This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo]On: 11 October 2014, At: 13:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Heritage StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

Balancing use and preservation in cultural heritagemanagementBill Carter a & Gordon Grimwade ba Department of Management Studies , University of Queensland, Gatton College , Lawes , Q4343 , Australiab Gordon Grimwade & Associates Heritage Consultants , PO Box 9, Yungabulta , Q 4872 ,AustraliaPublished online: 18 Apr 2007.

To cite this article: Bill Carter & Gordon Grimwade (1997) Balancing use and preservation in cultural heritage management,International Journal of Heritage Studies, 3:1, 45-53, DOI: 10.1080/13527259708722186

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527259708722186

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Balancing Use and Preservation inCultural Heritage ManagementBill Carter & Gordon GrimwadeAbstractThe management of cultural heritage places is compared with natural area management.Differences stem from the disciplines of the managers, and that cultural heritageresources are non-renewable. In the conservation of cultural resources there is a strongreliance on preservation, and the exclusion of activities which may reduce heritagevalue. This results in a tendency to remove heritage sites and items from the experienceof the community which 'owns' the heritage. The conservation strategy for naturalsystems of acquiring the highly significant, as well as representative samples ofbiogeography in protected areas has lessons for heritage conservation. At the site level,heritage management rarely uses the range of tools potentially available, largely becauseof the reliance and emphasis on preservation. The paper proposes that greatercommunity acceptance of heritage conservation will result in a more definitiveexpression of value and significance, and in tying this to function. Tools to manage theuse of significant sites to reduce damage are given.

Conservation involves an inherent dilemma. It embraces both use andpreservation. Yet use can lead to destruction. For managers, the hardest planningdecision is concerning the extent to which the goals of preservation or protectionconstrain those relating to human use and enjoyment of the heritage place?Numerous considerations make the decision palatable for resource managers. Theextent of the resource, its significance, rarity, and existing status are value-ladenfactors, but provide the basis of a defensible rationale for adopting a particularuse-preservation balance.

For renewable resources, use can be acceptable to the point where renewalremains possible, as with ecological sustainability. Time scale is important —what length of time is acceptable before the resource returns to the initiallyprotected or desired state? Consideration then shifts to the management actionthat is appropriate to:• slow the degradation process;• speed the recovery process:• achieve a steady state.Typically, management practice aims to confine use impacts to small areas of thetotal resource, acknowledging that on those sites a pre-determined level ofdamage permits greater use. For non-renewable resources, and this includescultural heritage places and artefacts, there is no alternative but to attempt toslow the degradation process. The options include:• in situ preservation, including total protection and zero use;• relocation of the elements to a new setting;• making the item or site available only to the knowledgeable and appreciative;and• complete access or use, subject to management constraints, includingtechnological interference or enhancement.

KeywordsCultural heritage.Natural heritage.Management,Visitors,Interpretation

IJHS 3 (1) 45-53 © Intellect Ltd 1996 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

3:57

11

Oct

ober

201

4

1. R. Hewlson. The

Heritage Industry, 1989,

p.15.

2. M. Fishbein & I.Ajzen, Belief, Attitude,

Intention and Behaviour:

an introduction to theory

and research. Reading:

Addison-Wesley. 1975.

3. The argument that allheritage places aresignificant and henceshould be strictlypreserved may be true,but Is largely unrealisticto society. Given that theUnited Kingdom hasaround 600,000identified archaeologicalsites (presumablysignificant and worthy ofpreservation), thenAustralia, with at least40.000 years ofAboriginal occupation,could expect around 10million significant sites.The land useimplications of a totalpreservation strategy arelikely to be unacceptable.

