IJHS - Ecomuseum Evaluation

This article was downloaded by:
On: 13 June 2010

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Routledge
Informa 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 Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713685629
Ecomuseum Evaluation: Experiences in Piemonte and Liguria, Italy

G. Corsanea; P. Davisa; S. Elliotta; M. Maggib; D. Murtasc; S. Rogersd
a
International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies, Newcastle University, b Istituto di Ricerche
Economico Sociali del Piemonte, Turin c Ecomuseo dei Terrazzamenti e della Vite, Cortemilia d
Countryside Agency, Newcastle upon Tyne
To cite this Article Corsane, G. , Davis, P. , Elliott, S. , Maggi, M. , Murtas, D. and Rogers, S.(2007) 'Ecomuseum Evaluation:
Experiences in Piemonte and Liguria, Italy', International Journal of Heritage Studies, 13: 2, 101 — 116
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13527250601118936
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527250601118936
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Heritage Studies
Vol. 13, No. 2, March 2007, pp. 101–116
Ecomuseum Evaluation: Experiences in

Piemonte and Liguria, Italy
G. Corsane, P. Davis, S. Elliott, M. Maggi, D. Murtas &
S. Rogers
The term ecomuseum has been applied to a wide range of projects that seek to conserve and
20GerardCorsane
g.e.corsane@ncl.ac.uk
00000March
International
10.1080/13527250601118936
RJHS-A-211827.sgm
1352-7258
Original
Taylor
2007
13 and
& 2007Ltd
Article
Francis
(print)/1470-3610
Francis
Journal of Heritage
(online)
Studies
Downloaded At: 21:55 13 June 2010
interpret aspects of tangible and intangible heritage of a defined geographical territory.

Ecomuseum theorists have assigned a number of characteristics to these organisations,
including in situ conservation, fragmented site interpretation and a democratic,
community-based approach. However, there has been a tendency for the term to be applied
casually—sometimes simply as a marketing device—with scant regard to ecomuseum
philosophies. To date, little critical evaluation of ecomuseums has been carried out that
compares practices at individual sites to the demands of ecomuseum theory. This research
examines five ecomuseums in Piemonte and Liguria, northern Italy, to try to discover how
far they achieve the tenets of ecomuseum philosophy. Although four of the five sites appear
to meet most criteria, the results confirm that a wide variation in ecomuseum practices is
inevitable due to local circumstances. Consequently, the ability of any ecomuseum to be a
truly democratic organisation and meet all ecomuseum principles is compromised.
Keywords: Ecomuseum; Evaluation; Heritage; Community; Italy; Piemonte
An Introduction to Ecomuseum Characteristics

Hamrin and Hulander1 have listed 18 separate ecomuseum characteristics. It was
suggested that they should cover a wide area, conserve and interpret selected features
in the cultural landscape in situ, actively involve the visitor and promote cultural tour-
ism, and be based on cooperation between local authorities, associations, organisations,
Gerard Corsane, Peter Davis & Sarah Elliott, International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies, Newcastle
University; Maurizio Maggi, Istituto di Ricerche Economico Sociali del Piemonte, Turin; Donatella Murtas,
Ecomuseo dei Terrazzamenti e della Vite, Cortemilia; Sally Rogers, Countryside Agency, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Correspondence to g.e.corsane@ncl.ac.uk
ISSN 1352–7258 (print)/ISSN 1470–3610 (online) © 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13527250601118936
102 G. Corsane et al.
companies and private individuals. Ecomuseums should also actively encourage
volunteers, help local people to celebrate and reflect on their cultural identity and have
an educational remit. They are identified as dynamic institutions with a long-term
development programme that will encourage holistic interpretation of places, and
actively collaborate with artists, craftsmen, writers, actors and musicians. Ecomuseums
are also identified as institutions that promote research, and aim to illustrate the
connections between technology and the individual, between nature and culture, and
between past and present.
This list makes little reference to the natural environment, to the need for distinc-
tiveness within the geographical area, to past or contemporary environmental issues,
to the role of living collections, or to the nature of the collections that ecomuseums care
for. Despite these shortcomings, Davis2 has used an amended version of this checklist
to compare ecomuseums to traditional museums and explore the features that might
be nominated as ‘ecomuseum indicators’. However, his findings are inconclusive. It
appears that ecomuseums have evolved in a number of ways, with diverse types of
heritage sites using the ecomuseum signifier, and that the term has been adopted for
many different reasons. Ecomuseums frequently share characteristics with ‘traditional’
museums, and while some ecomuseums may exhibit a particular character, others do
not. Thus some ecomuseums do extend over a large geographical area, but many are
small, isolated sites; some promote economic development via tourism and others do
not; some attempt to engage with a wide variety of artists and craftsmen, others are very
site or industry specific and focus purely on the craft skills associated with those
industries; a few ecomuseums promote and publish research, most do not. While
recognising these paradoxes, Davis3 suggests that the following list of indicators can be
applied to most ecomuseums:
● 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 interpre-
tation 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.
● The potential for interdisciplinarity and for holistic interpretation is usually seized.
Boylan4 has produced a similar list of characteristics. His five key concepts are: terri-
tory; fragmentation and the nature of ecomuseum ‘collections’; interdisciplinary
approaches to interpretation; the nature of the ecomuseum ‘customer’; and local
democracy and community empowerment. He suggests that if each of these five
characteristics is ranked on a scale from 1 (traditional museological approaches) to 5
(ecomuseological approaches) then from a potential maximum score of 25, a score of
13 (52%) or below indicates a traditional museum, 14–19 (56–76%) is an outgoing
community-centred museum with an interest in the environment, and a score of 20+
(80%+) is a true ecomuseum. Boylan suggests that when tested against this scale many
International Journal of Heritage Studies 103
organisations that call themselves ecomuseums fall within the central category, and
therefore are not true ecomuseums.
Ecomuseum characteristics are also identified by Corsane and Holleman,5 and their
checklist forms the basis for the methodology described below. Further development
of this ‘ecomuseum matrix’—essential enabling conditions and ecomuseum indicators
that promote community action—was made when considering whether threatened
heritage areas in Turkey could benefit from an ecomuseological approach.6 The matrix
was modified further by taking into account the views of the authorities mentioned
above, and by using the extensive first-hand experience of the authors, who together
have a broad knowledge of community-driven heritage projects worldwide. The
characteristics of ecomuseums listed were then transformed into key questions that can
be addressed to ecomuseum workers to gauge performance and to gain an impression
of how closely any institution utilises ecomuseum approaches.
Methodological Approaches to Ecomuseum Evaluation

