Finding Common Ground between United Kingdom Based and Chinese Approaches to Earthen Heritage Conservation

Abstract

Earthen heritage is one of the oldest and universal forms of heritage but its conservation poses many challenges. Establishing international collaborations could provide an efficient, sustainable mechanism to increase knowledge exchange, aiding the development of earthen heritage conservation strategies around the world. However, perceived differences in how Eastern and Western countries value earthen heritage and develop conservation strategies can pose challenges for establishing collaborations. To understand these perceived differences and whether they hinder collaborations, this paper compares British and Chinese heritage conservation policy and practice and then reports the results from an innovative workshop examining the approaches of 13 Chinese and 13 UK based heritage experts and researchers towards earthen heritage conservation. Workshop participants undertook bilingual discussions and completed a co-created questionnaire available in English and Mandarin. Both groups identified historic value as the most important value and maintenance of authenticity and integrity, need for scientific research and site scale conservation as vital considerations for conservation strategies. This study found that to understand the potential for collaboration, individual perspectives need consideration as well as policies and practices. This innovative bilingual, discussion-based approach has potential to aid collaborations for diverse international issues from wildlife conservation to cross-boundary pollution and climate change.

A controlled field experiment to investigate the deterioration of earthen heritage by wind and rain

“…compressive strength and grain size) can help identify areas which may be particularly at risk of future deterioration [12]. However, to limit the extent to which historic material is altered, conservation strategies need to understand how environmental conditions cause deterioration [13].…”

Deterioration risk of dryland earthen heritage sites facing future climatic uncertainty

“…The suite of deterioration risks produced by ViSTA-HD can then be used to assess the relative benefits and trade-offs between conservation strategies in the context of: (1) a strategy's ability to minimise deterioration risk, as well as, (2) other strategic factors, such as the implementation and maintenance costs, and the size and the aesthetic impact of a strategy 9 . Field tests using the chosen conservation strategy should be carried out before implementation.…”

“…While changes in rainfall may only have a limited impact on the overall deterioration risk, changes in the relative dominance of individual features could alter the visual aesthetics of earthen heritage sites. Therefore, if future rainfall changes, a values-based judgement would be required 9 to assess if the aesthetic impacts to the site were deemed acceptable.…”

“…For these sites to be passed on to future generations, effective conservation strategies are urgently needed. Such strategies must: address the complexity of interactions between the environment and earthen heritage sites 4 – 6 , 8 ; minimise the risk of environmentally-driven deterioration; have a minimal impact on the value(s) associated with the heritage; be practically feasible to implement and maintain 9 . …”

Knowledge co-production in climate adaptation planning of archaeological sites

“…In this sense, co-production can better highlight knowledge differences and similarities, embrace a diversity of knowledge cultures, and allow for an expanded understanding of the problem or issue, which a single context might not produce (Simon et al 2018). Furthermore, it is used to explore how multiple actors' knowledge develop and shift through iterative processes, building respect and trusted relationships among actors, and exploring the ways in which production of knowledge can occur in a more equitable and democratic process (Cundill 2010;Moser 2010;Filipe et al 2017;Puente-Rodríguez et al 2016;Richards et al 2018). Maasen and Lieven (2006) pointed out that encouraging multiple actors' participation in the production of knowledge can foster the accountability of science, including the quality of the usability of results and outcomes (Polk 2015).…”