 Well, this is the last presentation. It's again me, Amica Vagas from the University of Barcelona. Well, this last presentation is about another site in Mexico, but in a very different perspective. I will discuss about the urban development as a high risk factor for conservation of dirty work hand, the challenges and opportunities we are facing in this war-hated site. This presentation is divided in three. We will discuss about what's dirty work hand as a war-hated site and what's its urban context. And I will talk about something that, for me, was a different perspective of heritage approach, the heritage affection and social participation processes. Last, and lastly, I will mention some challenges and opportunities of the current situation in dirty work hand. Well, dirty work hand is in the central part of Mexico, very close to Mexico City. It was inscribed in the war-hated list in 1987. And it's the most visited archaeological site in Mexico with over 4 million visitors in 2017. It was inscribed with five out of six criteria of outstanding universal value by the war-hated committee in the session in 1987. Well, this is one of the most iconic elements of dirty work hand, the Pyramid of the Sun. And the Pyramid of the Sun is this point in this huge map. So this is the core sun. Actually, this is the war-hated site. It's the war-hated property as 250 acres. But the buffer zone has 3,000 of the 3,000 acres. This is the buffer zone. In this buffer zone, there are two municipalities, San Martín de las Pyramides and San Juan 30 Wacan. And they are over 70,000 people living now in a site. So if you consider the floating population in 30 Wacan, in one year, they can have 4 million. And in the villages, they only are 70,000, probably. The amount of visitors in a week in the archaeological site. Well, but if we remember the map of this more than 3,000 acres, these are the three, the sonification of the urban development in 30 Wacan. This is the central part, the orange part. So this is the archaeological site. It's very soft fence of over seven kilometers around the site. But the urban areas, the already urbanized areas, if you compare with the size of the buffer zone, is the red side is huge. And the buildable areas are these part of blue. And the non-buildable areas are most of the size. So in this map, it's not included only the buffer zone, but also the external radius of the buffer zone. So most of the sites have a high potential of archaeological remains. So what we analyze in the project, but this is the urban problem. It's the biggest problem of 30 Wacan nowadays for the conservation of the site. Now moving forward to the heritage affection and social participation processes, I found in an article a very interesting approach of heritage that mentioned that affection, the above are feelings, affection unlike omniscient represents subjective mental feelings that can be experienced through emotions and moods. And the heritage affection is an effective connection with the heritage. And this heritage affection generates a sense of psychological well-being that influences conservation intentions. So if this is heritage affection, what we will show you now is the opposite phenomenon. The heritage disaffection. So the heritage disaffection effect is the lack of conservation intention because there is not a psychological well-being perceived in the emotional and very, very subjective approach from the people to the site. So if you don't care the site, you will not have the will to protect it. Probably they paid you for doing it. You can say that you will do something. But as I was showing in the case of Tethiwaka, this theoretical framework that was published in 2017 that was analyzed by other authors in 2011 and 2012. So we are facing in the case of Tethiwaka and the lack of heritage affection, what I call the disaffection. And regarding the UNESCO guidance about the social participation, in the UNESCO documents, especially the Tethiwaka Convention, there are a lot of terms and words related to emotion, related to feelings. And as I mentioned in our presentation in the article five, the state parties have to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community. It's incredible to find this in the Convention because if the community, they don't have already a cultural function. If the community they don't see in the heritage a function for their life, how can they be preserved? And in the nomination process as in 1994, it was established that the nomination should be have the approval, the full approval of local communities in order to share the responsibility of the conservation of the outstanding universal value of the site. And even if Tethiwaka was not described, was described before this policy, it was mandatory to include it as at least in the five C strategies, which included since 2007 the communities in order to achieve the previous four Cs, credibility, conservation, capacity building, and communication. So the examples that we have found in Tethiwaka and about the disaffection are several, but I'm going to show you just a little bit of that. The first, and the most recent one was the construction in the buffer zone in the village of San Juan Tethiwakan of the supermarket in Walomant, a huge infrastructure, that after the outcome of the evaluation, because it was a state of conservation report requested by the work at this committee, item as a evaluation said that there was no visual or heritage conservation impact on the work at that site, but it was a negative impact on its symbolic value. So no tangible affection, but in an intangible consequence of the construction of these supermarkets. So in 2009, inside the ecological site, actually in the pyramid of the zone, there was a project funded by the government of the state of Mexico, where Tethiwakan is located. They were a huge investment of the light and sound show called Tethiwakan Shine. In this light and sound show, sorry, it was included the perforation that they were doing, they did over 10,000 holes in the stone of the, all around their ecological site. So local protesters were against it. And as a consequence, Inna cancer the project and several inanthoritis were signed. But the