The Istituto di Ricerche Economico Sociali del Piemonte (IRES) is a section of the
regional government with a mission of researching and enhancing the economy of a
mainly rural area. Piemonte is a region of particular interest to ecomuseology because

of the energy and enthusiasm with which this approach to heritage conservation and
interpretation has been adopted. The growth in the number of ecomuseums has been
remarkable. In 1996 there were 15 ecomuseums in the whole of Italy;7 in 2006, in
Piemonte alone there are 50 which are officially recognised by provincial and regional
governmental agencies.8 IRES has done much to promote this change, and has fully
documented the ways in which the ecomuseum phenomenon has promoted cultural
tourism in Piemonte9 and in Europe.10
The research described here was carried out as a partnership between the
International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies (ICCHS) at Newcastle Univer-
sity, UK, and IRES, the latter carefully selecting five ecomuseum sites that provided, in
its view, useful comparisons in terms of community endeavour, funding and coopera-
tion, as well as focusing on different (former) industries. The sites selected were: the
Ecomuseo della Canapa (Hemp Ecomuseum), Carmagnola; Ecomuseo della Valle Elvo
e Serra (Ecomuseum of the Elvo and Serra Valley), Biella; Ecomuseo dell’Ardesia (Slate
Ecomuseum), Fontanabuona Valley, Liguria; Ecomuseo dell’Argilla (Clay Ecomu-
seum), Cambiano and the Ecomuseo delle Miniere e della Valle Germanasca (Ecomu-
seum of Mining and the Germanasca Valley).
Assessment of each of the sites was carried out in two stages, with an initial desk
study being followed by site visits and discussions with key ecomuseum personnel at
each of the sites. In the desk study a checklist of closed questions was discussed by
the authors and other members of IRES staff familiar with the chosen ecomuseums,
aimed at gauging the extent to which the sites met the key criteria of ecomuseum
theory. The questions firstly explored the political and practical conditions that
prevailed before and during the establishment of the ecomuseum. These are listed in
Table 1.
Table 1 What were the conditions that existed before the ecomuseum was founded?
Was the site decentralised?

Did sympathetic government agendas, policies and legislation exist?
Locally, had there been a reaction against more ‘traditional’ heritage management and museum
structures and practices?
Locally, was there a gap in provision for heritage management and museum action?
Did local museum and heritage-sector professionals understand the ecomuseum philosophy and
practices, and was there a willingness to promote this approach to other stakeholders?
Before the project began, was there a ‘sense of place’, a recognition of the distinctiveness of the local
cultural landscape?
Was there a shared local identity?
Were the value, significance, and use of heritage recognised at a local level?
Were there immovable and movable tangible and intangible heritage resources and attractions that
would prove of interest to non-locals?
Were there some existing networks with interests in cultural and natural heritage?
Had there been efforts to rally and mobilise local people against threats to the cultural or natural
heritage of the region?
The next set of questions, listed in Table 2, addressed the issue of ‘ecomuseum
indicators’ and characteristics that the site might be expected to meet, and a final series
of questions (Table 3) attempted to identify features that might disqualify the site from
ecomuseum status.
During the interviews with ecomuseum personnel, discussion began with a short
list of open-ended questions in order to discover the missions, objectives, histories
and motives that lay behind the formation of the ecomuseum, and to investigate
how the site was currently managed at an operational and strategic level. Follow-
ing these initial discussions a revised (and shorter) set of the desk study questions
was posed, focusing on those areas that had emerged as problematical, where there
was any area of uncertainty, where current information was contradictory, or
where the team wished to probe further. Rather than use the ‘academic’ tone of
the questions as listed in the tables, particular efforts were made to rephrase the
questions in a way that could be easily understood by the participants. Not all the
questions listed above were pertinent at every site, and were consequently omitted
from the interviews.
Results of the Desk Study

The desk study carried out by the authors and other IRES colleagues addressed the
questions above based on their knowledge of the sites gained from earlier visits, promo-
tional materials and the literature. By using the questions to provide ‘yes’ or ‘no’
responses, this desk study enabled a first ‘score’ for each site—a quantitative measure
of how many positive ecomuseological attributes it has. A positive response to the
questions in Tables 1 and 2, and a negative response to the questions in Table 3 would
each contribute to a potential maximum score of 36 points. As mentioned above, the
Table 2 Questions identifying ecomuseum indicators
Does the local community manage the ecomuseum?

