Obzirom da se spomenici ne "koriste" u smislu kako se mogu koristiti marine ili sume i da rijec "koristiti" u recenici verovatno nije imala bukvalno znacenje, gledala sam da nadjem drugacije primjere:

"It seems to me that it had no other rationale than to show that we are not simply the country of entertainers, but also that of engineers and builders called from across the world to build bridges, viaducts, stations and major monuments of modern industry, the Eiffel Tower deserves to be treated with consideration."
http://www.todayinsci.com/E/Eiffel_Gustave/EiffelGustave-Quo...

"Consideration should also be given to the long-term impact of permanent monuments, and subjects should be of a stature able to weather the vagaries of time, changing attitudes etc....In the case of smaller items such as plaques, Parks would negotiate with the sponsor a one-time donation to a general monuments maintenance account whose funds are applied to the cyclical treatment of the collection."
http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_things_to_do/attractions/publ...

Smatram da bi se ovo primarno odnosilo na efikasnost upotrebe.

Mislim da se tu radi o ovom 'popularnom' pojmu (pridjev) koji se najčešće koristi u ekološkom kontekstu.