Theoretical Models and Characteristics: 4. Ecomuseums: Definitions

4.
Ecomuseums: definitions,
theoretical models and
characteristics
The summer 1998 edition of The European Museum Forum Magazine gave a brief
account of the ecomuseum conference held at Argenta, Italy, and noted that ‘The
argument as to what is and what is not an ecomuseum goes on and on and shows
little sign of exhausting itself’. Dictionary definitions fail to help us – for example, the
word écomusée is wrongly defined in the New Larousse French Dictionary (Carney,
1993) as a ‘natural conservation area’. One major problem is that the word does not
translate well into English. Kenneth Hudson (1996) suggested that the reason for
this was that ‘One very real problem, especially in Britain and the English-speaking
world, is that “eco” suggests “echo”, reflected or reverberated sound, not an abbre-
viation of “ecological” so that an “ecomuseum” becomes an “echo of a museum,
an unreal museum, a shadow of a museum”, a concept which is not likely to attract
supporters’. In my experience this is not the case, but rather that the prefix ‘eco’ does
indeed suggest a link to ecology and nature. Lawes et al. (1992) felt that ecomuseum
philosophy has proved largely unsuccessful owing to its associated terminology, and
what they perceive as the barriers created by the ‘empirical and pragmatic cast of
mind’ of English-speaking peoples. The well-known and regrettable lack of language
skills among the British, coupled with their insular nature, must also have influenced
the reception and understanding of the term.
For a time there was some scepticism about the word ‘ecomuseum’, even among
its proponents. Boylan (1990) noted that ‘De Varine himself pointed out that
nowadays any organisation in France “displaying a few late 19th-century postcards
describes itself as an ecomuseum”’. Hugues de Varine (1996) stated that ‘I invented
the word by chance in 1971. I thought it was just a sort of chance finding. But I
Copyright © 2011. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. All rights reserved.
must say I regret [it] because too many people have used that word for too many
things.’ My personal correspondence with Varine in 1998 reaffirmed this view,
when he stated:
In France, the term écomusée covers all kinds of things, from a one-room exhibition
of postcards in a small village, to an open-air museum in a Nature Park, and to the big
community museum in Le Creusot. We should not use this word anymore . . . some words
can create misunderstandings.
However, Varine’s invented word has not gone away; if anything it has grown in
reputation and usage, supported by interest from academics and professionals who
admire its philosophical underpinning.
The originator of the word was not the only person to be puzzled by the term.
A questionnaire survey I circulated to curators of ecomuseums in 1998 revealed
Davis, Peter. Ecomuseums : A Sense of Place, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/tui-ebooks/detail.action?docID=686924.
Created from tui-ebooks on 2022-03-22 17:40:47.
Ecomuseums: definitions, theoretical models and characteristics 79
the diversity of views regarding the purpose of their organizations. Not all of them
supported the use of the term, and many thought it was largely meaningless to
their visitors. It will become evident from the descriptions in Part II that there
are some organizations that use the term ecomuseum with no justification. There
are a number of ecomuseums that are in reality professionally run site museums,
industrial museums or open-air museums that could abandon the title. This would
be to their benefit if they were to adopt a title that is more transparent (i.e. one
that clearly states the purpose of the museum). The many small local museums or
those that work extensively within their local communities to conserve and promote
cultural identity might be better served by the term ‘community museum’. This
would demonstrate more accurately what their role is, both to local people and to
visitors. Such a change has already occurred in many Central American countries,
including Mexico. Many ecomuseums seem to have evolved into more traditional
museums and could also abandon the title – as Haute-Beauce (Canada) has done.
For all these museums, the term ‘ecomuseum’ is now inappropriate. However, in
Chapter 10 I argue that the term is still useful in helping to define a community-
based approach to the conservation of heritage assets.
Despite being part of the museum scene for some 40 years, the ecomuseum
remains misunderstood primarily because of the confusion with the many small
volunteer-led museums that also demonstrate ecomuseum characteristics. It is
understandable therefore that attempts to define the ecomuseum have been
regularly revised from its inception into the twenty-first century. Recently, more
ecomuseums have been created with strong ‘local development’ agendas, either to
aid ethnic minority communities or to bring support to the economies of disadvan-
taged rural areas; this is reflected in the changing definitions and characteristics that
have emerged.
Defining the ecomuseum