Does the ecomuseum allow for public participation in a democratic manner?
Is there joint ownership and management between local people and ‘experts’—i.e. is there a double
input system?
Is there an emphasis on process rather than on product?
Does the ecomuseum encourage collaboration with local craftspeople, artists, writers, actors and
musicians?
Is the ecomuseum dependent on substantial active voluntary efforts?
Is there a focus on local identity and sense of place?
Does the ecomuseum encompass a ‘geographical’ territory that is determined by shared
characteristics?
Does the ecomuseum deal with past, present and future perspectives, i.e. it covers both spatial and
temporal aspects?
Is it a fragmented ‘museum’ with a hub and ‘antennae’ of buildings and sites?
Does the ecomuseum promote preservation, conservation and safeguarding of heritage resources in
situ?
Is attention given to intangible heritage resources?
Does the ecomuseum promote sustainable development and use of resources?
Does the site allow for change and development for a better future, both for the site itself and for local
people?
Does the site encourage an ongoing programme of documentation of past and present life and
interactions with environmental factors?
Does the site promote research at a number of levels—from local ‘specialists’ to academics?
Does the ecomuseum promote multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to research?
Is there an holistic approach to interpretation of culture/nature relationships?
Are connections between: technology/individual, nature/culture, past/present interpreted at the sites?
To what extent does the site promote heritage and cultural tourism?
Does the ecomuseum bring benefits to local communities—e.g. a sense of pride, regeneration, or
economic income?
desk study proved to be an essential component because it highlighted areas of uncer-

tainty that needed to be probed in more detail during the site visits. Table 4 summarises
the results of the desk study.
Despite the inherent inadequacies in this scoring system—no attempt was made to
weight those ‘ecomuseum indicators’ thought especially significant, for example—the
scores are of interest. Four of the five sites scored very highly, a strong indication that
they were operating under real ecomuseological principles. However, the desk study
probably raised more questions than it provided answers, particularly in relation to the
Table 3 Questions identifying ‘non-ecomuseum’ features
Is the site/museum in single ownership, where the management structure excludes local involvement?
Has there been a relocation of heritage resources as practised in ‘open-air’ museums?
Does the site feature reconstructions rather than original buildings or artefacts?
Is there very limited local community input?
Table 4 Results of the desk study
Ecomuseum Score/36 Comments
Ecomuseo della Canapa 30 Although initiated by local people, the

(83%) relationship with the Carmagnola museums
required investigation; questions were raised
about the site and the potential for development;
the potential for holistic interpretation is not
known; appeared to be strong on education
activities; suggested that there may be a focus on
product more than process; not known whether
the site is regarded as part of a regeneration
strategy for the town
Ecomuseo della Valle 34 There appeared to be very complex local politics,
Elvo e Serra (94%) especially the negotiation of actions and strategy
between the ecomuseum, the town of Biella and
the region; this required exploration. How the
relationships between nature and culture were
expressed was unknown; the trigger for the
foundation of the ecomuseum needed to be
explored, as did the connections between the sites
Ecomuseo dell’Ardesia 24 The desk study was much more problematical,

(66%) and definite answers were difficult to make in
many areas; there may be problems locally with
heritage professionals developing an
understanding of ecomuseum concepts; the
extent of local involvement and participation
needed to be a focus for the discussion
Ecomuseo dell’Argilla 30 The main issues related to ownership and the
(83%) management structure for the ecomuseum, which
is associated with a working factory; it was not
known whether relationships with other
organisations had been developed, and to what
extent the ecomuseum was valued at the local level
Ecomuseo delle Miniere e 34 This ecomuseum appeared to be a very
della Valle Germanasca (94%) professional organisation with paid staff, resulting
in less dependency on volunteers and little
involvement with the local community
Ecomuseo dell’Ardesia, which scored relatively poorly in comparison to the other sites.
Interestingly, using the percentage ratings suggested by Boylan11 yields a similar result,
with four sites being immediately accepted as ecomuseums, and only the Ecomuseo
dell’Ardesia slipping into the ‘community-centred museum’ category. The authors
fully recognise the crude nature of this scoring system. Nevertheless, the desk study
proved to be invaluable, providing much useful background information and
highlighting areas of concern that gave focus to the site visits and interviews with
ecomuseum staff. We have attempted here to provide a brief history of each of the
ecomuseums and an analysis of each of them based on the answers provided to open-
ended questions about the site, as well as addressing specific issues that had arisen in
the desk study. IRES has maintained contact with each of the sites since the interviews
were undertaken to monitor changes and developments. This additional information
is discussed in the summary and analysis section that follows the interview descriptions
below.
The Ecomuseums
Ecomuseo della Canapa, Carmagnola12
At the height of the industry in the late 19th century there were 87 rope factories in St.
Bernardo, a parish of Carmagnola, which lies south of Turin. Rope making declined in
the 1930s and the last rope works in St. Bernardo closed in 1955; by 1975 only one
covered shed (rope-walk) had escaped demolition. The St. Bernardo Historical
Association initiated attempts to save this site and several local people donated
collections of related material culture, photographs or memorabilia to the project.
Demonstrations of rope making raised the project’s profile, but when national
television produced a programme on the association’s work, municipal support was
ensured, which enabled the purchase of the site and its restoration in 1997. A strong
volunteer force manages the site and gives demonstrations (see Figure 1).
Attendance figures are low, with some 800 visitors from April to August, mainly
Figure 1 Rope-making demonstration, Ecomuseo della Canapa, Carmagnola.
schoolchildren, middle-aged people and cultural associations. The association,

