt t - . ]
of real estate it has I"t l ' ec UJ e, Jt las economJc value as a piece public primarily as a building of historical or artistic signif1cance; this circumstance can
order and so' on Wh]aJot' '. Jea valtlue aisf'~ symbolic r epresentation of a certain kind of social obscure m1other importan t. value of the building as a sacred si te of worship. By hm1ging ili e
, . s more, l e e' Jerent ,-al tJ b i"
f'crent stakeholders or expcrt ob
and, as mgued below, logicall 'suserver~. ts TI . l;es lat CaJl e e lscerned correspond to dif-
~llU tiYalence is an essential quality of heritage
A sccond imJortanLt . )_ l ggebsts a PI ur ISt.lc, eclecllc approach to value assessment.
determinalion of signiflcance too much on the artistic valu e of ilie religious building, thc
other ('secondary') value of religious worship or even of m.usical performance can be
' ms1g 1t a out 1entage 1. . ili eroded, even iliough it woulcl not be dilftcult to conserve all of tl1ese values simultan-
objectively gilcn The ,-al u es of 1 .t . a u es JS at t ley are contingent, not eously.
L 1enagearenots1m] 'C d' clfi i
as was traditionally theoJ"zod . ti . P Y oun an xec and unchanging There me so many different kinds of values, ami the interactions among tl1em are so
_, ll1 le COnservatiOn fiel] (" tJ f '
being int.Jins1"c) Val .. d d e J. e. le notJon o hentage val u es complex, that a more effective way of treating tl1is issue has to begin witll a clear, effect-
' ues aJe pro u ce 0 t f ili . f .
they don 't emana te from the artil'act its~lf o V le mtera~lJOn o 1an mtJfact and its contexts; ively neutral, agreed-upon way of characterizing different types of heritage value - as seen
ence to social histor l
' '
i
1ca , anc even spatla] e t t
. . a ues CaJl 1US on Y be understood wiili refer-
ili. h l by the wicl e variely of stakeholders in conservation efforts. A typology cif heritage values
and articulating ilie val u e wh el oln elx s - l oug lle lens of who is defining would be an effective guide to characterization and would move conservation stakeholders
, y now an w 1y 1ere? For e . . r
requires some substantial retllinking' f th k" 1 . f onservatJon proJessJonals, iliis closer to having a lingua frm1ca in which all parties' values can be expressed anci discussed.
n eeded to su ort cor . . .~ e mes o research ami knowl eclge that me By use of such a typology - a fram ework tl1at breaks clown significance into constituent
of heritage a!~ work olfseaJrvtaotJOn. TradlJtJofn,lally, val u es were articulated by experts' analysis kinds of herilage value - the views of experts, citizens, communities, governments, and
r a recorc o t 1e past 0 1 h ti
begun lo embrace such e t . n Y r ecent )' as 1e conservation field oilier stakeholclers can be voicecl ami compare el more effectively.
' 1 a e ors as econmmcs lt . l b ]
issues - and they ha ve yet to be f ll . 'i _cu UJ a e 1aJ1ge, pu JC policy, ami social Any effo:rt to break clown and describe ilie values attached to a pmticular heritage site
, u )' mteg:ratec mto the fiel el.
Where do values come frm i' b . immecliately encounters conceptual and practica! difficulties. The different articulations of
material culture reco nized as he~it las eer~ a questJOn of consi_derable debate. Should heritage value (in terms of historical association, artistic merit, or clollars) are at some
ami universal), or sh!uld herita e v:fuee b;e sacJ to have some mtJmsJc value (unchanging leve! different expressions of the same qualities, seen tl1rough clifferent eyes. The units ancl
consoucted out of th . g . l seen as rac!Jcally ancl essentJally extrinsic ancl yarclsticks usecl by a:rt historians, sociologists, and economisls, for instance, are not r eadily
e vm Jous socJa contexts of the b. b .
seems to lie somewhere in betwe . ' l . o Ject, UJ e mg, or sJte? The answer comparable or oanslatable. In acldition to tl1ese clifferences in epistemology ancl modes of
iliings. The viewpoint adopte i . tle_n .. ' a u~ 's bformecl m tlle nexus between id eas and expression, tl1ere me real clifferences in how a particular type of value is assessed by differ -
on one hand evcr ,th,tl arl r tlni liS J esear e 1 orrows from both ends of this spectrum: ent stakeholders - for instance, tl1e economic value as assessed by a corporation operating
' ) g om ec as hent b el fi
itage value (aside fr 0111 ti ti l age "'' ' Y e lllltJon, have some kind of her- and ovvning a heritage si te, versus a typical resident of a nearby village. A tl1ircl difficulty in
Wle 1er 1e va ue h' . .
words, anytlling defined as herita . -~s prnna:J Y rstonc, artJstic, or social). In other clmacterizing values lies in the fact tl1at values are always changing in some respect, ancl
kind of heritag~ value (t110u l tl ge IS saJ t; ~ntrmsJcally ancl tautologically possess some we should expect iliis as part of the essential, social nature of heritage. For all these
otlle:r hancl th . g/1 le nature o lat value is not intrinsically given). On the reasons, heritage values cannot be objectively measured ancl broken clown in tl1e same
' e contmgent constructecl view oint . l l .
facto:rs outside t11e obiect 1ts lf d l . P . ng lt Y pomts to value-formation sense that a chemist, for instance, can analyze ancl break clown a compound lo determine
J e an emp 1as1zes ilie un t
mation. Recognizing the fundament 1 . . pm_ ant soca processes of val u e for- its constituent parts.
possibilit)' of some values tll t . a contmglelnchy of hentage values cloes not preclude tlle While tl1e subjectivity and contingency of heritage values make it diftcult to establish
a a1 e un1Ve1sa y eld (or -] . ) . .
structecl values _ think of the G _ p _ .d r . near ) so 1 11ese soc1ally con- a cl ear frmnework or even a nomenclature of values (akin to a chemist's elements ami
1 eat )'1 am1 s 10r mstance
they are so widely held not b ti 'b. . .' are seen as un1versa because compounds), tl1is is precisely what is neecled to facilitare tl1e assessment ancl integralion of
' ecause 1ey are o jectJve t:ruths.
different heritage values in conservation plmming ancl management. So ilie concept of
val u es neecls to be broken clown ancl defincd in a typology, at least provisional! y. By sug-
Valu e typologies gesting a typology in tl1e r e mainder of this section, 1 will to highlight its provisional
nature. lt is not claimed tl1at tl1is (or any) typology will be appropriate foral! sites or situ -
The pragmatic questions at hand are: how CaJl a wide ran 0 f . . ations - it is simply an ~ttempt to CJeate a common starting point from which a moclified
ancl characterized in a wa tllat 1 . . . . ge . heJitage val u es be Jd entified typology can be constructed in a variety of heritage planning situations.
vant lo al! the disciplines :ncl sta~1h~ll;~~~~!,~\'~~~s?
ancl plannmg decisions, and (2) is rele- The practica! aspects of discussing typologies should al so be emphasized. Establishing
a typology of values will facilitate discussion and understanding of ilie differ ent valuing
 102 RA N DA L L M A SON A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T 1 O N P LA N N 1 N G 103

processes at play ~n heri.tage conservation. This kincl of knowledge ultimately can guide lites ancl experts), whercas many otl1er t)1Jologies resonate more witl1 connoisseurship and
practltwners cl:mces of appr?priate assessment methocls for a wide range of heritage e rofessional values ami are stTongly influencecl by the notion ofheritage's inbinsic value.
values . Typologtes also constttute a first-order research too!, ordering and organizin p A broacl clistinction is often mad e between economic ancl cultural values as the two
knowledge so that research builds on itself - it keeps practitioners from having to continu~ rimary metacategories of heritage val u e. This distinction has served as a starting point for
ally reinvent the wheel. The benef1t of using a common typology of values is that it lene! ~e research undertaken by the Getty Conservation lnstitute on values -related issues most
comparability to the evaluation of different projects. This is an important goal of researc~ relevant to conservation. 1-lowever, cl efending a hard -and -fast separation of economic and
01~ conservation planning -e~tablishing some grouncls for comparison among many types ultural spheres is untenable. Economic behavior cannot be beyond, or separate from,
of hentage proJects aml denvmg best-practices guidance applicable to many different situ- culture, which by definition is 'ways of living together' or attitudes anrl behaviors passed
ations. Final! y, the typology is both an analytical too! and a vvay to advance wider partici- on . Indeed, economics is one of tl1e most clominant (sub)cultures - ways ofliving together
pation in the planning process. Value categories correspond to different stakeholder _ in many societies.
positions voiced in heritage debates and projects, and devising and debating the typolog , Nev~rtl1eless, tl1e economic-cultw-al clistinction is wiclely sharecl aml remains a very
are themselves means of stimulating participation. ) useful analytic convenience. The economic-cultwal distinction resana tes because: (1) it high-
As one woulcl expect, given the conceptual cmnplexities outlined so far, f1nding lights privatization and tl1e influen~e of market l~gic into ever more .s~heres of social life , a
agreement on a typology or a nomenclature of heritage values has proven problematic. most pressing contemporary social 1ssue; (2) lt connects to b-achtlOnal debates arouncl
~early everyone intereste~l in heritage - citizen, scholar, writer, professional, or organ- notions of economic base ancl cultural superstructure ancl tl1eir relation in modern societies;
Izatwn - has a shghtly different conception, aclvanced from a particular perspective, of and (3) perhaps most important for our present purposes, economic ancl cultural spheres
how to describe these characteristics of heritage. Consider the sampling of heritage value represent two quite distinct attitudes/perspectives towarcl tl1e subject of val u es ami valuing.
typologies clevisecl by di!Ierent scholars and organizations ancl summarized in Table 7.1
(see also Kellert 1996 ; Rolston 1988; Satterfield 2002). In most instances, they describe
the same pie, but slice it in subtly different ways. Provisional typology
Typologies implicitly minimize some kinds of value, el evate otl1ers, or foreground con-
flicts between the cu ltivation of certain values at U1e expense of others. In the Burra Charter, The provisional typology shown in Table 7.2 - which is neitl1er exhaustive nor exclusive -
for instance, economic values are minimized because tl1ey are seen as derived from cultural is offered as a point of departure ancl discussion.
and historical values and are therefore given secondar y consideration. This typology includes the kinds of value most often associated with heritage si tes ancl
lt is apparent tl1at there are severa] distinct, if not fully separable, categories of her- conservation issues, but it does not assum e that every heritage site has every type of 1alue .
itage value - economic, historical, spiritual, political, eclucational, aesthetic, artistic. If The working assumption behincl tl1e typology presented here is that these categories
one were to map U1ese value schemata, there would be a great deal of overlap even encompass most of tl1e heritage values tl1at shape decision making ancl that must be con-
between such different frameworks as Frey's (1997 from economics) and Reigl's (1902 siclered in conservat:ion planning ancl management. The danger in using such a typology is
from art history). The typology suggested in English Heritage's recent paper on sustain- that it may suggest that one framework of values speaks equally well to al! heritage sites,
ability is 1:erhaps the most comprehensive and balancee! (English 1-leritage 1997 and this issues, and cultur al milieus. If it were u sed in this nonnative way, and asan a priori fram e-
volume). fhts breakdown is well oriented to conservat:ion practice because the value cat- work, it would pref1gure too much about the values of a heritage site . lt is reiteratecl,
egories focus on how heritage is used ami valued (contingently, and by people other tl1an therefore, that any value typology should serve only as a starting point and tl1at value types
will have to be adjusted ancl revised for each project/ setting.