Georges Henri Rivière reworked and refined his definition of the ecomuseum as his
experimental work continued. The three major variations of the definition (giving
dates and places of minor changes for each) are given in Rivière (1992), providing a
fascinating view of the evolution of a concept that was moulded by his experiences.
The early definitions (1973) have a bias towards ecology and the environment, and
those of 1978, while stressing the experimental nature of the ecomuseum and its
evolution within the regional natural parks, make the case for the role of the local
community. The final version of 22 January 1980, and published in Museum in
1985, is the one usually cited:
An instrument conceived, fashioned, and operated jointly by a public authority, and its
local population. The public authority’s involvement is through the experts, facilities
and resources it provides; the local population’s involvement depends on its aspirations,
knowledge and individual approach. It is a mirror in which the local population views itself
to discover its own image, in which it seeks an explanation of the territory to which it is
attached and of the populations which have preceded it, seen either as circumscribed in
time or in terms of the continuity of generations. It is a mirror that the local population
holds up to its visitors so that it may be better understood and so that its industry, customs
and identity may command respect. It is an expression of man and nature. It situates man
in his natural environment. It portrays nature in its wilderness, but also as adapted by
80 Ecomuseums: definitions, theoretical models and characteristics
traditional and industrial society in their own image. It is an expression of time, when the
explanations it offers reach back before the appearance of man, ascend the course of the
prehistoric and historical times in which he lived and arrive finally at man’s present. It also
offers a vista of the future, while having no pretensions to decision-making, its function
being rather to inform and critically analyse. It is an interpretation of space – of special
places in which to stop and stroll. It is a laboratory, insofar as it contributes to the study
of the past and present of the population concerned and of its total environment and
promotes the training of specialists in these fields, in co-operation with outside research
bodies. It is a conservation centre, insofar as it helps to preserve and develop the natural
and cultural heritage of the population. It is a school, insofar as it involves the population
in its work of study and protection and encourages it to have a clearer grasp of its own
future. This laboratory, conservation centre and school are based on common principles.
The culture is the name of which they exist is to be understood in its broadest sense, and
they are concerned to foster awareness of its dignity and artistic manifestations, from
whatever stratum of the population they derive. Its diversity is limitless, so greatly do its
elements vary from one specimen to another. This triad is not self-enclosed; it gives and
it receives. (Rivière, 1985)
This is a beautiful piece of prose, but does it help us to understand what an
ecomuseum really is? Many of the features of the ecomuseum that are referred
to are found in all local museums that attempt to interpret local history, local
culture and the surrounding natural environment. It does however include many
of the key concepts – local identity, territory, landscape, a sense of history and
continuity – that are important in creating a sense of belonging. Perhaps the most
important features of Rivière’s definition are the repetition of the word ‘population’
(i.e. the emphasis on community) and the idea that the ecomuseum has ‘limitless
diversity’; it can be anything local people and museum professionals want it to be.
This diversity of ways in which original ecomuseum concepts have been selected,
changed and utilized to create a rich variety of heritage sites is described in Part II
of this volume.
One of the most interesting features of Rivière’s definition is the comment that
‘it is an interpretation of space – of special places in which to stop and stroll’. This
suggests that the ecomuseum is not limited to a building or even a museum site, but
that the museum is everything within the region it refers to as its ‘territoire’. Within
that geographical area are key sites that have special meaning and are integrated
into the museum which might be referred to as ‘cultural touchstones’ (Davis, 2005).
These might be natural features (rock formations, a rare or interesting species of
plant), a historical or archaeological site, or examples of vernacular architecture (a

barn, farmhouse or water-mill). Corsane and Holleman (1993) suggest that the
ecomuseum incorporates:
a much larger territory in a fairly open-ended manner. Here the territory is not simply
defined in geographical or administrative terms, but rather as any whole unit where the
inhabitants share a common way of life, culture, occupation or traditional custom. Run
from a central headquarters the ecomuseum has a series of ‘antennae’ within the territory
of the museum. These antennae form a network through which the activities of infor-
mation-gathering, research, display and education can be performed.
For the museum visitor the heritage sites are frequently linked by way-marked
footpaths, or by suggested scenic drives if the sites lie further afield. The idea of the
ecomuseum being a network of sites has resulted in the use of the term ‘fragmented
museum’. The Creusot-Montceau Ecomuseum was one of the first museums to