encouraged by the response from schools, is extending its educational remit and
building a small classroom on site. As the ecomuseum is part of the Carmagnola
museums network, the municipality sets entrance fees, and provides some financial
and promotional support. The municipality has recognised the importance of the
ecomuseum, and what it represents in terms of capturing local identity, and has
harnessed its potential to aid cultural tourism in Carmagnola, the local museums being
an element in a strategy that promotes distinctiveness, local products, agricultural
tourism and slow food.
The site was identified as an ecomuseum from the start of the project at the sugges-
tion of the provincial government, and was never seen as a ‘traditional’ museum in any
sense. The site is historically important, but undoubtedly the process of working
Figure 1 Rope-making demonstration, Ecomuseo della Canapa, Carmagnola.

together to conserve and interpret it was more significant, bringing people together
with a common purpose. The volunteers who take an active role at the site use local
dialect when communicating, keeping an important intangible heritage alive. The site
has become a meeting place and a focus for collective community pride in place, a
means of celebrating the past, and demonstrating pride in the history of the industry.
The original aim of the project—to keep memories of the industry alive and valued—
seems therefore to have been achieved.
Ecomuseo della Valle Elvo e Serra13

This ecomuseum evolved from a project relating to local people’s conceptions of ‘sense
of place’, and those features of the local cultural landscape that most interested them.
The project commenced in 1997 and had the advantage of being able to call upon
several existing local associations that had interests in the valley’s heritage, and
ultimately identified several potential heritage conservation and interpretation
projects, including gold-mining sites, buildings connected to the former iron industry,
and chapels. As a result, an Association for the Ecomuseum of the Elvo and Serra Valley
was inaugurated in 1998; there are now some 150 members of the Ecomuseum
Association, with each heritage site having its own group of volunteers. With so many
different projects and different actors, achieving a sensible balance of projects has
become an issue. According to Pidello,14 the original aims and objectives for the
valley’s ecomuseum were very varied and indeed were never really prescribed.
Despite these problems a number of different sites have been established, each with
its own ‘associazione’. The focus of ecomuseum activity is the Trappa di Sordevolo, orig-
inally built in the 18th century by the Ambrosetti family, which between 1796 and 1802
became a Trappist monastery (see Figure 2). It has become a focal point for local people,
a place for meetings, and has been identified as the most important cultural element in
the valley. The ecomuseum is now part of the provincial (Biellese) Ecomuseum network,
and obtains funding from the Piemonte regional government. However, the links with
Figure 2 Trappa di Sordevolo, Ecomuseo della Valle Elvo e Serra.

municipal and regional agencies pose some problems, imposing limits on freedom of
action. Being part of the municipal network means that setting overall and long-term
strategies for the individual ‘antennae’—i.e. branches or satellites—of the ecomuseum,
as well as the ecomuseum as a whole, is difficult. A major problem seems to be how to
develop a more holistic and integrated vision for the ecomuseum, rather than its being
managed as a collective of individual sites.
A ‘Community Mapping’ project to revive and capture collective memory began in
Figure 2 Trappa di Sordevolo, Ecomuseo della Valle Elvo e Serra.
2002 and has involved about 400 local people. Rather than create a traditional map, the
project has used oral and video recording as the methodology to capture the heritage
and life of the community. Interviews with local craftspeople and peasant farmers were
eventually shown to schools in the valley, with the featured craftsmen making personal
appearances and answering questions. The schools went on to develop their own inves-
tigations, leading to their own illustrated ‘maps’ of the region and drama projects,
aided by workshops run by actors and musicians. Pidello15 feels that the project ‘had
helped people develop a sense of what might be possible in the future by building on
the past’. Although the collection phase of this project is now (March 2006) complete,
the material collected is still used to stage events using different media—especially
drama—to communicate with local inhabitants, often attracting large audiences to
very remote locations.16