Table 7.1 Summary of hcntagc 1al ue typolog1cs dcviscd by anous scho lars and organ1zat:Jons The two major categories - sociocultural and economic - do not actually refer to differ-
(Rcigl 1982; L1pc 1984; for thc Burra Chartcr, Australia JCOMOS 1999; Frcy 1997; Engiish ent, cliscrete sets of values. Economic and cultural are tvvo alternat:ive ways of w1derstanding
Hcritagc 1997) and labeling tl1e same, wide range of heritage values. There are substantial overlaps betvveen
the val u es each column in Table 7. 2 helps identify. The majar difference between tl1em resides
Rei8 ! (1902) Lipe (1984) Burra Charter Fre)' (1997) Enalish Hericaae in tl1e very difTerent conceptual !i-ameworks ancl methodologies used to articula te U1em.
(/998) ( 1997) The same point must be macle concerning tl1e subcategories witl1in the 'sociocultural
Yalues' group; tl1ey are not distinct and exclusive; in fact, they overlap quite extensively.
Agc Economic Acsthctic Monctary Cu ltural This intermingling contTasts witl1 the categories of tl1e 'economic values ' column, which
Historical Acsthctic Historie Option Educational and are intended to be distinct and exclusive of one another.
acadcmic
Commcmoratii'C Associativc- Scicntifc Existcncc Economic Table 7.2 Provisional typology of hcritagc va lues
symho lic
Use lnformational Sociocultural l'alues Economi c va/ues
Social (including Bcqucst Rcsourc
spiritual, political, Historical Use (markct) valuc
national, othcr Cultural 1symholic Non usc (nonmarkct) 1aluc
cu ltural) Social Existcncc
Nc wncss Prcstigc Rccrcational Spiritual 1rcl igious Option
Educational Acsthctic Aesthctic Bcqucst
 104 R A N D A L L M A SON
Sociocultural values
Sociocultural values are at the traditional core of consenation - values attached to an
object, building, or place because it holds meaning for people or social groups due to its
age, beauty, artistry, or association with a significant person or event or (otherwise) con-
tributes to processes of cu ltural affiliation.
The types of sociocu ltural values outlined bclow overlap. For instance, a cuality
definecl as a spintual/rehgiOus value (a congregation's ongo ing use of a historie church for
example) cou ld also be defined as a historie~] ~lue (the histor) of generations ,,orship;Jing
111 the church and playing a role in the development of the surrounding commun ity) or as
an artistic value (the particular design of the building ancl its furnishings) or as a social
Yalue (used for nonreligious gatherings - for instance, a holiday concert or soup kitchen) .
While these uses are closely related, it is important to understand these as cli!Terent values,
because they correspond to different ways of conceptualizing the value of the heritage, to
different stake-holder groups, ancl therefore to different bases for making management or
conservation cl ecisions.
Notice that tlwre is no separate category for political value. The reason: al! values
attributed to heritage are political, in that they are part of the power stTuggles ancl exer-
tions that determine the fate of heritage. Values occupy center stage when it comes to the
decisions - the politics - about thc conservation ofheritage.
Historical value
1-listorical values are at the root of the very notion of heritage. The capacity of a site to
convey, embody, or stimulate a relation or reaction to the past is part of the fundamental
nature ancl meaning of heritage objects. Historical value can accrue in severa] ways: from
the heritage material' s age, from its association with people or events, from its rarity
and/ or uniqu eness, from its technological cualities, or from its archiva]/ clocumentary
poten tia!.
There are two important subtypes of historical \'alu e that merit mention. Educa-
tionall academic val u e is a type of historical val u e. The ecl ucational value of heritage lies in
the potential to gain knowledge about tl1e past in the futurc through, for instance, archae-
ology or an artist' s crea ti ve interpretation of tl1e historical record embocliecl in the her-
itage. Artistic val u e - val u e based on an object' s being unique, being the best, being a
good exampl e of, being the work of a particular individual, and so on - is also a type of
historical value.
Cultural/symbolic value
I-listory and heritage are core elements of all cultures the ideas, materials, ancl habits
passed U1rough time - so cultural values are, like historical val u e, a part of tl1e vcry notion
of heritage. There is no heritage without cultural valu e. Cultural values are usecl to builcl
cultural affiliation in ilic present and can be historical, political, ethnic, or related to other
means of living together (for instance, work- or craft-related). As usecl in this typology,
culturall symbolic Yalue refers to those shar ecl meanings associated witl1 heritage that are
not, strictly speaking, historie (relatecl to tl1e chronological aspects ancl meanings of a site).
Political value - tl1e use of heritage to build or sustain civil relations, governmental
legitimacy, protest, or id eological causes - is a particular type of cultural/ symbolic val u e .
These values stem from U1e connection between civic/ social life and the physical enYiron-
menl and from the capacity of heritage si tes in particular to stimulate tl1e kind of positive
A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T 1 O N P LA N N 1 N G 105
reOection and political behavior that builds ciYil society. Politicall ciYil val u e can be mani-
festly symbolic, or it can stem from research ami understanding of how heritage sites are
created and evolve, and from learning about who has shaped tl1e environment. Like all
heritage values, polilical value can be interpreted through a positive lens - as a key con -
tributar to civil society - or, more cynically, it can be interpreted as a political too! used
to enforce national culture, imperialism, postcolonialism, ancl so on.
Craft- or work-relatecl val u es are often ver y important aspecls of heritagc. A building
embodies tlw metl10ds used to clesign ancl make it , and the \'alues relating to tl1e process of
making ancl building are often separa te from (or lost among) more static historical or aes-
thetic values.
This category also includes heritage valu s used to stimulate etlmic-group identity, in
cases in which the group does not haYe a strong religious aspect.
Social value
The concept of social value follows dosel y the notion of 'social capital,' a widely used
concepl in the social science and developmenl ficlds. The social val u es of' heritage enable
and facilitate socia l connections , networks, ancl other relations in a broad sense, one not
necessarily related to central historical values of tl1e heritage. The social values of a her-
itage site might include the use of a site for social gatherings such as celebrations,
markets, picnics, or ball games - activiti es that do not necessarily capitalize clirectly on
the historical val u es of the si te but, rather, on the public-space, sharecl-space qualities.
The kinds of social groups strengtl1ened and enab led by these kinds of values could
includ e everything from families to neighborhood groups lo ethnic groups to special
interest groups.
Social value also includes the 'place attachment' aspects of heritage valuc. Place attach-
ment refers lo the social cohesion, comm unity idenlity, or other feelings of aftlliation tl1at
social gro ups (vvhcther very small and local, or national in scale) derive fl-om tl1e specific
heritage ami cnvironment characteristics of th eir 'home' territory.
Spi ritual/rel igious value
1-leritage sites are sometimes associated or imbued witl1 religious or other sacred meaning.
These spiritual values can emanate from tl1e beliefs and teachings of organized rcligion, but
they can also cncompass secular experiences of wonder, awe, ancl so on, which can be
provoked by visiling heritage places.
Aesthetic value
Aesthetic value is widely agreed to be a category of sociocu ltw-al value, tl10ugh it refers to
a wicle range of c1ualities. In the main, aesthetic refers to the visual c1ualities of heritage. The
many interpretations of beauty, of the sublim e, of ruins, and of tl1e quality of formal rela-
tionships consiclered more broadly have long been among tl1e most important criteria for
labeling tl1ings and places as heritage. The design and c>volution of a building, object, or
site can be another so urce of aestl1etic value. lt is also argued that the category of the aes-
thetic can be interpretecl more wiclely to encom pass all tl1e senses: smell, sound, ancl
feeling, as well as sight. Thus, a heritage site coulcl be seen as valuable for the sensory
experience it offers. Aesthetic value is a strong contributor toa sense of well-being anrl is
perhaps tl1e most personal ancl individualistic of tl1e sociocultural nlue types.
 106 RA N DA L L M A SON
Economic values
Econom ic \'aluing is OIW of the most powerful ways in which society identifies, assesses
and. decides on the rclatiYe Yalue of things. Economic ,alu es merlap a great deal with th~
SOCI.ocultural values (historical, social, aesthetic, ancl so on) described above, ancl they are
chstmgUJshed most bccause they ar e m easu red by cconomic analyses. In other wonls, eco-
nomic values are different because they are conceptualizecl in a funrlamentally different
way (according lo a fundamentally differ ent epistcmology, one not commensurable with
U1e narrati,e epistemo logi es used for sociocultural values). According to neoclassical eco-
nomic theory, econom ic values are the nlues seen primarily through ~th e lens of individual
consumer ami firm choice (utility) ancl are most often expressed in terms of price. Not al!
economic Yalues, however, are measured in terms ofmarket prices.
Economic nlues stemming from the conservation of heritage are often by definition
understood. ~o be a public go~d - reflecting collectin' decisi;ns rather tl~an individual:
market decJSions - an cl are tl1 erefore not captured by market price measures. There is an
important clistinction between what values can legitimately be representecl in tenns of
price (privately held values, which can be tradecl in a market) ancl what factors shape
resource allocat10n deciSIOns (public ones, collectively held, and provid ed o utside of
marke ts) . Accounting for tl1ese gaps is one of the goals of the research effort. A di verse set
of. economic valuation m e thocls, therefore, will be needed to span this gap between
pnvate/market values ancl public/ nonmarket valucs.
The differ ent economic valu es outlined her e, and the relations among them, are
summanzed m a pap er by Mourato and Mazzanti (2002) (see also Frey 1997; Throsby
2001, 2002; ancl Serageldin and Steer 1994). The main clistinction they dravv is r elated to
use versus non -use values, corresponcling to tl1e types of economic values measurecl
through markets and outsicle of markets.
Use value (market value)
Use v~lu es are market values - the ones most easily assignecl a price. Use val u es of mater -
Ial hentage r efer to the goocls and services that flow from it that are tradable ancl priceabl e
in existing markets. For instance, aclmission fees for a historie site, tl1e cost of land, and
U1e wages of workers are valu es . Because they ar e exchanged in markets, these values can
be easily expressed in terms of price , and th ey are susceptibl e to economists' many analyti-
cal tools basecl on neoclassical theory.