adopt this interpretation strategy and it is this aspect of the ideology, the so-called
‘musealisation’ of connected heritage sites, that has been utilized by many of the
more recently founded ecomuseums.
Rivière’s definition says little about the traditional museum activity of collecting,
other than that ‘it helps to preserve and develop the natural and cultural heritage
of the population’. Heritage is not defined either, but we must assume that it is
more than just material culture, encompassing memories, folklore, music and
song. In its most extreme form the ecomuseum includes everything within its
territory. Intangible local skills, behaviour patterns, social structure and traditions
are as much a part of the ecomuseum as the tangible evidence of landscapes,
underlying geology, wildlife, buildings and objects, people and their domestic
animals. As Van Mensch (1993) shrewdly observes, ‘it has become increasingly
difficult to discern where the museum stops and the real world starts’. For this
reason Varine (1973) suggested that the ecomuseum cannot have a conventional
collecting policy, because objects must preferably be left on site where they can be
interpreted in context. Alternatively, if objects are taken into a museum building,
following research, documentation and a period of exhibition they should be
returned to their owners or sites (Querrien, 1985). The adoption of such an
approach demands the double-input system sought by Varine and Rivière,
a combined effort between professionals, museum volunteers and the local
community to establish the significance of, and interpret, the various components
of the ecomuseum.
There have been many other attempts to state succinctly what an ecomuseum
is and how it might be distinguished from the traditional museum. They all have
the benefit of being shorter than the ‘evolutive definition’. The Natural History
Committee of ICOM was evidently concerned by the adoption of the term,
remarking (Anon., 1978) on the way in which it could seemingly be applied in a
variety of circumstances and had deviated from its original ‘ecological’ context. As
a consequence the committee suggested the following definition:
The ecomuseum is an institution which manages, studies and exploits – by scientific,
educational and generally speaking, cultural means – the entire heritage of a given
community, including the whole natural environment and cultural milieu. Thus the
ecomuseum is a vehicle for public participation in community planning and devel-
opment. To this end, the ecomuseum uses all means and methods at its disposal in order
to allow the public to comprehend, criticise and master – in a liberal and responsible
manner – the problems which it faces. Essentially the ecomuseum uses the language of
the artifact, the reality of everyday life and concrete situations in order to achieve desired
changes.
Although not brief, this is an excellent definition which still holds true and gives
due acknowledgement to the input from local people. Pierre Mayrand (1982,
quoted in Rivard, 1988) takes the idea of public engagement further by suggesting
that ‘The ecomuseum . . . is a collective, a workshop extending over a territory that
a population has taken as its own . . . [it] is not an end to itself, it is defined as an
objective to be met’. In contrast Sheila Stephenson (1982, quoted in Rivard, 1988)
considers that ‘The ecomuseum is concerned with collections management – the
collection being everything in the designated area . . . flora, fauna, topography,
weather, buildings, land use practices, songs, attitudes, tools etc.’. Although he does
not suggest that he is providing a definition, Desvallées (1987), in his exploration
of the meaning of the term, suggests that if we accept Rivière’s definition, then
the ecomuseum must be a museum of identity (the notions of time, space and
the mirror) and a museum of territory. The prefix ‘eco’ signifies the importance
of both the natural and social environment within which the ecomuseum is based.
Interestingly, Stephenson and Desvallées focus on the conservation of heritage
assets yet omit reference to community development and sustainability which
feature strongly in more recent definitions.
René Rivard (1988) provided a workable definition by comparing the tradi-
tional museum (5 building 1 collections 1 experts 1 public) (Figure 4.1)
to the ecomuseum (5 territory 1 heritage 1 memory 1 population) (Figure
4.2). He also made a distinction between the traditional ‘museums of ecology’
(5 natural history museums), ecological museums (5 field centres, inter-
pretive sites, natural parks and nature reserves) and ecomuseums. He suggests
that ecomuseums interpret the interactions between humans and the natural
environment and claims they involve the community in creating and ‘improving’
the environment by helping to conserve traditional habitats and ecosystems.
However, in my experience, although ecomuseums interpret traditional agricul-
tural management techniques, often in exhibition spaces not dissimilar to a field
centre (for example, at Mont Lozère, France), they do little practical work that
encourages biodiversity, the management of natural sites being left to other
authorities.
MVSE VM
COLLECTIONS BUILDINGS
EXPERTS DEFINED
TECHNIQUES
Visit ors
(Local people and tourists)
Figure 4.1 The traditional museum (after Rivard, 1984).
B o u n d a r y o f Te
rr
ito
ry
Residents Landscapes
Heritage
Sites
Nature Collective
Memories Architecture
Visitors Identity
Cultural Traditions
Property Elders
y
rit
or
Boun d a er
ry o f T
Figure 4.2 Graphic representation of the ecomuseum (after Rivard, 1984).
Rivard also identifies four categories of ecomuseum:

• the discovery ecomuseum (the traditional, holistic model that explores interac-
tions between nature and culture, similar to those created in the French Regional
Parks)
• the development ecomuseum (an institution more concerned with the community,
cultural identity, economic regeneration and with stated political goals)
• specialist ecomuseums (those dealing with specific industries of a locality that
have benefited from specific natural resources such as minerals, forests or water)
and
• ‘combat’ ecomuseums (usually located in urban areas and dedicated to addressing
social issues within past and present communities).
These categories suggest that certain ecomuseums can play an active role in dealing
with societal needs. Yet Hugues de Varine, always controversial and provocative,
refuted the notion that the ecomuseum was a special gadget, a miracle product,
the nec plus ultra of the new museology. Realistically he suggested that the label
‘ecomuseum’ was nothing more than an opportunity to run with new ideas, to be
imaginative, to initiate new ways of working, even to be audacious (Varine, 1992). It
is interesting to note that in his retrospective assessment of the ecomuseum, Varine
(1988b) reduces the objectives of the ecomuseum to four key points, but uses some
of the key words from Rivière’s definition:
• as an object and data bank for the community

• to serve as an observatory of change (and to help the community react to
changes)
• to become a laboratory – a focal point for meetings, discussion and new initiatives
• to be a showcase – revealing the community and its region to visitors.
This is not a definition as such, but it did provide a useful indication, after some
20 years of experimentation, of what ecomuseum roles could be and what might
realistically be achieved.
The official definition of the ecomuseum (in France) is enshrined in French
statute known as the Ecomuseum Charter, which was granted on the instructions
of the Ministry of Culture and Communication on 4 March 1981 (Chatelain,
1993):
L’écomusée est une institution culturelle assurant, d’une manière permanante, sur
un territoire donné, avec la participation de la population, les fonctions de recherche,
conservation, présentation, mise en valeur d’un ensemble de biens naturels et culturels,
représentatifs d’un milieu et des modes de vie qui s’y succèdent.
The essential feature of this definition is the significance of community involvement.
At a time of great shifts in society, it might be argued that the reason why tradi-
tional museums have found adapting to change more difficult is that they are often
more distanced from the environment and communities within society. Acquiring
objects for museums results in material culture being alienated from its spatial and
temporal setting. Corsane et al. (2005) suggested that ecomuseums encourage a
closer relationship with their communities, a phenomenon referred to as ‘inreach’,
where members of the community are seen as active participants in museum
operations. This notion of how ecomuseum principles can encourage community
participation was further developed by Corsane (2006).
In their introduction to the establishment of ecomuseums in China, An and
Gjestrum (1999) make the distinction between the traditional museum and the
ecomuseum, stating:
While the traditional museum is based on moving the heritage into a museum building –
very often far away from the original owner of this heritage (and its environment) – the
ecomuseum is based on the idea that the heritage within a specific community should be
preserved in-situ. The heritage – landscape, buildings, moveable objects, traditions, the
content of the culture in this specific community – is given value by the ecomuseum, and
at the same time the ecomuseum will be an instrument for its safeguarding and future
preservation.
This observation demands that the ecomuseum be sensitive to local needs and
aspirations, but also, owing to its safeguarding role, there is a requirement for
sustainable solutions. In more recent times the dramatic rise in the number of
ecomuseums worldwide may be linked to visions for change and for growth,
nurturing communities and promoting economic development using cultural and
natural heritage. A further byword is sustainability, the recognition that long-term
solutions are required. As a result the most recent definitions of the ecomuseum
focus on development and sustainability. For example, the European Network
of Ecomuseums (‘The Long Network’) adopted the following definition at their
meeting at Trento, Italy in May 2004:
An ecomuseum is a dynamic way in which communities preserve, interpret, and manage

