Maritime and coastal cultural heritage: Challenges and opportunities for development and planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural heritage (CH) is frequently included in spatial development discussions and spatial policy and planning activities. Traditionally, a strong emphasis has been given to the protection of mostly tangible CH artifacts when faced with pressures of specific development proposals and activities. As such, debates over CH aspects have often been associated with reactive planning approaches aiming at protection of certain CH values. However, CH is increasingly also integrated into more strategic and proactive development and planning discussions. This has opened up the opportunity to discuss how CH may also be considered a ‘development driver’ in some situations. For instance, in maritime and coastal areas with little attention from mainstream city-centered socio-economic mechanisms, however also in urban areas, such as ports, in transition away from an industrial past. Maritime and coastal cultural heritage provides a sense of place, identity, unity, and belonging to residents of maritime and coastal regions. CH, rooted in both tangible and intangible aspects such as specific landscapes, seascapes, buildings, stories, traditions, language, and cultural practices, is a fundamental part of every society. It connects people to each other and to the past and helps guide the future. It is based on the past, but it is also living—constantly changing and adapting—as all culture is. Yet, CH is also at risk through diverse drivers, such as climate change, non-CH sensitive economic and spatial development, and demographic change. With strong calls for Blue Growth from the European Union and in different economic sectors, it is important to make explicit connections to the values of CH, the risks it faces and to the benefits to preserving and safeguarding CH for current and future generations. With due consideration, CH can be both preserved and sustainably utilized. With sustainable utilization of maritime and coastal CH as an ultimate goal, this article presents our understanding of maritime cultural heritage based upon a theoretical framework of three pillars: space, place, and identity; resilience and adaptation; and deliberative and participatory governance. Combining these three theoretical pillars brings insights for the sustainable usage and governance of maritime and coastal CH for the benefits of society. Only once the importance of coastal spaces and places and how they form identities are known; how cultures and society are vulnerable or resilient and can adapt; and how good governance takes place, can CH be used sustainably—to the benefit of society and enabling Blue Growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".