Search

Reverse Archaeology propones archaeological knowledge as a source of inspiration for spatial planningdesign, aiming to give a practical output to research paid by developers when an area is affected by archaeologicalresources not suitable for in situ preservation and public enhance. The response shows that it provides a tool forimplementing Dutch Belvedere programme but does not actually give a comprehensive answer to the fullmanagement of archaeological heritage, as is stated by the authors. Nevertheless, some positive points asserted byReverse Archaeology, such as decision-making process and stakeholder participation, are both critique commentedand encouraged for further work moving the discussion from spatial planning utilizing the past, to a more generalremark on the need of applying valued-based heritage management methods to the European post-Valetta scenario.

Reverse Archaeology propones archaeological knowledge as a source of inspiration for spatial planningdesign, aiming to give a practical output to research paid by developers when an area is affected by archaeologicalresources not suitable for in situ preservation and public enhance. The response shows that it provides a tool forimplementing Dutch Belvedere programme but does not actually give a comprehensive answer to the fullmanagement of archaeological heritage, as is stated by the authors. Nevertheless, some positive points asserted byReverse Archaeology, such as decision-making process and stakeholder participation, are both critique commentedand encouraged for further work moving the discussion from spatial planning utilizing the past, to a more generalremark on the need of applying valued-based heritage management methods to the European post-Valetta scenario.

Reverse Archaeology propones archaeological knowledge as a source of inspiration for spatial planningdesign, aiming to give a practical output to research paid by developers when an area is affected by archaeologicalresources not suitable for in situ preservation and public enhance. The response shows that it provides a tool forimplementing Dutch Belvedere programme but does not actually give a comprehensive answer to the fullmanagement of archaeological heritage, as is stated by the authors. Nevertheless, some positive points asserted byReverse Archaeology, such as decision-making process and stakeholder participation, are both critique commentedand encouraged for further work moving the discussion from spatial planning utilizing the past, to a more generalremark on the need of applying valued-based heritage management methods to the European post-Valetta scenario.

Reverse Archaeology propones archaeological knowledge as a source of inspiration for spatial planningdesign, aiming to give a practical output to research paid by developers when an area is affected by archaeologicalresources not suitable for in situ preservation and public enhance. The response shows that it provides a tool forimplementing Dutch Belvedere programme but does not actually give a comprehensive answer to the fullmanagement of archaeological heritage, as is stated by the authors. Nevertheless, some positive points asserted byReverse Archaeology, such as decision-making process and stakeholder participation, are both critique commentedand encouraged for further work moving the discussion from spatial planning utilizing the past, to a more generalremark on the need of applying valued-based heritage management methods to the European post-Valetta scenario.

Reverse Archaeology propones archaeological knowledge as a source of inspiration for spatial planningdesign, aiming to give a practical output to research paid by developers when an area is affected by archaeologicalresources not suitable for in situ preservation and public enhance. The response shows that it provides a tool forimplementing Dutch Belvedere programme but does not actually give a comprehensive answer to the fullmanagement of archaeological heritage, as is stated by the authors. Nevertheless, some positive points asserted byReverse Archaeology, such as decision-making process and stakeholder participation, are both critique commentedand encouraged for further work moving the discussion from spatial planning utilizing the past, to a more generalremark on the need of applying valued-based heritage management methods to the European post-Valetta scenario.