بازخوانی نظام مدیریت و حفاظت از میراث معماری با ابزار طبقه‌بندی در کشورهای شرق و آسیای‌مرکزی

مدیریت میراث معماری امروزه با توجه به گستردگی آثار، محدودیت منابع مالی، تهدیدهای ناشی از توسعه و تغییر در مفاهیم و ارزش‌های اجتماعی، همواره با چالش‌های فراوانی روبه‌روست؛ بر این‌اساس وجود اصولی جامع برای مدیریت یکپارچه و اولویت‌بندی حفاظت ضروری است. اغلب کشورهای توسعه‌یافته یا درحال توسعۀ منطقه در زمینۀ طبقه‌بندی آثار میراث‌فرهنگی غیرمنقول به‌عنوان ابزاری برای مدیریت و حفاظت به چارچوبی منطقی دست‌یافته‌اند، ولی در ایران تاکنون سیاست و رویکردی مستقل در این‌زمینه ارائه نشده است. این پژوهش سعی‌دارد ازطریق بازخوانی قوانین اساسی، دستورالعمل‌های ملی و تجربیات کشورهای حوزۀ مشترک فرهنگی ایران در شرق و آسیای‌مرکزی، مفاهیم نظری در زمینۀ نظام طبقه‌بندی را توسعه دهد. پرسش اساسی، انواع رویکردها، مراتب طبقه‌بندی و چگونگی ارزیابی آثار در فرآیند تصمیم‌گیری کشورهای منطقه است. با توجه به ماهیت موضوع، رویکرد پژوهش کیفی است و با روش مطالعۀ اسنادی و سندپژوهی، ابتدا سیاست‌ها و اقدامات، بررسی و نظم‌دهی شده‌اند و سپس تحلیل محتوا به‌صورت توصیفی- تفسیری و تطبیقی انجام گرفته است. براساس یافته‌های پژوهش، دستیابی به سازوکاری مناسب در زمینۀ اولویت‌بندی سطح حفاظت برای اجرای سیاست‌های یکپارچه به‌منظور آگاهی‌بخشی جوامع محلی و مشارکت اقتصادی، احترام به حقوق مالکین خصوصی و تسهیل در تصمیم‌گیری‌های آینده از اساسی‌ترین اهداف طبقه‌بندی بوده است. طبقه‌بندی میراث معماری در نمونه‌های موردی با رویکردی مدیریتی-حفاظتی در یک سامانۀ مشخص صورت می‌گیرد. در این فرآیند پس از شناسایی جامع و لیست‌برداری آثار، براساس معیارهای اهمیت فرهنگی، تاریخی، معماری، ارزش‌های برجسته و منحصربه‌فرد بودن، اصالت و یکپارچگی، ویژگی‌های زیبایی‌شناختی و درمعرض خطر بودن، توسط شورای مشورتی با حضور مسئولین، متولیان، متخصصان، مالکین و جوامع ذی‌نفع، ارزیابی و سطح آن‌ها تعیین می‌شود. در این کشورها، طبقه‌بندی، به‌عنوان ابزاری برای تبیین شیوۀ مدیریت و سطح حفاظتی آثار درنظر گرفته شده است.

review of management and conservation system of architectural heritage with classification instrument in east and central asia