Heritage implies ownership and value to particular groups of humanity. Asnoted by Hewison,1 Lord Charteris, Chair of the National Heritage Memorial Fund(UK) defined heritage as, 'Anything you want'. If this provocative definition istaken to mean 'Anything you want to keep', then the need for good stewardshipis self-evident and demands sound management in the broadest sense. Therefore,it is inappropriate to isolate heritage places from the community which owns andvalues the item, no matter what the cost. Respect for, and consequent protectionor abuse of, a place appears to relate to the level of understanding of the itemand of heritage concepts per se. This link between knowledge and behaviour2

provides a rationale for using interpretation as a tool for management. Theobjective is to present the site to the widest audience possible, with minimalincrease in the rate of degradation. This can be achieved by increasingappreciation, in conjunction with applying a conservation strategy and a suite ofmanagement tools.

Similarly knowledge is a variable. Local residents, familiar with a particularheritage place from childhood, may have intimate knowledge of its form andfunction. The setting may well evoke memories of childhood experiences, pleasantand unpleasant. This knowledge will affect their attitude to the site and to itsfuture use. This form of knowledge may be at variance with the awarenessamong heritage professionals who see the site as highly significant for reasons ofrarity, scientific value, aesthetics or association etc. Both, however, needconsideration throughout the process of site management.

Conservation through representative samplesA widely adopted strategy in nature conservation is to preserve uniquelandscapes, together with representative samples of biogeographic diversity innational parks. A parallel strategy of preserving the unique, and a representativesample of abundant3 cultural heritage places and artefacts, is equally legitimate.While preserving outstanding examples, it can be implied that those areas, placesand items not given this level of protection are able to support a variety of uses,including extensive modification. In theory, this seems reasonable and achievable;in practice, it has technical, economic, political, and social difficulties. Thestrategy assumes that the range of diversity is clearly documented andunderstood, and that acquisition can be specifically targeted. It also assumes that,in the case of both cultural and natural areas, the representative samples are ofsufficient size to maintain their integrity unaided, or with management. Inreality, these assumptions are rarely valid, and acquisition is usually based onopportunism and politics, and constrained by economic factors.

In addition, while society still accepts the preservation of unique landscapesand the protection of representative samples, it is becoming disenchanted withthe application of this strategy. This intolerance is especially expressed when:• large areas of land, suited to other uses, are locked up in protected areas;• cultural sites are ignored in favour of the natural heritage of a given area:• private property is acquired compulsorily:• the use of private property is constrained by legislation, without compensation;• there is apparent repetition in the sample;• preservation rather than multiple-use management is applied; and• appropriate funding arrangements do not match conservation costs.

46 Bill Carter & Gordon Grimwade

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

3:57

11

Oct

ober

201

4

The rangelands of western New South Wales exemplify the problemsassociated with applying the representative sample strategy for conservation.Pressey4 determined that 5.7% of the rangeland area was required to preserve arepresentative sample of biogeographic diversity. Given that 10% of the land areais recommended by the IUCN World Conservation Union,5 such a figure wouldmost likely be acceptable to the Australian community. In 1988, 3.3% of therangeland area had been acquired as protected area. However, when re-assessment was made of what was still needed for the representative sample, atotal of 8.3% was required. The 3.3% of land already acquired only preserved0.7% of the initially defined needs. Acquisitions had over-sampled some of therange of biodiversity. If the acquisition programme continued on the same basis,then over 25% of the land area would be needed to capture the full range ofbiodiversity.

Such a figure is currently unacceptable to the Australian community. Thedanger exists that, when the area acquired approaches 10%, there will bepolitical and community pressure to halt further acquisition. To protect arepresentative sample will, therefore, be impossible unless land is traded.Situations such as these are starting to shift attention from protected areasowned and managed by governments towards co-operative management with theprivate sector. Greater consideration of multiple use is inevitably involved.

The argument of uniqueness appears to have limits for conserving bothnatural and cultural heritage sites or places. There is a world-wide trend awayfrom strict reserves6 (preserves) towards multiple use areas.7 Furthermore, theWorld Heritage Convention prescribes five objectives, one of which includes'presentation1, which applies equally to cultural heritage sites and natural areas.If heritage conservation objectives are to be achieved, opportunities for multipleuse may need to be defined, identified and added to heritage values inconservation assessments and management plans.