The ecomuseum has become a centre for sustained research on the area and its
people, being responsible for producing academic works on local vernacular
architecture17 and on emigration from the valley.18 There have also been social and
tourism benefits with some circumstantial evidence of an increase in tourist numbers,
although Pidello19 emphasises that tourism could never be an adequate replacement
for the textile industry which had been the backbone of the region’s economy.
Ecomuseo dell’Ardesia20
This ecomuseum evolved as a result of cooperation between local politicians and
cultural organisations, the original mission being to use the ecomuseum as a means of
changing the perceptions of the valley from an industrial location to a cultural and
tourist area. Although local community and interest associations were involved, their
contribution was somewhat peripheral, the ecomuseum being introduced during visits
by heritage professionals to schools and associations, and by events held in the slate
mine. Panesi21 feels that the process of creating the ecomuseum was very important,
but to what extent local communities had been engaged in the process remains unclear.
The project began in 1995/1996 with the initial focus on a former slate workshop
and factory in Chiapparino, which now acts as a headquarters and reception build-
ing for the ecomuseum, where there is a small museum exhibit that provides back-
ground information on slate quarrying (see Figure 3). The ambition of one of the
key volunteers was to develop an ecomuseum rather than a visitor centre, and the
idea for a more holistic ‘slate experience’ emerged. The ecomuseum now consists of
an underground mine visit, a slate artists studio, the ecomuseum headquarters
(which also acts as a job centre and tourist office, and a display promoting the
Figure 3 Slate-mining exhibition, Ecomuseo dell’Ardesia, Chiapparino.
contemporary use of slate), and a more formal Slate Museum in the Town Hall of
Cicagna. Other than this museum, the key elements in the ecomuseum are all
conserved and interpreted in situ.
The local association has the responsibility of running the ecomuseum but also has
Figure 3 Slate-mining exhibition, Ecomuseo dell’Ardesia, Chiapparino.
many other responsibilities, including running a tourist information office and a ‘job
centre’ for local people, and inevitably this leads to tensions and conflicts of interest.
Although the ecomuseum does have a few volunteers, Panesi22 notes that there had
been no real effort to increase volunteer numbers or make closer connections to local
communities. She is uncertain to what extent people share a sense of place, but suggests
that even though the local population is changing because of immigration, slate is still
shaping people’s perceptions of place, whether locals or immigrants. The ecomuseum
continues to encourage the documentation of the valley and has aided publications
about its past history23 and has helped to strengthen the community to a certain
extent—it appears that it has helped to promote practical and tangible benefits such as
a growing tourist infrastructure.
Ecomuseo delle Miniere e della Valle Germanasca24

The former talc mine, which is the focus of the ecomuseum (see Figure 4), was opened
to the public in 1998, with the original mission being to conserve it and develop new
opportunities for employment. The site therefore has an economic dimension via tour-
ism, but also to conserving culture and history. Local people played an important role
by donating objects associated with mining and the life of the valley. The development
of the ‘mine museum’ proved to be a starting point for the ecomuseum, promoting a
vision to develop some 15 km of the Germanasca valley, linking sites, people and ideas,
and bringing local interest groups (associations) together. The concept of the ecomu-
seum was adopted from the start of the project and other (more traditional) museums
have become part of this network, including the Prali Museum, which is devoted to
describing Protestantism in the valley.
Figure 4 Inside the talc mine, Ecomuseo delle Miniere e della Valle Germanasca.
Genre25 feels that the original goals had been achieved, but that there had been
Figure 4 Inside the talc mine, Ecomuseo delle Miniere e della Valle Germanasca.
significant changes in focus since the mine opened, with the development of wider
networks with the help of the Mountain Community (an agency that aids rural
development), and a shift in geographical emphasis. Ecomuseum projects had
become much more diverse, with one of the main concerns being the conflict
between encouraging new developments and the ability to sustain them. Sustainabil-
ity was only achievable with the help of the Mountain Community, which acts as a
mediator, buffer and catalyst, as well as providing some financial, professional and
management support.
Genre26 is of the opinion that local people share a sense of place, one that is strength-
ened by distinctive intangible features such as the ‘Valdere Religion’—a form of
Protestantism—and the local patois (Occitain). The number of associations and inter-
est groups that are actively documenting their heritage demonstrates the strength of the
local communities; meetings with these associations, and the annual meeting which
brings everyone together, are seen to be very important to the success of the project.
The process of creating the ecomuseum by encouraging participation and local action
had been particularly important; local people are now closely involved in its day-to-day
management.
Ecomuseo dell’Argilla27
This ecomuseum is sited in a brickworks outside the small town of Cambiano, east of
the city of Turin (see Figure 5). The area is rich in deposits of clay, and brickworks have
been and remain a feature of the local landscape; the Clay Ecomuseum utilises the site
Figure 5 The abandoned brickworks, Ecomuseo dell’Argilla, Cambiano, has been