Nonuse value (nonmarket value)
Nonuse values are economic nlues tl1at are not traded in o r capturecl by markets and are
U1 ere~ore difficult to express in terms of price. For instance, many of the qualities
descnbecl as sociOcultural values are also nonuse values. They can be classed as economic
values because individuals would b e willing to allocate resources (spencl money) to acquire
them and 1or protect them.
. . The economics fi eld describes nonuse values as em anating from the public-good cual-
Iti es of hentage - those qualities tl1at are ' nonrival' (consumption by one person does not
preclucl e consumption by som eone el se) ancl 'nonexclu cl abl e' (once the good 1 scrvice is
proviclecl to anym:e, otl1ers are not exclucl ecl from consuming it). A public archaeological
SI te woulcl exhibJt th ese qualities very clearly. Markets fail to provid e public goods
ancl ser~Jces, ancl nonuse values therefore pose a clifficult m ethodological probl em for
econom1sts.
A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T I O N P LA N N l N G 107
ae part ' nonuse- values are an alternative wa)' .of looking'- al the sociocultural
ln 1aib ' .
clescribed and distinguished above. Sociocu ltural Yalues ancl nonuse val ues are t\YO
ya 1ues
avs of slicing tl1e same pi e, as it were. . l l l l .
11
' Nonuse n lues are often broken clown into the followmg, e ose y re atec categones
(llhich are not .exhaustive) in order to specif)r exactly which qualities of heritagc moti vate
conomic decision s:
e Existence Value: Jndividuals value a heritage item for its mere cxistence, cven though
themse lves may not experience it or 'consume its services' clirectly.
t he Y , . tJ
0 tion J'alue: The option val u e ol he ritage re 1ers to someone s WIS 1 to preserve 1c
possibflity (the option) that he or she might consume tl1e heritage's scrvices at some future
time.
Bequest Value: Bequest value stems from Ule wish to bequeatl1 a heritage asset to future
generations.
Intrinsic values
J-low does tl1e typology suggestecl here align witl1 the 'intrinsic valuc' arguments n;ade
regarding heritage - ancl also macl e vis-a-vis nature in envirorun ental conservat10n? fh1 s
typology is prem ised on tl1e assumption tl1at values are funclam entall y contmgent - m
other words, that they are social! y as well as spatially constructed. But can one assume that
sorne 0 [ tl1e values of heritage are intrinsic (if not fix ed or absolute) - i.e., tl1at some kincl
ofhistoric value is intrinsic to tl1e whole notion of som e tl1ing being id entifi ed as heritage?
This int:rinsic-value argum ent in heritage conservation woulcl be analogous to the
'intrinsic' argument in environmental conservation, tlu-ough ~vhich it is assumecl tl1at
'natural' characteristics (wilclness) are intrinsically valuable . T!l!S Idea parallels the notion of
authenticity in the heritage fi eld, wh ich presum es tl1at some kincl of historie value is
represented by - inher ent in - some Duly ole! ancl thus authentic material (autl1entic in that it
was witness to history and carries tl1e authority of tl1is witness). '!'hus, If one can prove
autl1enticity of material, historical val u e is indelibly establishecl (but d. l Iolforf 2005 , Ch. 7).
Methodological issues and strategies
It was asserted above that qu estions of val u e and valuing are not, for ilie most pan, suscep-
tible to technical solutions. Values are embedd ecl in culture ancl social relations, which are
ever in flux. Po ltica! r ealities - th e patterns of power tl1at join ami separate tl1e various
stakeholclers in the heritage- are eve r present: tl1 ey are sometimes on the surface of con-
servation activities; often tl1ey lurk just beneath. The practical goal in devising val~e
assessment m ethodologies, approaches, routines , anrl tools is tl1erefor e not to search lor
the single best answer( nor is it to yield obj ectivity, technical ~rec ision, ora one-size-fits-
all technique for effective conservation planning. Ratl1er, the locus on m etl10clologies (on
the process of generating knowledge) will bring relevant infonn.ation to b car, will lencl
transparency to the process , and will abet the goal of achJeVJng wicler, meanmgful partJCI-
pation in the process .
This ection of tl1e chapter airs a number of issues regard ing m ethoclological strategies
for assessing hcritage val u es and goes on to discuss a number of tools tl1at are,. or could be,
used for assessmen t . In a suney of these available tools, one recurnng theme IS tl1e conser-
vation fielcl's great potential for borrowing or adapting proven value-assessment metl1ods
from disciplines such as anthropology ancl economi cs.
Befor e cl cscribing specific metl1ocls ancl tools, som e strategic issu cs uncl erlying tl1e
choice of m ethocl s ancl tools shoulcl be r ehear sed .
108 R A N DA L L M A S O N
General issues and conditions
Mcthodological choices for Yalue assessment must, at so1nc juncture in tl1e management
planning process, engage a few broad ancl fundam ental issues (Figure 7.1 ).
First, the value assessment process actually consists of a few discrC'te but closely
relaten parts. Valu e assessment is nota simple matter of simultaneous icl entification and
mcasurement, like taking the temperature . Assessment can be broken clown into three
parts: id entification, elicitation and elaboration (including exploring connections ami over-
laps), and ranking and prioritization.
Second, we can assume that no singl e value -assess ment method will give perfect,
total, or even adecuate knowledge to infonn conserYation decisions on the grouncl. Given
the varied nature of heritage values, knowl erlge about tl1em is best gain ed by aclopting a
number of quite differ ent perspectives ( ep istemologies) and, it follows, methoclologies.
To gauge sufficiently all heritage values of a proj ect or site and to inform conservation
decisions on the grouncl, a suite of varied methocls quantitatire or cualitative, economic
or anthropological - is likely to be thc best course. A furth er challenge, addressed be low,
lies in matching appropriate m ethods to al! the va1ues id entified in making a typology .
Third, context is one of the watchwords by which one can assure a varied, robust p er-
spective on which values to assess. Context, as used her e, r efers to physical, geographical
surrounclings; to historical patterns and narratives; ancl to the social processes with dis-
cernible impact on heritage and its conservation . Th ese includ e the cultural, social, eco-
nomic, and other conditions contributing to significance, as w ell as the managem ent
setting and physical surround ings of the site. H eritage sites ami obj ects must be und er -
stood in relation to their contexts- in other words, holistically. One cannot fully und er-
stand a site without und erstanding its contexts, which, perforce , extend b eyon d the site
itself both literally ami conceptual! y.
Conservation professionals have traditionally been very skilled in looking at certain
contex ts of hedtage - r elating to physical deterioration, environm ental conclitions, and
other physical factors; or to art histori cal narratives and aesthetic canons - and have
Response
Identification and Dcscrlption Assessments and Analysis
Monitor, Rcvicw, Revise
Figure 7. 1 Planning proccss mcthoclology.
A S S E S S l N G V A L U E S I N C O N S E R V A T l O N P LA N N I N G 109
dcrelopecl mcthoclologies ancl tools for analyzing these contexts. But an unclerstanding of
herit agc ralucs in tlle fullest sensc requircs that conservation professionals cast a wider net
and consid er m ore and difTerent contexls of conservation econom ic, cultural, ancl polit-
ical. As a coroll ar y to this, conservation professionals and planners must reach out lo otl1cr
fields ancl disciplines - which have already gained some exp erience in assessing such con -
textual issues - ami bring more rigor to this engagem ent .
For instance, in approaching conservation pl anning for an archaeological sile, it is
often imperativc to und erstand ami deal with the pressurcs ami opportunities presented by
wurism cl <"velopm ent - not just the tourism activities that happen on the site but also tllc
,a lues thal shape decisions well befor e and w ell after tl1e actual visit. Such planning
requires an und erstanding of economic for ces , m ethod s of economic analysis, public
policy, cultural tensions, and bade-offs tlut often accompany to urism developm ent, as
well as the r clationship of these factors to lraditional conservation aims ancl prin cipies.
Moreo ver, the m ean ing of the archaeological si te to the communities living around it m ay
" el] be one of tl1e driving forces behind tl1e effort to plan and conserve. In this case, con -
sen 'ation professionals need to und erstancl tl1e val u es as seen by that community, which
suggest a whol e range of m ethodologies for articulating those values (ranging from ethno-
graphic studies, to focus groups ancl interviews, to community invohement ami 'mapping'
processes) .
Fourth , severa] complications flow from tlle fact that values com e from peopl e - they
are opinions. Values com e into play on ly when they are articulated and champion ed by
stakeholders. But whom does one consult or ask? 1-Iow broad is tl1e net of informants ami
spokespeople ami experts? Where can one draw the line to limil the number of voices so
that the cliversity of values is r epresenta ti ve anci manageabl e and not overwhelming? There
is no universal solution to this dilemma, but neither does one have only intuition to
follow. These cuestions are addressed by constituency anal ysis ancl tl1e ethnographic
methocls described be low. Another complication r elates to how one asks the qu estions
or, in the term s laid out above, how cloes one elicit valu es? As Theresa Satterfield 's
resea.rch shows, asking for num erical r es ponses ancl narrative r esponses to value-elicitation
questions yields somewhat cliffer ent sets of values (Satterfield 2002). First, one should aim
for a diversity of tools and forms of knowl edge (not only num erical, not only narrative);
second, one can seek out tl1e kinds of val ues and stakeholders that usually prove most
elusive - clisadvantaged communities, spiritual val u es , a sense of place.
Quantitative and qualitative methods
Economic ami cultural modes of conceptualizing and gauging value r epresent two distinct
and somewhat incomm ensurate ways of looking at valu e - one cuantifiable ancl based on
individual preferences , tlle other resistant lo quantification and premised on co ll ective
meaning. In the main, economic values are best elicited ancl expressed by quantitative
research methods. Mathematics is, after a1l, the fundam ental language of mocl ern eco-
nomics. Converse! y, cultural val u es submit to quantification only fitfull y ami inacl ecuately .
Qualitative research methocls, ranging from narratives and analyses ~nitten by experts to
mterviews of orclinary citizens, elicit cultural values more cffectively.
Granel claims have been macle that economic m ethocls based on neoclassical th eorv
yield a comprehensive assessm ent of heritage valu es - these m ethods translate all types ;f
value, it is said, into term s of dollars by simulating markets or ass uming that markets ex ist
for them . Su ch claims are fraught with problem s, though. The best assessment of heritage
values , m any agree, com es from a complem entary use of economic and culturalmethocls.
Throsby (2002) reaches tl1 is conclusion, arguing from the perspective of an economist
thmking about the value of cu lture and tl1e arts .