In contrast to conservation plans for natural areas, plans for cultural placesand artefacts tend to be strong in the treatment of the resource, but weak indefining the management of use. Management plans for culturally significantsites tend to focus on techniques for maintaining the fabric. Presentation of thatfabric, in its conserved state, is often dealt with in a broad-brush manner and, inthe worst cases, dismissed with a generalised statement. This has probably arisenbecause of the primary professional training many heritage managers havereceived. Few have formal qualifications embracing presentation techniques. Tomaintain public support for the concept of heritage listings and site preservation,sites need effective presentation in a communication package that explains thevalues which led to the designations. Also, if government funded, taxpayers havea right to know how and why their contributions are being spent. Interpretationis the tool for this process.

Tools for managing site use:Area classification and zoningFor natural heritage areas, classification which reflects values, significance anduse is a basic management tool. The IUCN World Conservation Unionclassification of protected areas is widely accepted as a model of reserve types,with principles of management and use invariably enshrined in legislation. By

4. R.L. Pressey, 'NatureConservation InRangelands: lessons fromresearch on reserveselection In NSW,Rangeland Journal, vol.14,

no.2, 1992, pp.214-226.

5. World ConservationUnion, formerly IUCN.International Union forthe Conservation ofNature.

6. IUCN WorldConservation Unionreserve categories 1 & 2.

7. IUCN WorldConservation Unionreserve category 5.

Balancing Use and Preservation in Cultural Heritage Management 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

3:57

11

Oct

ober

201

4

8. For example theAustralia ICOMOSCharter for theConservation of Places ofCultural Significance (theBurra Charter).

9. Management of theGreat Barrier Reef WorldHeritage Area is basedon zoning for use.

10. S. Toothman.'Cultural ResourceManagement In NaturalAreas of the NationalPark System*. The PublicHistorian, vol.9, no.2.1987. pp.65-76.

way of contrast, no universally accepted classification of cultural heritage placesexists to guide day-to-day heritage place management. Guidance does exist innational heritage legislation, 'listing' (and the legislative implications of listing),statements of significance and conventions.8 However, confusion arises whenthese tools are applied equally to sites of markedly differing values andsignificance. For example, the significance of a canoe tree on Fraser Island,Queensland, listed on the Australian Register of the National Estate, is assessedunder the same set of significance criteria as the whole island, which is alsolisted. The subjective aspects of heritage decision-making are far fromtransparent. This results in confusion within the community and fostersdisrespect for the whole conservation ideal.

The zoning9 of natural protected areas equally defines management practiceand acceptable uses. Again, planning for cultural heritage site managementrarely uses this tool. Generally, management of cultural sites is left to specific sitemanagers under guidelines that prescribe preservation with exclusion obligations,but are largely silent on use. The management needs of culturally, significantplaces may, at times, be subservient to areas considered to have outstandingnatural value.10 It is important that the such needs are not overlooked eitherdeliberately or through oversight by planners, but are afforded comparable levelsof management focus. In reality few totally natural areas exist. Humaninteraction has occurred in most natural environments. As a result, most naturalenvironments are equally, correctly, 'cultural landscapes'. There are, for example,few areas of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area of Queensland where humanimpact, however slight, is absent. Aboriginal trails wind over many of the ranges,stone nut-cracking tools lie scattered on remote ridges, dray tracks of earlycolonial settlers, and relics of the now vilified logging industry are the artefacts ofhuman activity. When this inter-activity is acknowledged, then the managementdichotomy between natural and cultural areas of significance will be less sharplydefined than is currently the case.

Site managementTools for heritage site management fall into three categories: developments, controlsand communication (Table 1). Of course, it is assumed that accuracy, quality,maintenance of integrity, and best practice are implicit in using these tools.