their heritage for sustainable development. An ecomuseum is based on a community
agreement. (Ecomuseum Observatory, online, 2010)
The Network goes on to define community as ‘a group with general involvement,
shared responsibilities and interchangeable roles; public officers, representa-
tives, volunteers and other local actors all play a vital role in an ecomuseum’.
Community involvement does not mean that local administrations, a unique
historical heritage of European democracy, are irrelevant. On the contrary, to be
effective the ecomuseum must involve all people, going beyond a narrow circle of
‘authorized personnel’. This is a useful point, since it is impossible for volunteer-led
ecomuseum projects to be sustainable without the financial support and specialist
expertise provided by other local or regional organizations. Although aware of this
need, Davis (2007: 119) further simplified the ‘Long Network’ definition, stating
that an ecomuseum is ‘a community-led heritage or museum project that supports
sustainable development’.
Ecomuseum models
The Canadian museologist Pierre Mayrand, when setting up the Ecomuseum
of Haute Beauce in Quebec, expressed the process in the form of a ‘creativity
triangle’, which shows the ecomuseum developing as a result of interpretive
activities within its geographical area (Figure 4.3). An interpretation centre lies at
the apex, which increases public awareness of the geographical area or territory,
through its activities, which would include the creation of antennae. As the territory
(and its natural and cultural heritage) becomes better known, there is a demand for
the creation of an ecomuseum and the involvement of the local community. Once
the ecomuseum is established, there is feedback from local people and professionals
to the interpretive process.
Interpretation
Aw
ac
are
db
Fee
ne
ss
Ecomuseum Creation Territory

Figure 4.3 The ecomuseum ‘creativity triangle’ (after Mayrand, 1994).
Adopting this process, in 1978 the Musée et centre régional d’interprétation

de la Haute Beauce was founded; it purchased collections and presented its first
thematic display ‘And God created Haute-Beauce’. In 1980 a users’ committee was
set up with representatives from thirteen villages, and the first ecomuseum outpost
was created at Saint-Hilaire de Dorset. Lay museology courses were instituted,
and taken by 260 people; this led directly to the formation of the ‘Haute-Beauce
créatrice’ and formal recognition of the ecomuseum in 1983 (Rivard, 1984).
Mayrand (1994, 1998) subsequently refined his ‘creativity triangle’ and placed
it within a theoretical ‘three-year cycle’; the implication is that within three years it
is possible to move from idea to foundation,, from apathy to empathy, and to move
through transitional stages of museology which he identifies as pre-museology,
museology, para-museology, post-museology and trans-museology (Figure 4.4).
Pre-museology exists before the theoretical framework has been established. The
museology stage witnesses the framework based on a museum and collection, the
latter encouraging research and communication. Para-museology transcends the
Trans-Museolog y
o gy
ol Pr
e
se
-M
u
M
us
Fu
io
st-
tu
at
Interpretation
eo
re
oc
Pa
Po
ov
ac
rtn gs
log
ers
Pr
tin
tio
hip e
n
Rev s Me
iew y
Museology
lems
prob
k
Aw
ac
Nego ing
tiation ntify
db
are
Ide
n
Ide
Fee
tio
eas
Refining id
ne
nti
Ac
Choice
ss
ty
tion Organization
Evalua
Division
Ecomuseum Creation Territory
Synergy Assertion/
Affirmation
Mobilization
Museology
Figure 4.4 Mayrand’s ‘creativity triangle’ within a three-year cycle of development.
museum and collection base, involving other institutions and the community, and
includes elements of new museology. These three museological stages are roughly
equivalent to the three sides of the triangle. Mayrand’s two further stages of museum
development are perhaps more controversial, with post-museology demanding the
emergence of the social role as the dominant force (the museum curator as social
worker), and trans-museology being a utopian stage where individuals within the
community no longer need the social services of museums.
Such theoretical ideas help us to understand the process of ecomuseum
formation, but do not define the ecomuseum. René Rivard’s definition of the
ecomuseum alluded to earlier is the one most easily understood, especially when
presented graphically (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2). Rivard (1984) draws a direct
contrast between the traditional museum and the ecomuseum. He also makes a
special plea to redefine the ‘expert’, one of the four elements of the traditional
museum, remarking that ‘too often scientific rigidity has disregarded practical
knowledge, and hence many things in museums have lost all meaning, all connec-
tions with reality’. He also lays great emphasis on the need to utilize the collective
memories of the local population in all the activities of the ecomuseum, because ‘it
enables the museum to follow the paths of the elders, bring to life deeply human
events and have access to hidden treasures in daily life’. While the conventional
museum has a collection as its main point of reference, the ecomuseum looks to its
community to identify their own heritage, to prioritize what should be conserved,
and act accordingly.
I suggested in Chapter 2 that the ‘three circles’ model might provide another
graphic representation for the ecomuseum. The degree of overlap between the
circles representing ecomuseum, environment and community can give us some
measure of the degree to which the ideology has been adopted and how far the
traditional museum has changed (Figures 4.5 and 4.6). However, perhaps a
better model for the true ecomuseum is one which shows it embedded within the
community, which is in turn placed within the environment; the outer circum-
ference then marks the geographical boundary of the territory (Figure 4.7).
Despite all the misgivings about the term, throughout the world the ecomuseum
is a tangible phenomenon. Although I will return to this issue of terminology in
Chapter 10, it cannot be denied that the processes of negotiation and involvement
with local communities in managing their own heritage have had a dramatic
impact. After more than forty years of development the ecomuseum is firmly estab-
lished in a variety of guises including industrial sites, collections of farm buildings,

