Marble Architectural Elements and Liturgical Furniture of the Santa Giustina Basilica in Padova: New Archaeometric Data on the Importation of Proconnesian Marble in the Late Antique Adriatic
All articles published by are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by , including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https:///openaccess.
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
China's Population Urbanization Level, Land Urbanization Level And...
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Post-industrial cities often find themselves at a crossroads as to whether to find a new identity or embrace their industrial past. In late 2017, after the closure of major manufacturing plants in the region, the Australian city of Geelong was designated a UNESCO City of Design and embraced a “Clever and Creative” strategy which acknowledged Geelong’s industrial and design past in responding to contemporary technological, demographic, and economic challenges. However, questions remain as to which versions of the past are valued by the local community and how these stories can be shared. To better understand the social value of design and manufacturing heritage in Geelong as well as to get initial feedback on how to interpret this type of heritage through novel immersive extended reality (XR) experiences, the researchers took a community-led approach. This paper reports on the results of the initial online community surveys (N = 55–137) and in-person stakeholder interviews (N = 5) with carefully selected representatives of the local government, education, heritage, tourism, and engineering sectors. The study’s outcome demonstrates the importance of design and manufacturing heritage for the local community’s identity. Moreover, this type of heritage provides a source of inspiration, learning opportunities for future creative problem-solvers, and economic opportunities through tourism. By engaging with the social value of design and manufacturing heritage, this paper argues that more effective and targeted storytelling, game-like applications, and other digital immersive experiences such as extended reality (XR) can be used to better engage with audiences.
Heritage has a role to play as a means for economic development (including tourism), social cohesion, and increased participation, along with consideration of the most effective way to bring local stories to the fore [1, 2, 3]. There are still many outstanding questions about how this can be achieved. How can design and manufacturing be captured, and in what form should they be presented? What impact does this have on individual and collective identities, particularly given the rise of digital technologies?
Evaluation And Analysis Of The Projected Population Of China
An interdisciplinary team of researchers from Deakin University’s School of Engineering, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, and School of Communication and Creative Arts critically examined how the digital interpretation of design and manufacturing heritage can be used to inform the futures of post-industrial cities. As a case study, the local design and manufacturing heritage of Geelong has been explored.
As a regional port city near Melbourne, Geelong [see Scheme 1] has been known as one of Australia’s largest manufacturing cities for a century and a half. Following the recent closure of various manufacturing industries, the City of Greater Geelong community developed a 30-year “Clever and Creative” vision for the region [4]. In 2017, the City of Greater Geelong became a UNESCO City of Design, joining the Creative Cities Network [5].
The area in which the city of Geelong is located has been home for tens of thousands of years to the Wadawurrung people, the Traditional Owners of the land with a continuing connection to the country. Their sovereignty of this land was never ceded, but the European colonization of the area from the 1800s caused disruption to traditional ways of life through dispossession and violence. From the 1830s, European settlement accelerated through the appropriation of land for sheep grazing, and, by the 1850s, Geelong’s economy had developed a significant base in manufacturing. This was tied to its position as a gateway port to Western Victorian agriculture, protected from the Southern Ocean due to its location in Port Philip Bay. This economy shaped the geography and architecture of Geelong, making it a ‘city of mills producing flour, textiles and paper’ [6]. Geelong developed as an internationally renowned centre for the wool trade, with woollen mills a recognizable feature of the city’s built environment.
Global Safe City Market Size & Share Report, 2022 2030
Geelong’s population declined due to the Victorian Gold Rushes of the 1850s, but the decline of the gold rush economic boom coincided with the expansions of Geelong’s already well-established manufacturing base, and, during the early twentieth century, Geelong grew in population as well as in economic dominance within Victoria’s economy [7]. This led to increased recognition of Geelong as an economic force and as a manufacturing base, especially after Ford Motor Company opened its Australian headquarters in Geelong in 1925 (Photograph 1). By the 1950s approximately 30% of Geelong’s workers were employed in manufacturing, while in some suburbs this reached nearly 40% [8]. The Geelong economy retained this reliance on manufacturing throughout much of the twentieth century, but economic liberalization introduced by successive federal and state governments from the 1970s resulted in deindustrialization. The concentration of manufacturing in particular parts of Geelong, and the concentration of housing for working-class communities working in those sectors in geographic ‘pockets’ of the city’s fabric, particularly in North Geelong, meant that the cumulative impact of larger economic trends was also concentrated in targeted parts of the city’s geography [9, 10]. The unevenness of this impact was also distributed between different sectors, with the acute declines of some industries, such as textiles and clothing, occurring alongside slower and more incremental processes of economic downsizing, cuts, automation and ‘productivity gains’ in automotive production and metalwork.
As Louise Johnson has described it, Geelong has therefore ‘register[ed] on its urban and social fabric some of the more dramatic changes in the recent economic geography of the nation’ [11]. This is partly due to the way in which the decreasing level of dominance of Geelong’s industrial sector has not been a simple passive process of decline, but has been accompanied by growth in tertiary industries, including the service, retail, creative and knowledge sectors [12, 13].