Table 1. Took for site management

Management toolDevelopment

Controls

Communication

ActionFacilities

Access

Technological enhancement

Barriers

Laws & guidelines

Surveillance/enforcement

Education

Extension

Interpretation

ExampleToilets, cafeteria

Board walks

Structural reinforcement

Glass cases, rails

Burra charter, heritage legislation

Security cameras, patrol staff

School programmes

Conferences & woricshops •

Role play, re-enactment

48 Bill Carter & Gordon Grimwade

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

3:57

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Each tool is appropriate depending on the circumstances. The extent of 11. For example, thedevelopment and control imply the degree of value and appropriate visit or use Australian ICOMOSbehaviour. Only communication offers the opportunity directly to indicate and Burra Charter and muchexplain that significance. heritage legislation.

Applying site management tools:Natural areasThe management of a natural heritage, renewable, site, subject to excessive use.largely involves two options based on a policy determination:• raising the site's capacity for use. or• reducing the amount of use of the site.Four broad strategies exist for implementing these policy decisions:la modify how the site is used by visitors: orlb alter the character of the site: alternatively:2a reduce the attractiveness of. or access to, the site for existing use; or2b increase the attractiveness of other, similar areas.

These strategies are developed in Tables 2 and 3. Of particular significance is the strategicoption of altering the character of the site (lb), which involves technical interference andmodification to a restricted area of the total resource. This may be acceptable in natural areasthat are renewable, but conflicts with principles11 for the management of sites with a builtheritage component that is, where the heritage resource is non renewable, heritage sites,especially cultural heritage places, without interpretation is extremely short-Table 2. Options12 for raising the site capacity of a natural area

12. A management orpolicy decision.

Strategic decision

Modify use of the

site

Reorganise sitecharacter

Tactical decision

Alter expectations

of site and site use

Reorganise pattern

of site use

Manipulate theEnvironment

Improve facilitylocation andstandard

Strategic action

Promote site values, use

opportunities and protective

behaviour

Orient visitors to resources

and facilities

ManagementtoolCommunicate

Communicate

Involve visitors In appreciating Communicate

site values

Confine use to hardened areas

and facilities

Spread use to areas belowcapacityAlter vegetation

Modify physical featuresor characteristics

Relocate facility and access

Upgrade facilities

Develop

ControlDevelop

Manage

resource

Manageresource

Develop

Develop

Action example

Advertise, develop expectations

of the site and visit conditions

Inform, create familiarity with

resource

Interpret

Construct paths, use facilities

Construct fences

Increase path system,facilitiesEncourage desired.vegetationcover - seed, plant, weed.pruneEncourage desired landscapeand vegetation cover irrigatedrain, aerate, fill, top-dress.fertiliseHarden site

Harden site

Balancing Use and Preservation in Cultural Heritage Management 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

3:57

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 3. Options " for lowering useStrategic decision

Reduce theattractiveness ofthe site forexisting use

Increaseattractiveness ofother sites andotherrecreationalpursuits

Tactical decision

Transformexpectations of thesite and site use

Transform patternof site use

of a natural heritage siteStrategic action

Promote site values, useopportunities andprotective behaviour

Charge for access, facilitiesand servicesLimit access

Reduce extent of facilities

Alter nature of facilities

Promote other areas Promote recreationand recreationopportunities

Facilitate recreationuse elsewhere

opportunities and site

values elsewhere

Improve access to recreational

opportunites elsewhere

Improve recreation

experiences elsewhereDevelop new recreation

opportunities

Management

tool

Communicate

expectations

Control

Control

Control

Develop

Communicate

Develop

Develop

Develop

Action example

Advertise, developof the site andvisit conditions

Financial disincentive

Close parking, roads & paths

put quotas on use, permits

Confine use

Attract different user group

Advertise, inform

Construct roads and tracks

Provide facilities and services

Provide facilities and services

13. A management or

policy decision.

The application of these tools increases the amount of use a site canaccommodate before unacceptable degradation occurs. Figure 1 shows howmanagement can increase the capacity of a cultural heritage place. Most increasestems from development and controls. These tools must be applied at the outsetof any presentation of a heritage site. Effective interpretation further increasescapacity and, if well conceived, extends the protective behaviour of the audiencebeyond the immediate site. Interpretation fosters support for heritageconservation far more than site conservation practice (developments andcontrols).