ethnic minority villages, geographically dispersed networks of interpretive facilities
or even suburbs of major cities. This feature – the diversity of ecomuseums – is an
indicator of how its philosophical approaches can be moulded to suit local cultural,
natural, physical and political environments. However, it originated as a very
special way of working, an enabling mechanism that would result in the conser-
vation of cultural and natural heritage, the maintenance of local cultural identity,
the democratization of the museum and the empowerment of local people.
Identifying the ecomuseum as an enabling mechanism – a process that ties
together the varied heritage elements that contribute to the special nature of
places – was proposed in the first edition of this book as an additional ecomuseum
model. Prompted by Flaubert’s observation that ‘Les perles ne font pas le collier,
c’est le fil’ (It is not the pearls that make a necklace, it is the thread), a necklace
vironment
En
M
ity u
un
se
Comm
um
Figure 4.5 The traditional museum is often perceived as being distant from its
community and environment.
vironment
En
M
ity
us
un
eu
Comm
Figure 4.6 The degree to which an ecomuseum demonstrates true ecomuseum

characteristics may be gauged by the amount of overlap in a model such as this.
ironment
Env
mmunity
Co
u s eu
M
m
Figure 4.7 The ecomuseum must be located within its community and the local
environment.
provides a useful metaphor for the ecomuseum. If the ecomuseum is thought of

as a thread, it may then be perceived as the mechanism that holds together the
varied elements (the pearls, or special sites, the ‘cultural touchstones’) that make
individual places distinctive. Thus the thread of Ekomuseum Bergslagen, Sweden
(p. 141) links together the sixty-one cultural sites in its territory. Alternatively, we
can think of the ecomuseum as a thread holding together the various elements in
Rivard’s (1984) model. Here the pearls are, for example, the elements of landscape,
nature, community, memories, sites, stories, songs and traditions. This ‘necklace’
model of the ecomuseum (Figure 4.8) helps us to understand that by combining
the attributes of territory the ecomuseum brings together those elements that
make places special. One essential feature of any necklace is the clasp; without it
such jewellery is useless. In this model for the ecomuseum the clasp represents the
individuals involved in delivering these heritage projects, especially activists from
the local community and their professional and financial supporters.
None of these models is entirely satisfactory, but they do go some way towards
helping us understand what an ecomuseum is. What should be stressed is that the
key factor which makes an ecomuseum different from the traditional museum is
community involvement. In the ecomuseum the local population must have primary
Figure 4.8 The necklace model for the ecomuseum; here the ecomuseum is seen as a
mechanism that holds together important cultural and natural elements within a defined
territory. Equally the ecomuseum can string together a number of important sites. The
clasp represents the ecomuseum’s ‘activists’ who are responsible for operation and strategy.
(Graphic: Jane Brown)
and ultimate responsibility for their museum: the people are the curators. This,
however, is just one of the characteristics that have been attributed to ecomuseums.
An introduction to ecomuseum characteristics

