Ecomuseum Principles

Encapsulated within ecomuseological philosophy are a variety of principles, or indicators, that characterise individual ecomuseums (Corsane, 2006b: 404). Several authors, most notably Boylan (1992), Corsane & Holleman (1993), Hamrin and Hulander (1995) and Davis (1999) have reviewed ecomuseum literature and practice and provided their ideas about what a comprehensive indicator list would possess (Corsane, 2006b: 404; Davis, 2011: 91-92). Each study demonstrated that there were shared characteristics amongst several ecomuseums, whilst each ecomuseum also varied greatly and possessed diverse characteristics. Initially, Boylan (1992), and Corsane and Holleman (1993), produced comparable indicator lists which focused on main concepts such as territory, fragmentation, interdisciplinary approaches to interpretation, democracy and community empowerment and the nature of the ecomuseum “customer” (Corsane et al., 2007b: 225; Davis, 2011: 92). Hamrin and Hulander (1995) listed 18 separate ecomuseum characteristics, yet Corsane et al., (2007a: 102) argue that this list is not exhaustive and makes “…little reference to the natural environment, to the need for distinctiveness within the geographical area, to past or contemporary environmental

74

issues, to the role of living collections”. Davis (1999) produced the following list of ecomuseum principles which was an amended version of all of the above checklists:

 The adoption of a territory that is not necessarily defined by conventional boundaries;

 The adoption of a ‘fragmented site’ policy that is linked to in-situ

conservation and interpretation;

 Conventional views of site ownership are abandoned; conservation and interpretation of sites is carried out via liaison, cooperation and the development of partnerships;

 The empowerment of local communities; the involvement of local people in ecomuseum activities and in the creation of their cultural identity; and,

 The potential for interdisciplinarity and for holistic interpretation is usually seized (Corsane et al., 2007a: 102; Corsane et al., 2007b: 225). Although the work by these authors has certainly been crucial to the development of ecomuseum principles, it was the list generated by Corsane et al., (2004) which can arguably be considered the most comprehensive and was selected for use in this research project. This list, along with its use as an evaluation tool, is presented in the following sub-sections.

3.4.1 The 21 Principles

Corsane et al., (2004) developed the following list (Table 3.1) of principles based on a continuing review of ecomuseum literature and practice and also inclusive of the abovementioned indicator lists (Corsane, 2006b: 404). The list comprises 21 ecomuseum principles, or indicators, and serves as a “...guide to good practice” (Davis, 2011: 285). The list can be broken down into three subsets with 1 to 6 focusing on the democratic and participatory nature of ecomuseums, 7 to 12 demonstrating what an ecomuseum includes and covers and 13 to 21 explaining an ecomuseum’s actions and methods (Corsane, 2006: 109). It should be noted that each of these principles are discussed in greater detail in Chapters Seven and Eight.

75

Table 3.1: The Twenty-One Principles (Corsane et al., 2004)

1. Be steered by local communities

2. Allow for public participation from all the stakeholder and interest groups in all the decision-making processes and activities in a democratic manner

3. Stimulate joint ownership and management, with input from local communities, academic advisors, local businesses, local authorities and government structures

4. Place and emphasis on the processes of heritage management, rather than on heritage products for consumption

5. Encourage collaboration with local craftspeople, artists, writers, actors and musicians 6. Depend on substantial active voluntary efforts by local stakeholders

7. Focus on local identity and a ‘sense of place’

8. Encompass a ‘geographical’ territory, which can be determined by different shared characteristics

9. Cover both spatial and temporal aspects, where, in relation to the temporal, it looks at continuity and change over time rather than simply trying to freeze things in time

10. Takes the form of a ‘fragmented museum’, consisting of a network with a hub and antennae of different buildings and sites

11. Promotes preservation, conservation and safeguarding of heritage resources in-situ 12. Gives equal attention to immovable and movable tangible material culture, and to intangible heritage resources

13. Stimulates sustainable development and use of resources 14. Allows for change and development for a better future

15. Encourages an ongoing programme of documentation of past and present life and people’s interactions with all environmental factors (including physical, economic, social, cultural and political)

16. Promotes research at a number of levels – from the research and understanding of local ‘specialists’ to research by academics