50 Bill Carter & Gordon Grimwade

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

3:57

11

Oct

ober

201

4

The combination of management actions can also lead to synergism, wherethe management regime encourages a particular type of use (table 4).Satisfaction gained from using a heritage site can be:• totally reliant on the site values - values dependent use• increased by site values - values enhance use• unrelated to site values - values incidental use

Table 4. Use type of heritage sites

Type of use Natural site Heritage placeValues dependent use Bird watching, bush "walking Participatory archaeology. Interpreted visit

Values enhance use Horse riding Adaptive use former offices with

limited reconstruction highlighting key

features

Values incidental use Kite flying or Informal sport Commercial operation from a listed property

In most cases with heritage sites, values-dependent use14 will be the mostappropriate because of the opportunity to foster appreciation of values. Therefore,management of heritage sites, especially cultural heritage places, withoutinterpretation is extremely short-sighted and merely a holding strategy.

Cultural PlacesThe same site management tools used by natural resource managers are alsoavailable to cultural heritage managers (tables 5 and 6). The policy options ofeither raising the site capacity for increased use or reducing use exist.

Table S. Options I s for raising the site capacity of a cultural heritage place

14. Site use that ismerely enhanced orincidental of site valuesneed not beunacceptable, if value isnot reduced or lostthrough use. Forexample, use of aheritage property for awedding or other socialfunction may not reflectsite values but could bemanaged to be impact-neutral, or in factpositive, throughproviding funds forconservation works.

15. A management orpolicy decision.

Strategic decision

Modify use of theplace

Reorganise thecharacter of theplace or artefact

Tactical decision

Alter expectationsof the place, andits use, that Isencouragevalues-dependentuse

Reorganise patternof site use

Manipulate thesetting or fabric

Strategic action

' Promote the values of theplace, visit opportunitiesand protective behaviour

Orient visitors to the placeand Its historyInvolve visitors inappreciating heritagevalues of the placeConfine use to hardenedareas. Extend experientialopportunities

Spread use to areasbelow capacityProtect access areas

Modify structural elementsImpacted by use

ManagementtoolCommunicate

Communicate

Communicate

Develop

Control

Develop

Develop

Develop - applytechnology

Action example

Advertise, developexpectations of the place andvisit conditions

Inform, create familiaritywith the placeInterpret

Construct walkways.Interpretive centresConstruct barriers tofragile areasIncrease walkway system

Construct walkways

Impregnate materials withImpact-resistant substances.

Balancing Use and Preservation in Cultural Heritage Management 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

3:57

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 6. Options I6 for lowering use of a cultural heritage placeStrategic decision Tactical decision Strategic action

Reduce theattractiveness ofthe place forexisting use

Increase theattractivenessof other places

Transformexpectations of theplace and its use

Transform the usepattern of the place

Promote otherareas

Facilitate useelsewhere

Promote the values of theplace, visit opportunitiesand protective behaviourCharge for access, facilitiesand services.Limit access

Reduce extent of facilitiesEncourage the use of similaralternative placesPromote site values elsewhereImprove access to heritageplaces elsewhereeImprove heritage experienceselsewhereDevelop new heritageopportunities

ManagementtoolCommunicate

Control

Control

ControlCommunicate

Develop

Develop

Develop

Action example

Advertise, developexpectations of the place andvisit conditionsFinancial disincentive

Reduce access to the site.impose use quotas, permits.Confine useAdvertise, inform

Construct roads and tracks

Provide facilities and services

Provide new facilities andservices - interactive andinnovative technology(interpretive centres.omnimax films etc)

16. A management ipolicy decision.

These policies can be implemented through the strategies of :l a modifying use of the place: orlb reorganising the character of the place; and alternatively,2a reducing the attractiveness of, or access to the place for existing use; or2b increasing the attractiveness of other places.Strategy lb is the most contentious, because it has the potential to threaten theintegrity of the site and conflict with current heritage conservation guidelines.However, modifying guidelines to adopt the precautionary principle, in contrastto strict preservation, may be necessary to achieve an appropriate use-preservation balance. This particularly applies where sampling is involved.

