03926nas a2200133   4500008004100000022001400041245011900055210006900174300001300243490000700256520338000263100001803643856013103661       2022                        eng d  a1975-574000aWho is the Rightful Owner of Folk Culture Assets －the transition from a system of designation to registration－0 aWho is the Rightful Owner of Folk Culture Assets the transition   a73–1020 v393 aIntangible cultural heritage has gradually captured the attention of the public in the 21 century, as it becomes more integrated with the purposes and inspirations for tourism, economic development, and culture. It has even become a demonstration of national strength as various countries actively promote international cultural resources. Promoted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the “Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage” has expanded the protection of global culture from “exclusive world heritage” of the past to intangible cultural assets.Furthermore, following the global trend of preservation, various countries have begun to value the protection of both tangible and intangible cultural elements. When Taiwan amended the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act in 2005, the most significant revision was the enactment of substantive formal protection measures for intangible cultural heritage and the creation of two preservation categories in the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, namely folk customs and relevant cultural artifacts, as well as traditional arts.Based on Taiwan’s Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, the protection of folk customs between 2006 to 2016 was implemented using the method of “designation” for national-level protection, and “registration” for local-level protection. The law was again revised in 2016, changing the listing method of national-level folk cultural assets from designation to registration. The goal was to reduce excessive interference by national laws and regulations such as the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act. A review is perhaps necessary for such a transformation in the concept of folk cultural asset preservation, and whether it has had a direct impact in the preservation of folk culture in recent years.Taipei City, which has undergone the most comprehensive urbanization, will serve as an example in this article, focusing on the local status of folk culture asset preservation as a way to understand the current status of such efforts. In particular, the ongoing “Shezi Island Bombing of the Earth God” folk cultural asset registration will be closely examined. In the early years, construction restrictions were imposed on Shezi Island due to the low-lying terrain. This limitation has hindered urbanization of the region, but also preserved its rich local traditions, including the “Bombing the Earth God” custom during the Lantern Festival in the beginning of the year.Recently, the implementation of urban renewal programs have gradually rebuilt traditional settlements on Shezi Island. In response, local residents wish to register the “Bombing of Earth God” ritual as a cultural asset, perhaps as a way of slowing down excessive urbanization efforts. However, the revision of the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, changing the listing method from designation to registration has also had an effect on local regulations regarding cultural preservations, which has also made it more difficult for Shezi Island residents to protect their homeland through the preservation of folk cultural assets. The social impact of such transformation in preservation policies reveal another type of close relationship between the preservation of folk cultural assets and the development of social communities.1 aLin, Chengwei  uhttps://navarchivo.com/es/who-rightful-owner-folk-culture-assets-%EF%BC%8D-transition-system-designation-registration%EF%BC%8D