In 1998 I carried out a questionnaire survey of all the museums in the world
(some 166 ecomuseums in twenty-five countries) that either appear on lists of
ecomuseums, use the words in their title, use the term in their promotional liter-
ature if not in their title or have had the title of ecomuseum attributed to them by
another agency. The full analysis of the survey was presented in the final chapter
of the first edition of this book. The main objective for the survey was to determine
the factors that ecomuseums share and to reach conclusions about their defining
characteristics. However, the returns indicated that the organizations are remarkably
varied. They differ in their funding base, geographical scale and their community
commitment. They have a wide range of stated roles and objectives, have variable
staffing levels and reach different professional standards. Were there any factors
that give these museums cohesion; common features that justify the adoption of the
title of ‘ecomuseum’; any readily identifiable ‘ecomuseum indicators’? What, if any,
characteristics make it possible to distinguish an ecomuseum from, for example,
a farm museum in Idaho, a mining museum in Taiwan, a water-mill museum in
Sweden or a rural crafts museum in Scotland?
The search for ecomuseum indicators was aided by the work of Hamrin and
Hulander (1995), who had earlier sought to define the distinctive features of
ecomuseums, and suggested that they should:
• cover a wide area
• consist of selected environments in the cultural landscape
• strive to explain what, where and how
• demonstrate what, where and how things took place in their original setting
• strive to preserve, restore and reconstruct
• strive to activate the visitor and make the cultural heritage accessible
• be founded on the interaction between culture and tourism
• care for what already exists
• be based on the joint efforts of local authorities, associations, organizations,
companies and private individuals
• be dependant on active voluntary efforts
• aim to make a little-known district accessible to tourists
• appeal to local inhabitants in an effort to create a feeling of local identity
• appeal to schools and education at all levels
• be in a continuous process of evolution, where new features and improvements
both long term and short term are introduced into the development programme
• aim to show the whole – from the general to the specific
• collaborate with artists, craftsmen, writers, actors and musicians
• promote research by means of study circles and at an academic level
• aim to illustrate the connection between technology and the individual, between
nature and culture, between past and present, between then and now.
It is interesting to note that this list makes no reference to the natural environment,
to the need for distinctiveness within the geographical area, to past or contem-
porary environmental issues, to the role of living collections, or to the nature of the
collections which ecomuseums care for. Despite these shortcomings, an amended
version of this list was used to construct the questionnaire mentioned above to
explore the features that might be nominated as ‘ecomuseum indicators’. However,
the findings (Davis, 1999: 229-236) were inconclusive. It appeared that ecomu-
seums had evolved in a number of ways, with diverse types of heritage sites using
the ecomuseum signifier; the term had been adopted for many different reasons.
It appeared that 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; some ecomuseums promote and publish
research; most do not. While recognizing these paradoxes and problems, certain
common features did emerge, leading to the suggestion that the following list of
indicators may be applied to most ecomuseums:
• The adoption of a territory that is not necessarily defined by conventional
boundaries. So conventional political boundaries may be ignored, and those
governed by, for example, dialect, a specific industry, or religious or musical
traditions take their place.
• 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 inter-
pretation 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.
Boylan (1992) produced a similar list of characteristics. His five key concepts were
territory; fragmentation and the nature of ecomuseum ‘collections’; interdisciplinary
approaches to interpretation; the nature of the ecomuseum ‘customer’; and local
democracy and community empowerment. He suggested that if each of these five
characteristics is ranked on a scale from 1 (traditional museological approaches) to
5 (ecomuseological approaches) then a score of 13 or below indicates a traditional
museum, 14 to 19 is an outgoing community-centred museum with an interest
in the environment and a score of 201 is a true ecomuseum. Boylan suggested
that when tested against this scale many organizations which call themselves
ecomuseums would fall within the central category, and were therefore not really
ecomuseums.
The idea of using ‘ecomuseum indicators’ was employed by Corsane (2006b)
to evaluate the Robben Island Museum and World Heritage Site, based originally
on an amended version of Davis’ list and that proposed by Corsane and Holleman
(1993). This was further developed in association with his colleagues at Newcastle
University and the Istituto Richerche Economico Sociali del Piemonte, (IRES),
based in Turin. The latter is a section of the regional government with a mission
of researching and enhancing the economy of a predominately rural area, and has
been deeply involved in ecomuseum development in recent years. This list was used
in fieldwork to assess how far ecomuseums reach the tenets of the philosophy and
impact that ecomuseums had on its participants (Corsane et al. 2007a, 2007b).
The key principles or indicators (referred to as ‘the twenty-one principles’) used
suggested that an ecomuseum will:
• Be steered by the local community
• Allow for public participation from all the stakeholders and interest groups in all
the decision-making processes and activities in a democratic manner
• Stimulate joint ownership and management with input from local communities,
academic advisors, local businesses, local authorities and government structures
• Place an emphasis on processes of heritage management, rather than on heritage

products for consumption
• Encourage collaboration with local craftspeople, artists, writers, actors and
musicians
• Depend on substantial active voluntary efforts by local stakeholders
• Focus on local identity and sense of place
• Encompass a ‘geographical’ territory which can be determined by different
shared characteristics
• Cover both spatial and temporal aspects, where, in relation to the temporal, it
looks at change and continuity over time rather than simply trying to freeze
things in time
• Take the form of a fragmented ‘museum’, consisting of a network with a hub and
‘antennae’ of different buildings and sites
• Promote preservation, conservation and safeguarding of heritage resources in
situ
• Give equal attention to immovable and movable tangible material culture, and to
intangible heritage resources
• Stimulate sustainable development and wise use of resources
• Allow for change and development for a better future
• Encourage 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)
• Promote research at a number of levels – from the research and understanding
of local ‘specialists’ to research by academics
• Promote multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to research
• Encourage a holistic approach to interpretation of culture–nature relationships
• Attempt to illustrate connections between technology/individual; nature/culture;
and past/present
• Provide for an intersection between heritage and responsible tourism
• Bring benefits to local communities; for example, a sense of pride, regeneration
and/or economic income.
This list was further elaborated by Borrelli et al. (2008) for the use of self-
evaluation of ecomuseum projects by their participants. The above list – and a
shorter list of negative factors – was explained in detailed guidance notes, using
named examples of good practice, to enable communities to gauge how success-