legitimacy of the Inna as an institution that preserved the heritage was completely destroyed. So for the local people in Tethiwakan, if the Inna itself, it can authorize to drill more than 10,000 holes in the most iconic pyramid of Tethiwakan, why they were not able to build a wall or a house in the non-examinated area. So they considered if they do that, we can do whatever we want. That's one of the consequences of what they call the disaffection. So in my interviews, I found people that they cried when they remember what happened into the pyramid of the stone because they were able to hear the sound of the machine doing all these calls all around the public. And also another consequence of a policy established by the Inna, the restriction for the size, for the use of the size is different. In the old five entrance to the ecological site, you will find this huge sign that established among other restrictions that conducted ceremonies inside the ecological monument zone, as well as bringing in tripods and or stands for photographic cameras, drones, musical instruments, seashells, guitar, et cetera, brassiers, centers, quarks, flowers, eras, religious images, the stuff used for ceremonies and banners are forbidden. So you cannot go to the garden with a flower to offering us to the temple. So it's forbidden. It's forbidden guns and bombs and all the other restrictions that you can see here. So how harmful can be a flower? How harmful can be a guitar played in front of the pyramid of the stone because they want to have a spiritual connection with the site? So these restrictions are also generating localist affection because local people before the old defense was built, they were able to pass from one part of the urban area to the other without the need to turn around their political side. So that's why in 2016, for me it was not a surprise to find this sticker in a car. So they love to be wagon, but they don't like the ministry of culture. So they have emotional appreciation or an affection to the heritage site but not to the site manager. So in the social participation project that we were conducting in this four case status, we found that the local people they more or less participate just selling souvenirs to the tourists. We know they're not very expensive. There is no added value. Most of the standards are local elder people without very good label conditions. But one day per year, it's allowed to have ceremonies on the spring equinox. And most of the people, there are thousands of them entering the site. It's the only day they can authorize under a very extreme surveillance to conduct the ceremonies. The rest of the year, the 364 days of the year are forbidden. So what we have found is that there is a lack of participation of local communities in the decision-making process, including of course the risk preparedness. And the relationship between local communities and site managers is a site shown in the picture and a lot in several locations, very antagonistic. We conducted a focus group with sites with local guides of Tutiwakan and several of their comments were related to how disappointed they are with the INAS policies for protection of the site and how they have been suffering the consequences of these policies. So in our base, using the letter of participation of ARCS, we conducted an analysis for segment of participation, management, planning, monitoring and tourism activities. And monitoring is where risk preparedness is. And the site manager, they have complete control of three out of these areas, but not in tourism because the INAS, the local site manager, managing tourism is not one of their duties. So they are not very well dealing with tourism even if they have four thousand or four million visitors per year. And the local authorities and communities, they are more or less, they have a high participation in tourism because they are their ambassadors, they sell what they want, they explain to the visitors what they want. And but in the rest of the areas, local authorities and local communities have a very low participation level. And, but first steps had be done towards social participation in heritage and heritage affection. Well, and there are two products, archaeologists in a hurry, which is a video YouTube channel where students in one school, they develop, they did a TV news, so they were reported there, they were, they record these videos and they participate, they choose the subjects and the topics. And another project, this was conducted by a post-doc researcher, Trump, nearby Tatiwaka. And this other one is conducted by the INAS, the site manager, it's Young Garden of Tatiwaka, which is a summer course talking about conservation of war heritage. So, and this is the last part of my presentation in, yeah. The challenges we're facing in Tatiwaka, well, we found four main challenges. The first one is to revert the disaffection process. The second is to tackle the narrow, tangible, heritage-based conservation, sorry, tangible-based heritage conservation. So, we need to put in not just the materiality, but also the symbolic values of the site. The third challenge is to overpass the mainly nationalistic or massive tourism heritage, use of heritage. So, Mexican government, they have been using their political sites since they was opened in 1910. It was opened by a president those years. And also the other use of heritage is for a massive tourism attraction. And the fourth challenge with sites is facing is to acknowledge the local intangible heritage and also the local intangible feelings and appreciation of the site. But the opportunities continue developing the educational programs as a garden of Tatiwaka and our ecologists currently in a hurry. The second is to implementing a specific heritage affection policies, heritage reaffection policies to re-engage with local inhabitants and the third opportunity is to develop a participatory management model with a broader scope, with a broader scope, not just that includes the local communities. And well, the acknowledgement of the supervisors and partners in this research. And thank you very much for your patience, for attending the session and for your contributions of the session. So, thank you.