17. Promotes multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to research

18. Encourages a holistic approach to the interpretation of culture / nature relationships 19. Attempts to illustrate connections between: technology/individual, nature/culture, and past/present

20. Provide for an intersection between heritage and responsible tourism

21. Brings benefits to local communities, for example, a sense of pride, regeneration and/or economic income

76

This list seeks to include all potential elements of ecomuseum philosophy. However, whilst this list may provide a comprehensive directory of what an ecomuseum would ideally represent, the presence and/or quantity of these principles will vary significantly. This is largely due to the variation amongst ecomuseums which makes it difficult to “...apply a set of agreed standards” that all must achieve (Corsane et al., 2007b: 234; Davis, 2006: 76). Corsane (2006b: 404) stresses:

However, although common ecomuseum indicators can be listed, it should be noted that no two ecomuseums will display all of the same indicators. Each ecomuseum will be unique and will place a different emphasis on various aspects. Consequently, each will show a different configuration of the indicators in different proportions. This is because the core maxim of the ecomuseum ideal is that an ecomuseum will respond continually to shifting local environmental, economic, social, cultural and political needs and imperatives, as determined by the local communities working with other stakeholders.

The flexible nature of ecomuseology ensures that ecomuseums continue their existence as living and dynamic organisms (Corsane, 2006a: 111). Nevertheless, there are still common themes found in all ecomuseums which utilise these principles, including community participation and ownership of heritage resources and management processes, sustainable development and responsible tourism (Davis, 2011: 94). While lists such as these 21 are accepted, there still remains a lack of widespread recognition and practice, which Davis (2011: 261) feels could be linked to the confinement of these issues within the “academic sphere”. However, indicator lists such as this one have been used in the evaluation of ecomusems and is discussed more in the following section.

3.4.2 Assessment

Little work has been conducted in the assessment of ecomuseusm practice in relation to its philosophy (Davis, 2006: 77; Corsane et al., 2007a: 101). Evaluation tools for ecomuseums are still developing, which places indicator lists at the forefront of assessing both ecomuseums and similar heritage institutions or models globally (Davis, 2011: 94). Traditional museums are measured through several established methods (e.g. visitor counts, collection management, fundraising), whilst ecomuseums, with their focus on local community, territory, heritage resources and visitors, present a more difficult case for performance measurement (Corsane et al., 2007b: 233-234; Davis,

77

2006:77). Davis (2006: 77) contends that performance standards might be more “inward-looking”, highlighting the needs of the community as well as visitors.

The 21 principles are comprehensive enough to respond to local environments and measure the outcomes of ecomuseum practice based on its philosophical objectives (Davis, 2006: 75). Davis and Rogers conducted a pilot study in 2005 using the 21 indicators in northern Italy which demonstrated their successful use in evaluating ecomuseums or similar heritage management institutions (Corsane, 2006b: 404). Corsane (2006b) also completed a study using the 21 indicators to evaluate the Robben Island Museum and World Heritage Site in South Africa. In accordance with Davis, he found that the “…use of the ecomuseum indicators can be a worthwhile exercise when one wishes to evaluate an integrated heritage management project” (Corsane, 2006b: 416). Another evaluation study conducted in northern Italy by Corsane et al. (2007a: 114), which assessed five ecomuseums, revealed that all five “....function in very different ways”. Corsane et al. (2007a: 114) argue that this “enormous” variation in such a small geographical setting is one of the contributing reasons why ecomuseum evaluation has been fraught with difficulty.

Beyond their complicated evaluation, the benefits from ecomuseums can still be demonstrated through these studies. Outside of the general benefits such as increased revenue or visitor numbers, other benefits from ecomuseums start to emerge such as the acquisition of various types of ‘capital’ including human, social, cultural and identity (Corsane et al., 2007b: 235). The study done by Corsane et al. (ibid) in Italy revealed that ecomuseums provided local community members with leadership skills, networking opportunities and an increased understanding about their place and its history. As such, evaluating ecomuseums should consider the personal growth and development of local community members in relation to the project (Corsane et al., 2007b: 236; Fuller, 1992: 331). Although ecomuseums and similar heritage institutions present challenges in their evaluation, indicator lists still have the power to assess practice in relation to the core philosophical roots of community participation and heritage conservation and preservation.

78