fully they were achieving ecomuseum practices and ideals. Participants were able
to ‘score’ their project, but more importantly they were able to identify areas where
they were performing well and those processes that needed additional commitment.
Known as the MACDAB method (after the initials of the authors of the list) it was
not meant to be a ‘test’ as such, but simply as an aid to future development.
The MACDAB method has been pilot-tested by ecomuseum practitioners in
Italy and elsewhere where it has been greeted with enthusiasm. A 2008 survey
of sixteen ecomuseums, including twelve in Italy, did not provide statistically
valid generalizations, but nevertheless the results were interesting. Analysis of
the questionnaire returns suggests that the ecomuseums largely meet the key
criteria, with emphasis on a coherent territory which has a strong history and
close connections to place. They tend to be managed by leaders who are very well
know in the locality and who are well versed in local culture; these individuals
have good relationships with local associations and with the local administration.
Contacts with groups tend to be more with those interested in aspects of culture
(history, music, archaeology) rather than those with an interest in the natural
environment. This is interesting, especially in Italy where the latter ‘were the first
defenders of active citizenship’ (Maggi, pers. comm., 2010). However, interaction
with the general population appears weak and, rather than being inclusive, is
frequently based on a traditional ‘top-down’ approach to the dissemination of
information. As a consequence ecomuseum activists recognize that it is difficult
to make all local people aware of the potential of the ecomuseum and heritage
assets to deliver change and create new opportunities; audiences are therefore
frequently limited to organized groups – such as local associations and school
groups. Although the ecomuseum leadership is competent there are issues with
succession planning.
These findings suggest that ecomuseums require better strategic planning, both
to guide the long-term development of the organizations and to allow delegation of
power from the founder group to a wider community. Circulation of best practices
also needs to be encouraged if they are to achieve community development, heritage
conservation, economic enhancement and a tourism infrastructure. Evaluation
tools (such as the MACDAB checklist or equivalent) clearly have a role to play,
since they can provide a deeper understanding of the ‘inside views’ of ecomuseum
dynamics and relationships.
Even if evaluation tools are in their infancy, the ecomuseum principles have
now been deployed in many countries throughout the world in a variety of ways.
They respond to local physical, economic, social, cultural and political environ-
ments in order to manage the full range of environmental and heritage resources
through processes that encourage public participation. It is rare that all the
principles in the above list are used; their adoption is very much dependent upon
local conditions, and selective use has led to different kinds of ecomuseum being
created. Although many different types of ecomuseums exist, it appears that when
ecomuseum principles are used there is often an emphasis on: self-representation;
full community participation in, and ownership of, heritage resources and the
management processes; rural or urban regeneration; sustainable development
and responsible tourism. The next section of this book takes an in-depth look at
how ecomuseums have established their presence, and examines the activities of a
large number of individual institutions. In France, the ‘home’ of ecomuseums, the

phenomenon is now firmly established. It occupies an important place in relation
not only to museum culture, but to rural life and economic development, and the
growth of the movement in that country will be discussed in the next chapter.
References
An, L. and Gjestrum, J. A. (1999) ‘The ecomuseum in theory and practice: the first Chinese
ecomuseum established’, Nordisk Museologi, 2, 65–86.
Anon. (1978) ‘The ecomuseum’, Newsletter of the ICOM Natural History Committee, 2, 3-4.
Borrelli, N., Corsane, G., Davis, P. and Maggi, M. (2008) Valutare un ecomuseo: come e perche.
Il metodo MACDAB, Istituto di Ricerche Economico Sociali del Piemonte, Torino, Italy.
Boylan, P. (1990) ‘Museums and cultural identity’, Museums Journal, 90(4), 29–33.
Boylan, P. (1992) ‘Ecomuseums and the new museology – some definitions, Museums
Journal, 92(4),.29–30.
Carney, F. (ed.) (1993) French–English English–French Dictionary, Larousse, Paris.
Chatelain, J. (1993) Droit et Administration des Musées, La Documentation Française, Ecole
du Louvre, Paris.
Corsane, G. (2006) From ‘outreach’ to ‘inreach’: how ecomuseum principles encourage
community participation in museum processes. In Davis, P., Maggi, M., Su, D., Varine, H.
de and Zhang, J. (eds) Communication and Exploration, Guiyang, China – 2005, Provincia
Autonoma di Trento, Italy, pp. 157–171.
Corsane, G. (2006b) ‘Using ecomuseum indicators to evaluate the Robben Island Museum
and World Heritage Site’, Landscape Research, 31(4), 399–418.
Corsane, G. and Holleman, W. (1993) Ecomuseums: a brief evaluation. In De Jong, R. (ed.)
Museums and the Environment, Southern Africa Museums Association, Pretoria.
Corsane, G., Davis, P. and Elliott, S. (2005) Liberating museum action and heritage
management through ‘inreach’. In Maggi, M. (ed.) Museums and Citizenship, QR IRES,
No.108, IRES, Torino, Italy.
Corsane, G., Davis, P., Elliot, S., Maggi, M., Murtas, D. and Rogers, S. (2007a) ‘Ecomuseum
evaluation: experiences in Piemonte and Liguria, Italy’, International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 13(2), 101–116.
Corsane, G., Davis, P., Elliot, S., Maggi, M., Murtas, D. and Rogers, S. (2007b) ‘Ecomuseum
performance in Piemonte and Liguria, Italy: the significance of capital’, International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 13(3), 223–239.
Davis, P. (1999) Ecomuseums: A Sense of Place, Leicester University Press/Cassell, London
and New York.
Davis, P. (2005) Places, ‘cultural touchstones’ and the ecomuseum. In Corsane, G. (ed.)
Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An Introductory Reader, Routledge, London and New
York, pp. 365–376.
Davis, P. (2007) Ecomuseums and sustainability in Italy, Japan and China: concept
adaptation through implementation. In Knell, S., MacLeod, S. and Watson, S. (eds)
Museum Revolutions: How Museums Change and are Changed. Routledge, London, pp.
198–214.
Desvallées, A. (1987) L’esprit et la lettre de l’écomusée. In Écomusées en France (Premières
rencontres nationales des écomusées, L’Isle d’Abeau, 13/14 November 1986). Published by
Agence Régional d’Ethnologie Rhône-Alpes and Écomusée Nord-Dauphiné, pp. 51–55.
Ecomuseum Observatory (2010) Ecomuseum: what is it? Available online at http:www.
observatorioecomusei.net/start.php?PHPSESSID55760d82333f065891d7d8c0da2dd3
ce1&stat5&ris5h&mf5cosem (accessed 14 January 2010).1
Hamrin, O. and Hulander, M. (1995) The Ecomuseum Bergslagen, Falun, 72pp.
Hudson, K. (1996) ‘Ecomuseums become more realistic’, Nordisk Museologi, 2, s, 11–19.