Geelong’s historical industrial economic base remains highly visible in the city through the adaptive reuse of its built heritage (Photograph 2), though the reinvigoration of industrial heritage through creative repurposing can also exacerbate the social impact of deindustrialisation [14]. The City of Greater Geelong has appealed to the city’s ongoing history of design and innovation as part of its engagement with UNESCO City of Design status in a similar trajectory to other deindustrialising cities which have embraced creative economies, such as Detroit (another UNESCO City of Design) and Helsinki (European Capital of Culture 2000 and 2026) [15]. Emphasising ongoing creative identities in these cities has in some cases helped foster stronger senses of connection to place [16]. However, narratives of innovation can also fail to resonate, or actively exclude, where they are imposed from above without accounting for community experiences [17, 18]. Further, as Delores Hayden has argued, “urban landscapes are storehouses of social memories” [19], and so urban renewal has the potential to disrupt sense of place and therefore identity for local residents. Representing industrial heritage in the context of highly visible social and economic transformations therefore poses a challenge for heritage practice, especially as heritage and memorialisation can exacerbate the impact of deindustrialisation.
Australia's Low Population Growth Increases Slightly In The June 2021 Quarter
Social value assessment is an important tool for engaging with such complex and contested cultural heritage. Social value has long been a key concept in Australian heritage practice, though it remains a complex area to assess [20]. Social value in this sense focuses on collective processes of meaning-making and the development of shared connections with a place over time, encompassing forms of significance which are not intrinsic and “may not be visible to the disinterested observer” [21]. Through this focus on community interpretations of built environments, social value provides a potentially democratic counter to heritage frameworks which focus more narrowly on fabric.
Digital interpretation, both in museum contexts and through remote online connection, provide a range of opportunities for engaging with the social value of heritage. This is particularly the case given that the interactive and participatory dimensions of some aspects of digital practice encourage the documentation and sharing of subjective individual and socially generated meanings rather than expert analyses of intrinsic value. Yet it is important to note that this
Geelong’s population declined due to the Victorian Gold Rushes of the 1850s, but the decline of the gold rush economic boom coincided with the expansions of Geelong’s already well-established manufacturing base, and, during the early twentieth century, Geelong grew in population as well as in economic dominance within Victoria’s economy [7]. This led to increased recognition of Geelong as an economic force and as a manufacturing base, especially after Ford Motor Company opened its Australian headquarters in Geelong in 1925 (Photograph 1). By the 1950s approximately 30% of Geelong’s workers were employed in manufacturing, while in some suburbs this reached nearly 40% [8]. The Geelong economy retained this reliance on manufacturing throughout much of the twentieth century, but economic liberalization introduced by successive federal and state governments from the 1970s resulted in deindustrialization. The concentration of manufacturing in particular parts of Geelong, and the concentration of housing for working-class communities working in those sectors in geographic ‘pockets’ of the city’s fabric, particularly in North Geelong, meant that the cumulative impact of larger economic trends was also concentrated in targeted parts of the city’s geography [9, 10]. The unevenness of this impact was also distributed between different sectors, with the acute declines of some industries, such as textiles and clothing, occurring alongside slower and more incremental processes of economic downsizing, cuts, automation and ‘productivity gains’ in automotive production and metalwork.
As Louise Johnson has described it, Geelong has therefore ‘register[ed] on its urban and social fabric some of the more dramatic changes in the recent economic geography of the nation’ [11]. This is partly due to the way in which the decreasing level of dominance of Geelong’s industrial sector has not been a simple passive process of decline, but has been accompanied by growth in tertiary industries, including the service, retail, creative and knowledge sectors [12, 13].
Geelong’s historical industrial economic base remains highly visible in the city through the adaptive reuse of its built heritage (Photograph 2), though the reinvigoration of industrial heritage through creative repurposing can also exacerbate the social impact of deindustrialisation [14]. The City of Greater Geelong has appealed to the city’s ongoing history of design and innovation as part of its engagement with UNESCO City of Design status in a similar trajectory to other deindustrialising cities which have embraced creative economies, such as Detroit (another UNESCO City of Design) and Helsinki (European Capital of Culture 2000 and 2026) [15]. Emphasising ongoing creative identities in these cities has in some cases helped foster stronger senses of connection to place [16]. However, narratives of innovation can also fail to resonate, or actively exclude, where they are imposed from above without accounting for community experiences [17, 18]. Further, as Delores Hayden has argued, “urban landscapes are storehouses of social memories” [19], and so urban renewal has the potential to disrupt sense of place and therefore identity for local residents. Representing industrial heritage in the context of highly visible social and economic transformations therefore poses a challenge for heritage practice, especially as heritage and memorialisation can exacerbate the impact of deindustrialisation.
Australia's Low Population Growth Increases Slightly In The June 2021 Quarter
Social value assessment is an important tool for engaging with such complex and contested cultural heritage. Social value has long been a key concept in Australian heritage practice, though it remains a complex area to assess [20]. Social value in this sense focuses on collective processes of meaning-making and the development of shared connections with a place over time, encompassing forms of significance which are not intrinsic and “may not be visible to the disinterested observer” [21]. Through this focus on community interpretations of built environments, social value provides a potentially democratic counter to heritage frameworks which focus more narrowly on fabric.
Digital interpretation, both in museum contexts and through remote online connection, provide a range of opportunities for engaging with the social value of heritage. This is particularly the case given that the interactive and participatory dimensions of some aspects of digital practice encourage the documentation and sharing of subjective individual and socially generated meanings rather than expert analyses of intrinsic value. Yet it is important to note that this