110 RA N DA L L M A S ON A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T 1 O N P LA N N 1 N G lll

kinds 0 [ tools that luYe been brought up - expcrt analyses, cuantitative/ economic studies
of use and nonusc values, ethnographic assessments - are by design c1uitc broad in their
s\\eep. In each instance, the specifics of the method (tl1e surwy cuestions, the data c-ol -
Integration
lected, tl1e experts consulted) \\ould have to be designed, on a case-by-case basis, to
of respond to tl1e range of val u es associated with the project and to the personncl available to
Culrural Significancc/Va]ue Asscssmcnt Asscssments
and manage them. But it would, for instance, be sensible to imagine a planning process that
cstablishing used assessments w itl1 such components as economic impact analysis; surveys of tourists,
policy
corrtla tion
including botl1 narrative cuestions ancl quantifying methods such as a willingness-to-pay
btrwttn stud y; etlmographic stuclies centered on local communities (ethnic groups, indigenous
,____ _+-.,.. ad physica l
resou.rce.t people, recent migrants); interviews with local poltica! officials and businesspeople; anrl
Apply thorough analyses of thc historical, artistic, educ-ational, and other \'alucs of the site from
sustainability
principies and
the scholarly 1expert commLmity.
Many cul tural orher The aim of the toolbox approach is to get all relevant heritage valu es on the table,
and cconomic decision
mcthods making building tl1e fullest practicable account to inform policy and decision making. The variety
framework.s
0 [ val ues represented in the typology requires tl1e use of a variety of tools in their assess-
ment. To managc this variety of available tools in tl1e planner's toolbox, the notion of tri-
angu lation is useful. Triangulation, which requires the use of a suite of different methods
in complementary ways, should be at tl1e core of an approach to el iciting and assessing
heritage va lu cs. The underlying principi e is tl1at the layering of different, complementary
Figure 7.2 Thc cultural sign ificancc/Ya luc asscssmcnt proccss. This thrcc-part modc l of val uc pieces of information will produce a more accuralc answer tl1an wou ld the pursuit of one
asscssmcnt is a more rlctailccl rcncleri ng of thc 'Cultural sign ificancc/valuc asscssmc nt' oval or two pieces of information.
occupying thc ccntcr o thc planning proccss mcthorlology (Figure 7.1). With thc clifcrcnt Given tlleir diversity, tl1e elicitation of her itage val u es for a si te requires casting tl1is
parts o thc va luc-asscssmcnt proccss iclcntificcl, planncrs can apply a logica l sccuc ncc of tasks type of broad net by layer ing different approaches to yielcl the most robust results. In t.his
to gcncratc and co ll cct know lcclgc about valucs and use this with in thc O\"Cra ll planning vein, Denzin ami Lincoln (1994) describe the contemporary social researcher as a
proccss. bricoleur: one who patches together differ ent metl1ods to glean different sorts of know-
leclge, iteratively, opportunistically, to build the best composite answer to the question at
QuantitatiYe and qualitative rnethodologies derive liorn quite rlifferent episternolo- hancl. In the context of assessing tl1e social impacts of environm ental policies, William
gies. Both provide ways of taking sarnpl es, making proxies of com plex realities that cannot Freud enburg has suggested a somewhat more structured, systematic vcrsion of tl1e
be descr ibed in toto. The two approaches can be secn as attempts to measure the sarne triangulation-bricoleur idea. He outlines a tl1ree-part m etlwd: first, employing secondary
values, albeit frorn different perspectives, with different tools and cliscourses, ancl w ith clif- research techniques using existing, arch iva! elata (both qualitative ancl quantitative);
ferent results. The inform ation generated by both kinds of metlwd is disjunct - it is diffi- second, conducting primary r esear ch using etlmographic fieldwork technicues; anrl tl1ird,
cult, if not impossible, to measure and compare them on the same scale. Though they rnay using 'gaps ancl blinders' techniques (such as structured second -guessing, consult.ation, ami
be se en as competing paracligms, the information they genera te is often complementary. public invo lvement) botl1 to fill in the blanks of knowledge and to correct for tl1e
The particular strengths and weaknesses of cuantitative ancl qualitative approaches researchers' own biases (Freudenburg 1999).
need to be consicl cred carcfu lly. By their Yery nature, some kinds of values resist being The goal of a flexible and useful methodology for Yalue assessment has to be kept in
compar ed or scaled - spiritual values, for instance and tlms are more susceptible to the perspective of tl1e larger goal of seeking more sustainable practices and policies for
humanist, qualitative methods. The scalable results of quantitatiYe methods are more heritage conserYation. It is a truism that the same approach will not work in all places, in
easily cross-compared - thus, quantitative metlwds remain tl1e lingua franca for policy all cultural contexts, for all kincls of heritage - it must be adaptable and variable. Witl1 tl1is
makers. Quantitative methods focus on causal relationships ancl clepencl on variables iso- flexibility in mind, tlle frameworks deve loped here aim to be mean ingful for a range of
lated from tl1eir contexts . 1-lowever, as mentioned above, values and otl1er forms of stakeholders, take a broad Yi ew of valu es as motivations behind conservation, and accept
meaning are produced out of the interaction of artifacts ancl their contexts, not fr om tl1e wicl e participation as an inherent aspect of consen-ation. The nl.ethodol ogica l approach to
artifact itself. This arena is where cualitative research methocls have a parti cular strengtl1; value assessment proposed here must not o nl y be fl exible - tl1e id eas ancl approaches
they are sensitive to contextua! relationships (as opposed to causal connections) ancl are shoulcl be transferable and useful. These are among tl1e ingredients of more sustainable
therefore indispensable in studying the nature and interplay of heritage values (see Denzin conservation.
ancl Lincoln 1994; Frankfort-Nachmias ancl Nachmias 1996).

Stal<eholders and participation in value assessment

A toolbox approach
Since a full assessment of heritage \'alu es will require a cliYerse suite of methods and a flexi-
ble approach, how does one begin to match methods to values? Can tl1e valu es in the pro-
visional typology be matched up with specific methods? Not in a harcl -and-fast sense. T he
1-Iaving at one's disposal the most effec-tive metlwds for eli citing and assessing heritage
valu es is important. 1-lowever, tl1e real power of a values-based approach comes tl1rough
usmg th ese too ls to cultivate tl1e values as felt, conceived, and r ealized by actual groups
concerned with tl1e stewardship of actual heritage sites . Engaging heritage valucs 'on the
 112 RA N DA L L M A SON
ground' - so lo speak - requires engagement \\ith cucstions of influence, competition
power, and poli:ics. One musl \'enture qu~stions such as: Who participates in heritag~
,alue assessmentt Whosc values are co untedt Thus, who has power to shape conservation
outcomes?
There are seYeral different sources of heritage valu e: community ami other culture
groups, the market, lhe slate, c01~serva tors, other experls, property owners, ami o;dinary
Cll!zens. In assessmg values, thc snnpksl poltica! guiclcline is uyi ng, as a malter ol equity
ancl accuracy, lo work loward widc participation and accounl for tl1e views of all tl1e rele-
vant valucrs.
The question of stakeholders is an essential issue in value assessmenl. The importance
of stakeholders to the notion of values ami values assessmenl is clear - slakeholclers do the
valuing. Thus, identifying tlw stakeholder groups ami employing methocls designecl to
reach ancl hear tl1em in lighl of their particular character ancl capacity are r equirecl of any
metl10dology for h eritage valu e assessment. As it is wicl<>ly believed that wiclening of the
circle of stakeholders involved in a proj ect improves both tl1e process ancl the outcome,
constituency analysis ancl id entificalion of stakeholclers is an extreme!y important lask.
Insiders and outsiders
As shorthancl for aclclressing calls for wicler participation and stakeholder involvement in
conservation, consider the gross clistinction between insid ers and outsiders to tl1e conser-
valion planning ami clecision -making process. The clistinction stems from the notion tl1at
some stakeholders are 'at th e table ' wh ere values are identifiecl, assessecl, and ranked and
where decisions are mad e, whil e other legitimate stakeholders are nol presenl.
lnsiclers are those who can participate in the process by right or might - actors with
power, such as public officials, bureaucrats, policy makers, lhose who influence tl1em , ancl
(to an extenl) conservation professionals and oilier experls invited into the process. Out-
siders constitute everyone e lse witl1 a stake in tl1e heritage in qu estion but witl1 little or no
leverage on the process. In some instances, outsiclers are aclively excludecl from tl1e
process; in otl1er instances, they have no knowledge of tl1e process or lack flu ency in tl1e
language of conservation ancl policy ancl perhaps even lack an inclination to participare.
More and more frequently, efforts are m acle by both si eles lo shift outsiclers to ilie insicle.
Outsiclers can be brought into tl1e decision -making process or else tl1ey can for ce them-
selves in - which happens often enough.
Outsiclers are not simply nonprofessionals; conservation professionals, in fact, are
often outsid ers in iliat they have little access to making or shaping the most important
decisions affecting a site. It must be noted tl1at the valu es ancl interests of outsiders ancl
insid ers do not necessarily conflict (despite tl1e opposition impliecl in these labels). Though
th ey have a different relation to the decision-making processes, stakeholclers on both sides
might very well find common ground and benefit by the same course of conservation
action.
The notion of including outsiders in conservation planning is fundamental! y a political
issu e, a matter of power and authority. In one respect, such inclusion can be acldressed
formally by bringing outsiders into ilie client/ steering group of a project, acknowledging
outsiclers' rights to properly or use of a site, ami so on. Th e politics of participation can
also be addressed in choosing m etl10clologies ami designing tl1e planning/ managem ent
process. Choosing metl10ds is not only a matter of choosing among different expert/ aca-
demic cliscourses; it also emboclies a political gesture as to whose analysis, voices, ancl
\'alues are included in the decision-making mix. Participalion neecls to be acldressed at
both levels: formal membership in the process and clesign of tl1e process.
The o utsicler/insicler distinction also highlights practica! problems. While tl1e values
A S S E S SI N G V AL U E S IN CON S E R V A TI O N PLAN N l N G 113
aies chscussed herc might make sense to us as conservation prof'essionals, what
tvpo 10 o ~ -
_ uld be tl1e val u e categories for outsiders? Woulcl they be different? What km el of lan -
\1
~~
ancl ]Jhrasing ami communication \\oulcl most effectiYel) abet their parlicipation? In
-
de,i.~ing and applying a typology ~or a proj c~t, these -~u.estions must be conslcl erecl. By
\\' 11a t 111 etl10ds can tl10se conservatwn xofcsswnals, olf1c1als, cleCJsJOn makers, ancl otl1er
.
stakeholders at the table genera tE' knowleclge about the value assessments of those ouls1cle
the process? _ . _ _ . _. .
The insider/ outs1der 1d ea m ay be useful for !clcn llfymg part1c1panls m lhe prcsent.
But a tJ1ird set of actors (constituencies) may also be brought into the process design -
otential stakeholders. These could consist of groups who may in ilie future cxercise some
~ terest in tl1e hcritage site in question - futur e gcnerations, for instance or who may
1
exist al a distance from tl1 e heritage si te (literally or metaphorically) but take some inter es t
in it (for cxample, tl1e 'community' of a nation's citizens). These stakeholclers, too, should
be accounted for in value assessment.