today, architectural heritage management faces many challenges due to the extent of assets, limited financial resources, development threats and change in concepts and social values. accordingly, comprehensive principles are essential for integrated management and conservation prioritization. most developed or developing countries in the region have reached a logical framework for the classification of immovable cultural heritage as an instrument for management and conservation, but in iran, an independent policy and approach in this field has not been presented yet. this study tries to develop theoretical concepts in the field of classification system by reviewing the constitutions, national guidelines and experiences of countries of the common cultural field of iran in east and central asia. the main question is the types of approaches, classification levels and how to evaluate the assets in the decision-making process in the countries of the region. due to the subject, the research approach is qualitative and with the method of documentary study, first, policies and actions are reviewed and regulated and then the content analysis done by descriptive-interpretive and comparative. according to the research findings, achieve an appropriate mechanism to prioritize the level of conservation for the implementation of integrated policies in order to raise awareness of local communities and economic participation, respect the rights of private owners and facilitate future decisions, has been the main aims of classification. architectural heritage classification in case countries is done with a managerial- conservative approach in a specific system. in this process, after comprehensive identification and listing, based on criteria of cultural significance, historical and architecture importance, outstanding values, uniqueness, authenticity and integrity, aesthetic features and at risk, by the advisory committee in the presence of government officials, experts and stakeholders, level of assets is evaluated and determined. finally, classification is considered as a tools to explain the management approach and level of conservation.keywords: architectural heritage, classification, heritage management, conservation, asia.introductionarchitectural heritage, like biology, requires an integrated and centralized organization system and pattern for classification, given the wide and diverse range of assets. iran has many cultural properties from prehistoric period to modern times that are difficult and intricate to manage and protect based on the current situation. despite the passage of more than one hundred years of modern cultural thought in iran, to date, no independent policy and approach for classification of immovable cultural heritage has been presented; while most developed or developing countries in the region have reached a logical framework in this regard.one of the main challenges that led to the formation of this research is the lack of appropriate tools to create a unified procedure in decisions and conservative measures. this study tries to help develop knowledge in the field of management and conservation by review, survey and analyzing constitutions, guidelines, policies and experiences of countries with a common cultural sphere with iran in east and central asia. achieving the aims, approaches, evaluation process and criteria for classification of architectural heritage in other countries in the region is the main purpose of this study. the two main questions of this research are: 1-what policies and approaches have the countries of east and central asia used in the system of management of assets and classification of architectural heritage? 2-what is the level and process of decision-making in evaluating the classification of the architectural heritage of these countries? this research has a qualitative approach and the method used is descriptive-interpretive. research data have been collected and organized through documentary studies and have been evaluated by interpreting and analyzing the content.identified tracesjapan is a leader in the classification of heritage among the countries of the east asian region, and the republic of korea has largely followed its policy. tangible cultural in japan are first divided into two categories, “national treasures” and “important cultural”, and then national treasures are divided into two groups: “architectural heritage” and “fine arts and crafts”; finally, architectural heritage is classified according to a “designation system” at three levels: national, regional and local. south korea first classifies its heritage into three levels: national, provincial, and local, and then categorizes each into different groups. thus, south korea’s cultural heritage is classified into five levels based on national, provincial, or local significance, period of construction, and location, with intangible, tangible, movable, and immovable heritage.china lags behind other countries in the region in terms of classification due to many challenges such as the large number of assets, political conflicts, as well as rapid development. china’s architectural heritage is classified into three levels of protection, including national, provincial and local, and unclassified assets are listed and registered only to inform the authorities of the location and type of the assets. hong kong, in a specific process and according to an administrative system, classifies architectural heritage into three levels, including: grade 1: buildings with outstanding features and competencies that must be maintained; grade 2: buildings with special qualifications that are protected selectively and on a priority basis; grade 3: buildings with relative competencies that will be desirable to protect and if conservation is not possible, other methods and tools can be substituted.the policy of management and protection of architectural heritage in turkey and egypt emphasizes the implementation of laws with international standards and the promotion of world heritage sites as tourist destinations and the use of existing capacities such as local councils, endowments, municipalities and the private sector. in these countries, decisions on classification are made by interdisciplinary advisory committees at the regional and national levels. the government of india considers classification to be a subset of the categories “economic”, “cultural” and “environmental” and considers this policy to be in the interest of society and the people. indian architectural heritage is classified into three levels: one: buildings of national or historical significance. two: buildings of regional or local importance and three: important buildings for the urban landscape that evoke architectural, aesthetic or sociological features.conclusion the process of architectural heritage conservation includes inclusive activities that the provision of management tools can greatly help to prioritize and facilitate actions by responsible authorities and the community. therefore, it would be useful to develop logical principles for classification of architectural heritage by reviewing the experiences of other countries. according to the research findings, achieve an appropriate mechanism to prioritize the level of conservation for the implementation of integrated policies in order to raise awareness of local communities and economic participation, respect the rights of private owners and facilitate future decisions, has been the main aims of classification.