Tourism and Heritage in Ouro Preto/MG: relations and contradiction: RELAÇÕES E CONTRADIÇÕES
Ouro Preto was the first Brazilian city to be declared a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1980. UNESCO’s endorsement included Ouro Preto in a world heritage context. This movement has increased the number of investments and tourists to the city. Therefore, we seek to discuss the confrontationa...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
| Repositorio: | Revista Brasileira de Estudos do Lazer |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:periodicos.ufmg.br:article/41128 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://periodicos.ufmg.br/index.php/rbel/article/view/41128 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Ouro Preto, Cultural Heritage; Baroque colonial (Brazilian Baroque), Territorial Dynamics. Ouro Preto; Patrimonio Cultural; Colonial-Barroco; Dinámicas Territoriales. Ouro Preto Patrimônio Cultural Colonial-Barroco Dinâmica Territorial |
| Sumario: | Ouro Preto was the first Brazilian city to be declared a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1980. UNESCO’s endorsement included Ouro Preto in a world heritage context. This movement has increased the number of investments and tourists to the city. Therefore, we seek to discuss the confrontational relationship between tourism and heritage. In particular, the purpose is to consider the territorial, socio-spatial reverberations of this practice. A descriptive and exploratory research was carried out using bibliographic research techniques and document analysis. It was possible to point out the relationship between tourism and heritage reveals numerous contradictions that materialize in territorial differences and socio-spatial segregation. It is expected that the local power and social resistances institute useful confrontation instruments against the segregation process, praising the maintenance of multifunctional spaces, focused on the fruition and effective appropriation of the heritage. In addition, it glimpses a fairer urban patrimonial policy based on participative management. There is also a necessity to activate memories that are integrative, which simulate dialogue, that allow us to escape from historically established impositions. As well as, it is important to supply the lack of heritage sites identified in all territorial sectors of the city, especially in marginal spaces. |
|---|