Addressing participation practically
Rhetorically, we all agree on tl1e call for more participation. In princ ipie, it is wid ely
recognized that rigorous ancl meaningful participation necds to be seen as a ,aluable part of
tJ1e pla1ming process and integratecl into many aspects of assessment ancl planning. But it
willtake real changes in professional attitudes as well as continua! testing of new , context-
appropriate metl1ods. Professionals need to be open to otl1er, nonexpert Yiews about her-
itage values a11d decisions ancl embrace alternative ways of understanding nlue,
negotiating differences, ancl so on.
The urban planning, environm ental consel'\'ation, ancl development fields ancl
working witl1 each, the discipline of a11tl1ropology - have wrestlecl witl1 this issue a great
deal, and a vast amount of practica! ami intellectual work has been done on participatory
issues (e.g., SanoiT 2000). Such concerns have also macle some inroacls in heritage conscr -
vation. Progressive examples of participation in tl1e heritage field inclucl e Australia's Burra
Charter proeess, the Main Street process pioneered in the United States, and num erous
more local efforts being pursued, for instance, in Canada (Kerr 1999).
lnsid crs ancl outsiclers have to get integrated nol only in how tlwir responses to value
elicitation are expr essed a11d recorclecl but at tl1e leve! of how they frame qu estions of
value. Therefore, insicl ers ancl outsiclers should be included in tl1e composition of proj ect
teams ancl tlnough tl1e planning process itself (in effect, becoming insiders insteacl of out-
siclers). The alternative to this kincl of effective integration of insiders ancl outsiders - gen-
erating separate assessments of clifferent types of stakeholders ancl simply collecting the m
- would fall short of a fui! assessment of a proj ect' s heritage val u es.
In terms of the metl1ocls ami planning process involvecl in this resea_ch, there are a
couple of ways to address practically tl1e issue of wid er participation. First, a tl10rough
constituency analysis is needed to iclentify all stakeholclers: insid e ami outsicle, near and
distant, present and proj ecting into tl1e futur e. This analysis should inform composition of
a project tea1n ancl a consu ltation process representing as ma11y cliffer ent relevanl stake-
holder positions as possibl e . The constituency analysis shoulcl also be revisited p eriodically
throughout tl1e proj ect, as new or clifferent groups may com e to light. A second measure
for ensming participation is tl1e kincl of ethnographic-economic suite of metl10dologics
suggested throughout, the basic purpose of which is to engage many stakeholclers in tl1e
assessmt>nt of herilage values clriving conservation planning and managem cnt, engaging
them with elicitation tools congruent with tl1eir 'fluencies' a11cl tl1e values th ey tend to
holcl dear.
114 RA N DA L L M A SON
Tools for eliciting heritage values
I-Iow can the views of the many parties with a stake in a heritage site b e searched out,
articulatecl, ancl brought to the table?
Tools suited to cultural values
The following general methodologies are offerecl as a spectrum of basic approaches , not
specific to any one arena but, rather, applied in anthropology, archaeology, geography,
sociology, city plam1ing/ urbanism, and various hybrid fielels. Each one is newly useel in her-
itage value assessment ancl has potential use for assessing values in conservation planning.
Expert analysis (textual/iconographic/formal/semiologic)
Detailed analysis of particular objects, things, sy1nbols, and texts is the stock-in-tJade of
experts in any academic or professional fielel. As noted above, in tl1e conservation field,
this type of analysis has historically been exemplified by the c01moisseurship judgments of
art historians, curators, and collectors.
An expert interprets values and other phenomena through theoretical screens (tacitly
making a great many epistemological assumptions) ancl interprets how tl1ey are embeddecl
in their wicler contexts. Often tl1e outcome is some appraisal of the value of the object or
phenomenon according to a scale of values interna! to the profession. Such disciplinary dis-
tinctions purposeiy tend to isolate tl1e juclgments of these experts from other inputs (if
expert knowieclge is not set off from others' knowledge, it loses its value), so they work
against the goal of wider participation. Who are tl1ese experts? They are cl1e professionals
trainecl in nearly any humanistic or professional field: historians, art historians, architects,
anthropoiogists, geographers, ami so on. Since tl1ese analyses are inherently tl1e province
of experts - analyses are de facto valuable if they are done by experts - there are few
opportunities to compare or verify cl1e judgments nucle.
Ethnography
Etlmography includes n1ecl10els of describing and recording cl1e characteristics of a culture .
Etlmography is usually, though not necessarily, qualitative. It relies on information-
gatllering activities such as interviews, oral histories, observation, ami recording of cl1e
characteristics of material culture. With a number of particular information-gatl1ering
tools at hand, ethnography seems well suited asan approach to eliciting heritage values.
Initially seen as a positivist methodology, etlmography has cometo focus on recogniz-
ing the subjectivity of the observer as well as on recording cl1e characteristics of the culture
tl1at is tl1e object. Many etlmographic approaches have been developed in cl1e field of
ancl1ropology, from participant observation studies of exotic cultures early in the twenti-
etll century to 'tl1ick description' (emphasizing cl1e embecldedness of cultu ral
practices/features in cl1eir myriad contexts, knowledge of which is built up by thick
clescription) to toda y' s very value-sensitive approaches to representing cl1e many voices
con tribu ting to culture.
These types of applied social antl1ropoiogy are of particular interest to heritage con-
servation. Indeecl, some antl1ropologists ancl designers have jointly empioyecl ethnographic
methocls as part of lancl - and community-planning projects, syntl1esizing information about
social ancl physical contexts ancl using cl1is information to generate clesign anci planning
A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T 1O N P L A N N 1 N G 115
soiutwns.
Setha Low (2002) describes tl1 e sJecific etlmograJhic approach she anel her co i-
. . . ~
]eagues haYe used in studying ancl plannmg hent~ge projects. . , . .
V The tools Low ancl others ha ve employed mclude mterv1ews, !ocus g1 oups, mappmg
s a~ d structured observation techniques (Low 1981; Mcl-Iarg 1992). These eclec-
exerCise ' ' 1 . .
. b t t1uctured ethnoO"raiJhic methocls have been adapted to hentage conservatlon as cl1e
ti C U S b . tJ
rapicl etlmographic assessment procedure (REAP), a planning n~ etl1od developed' w1tl1 1e
U.S. National Park SerVlce (see Low 1991, 2002 anci clllS volume, -~W\v.cr.nps.gm /aael).
Like\\ise, an applied etlmographic metlwdoiogy called part1e1patory rural assessment
(PRA) is often used inthe public health and development fields _(particulariy i_n agricultura!,
deYelopment efforts m less-cleveloped countnes). PRA cons1sts of a_ fl ex1 bl e menu ol
etlmographic anci public-involvement techniques aimecl at unclerstai1clmg the value~ ancl
knowleclge tl1at local populations - traclitional cultures and nonhterate groups 111 pa:ticular
_ wish to sustain as cl1ey encounter Western, nongovernmental orgamzatwn efforts to
modernize ami eleveiop their economies. PRA not only aims to glean knowleclge about the
values and skills of non- experts aml ilie unempowered, it also aims directly to empower
them (see W\Vw.ids.ac.uk/iels a11d www.unv.edu/unvpress/food 2; Bell ancl Morse 1999).
Surveys and interviews
As mentioned above, etlmographic m eclwdologies often employ inteni ews and surveys as
data collection tools. Surveys are used in myriael fields, from market research in the busi -
ness world to those done to collect elata for sociological studies. Thcy can be designecl ami
conducted in a great many ways (to elicit simple elata or complex respo_nses, gathered in
person, on paper, by telephone, a11d so on). lnterviews, too,_ can be des1gned 111 a vanety
of ways - structured or unstructured, using graph1c or .vntten or recorded r esponses.
Jnterviews can be undertaken strategically, focusing on a few key informants, or exten-
sively, wicl1 sampies of hunclrecls. An enormous literature of applied work exists on cl1ese
tools.
Other participatory methods
The fielel of planning / urbanism is another source of metl10ds for engaging m u! tiple stake-
holders in planning ancl management efforts. Since the 1960s, many methocls have been
applied in many kincls of projects. Dealing witl1 clecisions on urban, social, enviromnental,
infrastructural, and economic development issues, planners have employed varied means
for understa11ding how ordinary citizens ascribe value ancl how tl1is affects clevelopment
clecisions. Mecl10ds often include surveys, public meetings, focus groups, anci key-
informant interviews; visioning, D elphi, and other group processes; mecliation anci conflict
resolution, in cases where a clear dispute has arisen; institutionalizing the involvement of
existing community groups; ami e Yen cl1e creation of nevv community groups (or capacity
building a111ong existing groups).
Mapping
Piotting elata on a map or plan is one simple ancl clistinctive way of organizing information.
Mapping can be simple or very complex. It is so broad anci basic a way of handling elata
that it is perhaps a stretch to call it a methodology; but in the broacl clefinition being usecl
here, it cloes constitute a way of generating knowleclge.
Mapping is alreacly a basic mecl10dology in conservation, as part of the assessment of
116 RA N DA L L M A SON
the physical conclitions of the heritage being stucliecl. Conservation professionals, architec-
tural anrl landscape designers, ancl planners routinely use mapping and mapped informa-
tion ( existing conclitions) as the most basic methodology for approaching any project
(McHarg 1992). The analytical potential of mapping techniques has been made more
powerful by the introduction and wicle use of clesktop geographic information systems
(GIS) and the digital data bases linkecl to them . GIS systems are not in themselves a met11od
of value elicitation; tl1ey are a too] for organizing and analyzing elata in tl1e service of plan-
ning and management.
Anotl1er distinctive kincl of mapping methodology is interactive n1apping, when the
choice and recording of information on a map is not managecl by professionals, experts, or
decision makers but, ratl1er, by community members or otl1er nonprofessionals. Examples
of interactive mapping includ e 'mental mapping,' clone as a kind of survey; community-
generated maps (such as U1e 'parish map ' process pioneered by Ule English group
Common Grouncl, which stimulates communities lo represent the identity of their place
in innovative ways); and the informal rocks-and -dirt 'maps' includecl in some PRA models
(see Greeves 1997) (see also the 1998 Getty lnstitule Project "Mapping Local Know-
ledge ," available al www .getty .edu / research / programs /public / lllk/).
Primary (archiva/) research and writing historical narratives
The basic humanistic methodology of research, interpretation, and wntmg a narrative
account remains one of the mosl effective to construct aml express knovdedge about
val u es. Constructing a story, basecl on primary and other research, is a particular way of
clocumenting ami describing social phenomena. Narratives deal with causation in a more
circumspect way than, for instance, do statistical methocls. Often the contexts ancl settings
of a phenomenon are bundled into stories alongside human actors ancl institutions. Under-
standing is gained by the unfolcling of a story through characters ancl influences, not, by
contrast, through abstracting relationships among isolatecl variables.