ConclusionManagement techniques applied to cultural heritage sites often differ from thoseused in natural heritage management. While strong arguments are oftenpromulgated effectively to 'lock up' areas of both cultural and natural significance,the legitimacy of such approaches is questionable. Historically, differences betweenthe two regimes of heritage management have grown from the technical disciplinesmost influencing management: the biological sciences in natural heritageenvironments, and architecture and archaeology in cultural heritage. Greater effortis needed to draw the two arms of heritage to a common goal.

Restricting access is only a short term solution, and requires an on-goingcommitment of funds. As a form of preservation, it is becoming a less acceptableapproach to management Where emphasis is placed on absolute protection, theoptions for community use and appreciation of a place are invariably constrained.Inevitably, heritage places become alienated from the communities whose heritage

52 Bill Carter & Gordon Grimwade

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

3:57

11

Oct

ober

201

4

is being conserved. The community now seeks public accountability in governmentfunding. The use of funds to lock areas and resources away is increasinglyquestioned. Heightened awareness of the value of cultural and natural heritage,coupled with greater interest, places added demands on the management of sites forpresentation. With minor adaptation, techniques applied to the management ofnatural areas are also applicable to cultural heritage management.

Natural areas are conserved to protect:• characteristic or unique ecosystems;• species of interest, value, variety or under threat;• sites of exceptional diversity;• features of aesthetic or scientific value and interest;• ecological functions;• sites for recreational use and tourism; as well as• areas of cultural significance.

The level of protection depends on:• the significance of site features;• threats, which are, or have the potential to diminish' intrinsic values; and• the ability of features to maintain their integrity under the influence of

manipulative management and use.When transferred to management, a variety of types of protected area result

which have inherent potential for different levels of visitor use. At the site level,zoning is applied to facilitate use based on similar criteria of values. Alternatively,managers or the community make judgements about the appropriate balance ofuse and protection as exemplified by zonings within the Great Barrier ReefMarine Park, Australia. The potential exists to use similar tools in theconservation of cultural heritage places. To use these tools requires heritagemanagers to:• acknowledge that there are degrees of significance;• define more objective criteria17 for differentiating significance;• match potential uses against significance and the criteria which define it;• make an inventory of the scope and extent of the cultural heritage resource;• extrapolate the inventory on clearly expressed assumptions, to define the likely

range of protection needs and levels;• identify and secure highly significant18 places (based on the criteria);• consider the application of a representative sample strategy to cultural heritage

sites;• communicate the heritage conservation strategy to the community;•place less reliance on statements of significance to direct operational

management and use of a place.In this way, matching of heritage conservation principles and guidelines, such

as the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter,19 to the heritage place will be simpler andeasier to explain. Further, it would widen the range of site-management toolsavailable, to use places effectively while still protecting them. Effectivecommunication and interpretation of significance are the essential elements of theprocess. The thrust of interpretation should be away from explaining the detail ofthe fabric of heritage places and towards placing the fabric in historical andcultural context Significance of a cultural heritage place lies in its context; thefabric is merely a reflection.

17. Criteria typicallyused in natural areaconservation are richnessand diversity,representativeness,fragility, naturalness,stability, intrinsic appeal,scientific value, threatsand rarity.

18. The AustralianHeritage Commission hasdetermined that 'culturalsignificance' derives from'historical, architectural,scientific, social,technological, aestheticor other specified values'.The Queensland HeritageAct 1992 definessignificance as relatingto history, rarity,research potential, theexemplification ofparticular classes ofplaces, aesthetics, andcreative, social orcultural association, orassociation with asignificant person.

19. Australia ICOMOS.The Australia ICOMOS

Charter for the

Conservation of Places of

Cultural Significance (The

Burra Charter). Sydney:ICOMOS. 1981.

Balancing Use and Preservation in Cultural Heritage Management 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

3:57

11

Oct

ober

201

4