Ecomuseum Evaluation: Experiences in Piemonte and Liguria,Italy

The term ecomuseum has been applied to a wide range of projects that seek to conserve and 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.     

Villages that Never Were: The Museum Village as a Heritage Genre

Villages of relocated buildings now constitute a phenomenon of the world’s repertoire of heritage. They go by a multitude of names depending on particular inflection: open air museum, folk museum, living history museum, heritage village, museum village and so forth. ¹ [1] On the range of villages, see Thompson, ‘The Social Significance of Folk Museums’; Marshall, ‘Folklife and the Rise of American Folk Museums’; Leon and Piatt, ‘Living History Museums’; Shafernich, ‘On‐site Museums, Open‐air Museums, Museum Villages and Living History Museums’; Moolman, ‘Site Museums’; de Jong, ‘Approaches and Concepts’; Chappell, ‘Open‐air Museums’; Corbin, ‘Representations of an Imagined Past’. This paper reviews the context of the form of the genre’s manifestation in Australia, where it is often known as the ‘pioneer village’. They are the fruit of a populist vision of national history which celebrates white rural settlement as its central theme. In practice, the villages manifest a deep commitment to collecting and saving old buildings as the meaningful construction of a favourite historical identity. But the generation that established Australia’s villages has been overtaken. Today, the intersection of museum villages with the managerialist pressures of local economy enhancement and modern professional standards of heritage management challenge most villages’ survival.     

Ecomuseum Performance in Piemonte and Liguria,Italy: The Significance of Capital

Research carried out by the authors in northern Italy (see Corsane et al., ‘Ecomuseum Evaluation: Experiences in Piemonte and Liguria, Italy’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 13, no. 2 (2007): 101–16) was designed to assess how closely selected ecomuseums met the demands of ecomuseum theory. However, the discussions with ecomuseum personnel at five sites in Piemonte and Liguria also provided an opportunity to explore how these community‐based heritage projects measure their ‘success’. This research indicates that the methods of performance evaluation that are applied to most national or regional museums—criteria such as visitor numbers, the number of new collections that have been acquired, or number of educational activities delivered—have less meaning in an ecomuseum context. This work suggests that success could be measured more effectively in terms of the forms of capital that result from local people’s use of ecomuseological methods to engage with and conserve their heritage.