Promoting health and wellbeing through building the relationship with build and cultural heritage
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction For over two decades, much has been written about the role of heritage buildings and historic places on individual and societal well-being. Numerous manuscripts have been devoted to study the relationship between built and cultural heritage and well-being and to decrypt their mental and physical health benefits at the personal and societal levels. Other studies have focused on the diverse types of heritage experiences that enable these health benefits, ranging from perceptions, to the individual and societal engagements through exposure, protection and conservation of historic places and environment. Social benefits encompass enhancing of collective memories and identities, sharing experiences, social interaction, creative opportunities, etc. Objectives The objective of this research is to explore the relationship between personal and societal health and well-being, and cultural heritage. The main objective is to disclose international strategies and programs for assessing and promoting heritage-led wellbeing benefits. Methods We comprehensively reviewed the scientific literature using qualitative data-analysis methods to state, international frameworks for promoting heritage-led wellbeing benefits. Results Our bibliographic review revealed that there has been rising recognition that the conservation of cultural heritage is not just about the preservation of materials, but rather about safeguarding and sharing heritage for the improvement of people’s lives. According to the WHO, culture and cultural heritage are recognized as fundamental determinants of what makes personal and social lives meaningful. Consequently, many countries such as the UK and Canada, have developed people centred approaches achieved by local authorities as a means of ensuring inclusivity and diversity, so that heritage is able to contribute to people’s wellbeing. Politically, few agendas promoting wellbeing and engagement with the historic environment included guidelines of community-oriented projects and management systems that benefit people with building the relationship between people and place, while demonstrating the public value of the historic environment. Conclusions All professionals, at the architectural and urban level, as well as health and psychology level should have awareness about the concept of heritage-led wellbeing benefits and strategic views of the value of cultural heritage as process, as participation, as mechanism, as healing, as place and as environment to raise the planned positive effects by local authorities when promoting the perception of the role of cultural heritage in health and wellbeing. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».