In the last few decades, the work of social historians has gained more and more influ-
ence in the heritage fiel el. Historians' work speaks most directly to the associational ( often
termed historical) values that are a majar motivation behind conservation.
Secondary literature research
Secondary literature research perhaps goes without saying, but it shoulcl not be overlookecl
as an expeclient, strategic methoclology for quickly generating information relevant to a
project. lt has become especially time effective, given tl1e wiclening availability of online
bibliographic ancl information -search resources.
Descriptive statistics
This silnplest of quantitative methods is wid ely usecl by the whole range of qualitative dis-
ciplines, signaling the virtual impossibility of really separating qualitative ancl quantitative
epistemologies. One application of the simplest kind of descriptive statistics is content
analysis (of, say, media coverage or interviews: how many times was aesthetic value men-
tionecl versus economic val u e?). More commonly, demographic analysis is used to charac-
terize a population in shorthancl. Tabular data are gathered and sometimes mapped or
presented graphically, giving an effective, though often quite cursory, account of the
current state of a population.
ASSESSING VALUES IN CONSERVATION PLANNING 117
Tools suited to economic values
- us tools devisecl b)' economists to assess the values of cultural heritage are
f1e va1 10 . ~
from those clevisecl earlier to m easure the value of env1ronmental resources as
ae1aptec1 . . . . _. .
f environm ental conservat1on cl eclsJons. Earher work by U1 e Getty Consenat1on
part o - . . 1 1l
t te and the growing cadre of cultural econom1sts has summanzed anc evaluatec t1ese
lnsti u ' ~ . .
-butions to heritage valuation . Mourato ancl Mazzanti (2002) prov1cle an excell ent
conti 1 . . .
-y of tl1is past ancl present work in the cultural econmmcs of hentage, ancl then
~m al . . . . ~
rork is clearly on the cutting eclge of econmmc thmkmg about hentage values (see
Q\\11 . ~ ., .
''
]so Masan 1999; Hutter ancl Rizzo 1997) . In l1ght of Mourato and Mazza nt1 s re\'leW
~ibid.) a very brief summary of economic tools for value assessment will do.
Revealed-preference methods
Revealed -preference methocls clraw ancl analyze data from existing markets for h eritage-
related goods ancl services. . .
Econom ic impact studies have becom e very popular because of the use of a qmte s1mple
methocl, ancl they often suggest clearly that investment in a heritage proj ect will yield tan-
gible economic gains. By measuring economic investments ancl employment g~ins clirectly
relatecl to conservation activity, ancl multiplying this on the theory that these cl1rect mvest-
ments yielcl secondary gains as th ey ripple throughout the economy , impact studies
identify exact returns on investment (which is to say, increases in the value of the her-
itage). Impact stuclies may be useful in iclentifying some use values ancl some externalities
[ heritage invest:m ents, but they are often suspect b ecause of clouble countmg and beca use
0
they fail to account for ilie opportunity costs of heritage investment. .
Hedo nic pricing methods can m easure non use h eritage values only as U1ey are r efl ecteclm
related market transactions. They measure the increments in financia! value gainecl, for
instance, from the proximity of a real esta te parcel to a particular heritage resource.
Travel-cost methods measure heritage values U1rough U1e proxy of travel expenclitures
related to cl1e use / consumption of heritage si tes or objects. By only recorcling values vvhen
they are translated into individual decisions to travel, U1ese m ethods give highly partial
accounts of heritage val u es.
Stated-preference methods
Stated -prefer ence m eiliods rely on U1e creation of hypothetical markets in which survey
respondents are asked to make hypocl1etical choices, which are U1en analyzecl as value
judgments.
Contingent valuation methods measure total value ascribed to a heritage site by an indi -
vidual (expressecl as willingness to pay for it) but do not break clown the val u e , leaving il
undifferentiatecl. The meiliod draws information from individual appraisals ancl decisions,
in hypocl1etical markets, and does not see cl1e collective picture at al!, except by aggrega-
tion ancl inference. This mecl10d is b eginning to be used more extensively for heritage
projects, because it yielcls th e sought-after conversion of qualitative values into quantif ecl
prices. (In U1e case of heritage, the corresponcling concept of willingness to accept com-
pensation for loss of a res o urce can al so be relevan t.) lt should be noted U1at U1e insights
ancl conclusions drawn from contingent valuation stuclies of heritage resources have been
limited to instances where they are carried out under very stringent conditions.
Choice modeling is a potentially very interesting meiliocl for h eritage in U1at it does
break clown the specifc attributes of U1e overall value expressecl by study participants.
 118 RA N DA L L M A SON
Therefore, it could be used to measure the 1alues (tl1e utility to indivirluals) associated
witl1 the different characteristics of a heritage si te according<._;' for instance ' to tl1e L)'pology
<.....: ,
outlm ed aboYe. 1 hough people do respond well to tl1ese types of scenarios and compar-
tsons, the method presumes very well-informed participants, and it will not captUJe we][
tl1e intangible, difficult-to-price values (such as spiritual nlues).
Economic meiliods in g~ncr~ l have gainecl a great cleal of creclibility by ( 1) presenting
data m a seemmgly obJeCltve lorm (prices), and (2) appeal ing quite directly to thc
~usiness~thinking mentality of global cl ecision makers and, increasingly, of society at large.
Economtc methods are used more widely and for new purposes, ami they are gaining cr ed-
ibility. But there rema ins a grcat clanger in relying on cuantitatiYe econm;1 ic m~ethod
alone - this is a view strongly endorsed by some econom ists. The neodassical economic
moclel is so well refined, so tightly theorized to block out uncertainties, that it sets a tone
in which o ther 1alues seem a priori excluded (or deYalued). This situation is problematic
in se1eral respects, among them that people cannot talk abo ut certain kimls of value in
monetary term~; cognitively, cuantitative language cl oesn't work very well, for instance,
to expr ess spmtual nlues. In otl1er situations, the ability to express a commonly held
cualitative value in cuantitative terms has been critica! to getting proconservation
decisions made, so the urge lo quantify remains very strong.
All the methocls clescriberl in this section need professional economists to direct them;
there are many technical problems to be dealt with, ami the m ethocl s can easily be abused
if appli ed in an uninfonn ed manner. But the stated-preference methods, which include
extensive survey processe~, open up a lot of common ground (and potential collaboration)
with the approaches used by anthropologists ami other social researchers. The ways that
economists create ami adjust survey instruments are basically identical to the ways that
anthropologists do it (an iterative process of piloting, refining, rolling out).
Integrating assessments and frameworl<s for decision mal<ing
Once the broa el array of val u es linked to a si te are assessecl, how do es one go forward?
How does one connect these assessments with the difficu lt, politicizecl work of prioritiza-
tion and decision making? As with most issues r egarding pl anning processes, there is no
prescription, but tl1is section outlines a series of steps necessarily conceptual, until they
are developed in relation to particular proj ects - for building on the value assessments to
tackle decision-making tasks. These steps must realistically involve some integration and
e ven prioritization of ilie values assessed. Suggesting how this can be done- without pre-
scribing it - is the goal of this section.
The second part of this section describes (in broad tenns) how sustainability principies
could be adap_ted to provid e some frameworks for making and evaluating management
plannmg decJsJons both wicl1in proj ects ancl across multiple si tes.
The steps are describecl conceptually, notas a rote set of tasks ami not to the leve! of
dctail U1at would perforce arise fom actually adapting and exccuting them. While specify-
ing the steps in great detail would need to be done in the case of a specific site, project and
tea m, that process is beyond the seo pe of this chapter.
Integrating value assessments
Four steps are suggested for integrating value assessments and implementing them as
part of the planning process : cr eating statements of significance, matching values to
physi cal resources and site characteristics, analyzing U1l'eats ancl opportunities, and
making polici es ancl taking actions. The steps, which are discussed below, are not to be
ASSESSING VALUES IN CONSERVATION PLANNING 119
undertaken in a linear l'ashion - indeecl, so me of them can ami should be done in parallel
(Figures 7.1 and 7.2).
creating statements of significance
Statements ol' significance llow directly out ol' tl1c value assessments. Their function is syn-
thesizing the reasons behind all the actions one might propase for the site - conservation,
deYelopm ent, interpretation, and so on - ancl providing clear positions iliat would f'orm
the basis of later decisions and evaluation. Generating a statement of significance is stan-
dard practice in consenation planning in, for instance, the United States. The prof'essional
team looks al all the varied Yalues ami assessm ents, culls and winnows f'rom tl1ese the
dimensions of sign ificance and meaning, ancl articulates significance in tenns U1at 11ill be
und erstandable to al! stakehold ers (ancl indeed, they should be unclerstanclable to the
general public, lo decision makers, investors, ancl so on).
The statements proposed here depart from the convention by emphasizing tl1e plural,
ancl perhaps e ven contradictory, nature of a site' s signiflcance. The statements do not
necessarily havc to be boil ed dovvn to one or two points, nor do U1ey neecl to rellecl a
single consensus or universal view about U1e site. In fact, one woulcl expect con llicting
sta~ements of significancc to be articulated for a si te (for instance, one set of stakehold er~
may see significance overwhelmingly in terms of profit, while other stakeholders' signifi -
cance would excl ud e the possibility of profit-making activity). Thus, U1 e plural statements is
emphasized, and it signa ls U1 e intent of this stcp to id entify the main themes of sign ificance
arising from tl1e nlue assessments, as interpretcd from th e per spectives of the various
stakeholder groups involved.
The creation of statements involves two distinct parts. First is the catalogu ing and
articulating of all aspects of site significance. In this sense the statements are unabasheclly
plural. These would be framed by the overall set of values ancl stakeho ld er s identified
earlier in the process . lt is important to stay away from statem ents that privilege some
values over others - that is, if one decid es early on that value A is less important than
l'alues B ami C, thc tendency in case of conllict would be to sacrifice A for the sake oC B
ancl C; if the values are not ranked, more efforts are likely to be made to fincl policies that
respect them al!. Second, one can begin to introduce som e sense of priorities by assessing
ancl stating the uniqucness or importance of tl1c site's values vis-a-vis other sites in the
nation /region /world (whatever tl1e decision-making domain is) .
This recognition and articulation of the relative importance to U1e values - without
ranking categori ca lly their importance for the site - is borrowed from Pearson and Sulli-
van (1995) and from Kerr (2000). They suggest at this point an assessment of' tl1e degree
or leve] of significance of each value, as seen against the universe of si te ancl values in U1e
decision-making domain . This is not wher e one would say that tl1e historical val u e of the
site is more important than its recreational value . Rather, what is suggested is an eYalu-
ation of tl1e degree of importance of a particular value (unique, important, typical, etc.) of
a site when compared with that Yalue in related sites.
