IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i19p5234-d270235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of Cultural Heritage for Place Branding in Educational Projects: The Case of Smederevo and Golubac Fortresses on the Danube

Author

Listed:
  • Uroš Radosavljević

    (University of Belgrade-Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urbanism, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73/II, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Irena Kuletin Ćulafić

    (University of Belgrade-Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73/II, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

Abstract

Medieval fortresses represent an important tangible heritage of a nation’s culture and a valuable development asset for a particular destination on which its place-branding strategy for tourism could be built upon. Traditionally in Serbia, heritage protection and conservation have been mainly concentrated on the tangible aspects of cultural sites and monuments. Nevertheless, with the advent of urban heritage integration in the local sustainable development processes and place-branding strategies, a greater appreciation of the spirit of the place and its intangible components, as well as the need to adapt it to local contexts with more participatory forms of heritage planning, have started to emerge. A wide range of stakeholders brought the involvement and participation of both the local government and community members, including residents, as an indispensable element of the protection actions and broader urban development policies. The paper aims to validate the correlation between both intangible and tangible cultural heritage and its contemporary use for place branding and tourism development. In doing so, we have employed the case study method on the two fortresses on the Danube in Serbia to show the ways in which local stakeholders have mobilized their forces in cooperation with the university to use their cultural heritage assets for tourism and more extensive sustainable territorial development. We have found that despite new inclusive forms of governance, which is attracting the attention of planning and heritage practitioners in Serbia, the contemporary approach of integrative protection and the intangible aspects of cultural heritage are still not fully utilized. For this reason, in this study, we consider methods based on environmental aesthetics approaches to cultural heritage that point out the significant inclusion of immaterial intangible cultural heritage in an unbreakable bond with material tangible heritage. The most remarkable result of our research is that while a vast number of stakeholders with local knowledge and sense of the spirit of the place have been involved in the planning process, intangible aspects of the analyzed heritage cases are present in educational projects, and are only partially present if it comes to implementation. This clearly demonstrates that the focus on tangible aspects and spatial interventions of the place branding of cultural heritage is still dominant in Serbia, despite acknowledgment of the economic and social aspects of sustainability in the planning phase in educational projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Uroš Radosavljević & Irena Kuletin Ćulafić, 2019. "Use of Cultural Heritage for Place Branding in Educational Projects: The Case of Smederevo and Golubac Fortresses on the Danube," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-33, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5234-:d:270235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5234/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5234/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francisco González Santa Cruz & Pablo Torres-Matovelle & Gina Molina-Molina & Jesús Claudio Pérez Gálvez, 2019. "Tourist Clusters in a Developing Country in South America: The Case of Manabì Province, Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Paola M. Leanza & Simona M. C. Porto & Vincenzo Sapienza & Santi M. Cascone, 2016. "A Heritage Interpretation-Based Itinerary to Enhance Tourist Use of Traditional Rural Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Susanna Heldt Cassel & Albina Pashkevich, 2014. "World Heritage and Tourism Innovation: Institutional Frameworks and Local Adaptation," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(8), pages 1625-1640, August.
    4. Hai-fan Wang & Shang-chia Chiou, 2019. "Study on the Sustainable Development of Human Settlement Space Environment in Traditional Villages," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-22, August.
    5. Tiziano Cattaneo & Emanuele Giorgi & Minqing Ni, 2018. "Landscape, Architecture and Environmental Regeneration: A Research by Design Approach for Inclusive Tourism in a Rural Village in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-27, December.
    6. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aleksandra Milovanović & Miloš Kostić & Ana Zorić & Aleksandra Đorđević & Mladen Pešić & Jovana Bugarski & Dejan Todorović & Neda Sokolović & Andrej Josifovski, 2020. "Transferring COVID-19 Challenges into Learning Potentials: Online Workshops in Architectural Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-21, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    2. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Ros & Church, Andrew, 2016. "Deliberative Democratic Monetary Valuation to implement the Ecosystem Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 308-318.
    4. Hung-Ming Tu, 2020. "Sustainable Heritage Management: Exploring Dimensions of Pull and Push Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Ranger, S. & Kenter, J.O. & Bryce, R. & Cumming, G. & Dapling, T. & Lawes, E. & Richardson, P.B., 2016. "Forming shared values in conservation management: An interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 344-357.
    6. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    7. G Liliana Bravo Monroy, 2017. "Ecological and Cultural Values of Water Bodies: Recognising a Plural-Values Approach of Ecosystems," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 1(3), pages 589-591, August.
    8. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    9. Dana Badau & Adela Badau, 2018. "The motric, Educational, Recreational and Satisfaction Impact of Adventure Education Activities in the Urban Tourism Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    10. Jun Zhang & Runni Zhang & Qilun Li & Xue Zhang & Xiong He, 2023. "Spatial Sifferentiation and Differentiated Development Paths of Traditional Villages in Yunnan Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, August.
    11. Ainsworth, Gillian B. & Kenter, Jasper O. & O'Connor, Sebastian & Daunt, Francis & Young, Juliette C., 2019. "A fulfilled human life: Eliciting sense of place and cultural identity in two UK marine environments through the Community Voice Method," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    12. Qindong Fan & Fengtian Du & Hu Li, 2020. "A Study of the Spatial Form of Maling Village, Henan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    13. Arbieu, Ugo & Grünewald, Claudia & Martín-López, Berta & Schleuning, Matthias & Böhning-Gaese, Katrin, 2018. "Large mammal diversity matters for wildlife tourism in Southern African Protected Areas: Insights for management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 481-490.
    14. Celia Bilbao-Terol & Verónica Cañal-Fernández & Luis Valdés & Eduardo Del Valle, 2017. "Rural Tourism Accommodation Prices by Land Use-Based Hedonic Approach: First Results from the Case Study of the Self-Catering Cottages in Asturias," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-17, September.
    15. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Willis, Cheryl & Winter, Michael & Tratalos, Jamie A. & Haines-Young, Roy & Potschin, Marion, 2016. "Making space for cultural ecosystem services: Insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 329-343.
    16. Prieur, Jacques, 2020. "Critical warning! Preventing the multidimensional apocalypse on planet Earth," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    17. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    18. Bliss, Sam & Egler, Megan, 2020. "Ecological Economics Beyond Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    19. Siyou Wang & Shaotao Chen & Wei Gao, 2022. "Information Services as a Method to Evaluate the Sustainability of Intangible Dimensions of a Historic Urban Landscape: A Case Study in Guangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, December.
    20. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Winter, Michael, 2016. "Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 208-217.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5234-:d:270235. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.