converted into an educational centre (MUNLAB) and an exhibition area.
of the current active brickworks and its environment, but makes particular use of the
shell of the oldest, now disused, brick kiln for most of its activities.
Before the ecomuseum was created, a small group of ex-workers, friends from their
Figure 5 The abandoned brickworks, Ecomuseo dell’Argilla, Cambiano, has been converted into an educational centre (MUNLAB) and an exhibition area.
days of working in the factory, formed an association to promote the old factory as a
venue for art, especially sculpture and pottery, with a first exhibition being held in
1987. This original group of ex-workers is still very active as an independent associa-
tion, and has provided continuing support—financial and practical—to the emerging
ecomuseum. The ecomuseum (see Figure 5) was created in 2000 with the aim of open-
ing the brickworks to the public and revitalising the connections with the local
community. From the beginning of the project the need to work with local people was
paramount—‘The project was very people focused, and territory very important,
therefore the ecomuseum idea was chosen. We wanted a dynamic entity, not a static
museum. Authentic governance and democracy were very important.’28
The ability of the management team to acquire funding and regional recognition for
the site is significant. Carena and Isoardi29 identify the change in their management
style from an intuitive approach to one that imposed strategic thinking and profession-
alism as a major breakthrough in the process of creating the ecomuseum. Carena also
points to one major issue which is common to developing a community-based heritage
initiative—‘there is an issue about providing leadership whilst also attempting to be
inclusive’. In other words, there needs to be a vision, and an individual or nuclear team
prepared to adopt professional ways of managing projects and providing leadership to
deliver that vision, while at the same time encouraging widespread local involvement.
Carena30 feels that the site has achieved its primary objective of ‘becoming alive’. It
is now used as a place for local discourse, prompted in part by the success of a drama/
video project with local schools and former workers. The evening screenings of the
project, which dramatised the history of the site and its workers, were an unexpected
success, giving a sense of ownership to the local community. In all ecomuseums the
significance of process (rather than product) is regarded as important; the drama event
demonstrated this very clearly.
The Sites and the Fulfilment of Ecomuseum Criteria

The questions raised about the Hemp Ecomuseum during the desk study included the
nature of the relationship with the local authority, and in particular whether this
adversely affected or disempowered the ecomuseum volunteers. However, the inter-
view suggested that this was not the case, and that independence had been guaranteed
within a broad supportive framework. There appeared to be a major benefit from the
relationship, namely ensuring the sustainability of the project; with some additional
capital funding the ecomuseum was extending its range of activities. The size of the site
prevents the ecomuseum from achieving some of the characteristics that might be
expected—it is not a fragmented site, nor does it provide a holistic experience. The
potential of the site to aid regeneration of the town is insignificant unless resources are
found to extend the site and its remit—and this could destroy its inherent charm. At
present the ecomuseum identifies with the local town and its past industry, it reflects a
significant feature of place and strongly empowers a group of local people. The inter-
view gave a clear impression that the processes of developing and maintaining the site,
manufacturing skills and local dialects were extremely important. Visitor figures were
not. Overall, despite the issues of sustainability, the Hemp Ecomuseum appears to fully
justify its title.
The Elvo and Serra Valley Ecomuseum, as suggested by the desk study, is a complex
organisation, with the individual sites nesting into the ‘parent’ ecomuseum and then
the overarching grouping of Biella ecomuseums. However, the interview suggested that
this system of connections ensured professional support, financial aid and sustainabil-
ity. The key features of this ecomuseum were the successful renovation and conserva-
tion of a wide variety of heritage resources, the academic outputs and the emphasis
placed on the documentation of craft skills and intangible heritage. A large number of
local people were involved at the various sites, and the links into local schools and
communities impressive. There was little interest in actively promoting tourism. This
ecomuseum scored highly in the desk study and the interview strongly supported its
status as a true ecomuseum.
The visit to the Ecomuseo dell’Ardesia compounded the concerns raised during the
desk study. It does exhibit ecomuseum characteristics in that it reflects the nature of the
territory, has a fragmented site interpretation policy that delivers a holistic vision, and
works through developing partnerships. The site is very professional, and it interprets
the mining activity which is so characteristic of the locality, but there appears to be no
strategy or vision for the future, and sustainability is an issue. There are conflicting
demands on the time of ecomuseum personnel because of their tourism and ‘job
centre’ responsibilities. Benefits will accrue from the advice and networking received
through its membership of the European Ecomuseums Network funded by Leader 2,
and there is no doubt that the site does have huge potential—especially because of the
rich intangible and tangible heritage of the region. The most significant factor to
emerge from the interview was that at present community involvement seems
minimal, with very few active local volunteers. Similarly, the relationships and engage-
ment with local cultural associations is distanced from the ecomuseum, which simply
acts as a meeting place. These issues appear to compromise its status as a true
ecomuseum.
The Ecomuseo delle Miniere e della Valle Germanasca is a very professionally run
ecomuseum, with strong political and financial support at the local and regional level.
Political change is therefore an issue in that survival here is ultimately dependent on
governmental funding. Despite the progress that has been made, the ecomuseum team
feel that they are not yet as professional as they would like to be as facilitators and in
customer care. They also cite capacity problems and issues regarding forward planning
and strategic thinking. This question of ‘professionalism’ is an interesting one when
considering ecomuseums; at what stage does professionalism begin to result in the
exclusion of the ‘amateur’ and the local enthusiast? Although this ecomuseum does
have paid staff, and uses accepted professional practices, the evidence suggests that it is
still an inclusive organisation that relies significantly on volunteers and the members
of local associations. The other danger is that the mine site is a very significant visitor
attraction and that consequently other ecomuseum agendas and sites could be forgot-
ten. At the present time this site meets all the key criteria and can justify its ecomuseum
status.
The Ecomuseo dell’Argilla is at an early stage of development, but it is very apparent
that management team members have tried to develop the site using ecomuseum prin-
ciples. Much of the discussion on site centred on the drama/video project which did so
much to make a bridge to the local community; the team evidently learned a great deal
from this event, as well as making additional local contacts. Their recognition of a need
for leadership in community-based projects is pragmatic, and one which did not
emerge in discussions at the other sites visited—although at all of them there was
evidence of professional involvement and an appropriate forum for discussion and
decision making. At present it is too early to judge whether this site will develop true
ecomuseum characteristics; although it scored highly (83%) in the desk study it will
only be regarded as a truly democratic organisation when the Ecomuseum Association
is formed.
Overall the site visits and interviews did much to support the broad views gathered
during the desk study. It is apparent that all five ecomuseums function in very different
ways, having to respond to varied geographical, social, financial and organisational
situations. It might be suggested that this enormous variation in ecomuseum prac-
tices—as demonstrated in a small sample from a relatively restricted geographical
area—is one of the reasons why so little emphasis has been placed on their evaluation.
This research suggests that all the sites can justify the use of the ecomuseum appellation
in that they are attempting to conserve fragments of local heritage that are related to
local identity. However, if we consider arguably the most significant feature of
ecomuseum philosophy—community participation and local democracy—there is
significant variation. Three of the sites, using different solutions, amply demonstrate
this ecomuseum feature. The Hemp Ecomuseum has its strong local association; the
Elvo and Serra Valley Ecomuseum, despite its complex structure, has multiple
solutions to local community involvement and sees this as its main purpose; the
Germanasca Ecomuseum similarly links into a number of local associations, with some
10% of the local community actively engaged in some way with the natural and cultural
heritage of the valley. The emerging Ecomuseo dell’Argilla is currently working largely
through its connections with the brickworks association, and is doing everything it can
to develop an inclusive community-based approach. However, the Ecomuseo
dell’Ardesia appears at present to be a little distant from its local community, but could
have a very significant role as a mediator in an area where there is significant immigra-
tion from other countries and ethnic backgrounds.
Conclusions
It is difficult to make definitive judgements about whether all these sites justify the use
of the term ‘ecomuseum’ by using the ‘snapshot’ techniques described here. All we have
been able to do is provide evidence that is indicative of whether the organisations are
meeting the most significant criteria; all the sites meet some of these, but questions
need to be asked—or followed up—in relation to local democracy at two of them.
There is little doubt that the methodology adopted here can be modified and
improved in many ways, most readily by extending the number of sites and their
geographical range, thereby allowing for a larger data set. It might also be argued that
in-depth, immersion case studies carried out over a longer period could provide more
definitive or meaningful results. A further modification which the authors are
considering is a non-interventionist approach, allowing the ecomuseum activists at
each site to use the checklist of question themselves for focus group activities, with the
researcher merely taking the role of observer. When attempting any analysis of the
responses an important refinement would be to develop a model that applies a
weighting to the key ecomuseum indicators, which we recognise is a weakness at
present. As ecomuseums are supposed to benefit local communities, it will also be
important to extend the methodology to include the opinions of those people not
directly involved with ecomuseum operations, which time constraints prevented in this
study. Despite the inadequacies in how they were applied, the questions developed
during this work remain as a valid checklist against which ecomuseums or other
community-led heritage projects can be evaluated.
Notes
[1] Hamrin and Hulander, ‘Introduction to Ekomuseum Bergslagen’.
1
[2] Davis, Ecomuseums, 229–36.

2
[3] Ibid.
3
[4] Boylan, ‘Ecomuseums and the New Museology’.

4
[5] Corsane and Holleman, ‘Ecomuseums’.

5
[6] Corsane et al., ‘Could a Democratic Process Model Based on Ecomuseology be Implemented
6
in Turkey?’
[7] Davis, Ecomuseums.
7
[8] Maurizio Maggi, pers. comm., January 2006.
8
[9] Maggi, Gli Ecomusei in Piemonte.

9
[10] Maggi, Ecomusei.

10
[11] Boylan, ‘Ecomuseums and the New Museology’.

11
[12] The descriptions and comments are based on an interview conducted at the ecomuseum with
12
Catterina Longo Vaschetti, leader of Il Gruppo Storico di S. Bernardino, and Loredana Bove, a
representative of the municipality.
[13] The description and comments are based on a discussion with a team of four ecomuseum
13
workers led by an architect and part-time employee of the ecomuseum, Giuseppe Pidello.
[14] Giuseppe Pidello, pers. comm., August 2004.
14
[15] Ibid.
15
[16] Maurizio Maggi, pers. comm., January 2006.

16
[17] Manfredi and Pidello, Architettura Rurale in Alta Valle Elvo.

17
[18] Debernardi, Storia di Emigrazione dalla Valle Elvo e Serra.

18
[19] Giuseppe Pidello, pers. comm., August 2004.

19
[20] The descriptions and observations are based on an interview with Antonella Panesi, employee
20
of the Ecomuseum Association, on 11 August 2004.

[21] Ibid.
21
[22] Ibid.
22
[23] Cuneo, Le Parole dell’Ardesia.

23
[24] The account is based on an interview with Luca Genre, employee of the Mountain
24
Community, based in Perosa Argentina in the Valle Chisone.

[25] Ibid.
25
[26] Ibid.
26
[27] This account is based on an interview with the two permanent members of the ecomuseum
27
team, Elena Carena and Grazia Isoardi, August 2004.

[28] Ibid.
28
[29] Ibid.
29
[30] Elena Carena, pers. comm., August 2004.

30
References
Boylan, P. ‘Ecomuseums and the New Museology’. Museums Journal 92, no. 4 (1992): 29–30.
Corsane, G., P. Davis and S. Elliott. ‘Could a Democratic Process Model Based on Ecomuseology be
Implemented in Turkey?’ In Museums and Citizenship, edited by M. Maggi. Turin: Istituto di
Richerche Economico Sociali del Piemonte, 2004: 38–42.
Corsane, G. and W. Holleman. ‘Ecomuseums: A Brief Evaluation’. In Museums and the Environment,
edited by R. de Jong. Pretoria: South African Museums Association, 1993: 111–25.
Cuneo, M. Le Parole dell’Ardesia: Storia e Descrizione dell’Industria Ardesiaca in Val Fontanabuona.
Genoa: De Ferrari, 2001.
Davis, P. Ecomuseums: A Sense of Place. London and New York: Leicester University Press/
Continuum, 1999.
Debernardi. M., ed. Storia di Emigrazione dalla Valle Elvo e Serra. 2 vols. Turin: Provincia di Biella
and Regione Piemonte; Tipografia Gianotti, 2004.
Hamrin, O. and M. Hulander. The Ekomuseum Bergslagen. Falun: Ekomuseum Bergslagen, 1995.
Maggi, M. Ecomusei: Guida Europea. Turin, London and Venice: Umberto Allemandi, 2002.
———. Gli Ecomusei in Piemonte: Situazione e Prospettive. Turin: Istituto Richerche Economico
Sociali del Piemonte/Grafica Esse-Orbassano, 2004.
Manfredi, E. and G. Pidello. Architettura Rurale in Alta Valle Elvo. Biella: CAUA, Provincia di Biella,
2000.

IJHS - Ecomuseum Evaluation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IJHS - Ecomuseum Evaluation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by:

On: 13 June 2010

International Journal of Heritage Studies

Ecomuseum Evaluation: Experiences in Piemonte and Liguria, Italy

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Ecomuseum Evaluation: Experiences in

interpret aspects of tangible and intangible heritage of a defined geographical territory.

Keywords: Ecomuseum; Evaluation; Heritage; Community; Italy; Piemonte

An Introduction to Ecomuseum Characteristics

ISSN 1352–7258 (print)/ISSN 1470–3610 (online) © 2007 Taylor & Francis

Methodological Approaches to Ecomuseum Evaluation

mainly rural area. Piemonte is a region of particular interest to ecomuseology because

Was the site decentralised?

Results of the Desk Study

Does the local community manage the ecomuseum?

desk study proved to be an essential component because it highlighted areas of uncer-

Table 3 Questions identifying ‘non-ecomuseum’ features

Ecomuseum Score/36 Comments

Ecomuseo della Canapa 30 Although initiated by local people, the

Ecomuseo dell’Ardesia 24 The desk study was much more problematical,

schoolchildren, middle-aged people and cultural associations. The association,

Figure 1 Rope-making demonstration, Ecomuseo della Canapa, Carmagnola.

Ecomuseo della Valle Elvo e Serra13

Figure 2 Trappa di Sordevolo, Ecomuseo della Valle Elvo e Serra.

very remote locations.16

Figure 3 Slate-mining exhibition, Ecomuseo dell’Ardesia, Chiapparino.

Ecomuseo delle Miniere e della Valle Germanasca24

Figure 5 The abandoned brickworks, Ecomuseo dell’Argilla, Cambiano, has been

The Sites and the Fulfilment of Ecomuseum Criteria

[2] Davis, Ecomuseums, 229–36.

[4] Boylan, ‘Ecomuseums and the New Museology’.

[5] Corsane and Holleman, ‘Ecomuseums’.

[9] Maggi, Gli Ecomusei in Piemonte.

[10] Maggi, Ecomusei.

[11] Boylan, ‘Ecomuseums and the New Museology’.

[16] Maurizio Maggi, pers. comm., January 2006.

[17] Manfredi and Pidello, Architettura Rurale in Alta Valle Elvo.

[18] Debernardi, Storia di Emigrazione dalla Valle Elvo e Serra.

[19] Giuseppe Pidello, pers. comm., August 2004.

of the Ecomuseum Association, on 11 August 2004.

[23] Cuneo, Le Parole dell’Ardesia.

Community, based in Perosa Argentina in the Valle Chisone.

team, Elena Carena and Grazia Isoardi, August 2004.

[30] Elena Carena, pers. comm., August 2004.

You might also like