Matching values to physical resources and site characteristics
Management, plans, ami cl ecisions must integrate articulations of value ancl the physical
properties and r esources of the site. The integration has traclitionally been part of the
analysis contributed tacitly by conservation prol'essionals , but the corresponclences
between values ancl tl1 e physical attributes of he ritage need to be mad e explicit. Wicl1out
consciously evaluating U1e connections between specifi c physical aspects of heritage ancl
 .lLV K A 1~ U A L L lVI A S 0 N
specific values, as well as the appropriateness of tlu: tools chosen to the values present
will be clilhcult to predict or monitor how val u es are affccted by material intencntions' ~:
management decisions.
Therefore, some sort of mapping of tl1e valucs invcsted in specific site elements and
characteristics is an important reference botl1 for infonn ing decisions anrl for evaluatin
tl1eir r esults. In U1e Getty Conservation Institutc' s model planning process (Figure 7.1 )~
th1s J~atchu:g ~ccurs at the end of tl1e assessment phase, in which assessment of physica]
condJtwns '.s lmked With th e assessment of significance. I-Iow tl1is is achi eved practically
and m deta] can be worked out m any number of ways , in light of a specific plannin
project. At tl1 e least, al! types of value id entifi ecl in tl1e values assessments shoulcl b~
'mapped' onto the site ; all the ma1 physical elem ents of ilic site coulcl be linked with spe-
cific types of value.
The benefits of this step would be twofolcl : first, imply, a clear delineation of how
each of tl1e values iclen tifi ed for U1e site is expressed, embodi ecl, or othenvise r epresented
in ilie materials of the site (ranging in scale from artifacts to buildings to landscapes)
second, key 'complexes' of (material) r esources ami (immaterial) values coulcl be id enti:
fe d. By iclentifying tl1ese complex es, the planning/ managem ent team is del iberately asso-
ciating ilie valu es held witl1 r egard to the site to the actual physical resources making up
tl1 e Site . For mstancc , the key historical value compl ex for a historie building might associ-
ate the site'~ most important histo:ical events, narratives, and concepts with tl1 e arrange-
m ents of bmldmgs on U1e SI te or w1U1 U1e decoration of particular room s or witl1 landscape
elem ents such as walls or heclgerows. The most important complexes will likely be t11e
fo cus of conservation and managem ent interventions.
Analyzing threats and opportunities
Against the background of tl1e statements of significance and tlleir association witl1 particu-
lar matenal aspects of th e site, tl1e analysis shoulcl turn to the potential threats to tl1e iden-
tified complexes of material and significance . Threats can be quite n.riecl ancl could be
~ategoriz~d, for instance, according to U1e following categori es : physical tl1reats stemming
lrom env1ronm ental factors, from vandalism or violence, from neglect or poor manage-
m ent, or from economically driven redevelopment; ancl social, cultural, or political forces
tl1at produce changes in m eaning and valuing. Conservation planners shoulcl not be looking
only for tl1reats, hm.vever. The opportunities encountered at sites should also be brought
into iliis analysis, as cl ecisions to take aclvantage of opportunities (whetl1er economic,
political, interpretive , logistical) are very likely to have an impact on tl1e nlue-material
complexes- som.etim es positive, sometimes negative.
The professional team, by iliis juncture, should be able to identify the tl1reats. The
tl1reats, of course, can only be defin ed against tl1e context of the conservation/manage-
m ent goals of tl1e stakehold er g:roups governing/influencing tl1e site. One stakeholcl er's
tl1reat m ay be anotl1cr' s opportunity.
Making policies and taking actions
At iliis point, U1e planning process has moved on to ' response' (Figure 7. 1) . Her e ilie
actions n eecl ed involve not so much integrating values but, railier , acdng upon them. The
sp ecific steps by which these actions are worked out and implem ented will vary widely
from site to site, cl epencling more ilian anything on instilutional setup, organizational cul -
tures, and ocl1 er issues raised in U1e management context assessmenl.
In light of the plural, varied, often conflicting nature of heritage values ami in light of
A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T 1 O N P LA N N 1 N G 121
. <al Jrocesses inescapably shaJing and usually ~governing ckcisions abo ut conserva-
the po l1ll<' ~
, . . . . _
. . tJ 1ere an) generalizations tl1al can be made about consenatJOn decision ntakingt lt
uon , al e ~ . . f e f . 1 . . aki .
lllere that tl1er e are some robusl prmciJles use ul wr rammg e eciSion m, ng~ m
1. argue< e
an)' num
ber of circumstances . These suogestions
tx:
take up tl1e next ancl final sect10n.
Assessing management context
Well befare tl1c integration steps outlined in this section, an assessm ent of the manage-
111ent co11 text needs Lo be unclertaken . Thi s is best uncl ertaken at least
. as
. earl 'v as tl1e phys-
. onditions ancl values assessments are begun, and perhaps earher (F1gure 7. 1).
ca e,Hanagement conte.u refers to a number of factors iliat a!'f ect tl1e capac1ty . o r peop1e ~nd
t 1011 s to . decid e , direct ancl implem
organiza . .ent . any
. plans_ tl1at
. are fonn ulated._ llus
includ t's pragmauc concerns such as financmg, msutuuonal aJ ch1tectures, legal and 1egula-
tory frameworks, and available personnel, as w cll as pohti cal factors such as tl~ <',patterns,of
p\\er ancl influence known to sh~~e the mteract10ns ancl capaCiti es of thc \a JIOUs stakc-.
hold ers in the site . The 1ssues ansmg m tl1e management context - cspec ially ~1ose o
power relationships - a1e cr~ cial to tl1e ultimate s ucc~ss of managemen t pl annmg and
must be dea lt witl1 as systematically andas o penly as poss1bl e.
The manageme nt context assessm ent tl1rough which tl1ese factors ar e docum ented ancl
analyzed has not been studied in cl etail, though som e version of it is pa.It of mosl manage-
ment planning processes. The review - ancl poss1bly the adaptatiOn . of some of tl1e
methocl s for management assessment used in tl1e field s of urba.J1 plan nmg ancl business
managem ent can P'':'ovide a starting poinl for tl1c conservation field.
Frameworl<s for decision mal<ing
A number of decision-making processes ancl protocols a_-e available ancl wid ely used in
oilier 11elds, but none of tllem are a priori appropriate to heritage conservation or robust
across all situations. Th er efor e, no specific cl ecision-making tools are advocatecl her e.
However, this chapte r do es suggest fram eworks for cl ecision making, es la~li shing a series
of guid es useful for assembling information to fuel decision making and lrameworks for
eYaluating cl ccisio ns afterwards.
While tl1ere are no prescriptions or r ecipes for heritage conservation decision making,
guidance for pla.Jming/ managem ent decisions (ranking, prioritizing) can be drawn from otl1er.
fields - in partku]a_-, environm ental conservation. Resea_ch, application, a.J1d evaluation of
decision making ha ve been tl1e subj ect of considerable work in ilie envirom11ental sphere,. ~md
mud1 of tllis is quite r elevant to heritage conservation decisions. The concept of sustamab1hty,
in particular, has been an effective and inluential orga.J1izing principie in enviromnen.tal
decision making. Aliliough full sustainability r emains a.J1 ideal, sustainability principies have , in
practice, been m erged with extensive experiences in cultivating public participalion. The
result is a growing body of practicallessons clrawn lom tl1e use of sustainability principies .
The use of sustainability principi es for gu iding such compl ex decisions is tl1e state of
ilie an in tl1e environm ental conservation fi elel. Ther e a_ e m any parallels between heritage
planning/m anagem ent cl ecisions ancl environm ental decisions: comparable compl e~iti es in
t11e systems ancl processes being ma.J1aged, diversity an.d incomm ensurability ol values
attributecl to the resources being conserved, ancl political clifficulties ancl powe r differ ences
among stakehold ers, to na.Jne a few .
A recent publi cation by severa] scholars ancl practitioners in the environm ental fielcl
provid es a goocl source of intelligence for acldressing the decision-making chall enges sel
forth in tl1is d1apter (Sexton et al. 1999) . Having icl entified critica] issues ancl cases in
122 RA N DA L L M A SON
environmental decision making, Sexton ancl collt>agucs evaluatcd statc-of-the-art decision-
making Lools. Thc conclusion reacht>d was that tl1ere are no hard-ancl-fast rules or proce-
clures for making effective decisions. The goal of fostcring integrated decision making
r t>q uircs a lot of expt>rimt>ntation and improvisation. The authors offcred the following
guidelines, clt>rived from lwenty or so yt>ars of t>xpt>rience 1-vith decision-making strategies
in tht> t>nvironmcntal consenation field (Sexton ct al. !999: 44 7- 58):
build mutual trust ami undt>rslanding
aclopl sustainabi lity as a unifying prit~~iple;
take shared responsibility;
institutionalize public participation;
continually refine ancl use clecision -making tools;
collect ancl analyze important infonnation (gatl1er elata for e1aluation);
use incentives to encourage innovation.
For tht> most part, the advice represented in tht>se points is not specific to environmental
issues ancl resources ancl is readily applicable lo any other fiel el. In orcler to re too] and
rt>orient this rt>search for tlle heritage const>rvation fiel el, though, tht> notion of sustainabil-
ity neecls to be rt>thought in terms applicable to heritage . The following section consicl ers
Ult> second of tht>se gu iddines ancl cliscusses how sustainability principies for heritage con-
servation might be approachecl. (Set> also Clark, this volume.)
Sustainability principies for heritage conservation
Principies of sustainable developmt>nt have provecl quite uscful, influential, ancl robust,
not only in t>nvironmenta l conservation ami the fostering of ecological sensitivity in the
development field but also, increasingly, in the urban dt>velopment fteld. Sustainability has
already been proposcd as an ideal and as a guide to policy in the heritage fielcl (English
Ht>ritagt> 1997; US / ICOMOS 2000). David Throsby has proposed a sel of sustainability
principies that could form tl1e basis of a ust>ful set of guicldines and nonns for clecision
making in the const>rvation-planning model (Throsby 2001; 2002). The principies are
built on the notion of sustainability developed in the fielcls of t>cological conservation ancl
economic development ami adaptecl in light of Throsby's notion of cultural capital (her-
itage resources) as analogous to natural cap ital.
The nolion of sustainability accords with the principies unclerlying values- basccl con-
servation planning in that it adopts a holistic view of resources (in U1is case, cultural
resources) ancl their contexts ancl aligns with the goal of taking account of the wiclest range
of heritage values. It deals clirectly witll the problem of making decisions in the present but
for the very long term- essential for acknowleclging the role of hcritage as an inheritance
to be stewardecl ancl passeci on to future generations. Sustainability has also proven to be
politically resonant ( even after twenty or so years) ami practically useful beca use the prin-
cipies are a flexible frame of reference ratl1er than a fixed benchmark or rigid method
(and, not surprisingly, sustainabi li ty has been criticized for th e same reason by those who
wish for inflexible environmental stanclards).