Lawes, G., Sekers, D. and Vigurs, P.F. (1992) ‘Defining the undefinable – ecomuseums – a
Cindarella or another Ugly Sister?’, Museums Journal, 92(9), 32.
Mayrand, P. (1994) ‘La reconciliation possible de deux langages’, Les Cahiers de dével-
oppement local [Conférence des CADC du Quebec], 3(2), 3–5.
Mayrand, P. (1998) L’exposition à l’heure juste du développement local: cycle théoretique de trois
ans, unpublished ms., Reinwardt Academy, Amsterdam.
Querrien, M. (1985) ‘Taking the measure of the phenomenon’, Museum, 37(4), 199.
Rivard, R. (1984) Opening Up the Museum, Quebec City, typescript at the Documentation
Centre, Direction des Musées de France, Paris.
Rivard, R. (1988) Museums and ecomuseums – questions and answers. In Gjestrum, J.A.
1. The Ecomuseum Observatory is now (2011) available at http://www.irespiemonte.it/

ecomusei
and Maure, M. (eds) Okomuseumsboka – identitet, okologi, deltakelse, ICOM, Tromso,

Norway, pp. 123–128.
Rivière, G.H. (1985) ‘The ecomuseum: an evolutive definition’, Museum, 37(4), 182–183.
Rivière, G.H. (1992) L’Écomusée, un modèle évolutif. In Desvallées, A. (ed.) Vagues – une
anthologie de la nouvelle muséologie, Editions W., Macon, pp. 440–445.
Van Mensch, P. (1993) Museology and the management of the natural and cultural
heritage. In De Jong, R. (ed.) Museums and the Environment, Southern Africa Museums
Association, Pretoria, pp. 57–62.
Varine, H. de (1973) ‘A fragmented museum: the Museum of Man and Industry, Le
Creusot-Monceau-les-Mines’, Museum, 25(4), 292–299.
Varine, H. de (1988) Rethinking the museum concept. In Gjestrum, J.A. and Maure, M.
(eds) Okomuseumsboka – identitet, okologi, deltakelse, ICOM, Tromso, Norway, pp. 33–40.
Varine, H. de (1992) L’Écomusée. In Desvallées, A. (ed.) Vagues – une anthologie de la nouvelle
muséologie, Editions W., Macon. [Originally published in La Gazette (Association des
musees canadiens), 1978, 11, 28–40.]
Varine, H. de (1996) ‘Ecomuseums or community museums? 25 years of applied research in
museology and development’, Nordisk Museologi, 2, 21–26.

Theoretical Models and Characteristics: 4. Ecomuseums: Definitions

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

Theoretical Models and Characteristics: 4. Ecomuseums: Definitions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.

Defining the ecomuseum

plant), a historical or archaeological site, or examples of vernacular architecture (a

museum’. The Creusot-Montceau Ecomuseum was one of the first museums to

Figure 4.1 The traditional museum (after Rivard, 1984).

Rivard also identifies four categories of ecomuseum:

• as an object and data bank for the community

An ecomuseum is a dynamic way in which communities preserve, interpret, and manage

Ecomuseum Creation Territory

Adopting this process, in 1978 the Musée et centre régional d’interprétation

Ecomuseum Creation Territory

lished in a variety of guises including industrial sites, collections of farm buildings,

Figure 4.6 The degree to which an ecomuseum demonstrates true ecomuseum

provides a useful metaphor for the ecomuseum. If the ecomuseum is thought of

An introduction to ecomuseum characteristics

• Place an emphasis on processes of heritage management, rather than on heritage

named examples of good practice, to enable communities to gauge how success-

large number of individual institutions. In France, the ‘home’ of ecomuseums, the

Hudson, K. (1996) ‘Ecomuseums become more realistic’, Nordisk Museologi, 2, s, 11–19.

1. The Ecomuseum Observatory is now (2011) available at http://www.irespiemonte.it/

and Maure, M. (eds) Okomuseumsboka – identitet, okologi, deltakelse, ICOM, Tromso,

You might also like