Ideally, the sustainabili ty principies will influ ence the planning moclel in severa! ways, at
severa! stages. First, they constitute an id eal, which could shape the setting of project goals,
the composition of the stakeholder group, tl1e analysis of significance ancl management con-
texts, and tl1e evaluation of projcct outcomt>s. The principies will have most direct impact,
however, al the policy-setting stage: tlle principies would be designed to sene as tests, or
criteria, against which the policies (ancl thus tlle actions thal follow from them) can be
judged. Indiviciually andas a group it can be askecl, do nol Do these policies meet the tests of
A S S E S S 1 N G V A L U E S 1 N C O N S E R V A T 1 O N P LA N N 1 N G 123
sustainability? Each decision can bt> evalualed (informally, or witl1 formal indicators) against
cad1 of tl1e principies. The same tests can be applied lo the actions as they are bcmg fonnu -
lated. In this way, tl1e sustainability principies play U1e role of guidelinPs .
The fact that suslainability principies art> a flexible, negotiable set of standards cou ld
be seen as a weakness. In U1P environmental fipld, a distinclion is made betwt>en 'slrong'
rersus 'wt>ak' sustainability in the environmental sphere. Snong suslainability insists on
immt>diate ancl total conformance to sustainability principies ancl is nol nego tiablt> - so it is
t>nerally seen as infeasible (ami therefore unsustainabl e !). Weak suslainability allows
~hangt>, is flexible, and docsn't attempt to freeze things in place. These two versions of
sustainabilily parallel the notion of distinguishing 'sacrcd' versus 'tradable' heritage ancl
the a priori privil eging of culturalvalues over t>conomic values by preservationists (or vice
r ersa by investors or policy makers). Whercas it is easy to insist on the total prolection of
things cleem ed sacred, in light of practica] considerations, this is n_ol possible, and bt>comes
tnt>re rhetoric. A more pragmatic strategy recognizcs the need for lrad e-offs and r ccog-
nizes that some heritage is in fact nadable or cotwertible to other forms of capital.
Sustainability principies al so recognize the moral aspect of sustainability, through
principies rt>garding intergenerational and intragent>rational equit~, which. ove:arch ami
strengthen t.he scientific, economic, ancl pragmatic arguments for sustamab1bty. Tht>
notion of equity, which requirt>s moral vis ion and ethical r eflection, should be closely
allied with our collective sense of professional ethics ancl purpose. These ideas could,
indeed, provide tl1t> conservation field with sometl1ing of an etllical- moral compass as it
naYigates through a period of great changt>. .
So as we see, sustainability holds great potential as a framing concept for the task of
integrating herilage l'alues, yet tl1 e concept needs to be cieveloped furtht>r ami applied to
spt>cific projects. As in tl1e t>Jwironmental and development applications of sustainability,
sustainabilily indicators could be created lo bring rigor and clarity lo U1e application of
sustainabilily principies (Hart 1999; Bell ancl Morse 1999).
Addilional work is needecl to make the argument for using these sustainability princi -
pies and to describe how they can bt> used in real situations. For instance, how are th e
rarious sustainability criteria/tesls weighted? Are tl1ey al! equally important in a particular
project? Also, what exactly is being sustaint>d - cultural r esources themselves (buildings,
artifacts, sites) or cultural memory ancl meaning? Answers to tl1ese qut>stions can help
connect tl1e sustainability principies witl1 tl1e issues of heritage values ancl valuing.
Final! y, decisions need to be continually evaluatecl and checked against tl1e original
aims set out at th e beginning of the process. This continuous rcvisiting of the effectiveness
of decisions is a key' inPTedient to the succe sful impl em.entation of planning measures ami
b ~
to tht> realization of effective management for heritage conservation.
Referentes
Bcll, S., ancl S. Morsc. 1999 . Sustainability lndicators: !llcasuring thc lmmeas urable. London:
Earthscan Publications.
Dcnzin, N., and Y. Lincoln, cds. 1994. Handbook cif Q:,wlitative Research. Thousancl Oaks,
Calif., and London: Sagc Publications.
English Hcritagc. 1997. Sustaining the Histori e Environment: Nell' Pcrspectil'es on the Fuwre. Engli h
Hcritagc Discussion Documcnt. London: English 1-Icritagc.
Frankfort-Nachmi as, C ., anci D. Nachmias. 1996. Resea rch Methods in rhe Social Scicnces. Fifth
cd. Ncw York: St. Martin's.
Frcudcnburg, W. !999. Tools for undcrstanding thc sociocconomic and political scttings for
cnvironmcnta l dccision making. In Dale, V. and English, M. (cds), Tools co Aid Enviran-
mental Decision Making. Ncw York: Springcr.
 U4 R A N D A L L M A SON

Frey, B. 1997. The evaluation of cultural heritage: Somc critica! issues. In l-luttcr, M. and chapter 8
Rizzo, l. (cds), Economic Perspectil'es on Cultural Hericage, London: Macmillan.
Greeves, T. 1987. Parish Maps: Celebraring and Looking cifter l"our Place. Lonclon: Common Ground.
l-lart, M. 1999. Cuide ca Sustainable Communiry lndicacors. North Andmer, Mass.: Sustainablc
Measurcs.
l-loltorf C. 2005. From Sconehenge ca Las l'egas: Archaeolo[J)' as Popular Culture. Walnut Crcek:
AltaMira Prcss.
l-lutier, M., ancll. Rizzo, eds. 1997. Economic Perspecties on Cultural Heriwge. London: Macmillan.
Kellert, S. 1996. The l'aluc r:fLjfe: Biological Divcrsity and Human Sociery. Washington, D.C.:
Is the Past a Non-renewable Resource?
Island Prcss.
Kcrr, A. 1999. Public participation in cu ltural res o urce managcmcnt: A Canadian pcrspectivc.
Draft rnanuscript, March 3 1. Cornelius J. Holtorf
Kcrr, 1. 2000. Conservacion Plan: A Cuide to the Prcparation cj Conservacion Plans jor PI aces cif Euro-
pean Culwral Sign!ficance . Fifth ed. Sydncy: National Trust of Australia (NSW).
Lipe, W. 1984. Value ancl rncaning in cultural resourccs. In Clcere, 1-1. (ed), Appraaches ca the
Archaeological Herirage, 1- 11. New York: Cambridge University Prcss.
Low, S. 1981. Social scicnce methocls in landscape architecture dcsign. Landscape Planning
8:137-48 .
Low, S. 2002. Assessment of Cultural Values in Heritage Conservation. In de la Torre, M.
(ed), Assessing the Values ifCultural Heritage, 31-49. Rescarch Report. Los Angeles: The
Getty Conservation lnstitute.
Mcl-larg, l. [1967]1992. Designwith Nawre. Reprint, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Marguis-Kylc, P., and M. Walker. 1992. Thc !llustrated Burra Charter. Sydney: Austra lia Archaeological heritage management of our times is normally based on four key tenets:
<.0 ~

ICOMOS / Australian Heritage Commission.

Mason, R., ed . 1999. Economics and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles: Gett y Conservation Institute.
Mourato, S. ancl Mazzanti, M. 2002. Economic valuation of cu ltural heritagc: el"idenee and
prospects. In de la Torre, M. (ed), Assessing the Values if Culwral Heritage, 51 - 76.
Rescarch Report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
Pcarson, M., and S. Sullivan. 1995. Looking cifter Heritage PI aces: The Basics if Heritage Planning jor
Managers, Landowners, and !ldministrators. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.
Reigl, A. [1902]198 2. The modern cu lt of monuments: lts charactcr and its origins. Reprint,
trans. D. Ghirardo and K. Forstcr. Opposicions 25:21 - 51.
Rolston, 1-1., Ill. 1988. Environmental Ethics: Duties ro and Values in the Natural Worlcl. Philadel-
phia: Temple Uni,ersi ty Press.
Sanoff, 1-1 . 2000. Commun iry Participation Methods in Design and Planning. New York: 1ohn Wiley
& Sons.
Satterfield, T. 2002 . Numbness and sensitivity in the el icitation of environmenta l va lues. In de
la Torre, M. (ed), Assessing the Values if Cultural Heritaf!e, 77- 99. Research Re port. Los
Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute .
Serageldin, l., andA. D. Steer. 1994 . Valuing the Environment: Proceedings cjthe First Annual
lnternational Cor:ference on Environmentally Sustainable De'elopment Held at the World Bank.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Sexton, K., et al., eds. 1999. Berter Environmental Decisions: Strategicsjor Covernments, Businesses,
and Communitics . Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Tainter, 1., ancl J. Lucas . 1983. Epistemo logy of the significance concept. American Anciquiry
48(4):707-19.
Throsby, D. 200I. Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Throsby, D. 2002. Cultural capital and sustainability concepts in the economics of cultura l
heritage. In de la Torre, M. (ed), Assessing the l'alues ifCultural Heritage, 77-99. Research
Report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation ln stitute.
Tomlan, M., ed. 1998 . Preservation if What, jor Whom?: !1 Cricical Loo k at Historical Sign!Jicance.
Ithaca, N. Y.: National Council for Preservation Edueation.
Archaeological sites and objects are authentic, in other words, of true antiquity, and
have a distinctive aura which fakes and copies do not have. Safeguarcling this autl1en-
ticity and the aura of the original is the rationale of many museum collections ancl
justification for preserving ancient si tes in the landscape. In a famous article 'Thc
work of art in the age of mcchanical reproduction', Walter Benjamin (1992) has
given the notion of aura some philosophical grounding.
2 Ard1aeological sites ancl objects are irreplaceable ami non-renewable, because we caJmot
go back into the past and remake them. Timothy Darvill arguecl accordingly tl1at:
the ard1aeological resowce is finite in tl1e sense that only so many examples of
aJ1)' defined class of monument were ever created . . .. The archaeological
resource is non-renewable in that ... once a monwnent or si te is lost it CaJmot
be recreated ... Reconstructed archaeological remains lack authenticit;r.
(Danill 199 3: 6)
3 In the modern W estern world, arcl1aeological si tes and objects are in danger of
being destroyecl by forces such as changes in ground-water levcls, deep ploughing,
wars, industrial and housing development ancl the antiquiti es trade. It has become a
clich to la~n ent the loss of ancient sites ancl objects in the moclern Western world in
much tl1e same way as we do the continuous reduction of the tropical rain forests
ancl the gradual decline of remaining oil reserves (cf. Lomborg 2001 ). David Lowen -
thal reckonecl ( 1985: 396) that 'this generation has ... destroyed more of prehistory
than was previously k:nown to exist.' As a conscquence, rescue archaeology aml the
preservation of ancient si tes ha ve become the orcler of the da y.
4 Professional archaeologists save archaeological sites and objects from further
destruction on behalf of future generations who are expected to be grateful tl1at they
too can appreciate these sites and objects, ancl thus thc past. The UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, for example, writes about its task: