A Research Agenda for Heritage Planning

A Research Agenda for Heritage Planning

Elgar Research Agendas outline the future of research in a given area. Leading scholars are given the space to explore their subject in provocative ways, and map out the potential directions of travel. They are relevant but also visionary.

Forward-looking and innovative, Elgar Research Agendas are an essential resource for PhD students, scholars and anybody who wants to be at the fore-front of research.

Titles in the series include:

A Research Agenda for Regional and Local GovernmentEdited by Mark Callanan and John Loughlin

A Research Agenda for Geographies of Slow ViolenceMaking Social and Environmental Injustice VisibleEdited by Shannon O’Lear

A Research Agenda for EvaluationEdited by Peter Dahler-Larsen

A Research Agenda for Animal GeographiesEdited by Alice Hovorka, Sandra McCubbin and Lauren Van Patter

A Research Agenda for Experimental EconomicsEdited by Ananish Chaudhuri

A Research Agenda for International Business and ManagementEdited by Ödül Bozkurt and Mike Geppert

A Research Agenda for Political DemographyEdited by Jennifer D. Sciubba

A Research Agenda for Heritage PlanningPerspectives from EuropeEdited by Eva Stegmeijer and Loes Veldpaus

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

Elgar Research Agendas

A Research Agenda for Heritage PlanningPerspectives from Europe

Edited by

EVA STEGMEIJERResearcher, Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

LOES VELDPAUSLecturer, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, UK

© Eva Stegmeijer and Loes Veldpaus 2021

This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Unported (https://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Users can redistribute the work for non-commercial purposes, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, as detailed in the License. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd must be clearly credited as the rights holder for publication of the original work. Any translation or adaptation of the original content requires the written authorization of Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Published byEdward Elgar Publishing LimitedThe Lypiatts15 Lansdown RoadCheltenhamGlos GL50 2JAUK

Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.William Pratt House9 Dewey CourtNorthamptonMassachusetts 01060USA

A catalogue record for this bookis available from the British Library

Library of Congress Control Number: 2021943162

This book is available electronically in the Geography, Planning and Tourism subject collectionhttp://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781788974639

ISBN 978 1 78897 462 2 (cased)ISBN 978 1 78897 463 9 (eBook)

v

Contents

List of figures ixList of contributors xiForeword: some key challenges for heritage science research xixAcknowledgements xxiiiList of abbreviations xxv

PART I SETTING THE SCENE FOR HERITAGE PLANNING: PERSPECTIVES FROM EUROPE

1 Introduction to A Research Agenda for Heritage Planning: the state of heritage planning in Europe 3Eva Stegmeijer, Loes Veldpaus and Joks Janssen

2 Heritage research in the 21st century: departing from the useful futures of sustainable development 21Višnja Kisić

3 The value of heritage in sustainable development and spatial planning 39Koenraad Van Balen and Aziliz Vandesande

PART II CURRENT RESEARCH IN HERITAGE PLANNING: PROJECTS FROM EUROPE

SECTION A HERITAGE AND IDENTITY

4 Introduction to heritage and identity: from planning and policies to communities, and back 57Remi Wacogne

A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR HERITAGE PLANNINGvi

5 Exploring archaeology’s place in participatory European cultural landscape management: perspectives from the ‘REFIT’ project 61Tom Moore and Gemma Tully

6 Industrial heritage and conservation planning, changing governance practices, examples from Europe 75Loes Veldpaus and Remi Wacogne

7 Developing participation through digital reconstruction and communication of ‘lost’ heritage 87Laura Loredana Micoli, Gabriele Guidi, Pablo Rodríguez-Gonzálvez and Diego González-Aguilera

8 Cultural heritage and European identity in European Union law and policy 99Francesca Fiorentini, Kristin Hausler and Andrzej Jakubowski

SECTION B HERITAGE AND CLIMATE

9 Introduction to heritage and climate change: current gaps and scientific challenges 115Claudio Margottini

10 New uses for old waterways 121Francesco Vallerani and Francesco Visentin

11 Satellite monitoring of geo-hazards affecting cultural heritage 133Daniele Spizzichino and Claudio Margottini

12 Archaeological site monitoring and risk assessment using remote sensing technologies and GIS 145Stefano De Angeli and Fabiana Battistin

SECTION C HERITAGE AND DEVELOPMENT

13 Introduction to heritage and development: the agency of heritage in rural and urban development practices 157Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist

viiCONTENTS

14 Cultural heritage and improvised music in European festivals 163Tony Whyton and Beth Perry

15 Cultural heritage at work for economy and society 175Stefano Della Torre and Rossella Moioli

16 Gastronomy and creative entrepreneurship in rural tourism: encouraging sustainable community development 187Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist, Anna de Jong, Romà Garrido Puig, Giuseppa Romeo and Wilhelm Skoglund

PART III RESEARCH AGENDA FOR HERITAGE PLANNING. PERSPECTIVES FOR EUROPE (AND BEYOND)

17 Towards a more just world: an agenda for transformative heritage planning futures 201Loes Veldpaus, Višnja Kisić, Eva Stegmeijer and Joks Janssen

Index 221

ix

Figures

1.1 Conceptualization of the evolution of the interaction between heritage management and spatial planning 10

3.1 Sustainable development and the four pillars 42

3.2 The SMD framework 46

5.1 Participatory augering workshop at Salmonsbury (Greystones Farm), 2017 68

7.1 3D textured models of two historical moments: the circus in late Roman times (left) and the same area in the contemporary era (right) visualized through the CityEngine web viewer (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA) 93

9.1 Number of peer reviewed publications stored in SCOPUS© and retrieved for the terms ‘Cultural Heritage’ and ‘Climate Change’ (left axis) and ‘Cultural Heritage’ + ‘Climate Change’ (right axis) in the fields ‘Article title’, ‘Abstract’ and ‘Keywords’ 117

11.1 Risk ranking of the 2,351 WHS property parts based on the multi-criteria methodology 136

11.2 Buffer (along the investigated ancient city walls) of COSMO-SkyMed PS displacement velocity 138

15.1 Workflow of the conservation process, pointing out the phases covered by the analysed models 177

16.1 Brewery in Jämtland, Sweden 191

xi

Contributors

Koenraad van Balen graduated as Engineer-Architect at KU Leuven, is a post-graduate in Architectural Conservation and holds a PhD degree in Engineering. He is Professor at the Civil Engineering department and Director of the Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation. He is the chairholder of the PRECOMOS UNESCO chair. He was the first chair of the Scientific committee of the JPI-CH. He is member of the Research Council of KU Leuven and various cultural heritage organisations, including ICOMOS, RILEM and the Council of Europa Nostra.

Fabiana Battistin has a PhD in Classical Archaeology and is currently a post-doc at the Università degli Studi della Tuscia (UNITUS). Her research is predominantly on Roman urban dynamics and architecture, with a special interest in research methodology, applied technologies and spatial analysis. By working on archaeological heritage at risk, and for the definition of risk assessment procedures, she took part in project CLIMA (JPI Cultural Heritage Plus, 2015–18), and she is presently involved in project RESEARCH (Remote Sensing techniques for Archaeology-H2020-MSCA-RISE, 2018–22).

Stefano De Angeli is Associate Professor of Classical Archaeology at the Università degli studi della Tuscia (UNITUS). He has studied in Urbino, Rome and Heidelberg. He has authored many scientific publications, including mon-ographs, contributions in volumes and conference proceedings. His research mainly concerns Greek art theory, ancient iconography, Greek and Roman sculpture, architecture, architectural decoration and landscape archaeology. He has participated in and coordinated several projects on cultural heritage. He currently coordinates the European project RESEARCH (Remote Sensing techniques for Archaeology-H2020-MSCA-RISE, 2018–2022).

Francesca Fiorentini is Associate Professor of Comparative Law at the University of Trieste. Previously, she was Research Associate at the Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht of Hamburg, Germany (2004–2007) and former Marie Curie Fellow at the Zentrum für Europäisches Rechtspolitik of the University of Bremen

A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR HERITAGE PLANNINGxii

(2006–2007). Among others she is co-editor, with A. Jakubowski and K. Hausler, of the book Cultural Heritage and the European Union. A Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy (Brill/Nijhoff, 2019).

Romà Garrido Puig is an architect by the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya – ETSAV. He holds a Master’s degree in Smart Cities. From 2016 to 2018 he collaborated as a researcher at the research group Architecture and Territory of the University of Girona, participating in the European project, JPI, on Cultural Heritage ‘Gastronomy and Creative Entrepreneurship in Rural Tourism’.

Diego González-Aguilera is Full Professor at the University of Salamanca, with a PhD in Geodesy and Cartographic Engineering. He has authored more than 150 impact journal articles, is co-inventor of 11 patents and 21 intellectual properties (software). Based on his results, he has received seven international awards from the International Societies of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS/ASPRS/CIPA), and is co-founder and CEO of the start-up ITOS3D (Image TO Smart 3D).

Gabriele Guidi is Associate Professor of Computer Vision and Reverse Engineering at Politecnico di Milano. Since the end of the 1990s, he has been developing technologies, methodologies and applications of 3D digitisation to cultural heritage, industrial design and mechanical engineering, contributing to European and national projects in the field. He participates in the scientific committees of several international conferences about such topics, and he is editor-in-chief of the international journal Studies in Digital Heritage.

Kristin Hausler is Dorset Senior Fellow and Director of the Centre for International Law at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law in London. She is also a consultant for Geneva Call regarding their engagement with armed groups on heritage protection. Previously, she worked in Vancouver on the ‘Journey Home’, a restitution project developed in coop-eration with Indigenous communities. Kristin has a background in the cultural sector, having worked in museums and studied art at Christie’s New York.

Andrzej Jakubowski is Assistant Professor at the Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw and at the University of Opole, Poland. He chairs the Committee on Participation in Global Cultural Heritage Governance of the International Law Association. He authored State Succession in Cultural Property (Oxford University Press, 2015), and edited Cultural Rights as Collective Rights – an International Law Perspective (Brill-Nijhoff, 2016). He also serves as deputy editor-in-chief of the Santander Art & Culture Law Review.

CONTRIBUTORS xiii

Joks Janssen is an architect with experience in conservation planning. He obtained his PhD with a landscape biography of the sandy soils in the southern Netherlands. From 2010 to 2018 he was extraordinary Professor of Heritage and Spatial Planning at Wageningen University. Currently, he works as a senior researcher for the Academic Center for Sustainable Regional Development at Tilburg University, where he writes, teaches and undertakes research on heritage, conservation and regional planning, focusing on the role of sustainability issues in heritage practice.

Anna de Jong is Senior Lecturer in Tourism at the University of Glasgow. She is an interdisciplinary social scientist, with a background in human geography and tourism management. Her research focuses on the relationships between tourism and place, guided by wider concerns of inequality and accessibility.

Višnja Kisić, PhD, is a researcher, educator and practitioner in heritage and museum field, whose work focuses on relations between heritage and politics. She is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Sport and Tourism Novi Sad, and Lecturer at UNESCO Chair in Cultural Policy and Management in Belgrade, University Hassan II Casablanca, University Lyon II and International Relations University Beijing. She has led projects, trainings, lectures and research in over 20 countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America.

Pascal Liévaux is Senior Officer of the Department for Research at the French Ministry of Culture. With a PhD in Art History, he teaches at École de Chaillot, which trains heritage architects and coordinates the research project around Notre-Dame. He contributes to the structuring of Heritage Science, both in France, by associating academic researchers and heritage professionals, and in Europe, notably through the Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage which he coordinates. He represents the Ministry of Culture within the European project E-RIHS (European Research infrastructure for Heritage Science).

Claudio Margottini is the former Scientific and Technological Attaché at the Embassy of Italy in Egypt, after a career at the Geological Survey of Italy. He is habilitated as Full Professor in Engineering Geology and adjunct Professor at the UNESCO Chair on Prevention and Sustainable Management of Geo-Hydrological Hazards, University of Florence (Italy), at Galala University (Egypt) and at the National Research Institute for Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG) (Egypt). His major field of expertise embraces the development of engineering geological techniques for the conservation and protection of cultural and natural heritages. He is author of more than 320 publications and books.

Laura Loredana Micoli is an architect and holds a PhD in Design and Product

A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR HERITAGE PLANNINGxiv

Development Methods (2006). Currently, she works as a researcher at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnic of Milan. In the last 15 years, she has collaborated in several national and international research pro-jects, related to reverse modelling and virtual prototyping for application in industrial design and cultural heritage. She studies issues concerning massive 3D documentation of artworks and use of 3D digitalisation as support for historical investigations of monumental complexes.

Rossella Moioli is a professional architect and teacher of Architectural Conservation at Politecnico di Milano and the University of Pavia, Italy. She has designed the conservation works of historic buildings, and was involved in comprehensive plans for culture-driven local development in the framework of the Cultural Districts project. She has contributed to studies on preventive and planned conservation in Italy, both with practical applications and theo-retical research. She is now involved in the topic of the management of cultural heritage, and has authored more than 40 publications.

Tom Moore is Associate Professor at Durham University. A landscape archaeologist specialising in the Western European Iron Age, his recent research focuses on Late Iron Age proto-urban centres known as ‘oppida’. He is an active field archaeologist, leading major research projects in Britain and France. His background working in developer-led archaeology means he maintains an interest in co-production with landscape stakeholders and cultural landscape management.

Beth Perry is Director of the Urban Institute and Professor of Urban Knowledge and Governance, University of Sheffield. Her research focuses on urban transformation, co-productive urban governance, citizen participation and the just city. She oversees a collaborative programme of work between academics, individuals and organisations supporting progressive social, spatial and environmental change in the North of England. She is currently also leading a British Academy Global Challenges Research Fund project on cul-tural heritage and sustainable livelihoods in Cape Town and Kisumu.

Pablo Rodríguez-Gonzálvez is Assistant Professor at the University of León, Spain. He received the BS degree in Surveying Engineering in 2004, the MS degree in Geodesy and Cartography in 2006, and the PhD degree in Photogrammetry and Computer Vision in 2011. He has authored over 100 research articles in international journals and conference proceedings, and is co-inventor of ten patents. His research work is focused on the 3D modelling and application of photogrammetry to cultural heritage and industry.

Giuseppa Romeo graduated in Agricultural Sciences and Technology from the Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria in 2006. She completed her

CONTRIBUTORS xv

Master’s in Agricultural Economics and Policy from the Centre for Advanced Training in Economics and Policy for Rural Development at the University of Naples Federico II in 2008. She earned her doctoral degree in Agricultural Economics and Policy from Palermo University in 2012. Her research interests are related to the fields of agricultural economics and policy, water resource management and integrated rural development.

Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist is Associate Professor in Social Anthropology and Senior Lecturer in Human Ecology, University of Gothenburg. Her research addresses problems of sustainable development and conflicting values in areas of contested natural resources and landscape management, focusing on governance and policy work. She led the international project GASTROCERT – Gastronomy and Creative Entrepreneurship in Rural Tourism (JPI-CH), 2015–17.

Wilhelm Skoglund is Senior Lecturer within business administration at the Mid Sweden University in Östersund, Sweden. His research ranges from community entrepreneurship in rural and peripheral regions to develop-ment dimensions of the cultural and creative industries. The intersections of gastronomy, cultural and creative industries, and sustainability have been his main research interests over the last few years, including studies of the UNESCO Creative Cities Network and the rapidly growing craft beer sector.

Daniele Spizzichino holds a degree in Environmental Engineering and a PhD in Earth System Sciences: Environment, Resources and Cultural Heritage. Throughout his career, he has developed a very strong expertise in new technologies applied to different sectors of civil and environmental domains. Since 2000, his geotechnical skills have been applied to: executive design of low impact mitigation measures and consolidation works; monitoring system implementation and design; risk assessment and protection plan for cultural heritage. He is employed as a researcher at ISPRA.

Eva Stegmeijer works as a researcher at the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands, focusing on heritage planning and energy transition. She is member of the Governing Board of the Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage and Global Change. Trained as urban planner and economic geographer in Amsterdam and New York, she has coordinated programmes and networks in heritage, cultural industries and spatial development, and has extensive editorial experience. Previously, she worked as a (policy) researcher in both university and civil service.

Stefano Della Torre is Full Professor of Restoration at Politecnico di Milano (since 2001). He served as the Director of the ABC department 2013–2019 and as President of Building smart Italy (2011–2018). He has been coordi-

A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR HERITAGE PLANNINGxvi

nator of the Italian platform of the European Research infrastructure for Heritage Science (E-RIHS), is consultant of Regione Lombardia and Cariplo Foundation for policies on preventive and planned conservation and the Distretti culturali project, and Principal Investigator of several scientific pro-jects. He has authored more than 360 publications.

Gemma Tully is a community archaeologist and museum professional. For the last 15 years, she has worked on collaborative projects with stakeholder groups connected to archaeological sites and museum collections in North Africa and Europe. She has published widely within her field and currently teaches as a guest lecturer on museum and heritage courses at Durham University and the University of Bergamo while also conducting research for the University of Cambridge.

Francesco Vallerani is Full Professor of Geography at the University Ca’ Foscari of Venice. His main fields of expertise are human and cultural geog-raphy, landscape evolution and heritage, with a special focus on waterscapes and water-based sustainable tourism in both European and South American countries. He has recently been on the steering board of the Water Museums Global Network.

Aziliz Vandesande obtained her post-initial Master in Science of Conservation of Monuments and Sites in 2012 at the University of Leuven. She conducted an internship at UNESCO in Amman, Jordan, where she assisted in fieldwork for a Risk Assessment methodology. In 2017, she obtained her PhD in Civil Engineering. At present, she is conducting her post-doctoral research at the University of Leuven, Department of Civil Engineering. She is the Scientific Coordinator of the H2020 project ILUCIDARE and is involved in several international research and development projects.

Loes Veldpaus is a Lecturer at the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University. Her work focuses on processes of heritage making and heritage planning governance. She is interested in understanding heritage practices and co-producing heritage projects. Within and with prac-tice, she aims to reveal the patterns, understandings and ethics in the processes of caring for and (re)making (built) heritage. Her work is across disciplines, drawing on intersectional feminist scholarship and methods, as well as herit-age, urban, conservation and architectural studies.

Francesco Visentin is a human geographer with research interests in ethical tourism and cultural landscape. He is currently a fixed-term researcher at the University of Udine, Italy. He is involved in several projects concerning cultural heritage, landscape evolution and tourism processes especially in the waterscape contexts. He is also interested in the relationship between art

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/219265/factsheet/en

CONTRIBUTORS xvii

and geography. Sometimes he wanders along rivers and canals exploring the everyday geographies. He edited, with Francesco Vallerani, Waterways and the Cultural Landscape (Routledge, 2018).

Remi Wacogne has a background in Humanities, Social Sciences and Cultural Management, and holds a PhD in Regional Planning and Public Policy from IUAV in Venice. In addition to research and teaching appointments at IUAV and Ca’ Foscari University in Venice, he currently collaborates with the Venice Municipality for the elaboration of the new Management plan for the World Heritage site Venice and its lagoon. He is also garant at the Commission Nationale du Débat Public in France (since 2020).

Tony Whyton is Professor of Jazz Studies at the Royal Birmingham Conservatoire, Birmingham City University. In 2010–2013, he led the award-winning HERA Rhythm Changes: Jazz Cultures and European Identities project and in 2015–2018, worked as the Project Leader for the JPI Heritage Plus-supported Cultural Heritage and Improvised Music in European Festivals (CHIME). He is currently a Knowledge Exchange and Impact Fellow for the Humanities in the European Research Area (HERA).

xix

Foreword: some key challenges for heritage science research

In recent years, the combined action of the European Commission and national entities in charge of research and heritage has enabled the emergence of structures such as the Joint Programming Initiative for Cultural Heritage (JPI-CH) which have the capacity to define policy, implement multi-year funding dedicated to research in heritage science and impose heritage science as a proper research field, characterized by a holistic approach associating tan-gible, intangible, digital and natural heritage. There is now a widely accepted definition of heritage science, as its recent entry in Wikipedia shows:

Heritage science is the interdisciplinary domain of scientific study of heritage. Heritage science draws on diverse humanities, sciences and engineering disciplines. It focuses on enhancing the understanding, care and sustainable use of heritage so it can enrich people’s lives, both today and in the future. Heritage science is an umbrella term encompassing all forms of scientific enquiry into human works and the combined works of nature and humans, of value to people.

Heritage science, from the most basic to the most applied research, now constitutes an ecosystem which brings together researchers, heritage profes-sionals and civil society through numerous non-governmental organizations and associations that work for heritage. Highly collaborative and reaching outside the confined framework of national visions, heritage science falls within Europe’s open science policy. It is a dynamic sector, fully in touch with the digital revolution and fostering a strong link with society, thus attracting young researchers. Heritage science touches upon many and diverse themes, from the most materialistic to the most societal. These themes are at the heart of public policies on social, economic and environmental matters. The results of heritage science research can therefore be used for the development, imple-mentation and monitoring of these policies. They have a direct impact on the management of our cultural heritage and, beyond that, on the functioning of our societies.

A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR HERITAGE PLANNINGxx

As examples, I would like to focus on the three main themes addressed in this publication, which I consider essential for the coming years; and on which, I believe, we must concentrate our research efforts at the European level.

Heritage and identity

Today, several European countries are confronted by political attempts to reverse the democratic functioning of their societies. These are driven by people who do not hesitate to manipulate, for their own profit, the cultural heritage and history embedded in our democratic values. This ‘historical revisionism’ is founded on the rejection of the complex approaches that stem from research; it disseminates a dangerous anti-intellectualism. It encourages personal, emotional and experimental interpretations of cultural heritage, playing on the confusion between history and memory. The strong impact that the conservation and transmission of cultural heritage has on society – of which the worldwide mediatization of the Notre-Dame de Paris fire is a remarkable example – is matched by a high risk of political manipulation, which could go as far as attempting to validate contestable and potentially dangerous narratives.

In this context, which unfortunately may be with us for a long time, it is more than ever essential for research to maintain, develop and disseminate amongst the citizenry a scientifically founded and intellectually distanced discourse on cultural heritage that encourages multicultural and transnational approaches at a European level. It is important to develop research that aims at better identifying, understanding and transmitting cultural heritage; enriches our relation to the past; and contributes to our comprehension of the complexity of today’s world, thus giving each European citizen the possibility to take part in the ‘re-enchantment’ of the world. This could make a decisive contribution to social cohesion.

Heritage and climate

This concerns both the impact of environmental changes on heritage, and heritage as a resource for sustainable development. Regarding the first point, the situation is so serious that Ireland, for example, has set out an ‘adaptation plan’ to address the impact of climate change on built and archaeological heritage. Climatic changes such as hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter

FOREWORD xxi

winters, more frequent extreme weather events and sea-level rises result in structural damage to monuments, historic buildings (and their contents), archaeological sites and historic landscape features. Regarding the second point, research must contribute to making cultural heritage a readily available resource in the context of sustainable development policies: the adaptation of ancient buildings to new uses, the development of sustainable tourism and of new treatments and restoration protocols respectful of the environment (green conservation), the mobilizing of archaeological data for the understanding of climate change, and so on. (For example, the destructive analysis of the few elements of the roof of Notre-Dame de Paris which were saved from the flames will enable us to know more about the climate in the twelfth century.)

Heritage and development

When well identified, preserved and mediatized, cultural heritage can be an important driver of development and the attractiveness of territories – particu-larly in rural or economically disadvantaged areas – through tourism and the development of cultural and creative industries. Digital technologies span all the research problematics in heritage science. In this field, there are two major challenges for the near future. First, the management of a huge amount of data that needs to be conserved and shared in the spirit of open science. Second, the development of innovative uses of scientific imagery to study the materiality of artefacts through non-invasive and non-destructive technology, even at a very narrow scale, and also to build 3D models for diagnosis, restoration, virtual reconstruction or mediation. Cultural heritage is also a unique field for the development of artificial intelligence, which will benefit research on automatic recognition of forms (for historical knowledge but also for the fight against the trade in illegal works), deciphering ancient languages by deep learning and creating mechanisms for personalized or interactive mediation or surveillance of heritage sites.

Conclusion

Thanks to its vast and highly diverse heritage and its important and numerous skills, Europe can lead the world in cultural heritage research and innovation; not only defending and protecting its own past, but offering technological solutions for the efficient, transparent, ethical and democratic management

A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR HERITAGE PLANNINGxxii

and planning, on a worldwide scale, of cultural heritage assets, to the benefit of all citizens. All initiatives are welcome and must be supported at local, regional and national levels. But the extensive, long-term, coordinated and sustained effort that is needed exceeds by far what can be achieved within these territorial frameworks; it needs to be done at a European level. It is not just a question of understanding our past but of building our European shared future.

Pascal Liévaux, JPI-CH Chair

xxiii

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the authors for their varied and intriguing contribu-tions to this book, and in particular those participating in the author meeting held October 2018 in Amersfoort, the Netherlands, at which we collaboratively refined the concept of the book: Stefano, Fabiana, Francesca, Annelie, Laura, Daniele and Rossella.

Peer review

In addition to the authors of Part II, who have peer reviewed each other’s work within the sections, the quality of this book would not have been achieved without the expertise, time and efforts of:

• Joks Janssen, for having a crucial role in the inception and concept of this book.

• John Pendlebury, supporting us and reviewing Chapters 1 and 17.• Gert-Jan Burgers, (then) member of the Scientific Committee of the Joint

Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage, for reviewing the research agenda in Chapter 17.

• Višnja Kisić, for so valuably reflecting and commenting on the entire manuscript.

• Sandra Fatorić, for reviewing the section introduction on Heritage and Climate.

• Francesca Fiorentini, organizing the peer review of Section A, Heritage and Identity.

• Stefano De Angeli, organizing the peer review of Section B, Heritage and Climate.

• Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist, organizing the peer review of Section C, Heritage and Development.

A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR HERITAGE PLANNINGxxiv

Expert interviews

For the research agenda, we have conducted interviews that were urgent and thought provoking with the following key players in the field, whose valua-ble insights have inspired the final Chapter 17 (whilst we of course take full responsibility for the ideas put forward there):

• Sandra Fatorić, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow at Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.

• Plácido González Martínez, Professor at the College of Architecture and Urban Planning at Tongji University, China.

• Allison Heritage, Heritage Science officer at ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property).

• Erminia Sciacchitano, Chief Scientific advisor, European Commission.• Mieke Renders, Managing Director Trans Europe Halles.• John Pendlebury, Professor of Urban Conservation, School of Architecture,

Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University.• Fellow authors Tom Moore, Beth Perry, Francesco Vallerani, Francesco

Visentin and Tony Whyton.

Funding

The chapters comprising Part II elaborate the results of ten transnational research projects that ran between 2015 and 2018 and were granted in the Heritage Plus call. These projects have been funded by the Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage and Global Change and the European Union’s Research and Innovation Programme, Horizon 2020.

The funding for realizing (the open access of) this book has been provided by the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands.

xxv

Abbreviations

EC European CommissionICOMOS International Council on Monuments and SitesJPICH Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage and

Global ChangeSDGs Sustainable Development GoalsUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

OrganizationWHS World Heritage Site

Acronyms of the research projects discussed in Part II

CHANGES Changes in cultural Heritage Activities: New Goals and benefits for Economy and Society

CHIME Cultural Heritage and Improvised Music in European Festivals

CHT2 Cultural Heritage through TimeCLIMA Cultural Landscape risk Identification, Management

and AssessmentEUWATHER Re-evaluating the European Secondary Rivers and

Canals as Cultural landscapeGASTROCERT Gastronomy and Creative Entrepreneurship in Rural

TourismHEURIGHT The Right to Cultural Heritage – Its Protection and

Enforcement through Cooperation in the European Union

A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR HERITAGE PLANNINGxxvi

PICH The impact of urban planning and governance reform on the historic environment and intangible cultural heritage

PROTHEGO PROTection of European Cultural HEritage from GeO – Hazards

REFIT Resituating Europe’s First Towns. A case study in en-hancing knowledge transfer and developing sustainable management of cultural landscapes

PART I

Setting the scene for heritage planning: perspectives from Europe

3

1 Introduction to A Research Agenda for Heritage Planning: the state of heritage planning in Europe

Eva Stegmeijer, Loes Veldpaus and Joks Janssen

In this introduction we provide a framework for reading, explaining our inten-tions with the book, and our understandings of heritage planning. We will explain what the book addresses and aims for, and will also try to clarify what it does not do or include. The introduction has three sections. First, we intro-duce the emerging field and practice of heritage planning; second, we analyse the different positions of heritage in the planning system; third, we outline the three thematic challenges – identity, climate and development – that structure the various contributions to this book. We conclude this introduction by briefly recapitulating the main points this book addresses, and the agenda we want to raise for future research.

Heritage planning: an emerging field of practice and research

Recent decades have seen a mini revolution in the way we regard the vestiges of our past in the buildings and landscapes around us. In many countries, the preservation, conservation, management and development of the historic environment and of heritage assets have been increasingly integrated with spatial planning, making heritage more explicitly part of a dynamic system of future making. At the same time, heritage management has gradually changed and widened its scope, scale and ambition. Its operational repertoire has been enriched: from the protection of (single) historic monuments and sites, via the spatial development of larger areas and landscapes based on their historical structures, forms and uses, to providing meaning in all kinds of social, eco-nomic and spatial processes.

A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR HERITAGE PLANNING4

Rather than just a material asset, heritage is now more commonly seen as a process of mobilizing some pasts for present-day purposes, and thus a future-making exercise (Hart 2011; Meskell 2015). As such, heritage can involve (a selection of) socio-cultural and socio-spatial arrangements – tan-gible and intangible, movable and immovable, natural and cultural resources – such as products, processes, patterns, perceptions, personal stories and memories, as well as the relations and values they constitute. This also means that conservation, as a process of caring for heritage, is about much more than preserving a small collection of listed buildings. A gradual transformation has taken place from a so-called ‘culture of loss’, in which limiting damage was the primary goal, towards ‘a culture of profit’ that creates designs for the future from a historically informed perspective (Janssen et al. 2017). Economic interests, cultural value and social vitality are now inextricably linked to con-temporary notions of heritage planning.

The heritage and planning nexusToday, revitalizing the historic environment is a common strategy in spatial transformation of European cities and countryside, and in territorial and socio-economic development schemes. There is a push for heritage policy to have an optimistic outlook in its approach to the material and immaterial rem-nants of the past. Rather than a constraint on spatial transformations, heritage is positioned as a driving force and source of inspiration for development. Across Europe and elsewhere, successful large-scale redevelopment projects, such as the Zeche Zollverein in Essen, the Amsterdam Westergasfabriek, the Aire River near Geneva and the New York High Line, have inspired poli-cymakers, researchers and designers, as well as the public, to take a greater interest in, for example, the industrial or rural past. Rereading, reimagining and reusing the past as a valuable cultural resource for present-day and future purposes is part and parcel of the emerging field of heritage planning, under-stood as the application of heritage in local and regional planning (Kalman 2014; UNESCO 2011).

The domain where spatial planning and heritage management intersect is rather intriguing. This is where heritage is protected, conserved and trans-formed in – or sometimes in spite of – the context of plans, rules and regula-tions. It is where planning and place marketing meet. Planning is more and more focused on the existing city, infill and reuse; place branding often relies heavily on historic character, and heritage is often positioned as a unique selling point in commercially driven regeneration projects. Urban structures and uses are as much planning as they are heritage. Heritage brings old ideas as new perspectives and opportunities for planning, and vice versa.

INTRODUCTION 5

Accordingly, this book addresses the intersection of two different fields of research and practice that are, in themselves, highly diverse and interdisci-plinary. On the one hand, spatial planning – and its wide variety of planning systems that are deeply embedded in local and national socio-economic, political and cultural contexts (Dühr et al. 2010), as well as ways of knowing and doing (Davoudi 2015) – builds on understandings created in social science perspectives as well as technocratic and design practices. On the other hand, heritage is virtually boundless, as it includes work on traditions and customs, museums and collections, buildings and urban structures, ruins and archae-ology, cultural and natural landscapes, oral and public history, memory and identity, and more (Labadi and Logan 2015; Meskell 2015). It incorporates critical and practical perspectives, and has very different disciplinary roots, with work growing out of engineering and the natural sciences as well as the humanities and social sciences. Bringing these together, the book focuses on those instances and situations where heritage is actively positioned in spatial dynamics, and where planning for the future is about mobilizing structures, ideas and practices from the past. As heritage planning is a cultural activity, a policy field and an area of research, the book provides a mosaic of themes, approaches and recent developments in heritage planning research and practice.

Structure, aim and scope of the bookThis research agenda on heritage planning addresses the new heritage frontiers in spatial planning, as well as the interrelated planning and policy challenges. What will these challenges mean for heritage planning practice, for planners, for heritage organizations and professionals in the years to come? What do they mean for scholars in the fields of heritage and planning? Throughout this book, the perspective is twofold. How can heritage be understood and dealt with within and through planning practices? And how can heritage planning contribute to spatial and social transitions, to identity and belonging, and to a (more) sustainable future? Various authors respond to the ongoing changes and reflect on the future of heritage planning reality and research.

The book has three parts. Part I sets the scene, Part II presents current research and Part III develops an agenda for future research. For Parts I and III, we have invited external reflections in the form of writings, reviews and interviews, while in the middle part, ten research teams from across Europe present their


research projects, which were funded1 by the Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage and Global Change (JPI-CH)2 in collaboration with the European Commission. These projects showcase the state of the art of heritage planning research in Europe. Not only have the recently finished projects shared their most topical results and outcomes; based on their experience, the authors (we invited project leaders to co-author with an early career researcher) also touch upon needs for future research. Rather than highlight-ing research we consider the most important or innovative, this compilation reflects the contemporary research landscape. It showcases international studies that currently receive (research) funding. Instead of narrowing down this myriad of approaches into one global agenda, our aim is to bring them together in one volume; to facilitate and stimulate further thinking in the field, be it through confrontation, contestation or collaboration.

The aim of this book is not only to present current research at the nexus of her-itage and planning but to question its directions; and by doing so, to explore new and alternative futures for heritage planning in view of the pressing global challenges we are facing today, which demand collaboration, critical think-ing and radical action. With this work, we position emerging trends based on empirical evidence, and pinpoint knowledge gaps. Our agenda is a mix of demand-driven research priorities, thought experiments and theoretical challenges. The book aims to be informative for those who study, perform, regulate and fund heritage planning research and practice, providing an acces-sible introduction to diverse heritage planning research themes, to new and emerging practices, concepts and criticisms. As such, this edition fits well with the series of Research Agendas this book is part of.

Although the field of heritage planning is a global one, the work in this book mainly focuses on a European context. It features research undertaken on the European Union (EU) level, as well as in Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Serbia, Sweden and the UK. The approaches identified across the continent are highly varied and it is safe to

1 A selection of interdisciplinary research projects granted in the Heritage Plus call, running between 2015 and 2018, funded by 14 countries partaking in the Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage and Global Change, and the European Commission under Grant agreement no. 618104, http:// jpi -ch .eu/ joint -activities/ joint -call/ (accessed 29 July 2020).

2 JPI-CH is a network of European countries programming and funding transna-tional heritage research. It particularly stimulates studies that are responsive to policy and practice needs. The JPI-CH programme and this book are independ-ent projects, but the mutual involvement of researchers, practitioners and funders means they have developed iteratively and interactively.

http://jpi-ch.eu/joint-activities/joint-call/

http://jpi-ch.eu/joint-activities/joint-call/

INTRODUCTION 7

say that a universal ‘European’ Heritage Planning does not exist. While, in general, the Eurocentric nature of heritage planning has increasingly been recognized (Graham et al. 2000; Meskell 2018), that approach in fact appears more specifically to have been developed in a particular subset of European countries, and mostly in urban contexts. This bias is reflected in the origin of the funded research projects and hence contributors to this book. One of the main agenda points is that we need to push beyond this Eurocentric approach, questioning the research it produces and the foundations on which it is devel-oped, and providing funding for the projects and people who do this. We trust that the reader will be aware that their institutional and cultural settings may be extremely different from the ones described in this book, as are the varied interpretations of histories and heritage planning in different disciplinary contexts. Bringing them together can be as uncomfortable as it is critical, but it is needed in order to develop new openings and perspectives.

Throughout the remainder of this introduction, we will position heritage plan-ning in conceptual terms. We will then illustrate and frame the rich variety of contributions that follow in the second part of this book through three major challenges we identify: heritage and identity, heritage and climate and heritage and development.

Shifting approaches to heritage in planning

In the planning of cities and regions, much of the focus has shifted from expan-sion and sprawl to redevelopment and regeneration. Over the last few decades, public and private actors and investors have started to change their concep-tions of heritage in this context: less of a costly burden that impedes develop-ment opportunities, and more of a unique quality and strategic commodity to be used in revitalization and regeneration schemes. The economic value of heritage has been put on the agenda, considering and criticizing its role in fos-tering socio-economic development (Madgin 2020; Rypkema 2006; Veldpaus and Pendlebury 2019). The resulting conservation planning assemblage, with its many actors and agents and its approach to heritage as an economic asset in spatial dynamics, is now common in many planning situations across Europe and elsewhere (Pendlebury et al. 2019).

From the late twentieth century onward, with the sustainable development debate gaining momentum, more value has been placed on the use and devel-opment of environmental resources, of which heritage is seen as part and parcel. National and international heritage organizations have called for devel-


opment to be attuned to and compatible with the historic environment, as well as the cultural traditions and values of communities (EU 2019; e.g. UNESCO 2011; UN-HABITAT 2016). The conservation of cultural resources has thus become entangled with emerging environmental and engagement agendas, placing new demands on heritage and planning. This shows that the planning context in which heritage conservation operates is constantly changing, as is the application of heritage in local and regional planning situations. As a result, both heritage and heritage professionals (and academics) must continuously demonstrate their value to society, as heritage competes for political support and scarce financial resources within complex local and regional agendas. The planning system seems the best available platform to do so and to connect with agendas in, for instance, housing, climate and participation. Within a planning context, heritage can most easily find its necessary allies to team up with. By doing so it can improve its scope, impact and efficacy. This can, however, also lead to the further erasure of certain parts of history, in order to ‘better’ serve certain economic, ecological or societal goals.

These new agendas have led to an increased emphasis on negotiation and collaboration, which also reflects and incorporates some of the criticisms that became more prominent with the rise of critical heritage studies, questioning a single, expert-led heritage discourse. This argues for a conceptualization of heritage that is fluid – heritage as a process – and produced within a much wider and more inclusive societal debate (Harrison 2013; Smith 2006). Communities of interest – local people, users, residents and tourists, for instance – are no longer considered only as heritage consumers, but as producers. This also means that multiple perspectives will be present in the continuous production of heritage, and those can be contested, conflicting, competing, convenient or complementary. This is increasingly reflected in the context of specific heritage sites, museums or events that are exploring what it means, for example, to work in a participatory manner, and to platform different perspectives and voices. Thus, the heritage debate is calling for more inclusive, diverse, dynamic and value-driven heritage approaches. The literatures and shared practices exploring how this plays out in the complexity of a planning context, and thus in public space, are, however, much less abundant.

Heritage as sector, factor and vectorFrom the moment heritage conservation first secured a foothold in the plan-ning system, it has seen a further integration of its activity within the dynamic planning process. Although the level to which that has become part of legal structures and institutional practices varies across European nations, cities and regions, it is stimulated by intergovernmental organizations such as UNESCO

INTRODUCTION 9

(2011, 2016). In some countries, protection and planning are still very much separate legal systems, while in others, heritage conservation activity has for-mally been incorporated into spatial planning procedures and laws (Veldpaus et al. 2019). In line with the level of integration, the aims and expectations about what heritage can do, how this is to be achieved and by whom, are diverging. Several authors have analysed these divergent planning treatments of heritage as a dynamic and evolutionary (instead of revolutionary) process; they observe a shift from isolated preservation to integrated conservation and, finally, a broader notion of heritage planning (Ashworth 2011; Bosma 2010; Veldpaus 2015).

Another effort to characterize and visualize this process is the conceptual framework developed by Janssen et al. (2017), based on the development of the heritage planning nexus in the Netherlands. It sees three different approaches to dealing with heritage in planning: heritage as sector, as factor and as vector (Figure 1.1). While this model looks at different relations that have developed over time, it also shows that the different ways in which the fields of heritage and planning relate to each other do not phase each other out, but rather exist in various combinations. Janssen et al. frame the evolution of heritage in planning not as a paradigmatic revolution of different interrelationships, but rather as an evolutionary process in which new approaches build on previous ones. Thus, they acknowledge the delay between the introduction of new ideas on heritage and their adoption in planning frameworks, regulations and prac-tice. Even though the mindset of academics is surely, and almost inevitably, infused by changing ideas on heritage, in daily reality practitioners obviously have to work within the boundaries of the policies and regulations in place. Thus, while new conceptualizations of heritage embody a real transformative potential, planning practice tends to advance step by step (Pendlebury 2009).

Heritage as sector refers to the idea that heritage is considered under threat by spatial and economic dynamics and should be preserved in designated areas in order to prevent loss. The idea of a sector also refers to heritage conservation being a separate system that has its own legal basis and is largely government-driven, and thus supportive of a national narrative in the context of the process of nation state formation (or creation).

With the changing conceptualization and shifting role of heritage from the 1980s onward, it became apparent that this preservationist approach could only be applied to a selection of the most important monuments and sites. In other cases, heritage became seen as an important factor in planning and regen-eration strategies. In such instances, it is a negotiable aspect in market-driven spatial developments and public-private partnerships. Depending on the

Source: Janssen et al. (2017).

Figure 1.1 Conceptualization of the evolution of the interaction between heritage management and spatial planning


situation, adaptive reuse and/or radical alteration are just as viable options as preservation or conservation. In this heritage-as-factor approach, heritage experts as custodians need to negotiate with developers, investors, politicians and spatial planners.

Since the turn of the millennium, the growing importance of the ‘intangible’, as well as the value of the multiplicity of stories and meanings associated with buildings, districts and landscapes, has meant that heritage is seen as some-thing that can inspire developments both in physical and non-physical terms. It is this multiplicity, and its recognition in spatial plans, that leads to the production of cultural value. Accordingly, heritage can function as a vector for spatial planning projects, providing an endless supply of historical sources and contexts that can guide development. Rather than relying on the government or the market, an active dialogue is sought with civic society. Subsequently, participatory approaches are important to decipher the stories and memories of local inhabitants. A wide range of stakeholders, and explicitly also the various local communities, are included in order to deliberately tie in with societal agendas, and to platform more voices, as a way to further develop and transform heritage for societal benefit.

INTRODUCTION 11

Layering of heritage approachesThe enrichment of approaches and gradual integration of heritage into planning is mirrored in international guidelines for heritage conservation, as developed by UNESCO, ICOMOS or the Council of Europe (Veldpaus 2015; Veldpaus and Pereira Roders 2014). Whereas the Venice Charter of 1964 saw heritage as a separate domain and focused on individual sites and buildings, the 1975 Declaration of Amsterdam, further developed in the 1987 Washington Charter, positioned heritage conservation as part of spatial plan-ning. With documents such as the 2003 Convention on Intangible Heritage and the 2005 Faro Convention, we see the push towards more participatory and inclusive approaches, taking stock of the (intangible) traditions and values of a community. These conventions acknowledge that planning and conserva-tion cannot be separated from the cultural beliefs and values of a society, which must be safeguarded. The same holds true for the recommendation on Historic Urban Landscapes (UNESCO 2011), which promotes partnerships, participa-tory approaches and integration of heritage into socio-economic, cultural and environmental development.

The different approaches to heritage in spatial planning have certainly not pre-cipitated any radical shifts between coordination mechanisms. Instead, they have brought about the expansion of the repertoire of heritage management in a planning context. The heritage as sector, factor and vector approaches each have their own raison d’être in current planning reality and study. Or, to put it differently, heritage management now has at its disposal a number of mechanisms and logical frameworks for dealing with the past, which in plan-ning practice exist in parallel and in combination and are mutually dependent. Tensions between approaches are likely – unavoidable even – and there is a need for ongoing challenging of existing attitudes, as well as the development of new approaches. Contemporary heritage planning practice does not call for a uniform mode that can be applied to all heritage issues. Rather, the complex-ity of present-day heritage planning requires different modes of dealing with heritage in spatial plans and projects, and indeed flexibility to navigate between those.

As heritage becomes more integrated into spatial dynamics, it is also much more explicitly expected to facilitate and stimulate economic development (Veldpaus and Pendlebury 2019). This has various implications. It can more easily erase or abuse the results of participatory processes and ignore perspec-tives and voices that are not acting in the ‘preferred’ way. In other words, it makes even more likely processes of othering and exclusion, of un-belonging, and of being written out of history (Hall 1999). Moreover, consequences of


the process of instrumentalizing heritage, such as gentrification and com-modification, are regularly de-problematized and even celebrated (Beeksma and Cesari 2018). Heritage is supposed to achieve goals. This is also reflected in the so-called affective turn in heritage studies (Crooke and Maguire 2018; Smith et al. 2018), where a body of work is developing around the workings of heritage: what heritage does (Craggs et al. 2016; e.g. Davidson 2012; Kisić 2017; Sinclair-Chapman 2018; Tolia-Kelly et al. 2017). Consequently, we argue that an emerging approach can be identified, beyond sector, factor and vector: heritage as an actor. We will elaborate this in the final chapter of this book.

Today’s heritage challenges require heritage and planning professionals to realistically assess the potentials as well as the doings of a historic building, site or landscape in view of its broader societal context, and to apply different approaches accordingly. Given the dynamic nature of how the built envi-ronment is valued, heritage planning is a constantly changing reality that is guiding as well as adding value to and through urban and rural transforma-tion. It is our joint responsibility to reflect on common realities and policy frameworks, and make this an ethical and inclusive process, rather than an extractive and exploitative one. Actively using heritage to address structural societal problems like racism, climate change, uneven development and lack of diversity is a collective concern. It may reveal needs for radical changes to pol-icies and practices, and an approach which acknowledges that heritage is not neutral: it is a process of selection and of reproducing and mobilizing certain values and histories, often at the expense of other values and histories.

Challenges for heritage planning: identity, climate and development

There are a number of changing ‘environments’ with a substantial impact on heritage planning in Europe, as identified by JPI Cultural Heritage (2020): changing physical, social and economic, and political and cultural environ-ments. Urgent pressures on a global scale such as climate breakdown, increas-ing inequalities, uneven development, polarization and racism cannot be separated from heritage or planning. They challenge the status quo and require near-future solutions, as well as more long-term conceptual thinking and sys-temic change. Is heritage planning part of the solution, or part of the problem? As a broad and multifaceted field, there surely is no single answer to this, but it is a question we need to consider in our studies and our daily experiences.

INTRODUCTION 13

This book contributes to such reflection. We highlight the overarching themes of identity, climate change and (sustainable) development as perspectives in framing the current understandings of these societal challenges in relation to heritage planning. Depending on one’s outlook on what heritage can offer, the responses to these challenges will be highly diverse, as Višnja Kisić (Chapter 2) underlines in her contribution. She provides an overview of the wider academic debates this book is part of while reflecting on the position of the presented research, exploring common themes as well as pinpointing omis-sions and implicit assumptions. Providing a practical perspective, Koenraad Van Balen and Aziliz Vandesande (Chapter 3) present their research on how heritage counts for Europe, linking heritage management with key societal challenges. Both contributions further develop the foundations for the remain-der of the book, which is organized along these thematic strands of identity, climate and development. Our aim with these strands is to give an idea of the research done, as much as the research still needed.

Heritage planning and identityIdentity is one of the leading themes in heritage, as identity building is one of the main ‘things’ heritage is supposed to ‘do’. That takes many forms, ranging from nation state building to place branding and ways to enable a sense of belonging. A recognition of the political and strategic nature of heritage is growing, but the workings of it are often not considered in full. Moreover, they are being negotiated in a conservation planning assemblage where other logics (for instance, economics or safety) have agency too (Pendlebury 2013).

Responding to this, new paradigms have arisen that focus on identity and inclusivity, by foregrounding decolonial, non-canonical, democratic and par-ticipatory heritage practices (JPI-CH 2020). How can we be more perceptive about perspectives, identities and histories in society that are often conven-iently forgotten in conservation narratives? How do we deal with heritage that doesn’t fit or suit our identity, doesn’t tell our side of the story, doesn’t acknowledge our existence? For some, these are questions to be negotiated daily; for others, they might be unknown issues and new questions. So, this thematic strand is about unpicking how heritage relates to identity; how people identify (or not!) with places, pasts and practices; and how this is made possible (or not) by the heritage planning frameworks in place.

In the section on identity (Part II, Section A), much attention is paid to the role of ‘normal people’ (e.g. laypeople, local communities) and other stakeholders in participatory heritage practices, while critically reflecting on how ‘local identity’ is selectively employed in regeneration strategies at


a regional level and how heritage is part of identity politics at a European level. A thought-provoking introduction to the theme by Remi Wacogne (Chapter 4) is followed by Moore and Tully (Chapter 5) on oppida. These late Iron Age (un)enclosed settlements are in themselves a rather pure form of protected archaeological heritage. The structures are, however, also part of a wider landscape and a landscape management scheme that also needs to work for agricultural use, wildlife and hikers. How can the different understandings of this landscape play a role in an integrated landscape-based approach to heritage planning, and how can the different understandings support and enrich each other? Veldpaus and Wacogne (Chapter 6) focus on industrial heritage, critically assessing how the past is mobilized in the present. Sensitive to the downsides of the economic paradigm, and the nature of power relations and accountability, they assess how different groups of stakeholders and their narratives are positioned in such redevelopment schemes, particularly paying attention to the selectiveness by which stories from the past are put forward (or left out). The section continues with a contribution from Micoli et al. (Chapter 7). In case studies of archaeological heritage defined and managed by pro-fessionals, notions of civic engagement and local pride are explored through the use of new 3D technologies to the enhancement of (local) belonging and sense of place. Finally, Fiorentini et al. (Chapter 8) reveal the rather limited definitions of heritage that are used within European legal institutions. Since access to heritage is considered a basic human right, and European institutions employ heritage for identity politics, it is argued that a much more plural and diverse legal heritage perspective is needed, including minority and newcom-ers’ perspectives.

Heritage planning and climateAnother key issue to be addressed on a global scale, and therefore also in the context of heritage planning, is climate change. Over the past two decades, this major societal challenge has entered heritage planning agendas. The impacts of global warming on the development of land, (cultural) landscapes, popu-lations and their heritage are immense, interrelated and manifold. Research often focuses on monitoring and prevention of material loss. Much wider and deeper impacts on humanity, psychology and society are occurring in the dis-ruption to how communities live and interact with their landscapes, and thus pasts and cultures. These profound changes are much less researched.

The predicted physical, but also cultural and social, impacts on heritage in its various forms are hard to comprehend. The Paris Agreement and the Habitat III New Urban Agenda stress the need for urgent and drastic changes to the patterns of production, consumption and living. The transitions to low-carbon,

INTRODUCTION 15

climate-resilient and sustainable pathways need to be ethical and fair. Impacts are not only directly caused by the effects of climate change, such as sea-level rise, but also by the measures taken to promote climate adaptation. New demands are placed on the landscape as a result of, for example, water safety measures, sustainable transport and large-scale renewable energy production and distribution sites. These will have an incredible impact on our cultural landscapes, but they are potentially also the cultural landscapes of the future.

Although it is important to mitigate and monitor negative impacts, there is a need to shift our thinking. Can we move from climate being ‘a threat to heritage’ to heritage being part of the solution to climate change? For example, through the (re)use of existing buildings, materials and ‘embodied energy’, and by learning from traditional practices, experiences and knowledges? In short, this thematic strand evaluates and discusses research on opportunities for mitigating and reversing negative impacts on heritage, as well as possible ways by which heritage structures and values can serve as inspirations for designing and planning post-fossil and climate-robust resilient environments.

In the section on climate (Part II, Section B), state-of-the-art technology is applied to assess risks and monitor degradation of UNESCO World Heritage Sites and inform mitigation and adaptation strategies. In Chapter 9, Margottini introduces this vast, dynamic and diverse field of study by quantitatively assessing the numbers of scientific publications devoted to research on heritage, climate and the interaction between them. Current research on the impact of climate change on heritage sites is then described by Spizzichino and Margottini in Chapter 11 and by De Angeli and Battistin in Chapter 12. Both chapters focus on listed heritage, analysing these risks in order to come up with the best ways to mitigate or prevent damage and loss of heritage.

On the other hand, in Chapter 10, Vallerani and Visentin explore the intangi-ble heritage of waterways, looking at the meanings that past interventions, like canals, and natural phenomena, such as minor rivers, have for society. They touch upon how these currently underused or vacant water structures can be better used, both for increasing understandings of landscape and climate change and for practical applications like irrigation and outlets for peak supplies. Traditional, cultural and historical knowledge is essential to unravel the logic of old water systems and thus clearly identify bottlenecks and oppor-tunities for climate adaptation. Heritage thus embodies a source of historical solutions that can be used (again) in today’s plans and design schemes.

All in all, this section shows that heritage and climate influence each other. Besides needing to be protected from negative impacts, heritage can also have


a transformative potential for the benefit of society. Heritage can help to raise awareness of the impacts of climate change on society, and vice versa.

Heritage planning and developmentComplex transitions – such as climate change and the realization of inclusive and just societies – demand new perspectives in (and on) heritage planning and its role in urban and rural development. Particularly in the last two decades, approaches that integrate heritage and planning goals have been recommended, spurring the further incorporation of heritage into spatial development logics. This new role for heritage needs further understanding. Looking inwards is no longer an option: economic, political and social crises further increase the need for taking responsibility and position. Austerity measures following the financial crisis that erupted in 2008 also hit heritage management. In some instances, this halted large-scale demolition in favour of a more organic, small-scale transformation of the existing city and its envi-ronment, often driven by not-for-profit or community efforts. Towards 2020, however, the calls for new development (including housing) have been rising, while the consequences of a new economic crisis following the COVID-19 pandemic have yet to become clear. Though again hitting cultural institutions incredibly hard, such crises may also offer opportunities, for example, of more localized, socially just and sustainable development. Maybe, the capitalist logic of ongoing growth, and interlocal and interregional competition rather than collaboration, can be challenged this way? We however also need to ask questions like: what is the role of heritage in gentrification processes? How can issues like commodification and economic lock-in (such as the vulnerability of sole dependency on (international) visitors during the COVID-19 pandemic) be countered? How can heritage contribute to sustainable development in poor, peripheral or rural areas? The question of intangible heritage also comes in, as events, practices, activities, uses and traditions are just as much part of development as are assets and structures. How can this local ‘DNA’ be a tem-plate for future development and a means to enhance a sense of belonging and prevent out-migration, while also attracting in-migration, boosting quality of place and small-scale economic activity? In short, this thematic strand focuses on heritage as a potentially valuable asset for planning and development, but also shows the need to further understand the role of heritage in the context of place stewardship.

The section on development (Part II, Section C) therefore assesses the poten-tial of heritage for regional development strategies, in terms of gastronomy and local produce, music festivals and maintenance works that are boosting skills and employment. In Chapter 13, Sjölander-Lindqvist introduces the playing

INTRODUCTION 17

field of heritage and development, pointing out the diverse value frameworks and conceptualizations of heritage which should be recognized in order to achieve social sustainability. In line with this, Chapter 14 by Whyton and Perry focus on how and by whom jazz music is considered as heritage, and what this means in terms of its spatial settings. Festivals, as (in)formally recognized heritage locations, are positioned as arenas for exchange on what is considered heritage, and whose narratives dominate and make the city, while promoting attention for undervalued or overlooked values and groups. Della Torre and Moioli (Chapter 15) analyse international cases of methods of (preventive) maintenance and integrated conservation of listed heritage, which at the same time promote societal and economic benefits such as the creation of jobs, promotion of training and skills, and community involvement. Finally, in Chapter 16, Sjölander-Lindqvist et al. focus on gastronomy and local produce, preparation and places for food exchange, such as markets, as heritage. Their contemporary value is explored in terms of (economic) development, regional branding and the creation of productive linkages between local producers.

The varied chapters in this section subsequently reflect how heritage in all its forms is positioned rather centrally in current (economic) development strat-egies for cities and regions. The aim is to positively impact on society, while also considering the balance between use and exploitation, and addressing inclusiveness in terms of which and whose heritage is considered.

To conclude: new crossovers in heritage planning

The different contributions to this book underline the variety in approaches to and perspectives on heritage planning: from fixed to fluid or gasiform, from preservationist to dynamic or developmental, from expert-led and top-down to community-driven and bottom-up, from the institutional to the personal, and from what heritage is (or seems to be) to what heritage actually does. In other words, the major societal transformations and spatial challenges can be approached both as threats and as opportunities for heritage; both forms (or a combination) are valid, depending on the issue at stake and the different stakeholders involved. Moreover, we see clear added value in a form of heritage planning in which these different approaches supplement and enrich each other. This also holds true for the new heritage frontiers in spatial planning, pushed forward by urgent issues of identity, climate and development. This results in different outlooks on heritage management and conservation. By bringing these outlooks together in one volume, we aim to bridge often sep-


arate academic debates, inspire constructive heritage planning practices and innovative research projects and agendas, and stimulate public debate.

Stimulating crossovers in research on heritage planning is important. A multi-dimensional perspective could provide impetus for critical crossover research. Much can be gained by enabling more profound and lasting productive inter-actions within and between practice and research. We will elaborate on this more deeply in the final chapter of this book, when we propose an agenda for the future. In that agenda, we encourage wider, broadly engaged perspectives on heritage planning that contribute to addressing societal challenges. We explore comprehensive and creative ways of knowing and doing within and across the three pivotal themes. Heritage planning has transformative poten-tial. We aim to encourage both practice and research directions to be aware of this potential, and position heritage planning within diverse movements for making our world more just, diverse and sustainable. By exploring challenging research questions, we hope to inspire new pathways and imaginings of doing and studying heritage planning in the future.

References

Ashworth, G. (2011), ‘Preservation, conservation and heritage: approaches to the past in the present through the built environment’, Asian Anthropology, 10 (1), 1–18.

Beeksma, A. and C.D. Cesari (2018), ‘Participatory heritage in a gentrifying neigh-bourhood: Amsterdam’s Van Eesteren Museum as affective space of negotiations’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25 (9), 974–91.

Bosma, K. (2010), ‘Heritage policy in spatial planning’, in T. Bloemers, H. Kars and A.V. der Valk (eds), The Cultural Landscape and Heritage Paradox: Protection and Development of the Dutch Archaeological-Historical Landscape and its European Dimension, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 641–51.

Craggs, R., H. Geoghegan and H. Neate (2016), ‘Managing enthusiasm: between “extremist” volunteers and “rational” professional practices in architectural conser-vation’, Geoforum, 74, 1–8.

Crooke, E. and T. Maguire (2018), Heritage after Conflict: Northern Ireland, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.

Davidson, T. (2012), Stone Bodies in the City: Unmapping Monuments, Memory and Belonging in Ottawa, PhD Thesis, Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta.

Davoudi, S. (2015), ‘Planning as practice of knowing’, Planning Theory, 14 (3), 316–31.Dühr, S., C. Colomb and V. Nadin (2010), European Spatial Planning and Territorial

Cooperation, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.EU (2019), ‘Urban Agenda for the EU’, Text, accessed 26 May 2020 at https:// ec .europa

.eu/ futurium/ en/ urban -agenda.Graham, B., G. Ashworth and J. Tunbridge (2000), A Geography of Heritage: Power,

Culture, and Economy, London; New York: Arnold; Oxford University Press.

https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/urban-agenda


INTRODUCTION 19

Hall, S. (1999), ‘Whose heritage? Un‐settling “the heritage”, re‐imagining the Postnation’, Third Text, 13 (49), 3–13, doi: 10.1080/09528829908576818.

Harrison, R. (2013), Heritage: Critical Approaches, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.

Hart, S. (2011), ‘Heritage, neighborhoods and cosmopolitan sensibilities: poly-communal archaeology in Deerfield, Massachusetts’, Present Pasts, 3 (1), https:// doi .org/ 10 .5334/ pp .42.

Janssen, J., E. Luiten, H. Renes and E. Stegmeijer (2017), ‘Heritage as sector, factor and vector: conceptualizing the shifting relationship between heritage management and spatial planning’, European Planning Studies, 25 (9), 1654–72.

JPI Cultural Heritage (2020), Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda 2020, Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage and Global Change (JPI CH), accessed 10 May 2021 at https:// www .heritageresearch -hub .eu/ app/ uploads/ 2020/ 12/ SRIA -2020 -1 .pdf

Kalman, H. (2014), Heritage Planning: Principles and Process, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.

Kisić, V. (2017), Governing Heritage Dissonance: Promises and Realities of Selected Cultural Policies, Belgrade: European Cultural Foundation (ECF).

Labadi, S. and W. Logan (2015), Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability: International Frameworks, National and Local Governance, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.

Madgin, R. (2020), ‘Urban heritage and urban development’, in S. Haumann, M. Knoll and D. Mares (eds), Concepts of Urban-Environmental History, transcript, Verlag.

Meskell, L. (2015), ‘Introduction: globalizing heritage’, in L. Meskell (ed.), Global Heritage: A Reader, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Meskell, L. (2018), A Future in Ruins: UNESCO, World Heritage, and the Dream of Peace, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Pendlebury, J. (2009), Conservation in the Age of Consensus, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.

Pendlebury, J. (2013), ‘Conservation values, the authorised heritage discourse and the conservation-planning assemblage’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19 (7), 709–27.

Pendlebury, J., M. Scott, L. Veldpaus, W. van der Toorn Vrijthoff and D. Redmond (2019), ‘After the crash: the conservation-planning assemblage in an era of austerity’, European Planning Studies, 28 (4), 672–90, doi: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1629395.

Rypkema, D. (2006), ‘Economics, sustainability, and historic preservation’, Forum J, 20, 27–38.

Sinclair-Chapman, V. (2018), ‘(De)Constructing symbols: Charlottesville, the con-federate flag, and a case for disrupting symbolic meaning’, Politics, Groups, and Identities, 6 (2), 316–23.

Smith, L. (2006), Uses of Heritage, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Taylor and Francis.Smith, L., M. Wetherell and G. Campbell (2018), Emotion, Affective Practices, and the

Past in the Present, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.Tolia-Kelly, D.P., E. Waterton and S. Watson (eds) (2017), Heritage, Affect and

Emotion: Politics, Practices and Infrastructures, London; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

UNESCO (2011), Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, accessed 25 January 2018 at http:// whc .unesco .org/ uploads/ activities/ documents/ activity -638 -98 .pdf.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09528829908576818

https://doi.org/10.5334/pp.42

https://www.heritageresearch-hub.eu/app/uploads/2020/12/SRIA-2020-1.pdf

https://www.heritageresearch-hub.eu/app/uploads/2020/12/SRIA-2020-1.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1629395

http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-638-98.pdf



UNESCO (2016), Culture: Urban Future: Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development, Paris: UNESCO.

UN-HABITAT (2016), ‘The New Urban Agenda’, accessed 26 May 2020 at http:// habitat3 .org/ the -new -urban -agenda/ .

Veldpaus, L. (2015), Historic Urban Landscapes: Framing the Integration of Urban and Heritage Planning in Multilevel Governance, PhD Thesis, Eindhoven, Netherlands: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, accessed 11 February 2016 at http:// repository .tue .nl/ 798291.

Veldpaus, L. and J. Pendlebury (2019), ‘Heritage as a vehicle for development: The case of Bigg Market, Newcastle upon Tyne’, Planning Practice & Research, 10.1080/02697459.2019.1637168.

Veldpaus, L. and A. Pereira Roders (2014), ‘Learning from a legacy: Venice to Valletta’, Change over Time, 4 (2), 10.1353/cot.2014.0022.

Veldpaus, L., F. Fava and D. Brodowicz (2019), Mapping of Current Heritage Re-use Policies and Regulations in Europe Complex Policy Overview of Adaptive Heritage Re-use, OpenHeritage: Deliverable 1.2, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, December, p. 254.

http://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/

http://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/

http://repository.tue.nl/798291

http://repository.tue.nl/798291

https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2019.1637168

https://doi.org/10.1353/cot.2014.0022

21

2 Heritage research in the 21st century: departing from the useful futures of sustainable development

Višnja Kisić

At the beginning of the 20th century, Dadaists were shouting, ‘ruin the museums and heritage’. Near the end of it, Fukuyama (1989) prophetically questioned ‘the end of history’, while museum, heritage and memory rituals were becoming all but unavoidable. In the last two decades, in the wake of occupied and uncertain futures, the heritage field has boomed. Hundreds of museums have opened each year across the globe; heritage tourism has become an ever-stronger industry niche; heritage issues have made it into numerous policy areas other than culture; heritage studies have become an immensely dynamic and interdisciplinary field; heritage practices have extended their scope, aspirations and approaches with each new day; and conflicts in numerous parts of the world have incorporated references to heritage and history. Questions that have been raised and continuously discussed in these decades have transformed both heritage practice and research. What counts as heritage? Who has the right to define, safeguard and transform it? What is the role of memory institutions in ever more plural and fragmented memory landscapes? Which knowledges, skills and competences are needed to be engaged in heritage practice, professionally and otherwise? How is heritage to be understood and cared for?

These and other questions have challenged the long-standing, Western European, hegemonic way of understanding and practising heritage. The push for critical reassessment within the heritage profession, the new muse-ology (Vergo 1989; Desvallées 1992; Desvallées 1994; Bennett 1995; Duncan 1995; Kisić 2014), and (critical) heritage studies (Smith 2006; Harrison 2013; Waterton and Watson 2013; Winter 2013), as well as perspectives from non-Western societies and subaltern groups within Western societies, have led to new research agendas. These understand memory institutions and


heritage as a particular mode, method and discourse entangled with structural, systemic and symbolic forms of power. Moreover, the neoliberal turn of the global capitalist order in public policies and research has pressured the herit-age field in research and practice to open up to other-than-public actors, new instrumentalisations and integrations with dominant development agendas. This book, together with the increasing amount of research in heritage studies, recent policy documents and growing heritage practice, reflects the ongoing shift towards other ways of framing, creating, doing and engaging with her-itage, which I have termed the inclusive heritage discourse (Kisić 2016). This addresses the multiple openings of the authorised heritage discourse that have taken place in the last few decades. Those openings and shifts have paved the way for a myriad of critical, democratic, plural and emancipatory struggles in conceptualising, researching and practising heritage. However, many of them have been embraced by a new pragmatism that leans on neoliberal global capitalist developments.

Simultaneously, with the strengthening of critical heritage studies, there has been an even stronger trend towards research with utilitarian, practical and measurable results – research that will be instrumental for how societies relate to heritage, how policies are drawn and how heritage is managed. It is in this light that I have considered this invitation to write this chapter. This book gathers projects funded through particular calls and agendas focusing on heritage and its social, environmental and economic impact. As such, it is rep-resentative of a particular moment and a particular hegemony in the European research field and is thus symbolic in both in its diversity of topics and its common assumptions. What unites most of the research gathered in this book is explicit and often implicit dialogue with sustainable development, a poster child of the neoliberal capitalist order which currently shapes European and world research imaginations.

Taking into consideration these shifts in heritage discourse, as well as a par-ticular heritage-view in relation to the dominant sustainable development paradigm implicated in this book, I will engage in a dialogue with the three themes set by the editors in relation to heritage – Identity, Climate and Development. In this discussion, my aim will be to shed light on some possible understandings of heritage within the complex web of life and socio-political relations, which offer alternatives to its current position within the sustainable development paradigm. I will therefore be trying to imagine other possible worlds and futures beyond the one prophesied by sustainable development; worlds in which the crises of today’s integrated world capitalism, of risk societies in a state of permanent global war and of humans’ colonial relation-ship to the otherness in the web of life, ask us to formulate heritage issues in

HERITAGE RESEARCH IN THE 21ST CENTURY 23

a different way. By doing so, I will position each of the three broader themes within a particular field of problematisation that could shed light on possible divergent approaches and theories, as well as divergent political and ethical agendas for the heritage field, beyond what I would call useful futures. By useful futures I mean a specific kind of sensibility, mindset and governmen-tality that evaluates lives, bodies, creative forces, relations, spaces and times as resources deemed more or less useful for the sustaining of the current world order, and the imaginations by which that order perpetuates itself. Global cap-italism – linked with the sustainable development paradigm, with its peculiar discourse on exponential growth, climate change, social cohesion and struggle against poverty, and its set of goals, measures, evidence-based methods and techno-optimism – produces the mentality of useful futures, thus eliminating multiple possible worlds and narrowing down alternative conceivable futures.

In an attempt to go beyond useful futures of sustainable development, I will discuss the entanglements between heritage and identity by relating them to debates on hegemony and pluralism. In discussing the issue of heritage and climate, I will reformulate the debate to include many more issues of heritage with(in) the environment, involving questions of human/non-human agency, care and decay and the interconnectedness of the symbiotic real. Finally, I will explore the relationship between heritage and development, through the lenses of heritage as a commodity and heritage as commons. Those three trajectories will help guide my reflection on the current ways of framing the heritage field in relation to identity, environment and development. Simultaneously, they will act as glimpses of some of the alternative ontological, ethical, ecological and political routes relevant for the future of heritage research in possible future worlds.

Hegemonies and pluriverse: thinking identifications, dissonances and engagements

Heritage-making, heritage-doing and the processes of identifying and subject-ing oneself to heritage are inherently political. They are predicated not only on questions of who is included, but with what rights and under what terms, visions, implications and arrangements. Each identification with heritage implies subjectification to a particular narrational chain of history (Connerton 1989), to a particular distribution of the sensible (Ranciere 1999) and to par-ticular regimes of engagements with past, present and future. Heritage-making and heritage-doing go hand in hand with creating and consolidating both localised and imagined communities (Anderson 1983; Waterton and Smith


2010; Arronson and Elgenius 2015), thus normalising identities, differences and power relations (Hall 1999). These relationships between heritage, identity and power have been at the forefront of critical scholarship in heritage studies since the 1980s. Much has been written about heritage as a mechanism of modern Western European governmentality and hegemony (Handler 1987; Hooper-Greenhill 1992; Smith 2006; Bennett et al. 2017); a powerful sustaining mechanism for naturalising Western ways of ordering societies, relating to otherness and envisaging futures. Moreover, the heritage practices, perspec-tives and realities of diverse subaltern groups have been voiced: not just to be included in the hegemonic ways of doing heritage, but to redefine regimes of imagination and legitimacy in doing it. The wider post-1989 context, charac-terised by increased construction and politicisation of identity-based differ-ence, has further questioned the universalising, apolitical governmentality of heritage, exposing it as a site of social struggles, negotiations and conflicts.

Furthermore, efforts to address the ‘democratic deficit’ and the pluralisation and fragmentation of societies in Europe have triggered a participatory turn in heritage practice, politics and research. Much of the recent research exploring the entanglements between (European) heritage, identity and memory suggests that these categories and processes should be seen as multidirectional, plural, conflictual and divergent, rather than as consensual, celebratory and coherent (Kisić 2018b). Moreover, relationships with heritage have been conceptualised beyond cognitive registers; trying instead to understand engagements with heritage as navigated through the politics of affective registers such as pain, loss, joy, nostalgia, pleasure, belonging or anger (Tolia-Kelly et al. 2016).

In some heritage research, a critique of and shift from ontological essentialism and positivist epistemology has opened new horizons for thinking about the hegemonising force of heritage-making, as well as its potential to disrupt, challenge and contest hegemonic ways of ordering identities, societies and ecosystems. What is being constructed as a consequence is what I define as the inclusive heritage discourse. This reflects the multiple openings which have taken place in the last few decades – such as the multitudisation of actors, pluralisation of meanings and pluralisation of ways of constructing relationships with the past. In this discursive construction, heritage has been increasingly understood as an interpretative, communicative process contin-uously (re)constructed in the present by relating values, beliefs and meanings with diverse forms of materialisations. Instead of a single truth about the past, mediated through material remains, the inclusive heritage discourse appraises the plurality of meanings related to heritage, and acknowledges dissonance as a quality embedded in heritage-making. As such, I argue for understanding heritage values as relational and instrumental for a myriad of identity-based,


political, economic, social and cultural goals. This recognises an assemblage of diverse actors in governing heritage and links the right to heritage with agency across social groups, together with diverse choices and responsibilities in using it – including destruction, forgetting or alteration. Finally, it reflects the transition from a static understanding of heritage that legitimises only con-servation, towards a dynamic understanding of heritage as a way of negotiating change and continuity. This discursive shift, however, not only accommodates emancipatory heritage struggles; it simultaneously neutralises and naturalises neoliberal hegemony by justifying austerity measures, heritage-led develop-ment and commodification of heritage.

The opening of heritage as a plural and conflicting ground (Kisić 2018a) has been met by diverse strategies of governing dissonance, creating closures and manufacturing consent, such as:

1. Entrepreneuring dissonance and subalternity – in which new ways of con-suming and entrepreneuring heritage experiences have become ever more diverse and have expanded the horizons of tourism and leisure towards industrial heritages, dark and difficult heritages, localised gastronomies, off-the-beaten-track narratives and more than public actors (Veldpaus and Wacogne, Chapter 6 this volume). At the same time, new practices of inclusion and exclusion are brought in, entangled with economic interests.

2. Occupying the common(s) as a place of consent – in which the concept of shared or common (European) heritage has been increasingly positioned as a more plural substitute for the universalist concept of heritage, man-ufacturing a specific kind of consent on supranational identity, in which many might be included, but do not ‘naturally’ belong (migrants, Roma, sans papiers, diasporas, etc.) – as Fiorentini et al. show in Chapter 8 this volume. This notion not only excludes some from forms of identifying, but excludes everyone from practices of communing heritage, as I will discuss later.

3. Exceptionalising ruptures, participations and inclusions – in which inclu-sions, participations and ruptures in hegemonic historic narratives and authorising institutions have been kept at the level of temporary, project-driven and non-sustaining occasions and exceptions. Thus, talking about, experimenting with and researching subaltern voices and partic-ipatory models take place behind the powerful backdrop of sedimented historic narratives and practices, as Whyton and Perry show in Chapter 14 this volume.

4. Exporting conflicts to peripheries and pasts – in which heritage-related conflicts, as well as heritage-led reconciliation practices and research, have been exported to certain geographies on European peripheries (the


Yugoslav successor states and Northern Ireland) or to certain time periods in the European past (World Wars, the Holocaust, fall of the Berlin Wall). This implies the absence of socio-political and economic conflicts, and their entanglements with heritage, in European centres (Kisić 2019).

5. Ghettoising dissonances, difficulties and discomforts – in which numerous concepts have been proposed to pinpoint the upsetting, conflictual char-acteristics of heritage: dissonant (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996), difficult (Macdonald 2009), contested (Silverman 2011) and unwanted (Light 2000), among others. These concepts often serve to depoliticise heritage dissonance through ghettoisation, standardisation, consonance and psy-chological pluralisation (Kisić 2018b). Each of these strategies of closure and hegemonising remain to be further addressed in future research.

Apart from these research avenues, future heritage research and practice could be called upon to address the growing number of ways in which heritage works beyond current strategies of closures and consent; ways in which heritage opens and enables new forms and kinds of identifications and pluralisations that could be grasped by concepts of dissensus, alliances, conflicts and multi-tudes. Here is just a glimpse of the myriads of these alternative ways.

Instead of sealing off pluralism by naming some heritage as ‘dissonant’, the notion of heritage dissonance (Kisić 2016) opens broader horizons for ques-tioning sedimented, policed heritage narratives and practices (Kisić 2018b). This enables us to notice ever-present instabilities, resurgences and subaltern ways of remembering within heritage practices, as well as the ways in which the dominant order is obscuring and obliterating them. The concept of agonistic pluralism (Mouffe 2013), similarly, can make space for politics and knowledge that values disagreements and acts of dissensus, rather than delineating clear and consensual political wholes. This is a lens that encourages us to understand and address the conflicts reflected and embedded in heritage and to practise heritage on a more democratic level. Moreover, instead of the overused, rigid notions of community, class, group, ethnicity and people, the concept of the multitude (Hardt and Negri 2004) might offer more promising horizons for addressing emancipatory alliances in heritage-making as ‘singularities that act in common’: internally multiple, irreducible to a single hegemonic stand and in a constant process of becoming. Together with concepting rights to heritage, new research should also notice and address practices of dis-identification: ‘maintaining a distance’ from one’s symbolic identity and emancipating oneself from oppressive practices (Butler et al. 2000). Finally, heritage researchers might start trading in worn-out universalist epistemologies for those that embrace the plural epistemologies and pluriverse (Escobar 2018). This could open up our imaginations for fundamentally different knowledge creation and


political subjectification that might pave ways for radically interconnected and life-pulsating futures.

Heritage with(in) environment: thinking existences, interrelations and agencies

Engaging in research that opens plural future alternatives requires us to pose ontological questions on existence and interconnectedness, as well as on socio-economic regimes with which our existences, participations and iden-tities are intertwined. However, the narrative in which heritage is endangered by the hostile force called Climate that is changing beyond our control and understanding closes multiple horizons. It sees climate as somewhat external to both humans and heritage sites, and assumes the ideas of managing change, mitigating risks, monitoring, tracking and taking back control – all within current socio-political arrangements. By embedding and internalising such a discourse, heritage research blinds us to the very epistemic, ethical and polit-ical roots of our current regimes of worlding. Swyngedouw (2010) interprets this focus on the ‘Spectre of Climate Change’ as a post-political normalisation of the current neoliberal order and economic practice, which prohibits think-ing about alternative ways of organising society, distributing resources and relating to the environment.

The stream of articulating our relationship with the environment through the threat of climate change has produced important research results, policy papers and expert reports that address the effects of natural disasters and the cumulative effects of changing weather on material heritage (Colette 2007; Sobbioni et al. 2010; ICOMOS 2019; also the projects presented in this volume). However, heritage research and theory have taken diverse other paths in thinking of heritage (with)in environment. As a field long preoccu-pied with collecting and protecting against loss and for the future, heritage research has addressed the challenges that heritage practices face beyond preservation. The critique of the dominant practices of collecting and listing heritage, entangled with the development of capitalist object relations, gave rise to writings about de-accessioning (Vecco and Piazzai 2015) and de-growth as applied to heritage (Morgan and Macdonald 2018). Furthermore, heritage planning has recognised ideas of adaptive reuse, heritage rehabilitation and managing historic urban landscapes (Pereira Roders and Bandarin 2019). Also, virtual, augmented realities and digitalised heritage are seen by some as a way forward, transgressing the logic of materiality, authenticity and objecthood, while in reality promoting other kinds of objecthood mediated by technolog-


ical devices. On the other hand, virtuality is all but simple in research which illuminates the ways that natural heritage and endangered species, seeds and genetic material are being preserved through ex situ practices, biobanking and biocapitals (Breithoff and Harrison 2018).

The notion of protection against loss has been challenged by DeSilvey’s (2017) concept of practising ‘curated decay’ as a way to reframe the heritage field towards examining the persistence of decay as a product of natural and cul-tural circumstances, widening the agency of human and non-human actors. In the time of the Anthropocene and the effects of climate change, Harvey and Perry (2015) argue we need a new understanding of heritage which embraces loss, alternative forms of knowledge and uncertain futures, and which fosters the creativity and adaptability of future generations. Thinking about heritage within its environment has opened possibilities for understanding and explor-ing the changing relations of humans with their environment, as Valerani and Visentin (Chapter 10 this volume), as well as Tully and Moore (Chapter 5 this volume) reflect. Instead of curating decay or arguing for preservation or conservation against climate change, participation in heritage could stimulate engagement in landscape choices and relatedness to diverse forms of being, reviving practices. Moreover, landscape is not understood only in relation to those who can claim roots and settlements in it, but also those who are engag-ing with it through routes, while on the move (Bender 2001).

Along those lines, when addressing heritage within the environment, new research paths in heritage could reframe explorations in dialogue with other philosophical, political and ecological thinking that interpret the current hegemonic discussion on climate change and ecology in a different way. This would entail thinking about the relationships between human and non-human beings and agencies, and what these mean for the current understandings of existences, boundaries, identities and hierarchies that shape our current understanding of the world. If perspectivism and constructivism have opened the epistemic basis of heritage research to a plurality of actors, interpretations, valorisations and ways of knowing, the actor–network theory (Latour 2005) and object-oriented ontologies (Morton 2013, 2017; Harman 2018, 2019) have challenged the very idea of heritage as solely a human discursive–interpreta-tive construction, opening new ontological horizons for multiple coexisting realities, becomings and interconnections (Mol 1999). Consequently, this ontologically puts into question the concepts and practices which understand heritage sites, objects, landscapes and practices as delineable, bounded entities subjected to control, management and adaptive reuse through human agency.


The ontological implications of theories and concepts such as symbiotic real and subsendence that posit ontological interdependence of beings (Morton 2017); ecosophy that interrelates the ecological registers of environments, social relations and subjectivities (Guatarri 2000; Antonioli 2018); or matters of care that are implied in our very coexistence within more than human worlds (Puig de la Bellacasa 2017) challenge the very ideas of isolated subjectivities, nature–culture divides, managerialism, universalism and speciesism. Abstract as they may sound, these implications deeply influence the ways in which we understand life on this planet, and consequently the (ontological) politics, ethics and practice of researching and doing heritage. Are spaces, objects, plants or rocks legitimate existences accounted for beyond human needs? Is heritage practice, in claiming to care for future worlds while safeguarding pasts, at the same time colonising other possible future worlds by putting (some) humans first? What would the notions of informality, solidarity and interdependence imply in planning and heritage doing? What would the role of heritages be in de-universalising, re-territorialising and re-aestheticising planning practices beyond the sustainable development paradigm towards subjective cities (Guatarri 2019)? What would the incorporation of place-based ethics (Till 2012), experiences, memories, existences and subjectivities mean in heritage planning when engaging in urban or environmental change practices as planners, heritage managers or urban theorists? When planning change in historic (urban) landscapes, what would it mean to think, research and plan spaces not occupied by humans beyond ‘empty’, ‘unused’, ‘lacking content’ or simply ‘green’? What would equality with non-humans imply for the dis-crepancy between archaeological practices and careful treatment of human remains, in contrast to the drilling and burning remains of other life forms through fossil fuel consumption? Should we understand biobanks as places for ‘securing hope’ (Harrison 2017) in the context of the human-induced entropic decay of diversity, or as the engineering of a useful future in which species, seeds and life are purposefully destroyed, while simultaneously being stored in case they are deemed useful for the future of humanity? The future planned so that many other-than-human beings might not exist, but depositing insti-tutions will?

Heritage as commodity and heritage as commons: thinking divergent visions of development

The mentality of the useful future not only shapes our approaches to under-standing heritage within webs of life, but deeply influences and is influenced


by the very notions of development that we are able to imagine and practice in relation to heritage – the development increasingly saturated by the com-modified future. The ‘economies of worth’ (Boltanski and Thevenot 2006) knocked on the door of heritage research decades ago, and some of the doors were opened wide for exploring the justification of heritage: its worth, its impact, its value and its usefulness for the current model of society. As Janssen et al. (2017) note, the infiltration of economic and social concerns is subtly altering the way heritage is dealt with spatially, paving the way for heritage in spatial planning with a ‘culture of profit’ in which heritage fosters social and economic development (Corten et al. 2014). As Veldpaus and Wacogne note in Chapter 6 this volume, there is ‘an increased focus on pragmatic and highly selective heritage practices, or in other words on “useful” heritage’ – practices which, in order to be legitimate under the growth agenda, have to legitimise the growth agenda themselves by facilitating and stimulating growth through heritage conservation. The excuses for justifying the shift are numerous: austerity measures and reduced funds for conservation of historic buildings; competitiveness between cities, regions and countries on the global experience market; the shift towards evidence-based policies in shrinking welfare states; the move towards sustainable development, resilience and smart cities. Almost naturally and inevitably, heritage practice and heritage research are main-streaming heritage in other policy agendas, finding new integrated models for managing heritage, pioneering regeneration of neighbourhoods, producing spill-over effects and, in particular, ‘highlighting the returns on investments in conservation beyond the narrow circle of the heritage sector’ (Della Torre and Moioli, Chapter 15 this volume).

In most of today’s Europe, we live the reality in which the statement, ‘heritage is a globalised economic commodity’, is a doxa of a good part of the heritage planning and heritage research agendas. Consequently, the development lan-guage of capital and resource occupy our research vocabularies and methods when it comes to peoples, communities, humans, territories, cultures, and other living and non-living beings. The research presented in this book is all but immune to this terminology; that is, utilising notions of human capital, cultural capital, upstream investments and spill-over effects to talk about the ways in which heritage shapes our realities, economies, social relations and futures. Other research has followed this trend: a growing literature on the social and economic value of heritage (Dümcke and Gnedovsky 2013), as well as a new synthesis of its impact on sustainable development (CHCfE, van Balen and Vandesande, Chapter 3 this volume), together with research projects that focus on defining and measuring the impacts of material cultural heritage on other economic sectors. Furthermore, a whole niche of heritage research has boomed, exploring the relationship between heritage, develop-


ment and tourism (Timothy and Boyd 2006; Salazar 2010; Ashworth 2014). In mapping the impact of heritage, the amount of research on economic impact far surpasses the studies which have explored social, cultural and environmen-tal impact (CHCfE Consortium 2015, 14). The new orthodoxy of heritage-led development and impact assessment has been criticised; not only for focusing on one aspect of impact (CHCfE), but for suffering from a positivist bias (Labadi 2008), for gentrifying places (De Cesari and Dimova 2019) and for seg-regating areas and people whose daily lives are being shaped by these develop-ments (Leite 2013). An even bigger epistemic, political and structural problem with this trend is that, while seemingly universalist and objective, this research comes with a whole set of unquestioned political and economic assumptions, geopolitical power relations and historic contingencies. These serve to further institute neoliberal capitalism in Europe, in European countries ‘in transition’ and globally. The majority of studies on the impact of heritage in Europe have been performed in the UK and several other late-capitalist countries of Western Europe, together with some pioneering cases in Eastern and Southern Europe. However, despite the particular situatedness of the best practices, the evidence-based research and funding logics are being benchmarked into inter-national, national and local policies and transposed into contexts in which their promises are hard to realise. Thus, I argue that the global structural injustice previously performed by the intrinsic worth of Western European heritage, in delineating more from less civilised, is today performed by the techniques of instrumental worth in heritage-led development on the global markets.

This doxa of heritage commodification for development, however, is increas-ingly haunted by the idea of the commons (van Laerhoven and Ostrom 2007; Hardt and Negri 2009; Harvey 2012), in a counter-capitalist development struggle by numerous groups. What the above-mentioned research defines and normalises as the foundational entanglement between heritage and a particular type of economic development, writings on heritage as commons understand as the deepening of alienation and inequality entailed by the appropriation of commons through heritage construction and commodification. Reworking the idea of the commons in relation to heritage, Gonzáles (2015) argues that the heritagisation process relies on and draws from the ‘common givens’ – the common wealth of the material world, as well as the results of social produc-tion such as traditions, knowledges, languages, codes and affects co-created by unspecified subjectivities during time. Furthermore, the heritage givens are becoming a ‘productive force’, put to work through novel assemblages of value creation; some of which foster the further creation of commons, while others prevent it by appropriating and capturing the common heritage values to generate profits (and other non-communal political, economic and social ends). In the wake of knowledge and experience economies, the renting and


capitalising of the common creative forces entailed in heritage processes are expanding their horizons – through delineation and commodification of ‘intangible’ heritages; heritage digitalisation within growing copyright markets; heritage-based place branding that capitalises artiness, multicultural-ity or rawness of localities; or market and policy entanglements of cultural diversity with creative industries. The widening of the scope and meaning of heritage in the name of democratisation and inclusion has also expanded the frontiers of its enclosure and exploitation by capital.

Understanding heritage as a commodity and heritage as commons is not just a matter of an author’s or manager’s ‘preferences as to the best ways to manage them’ (Barrère 2018). It is a matter of ethical, political and ontological assumptions that lead to irreconcilably different frameworks of interpretation of heritage within the current world order, its possible transformations and futures. Unlike the careful classification of social, economic, cultural, environ-mental and other impacts in commodifying heritage, understanding heritage as commons implies understanding value creation, material distribution and the social relations in which they take place as inextricably bound to each other. In the context of global capitalism and neoliberal politics, with austerity measures in public goods and the transformation of public goods into means for private capital accumulation (Hardt and Negri 2009), the idea of entrust-ing states with the public goods implied in the ideas of the common heritage of humanity in international law (Balsar 2012), or world heritage, is being questioned. Therefore, the practice of communing is seen as a new negotiation between citizens, state and capital, in which the commons have to be enacted anew. This is done by social groups reclaiming and redefining ‘those aspects of their actually existing or yet-to-be-created social and/or physical environment deemed crucial to its life and livelihood’, as ‘collective and non-commodifiable’ (Harvey 2012, 73). Understanding heritage as commons, and interpreting the enclosure and commodification of heritage beyond post-political neutralising registers of growth and development, opens different horizons for analysing heritage economies as inextricably intertwined with social, communal, envi-ronmental and cultural struggles.

There have been many engagements with the idea of the commons, and the historic and contemporary heritage practices aligned with it, but these are often left under the radar of mainstream ways to understand and research her-itage. The most discussed current examples consist of urban struggles, in which heritage as commons has been increasingly vivid in movements claiming the ‘right to the city’, and numerous community groups that work on imagining new urban commons (Benesch et al. 2015; Sham 2017). They do this by fight-ing for housing rights, for spaces free from monetary exchange and against


the commodification of neighbourhood memories, spaces and views. Beyond struggles for the right to the city, numerous existing campaigns could be better understood through the idea of constructing heritage as commons than through notions of commodity, logics of usefulness and economies of worth: community-cared heritage sites, oral history groups, community archives, family practices of heritagisation, Internet practices and virtual spaces that store and make knowledge and information accessible, or campaigns against further exploitation of public spaces and landscapes. In the museum field, a number of practices which started in the late 1960s and 1970s in rural areas and suburbs – such as ecomuseums, integral museums and community-run museums – have experimented with new forms of place-based museums as a method for navigating communal futures, by interrelating heritage, citizens, environments and processes of value creation. Furthermore, the struggles of indigenous communities for acknowledgement of their heritage could be understood beyond the effort for their cultures to be recognised within the Westernised idea of heritage in a cognitive level of significance assessment, as an effort to negotiate ideas of common place, common life, common territory and common development against the colonising statist–capitalist world order. In all these initiatives, the struggles are not about the right to be included in the valorisation, commodification and planning processes formulated by the current order, but about the right to be exempt from it, while at the same time broadening the horizon of possible arrangements.

In the increasing intellectual production and heritage practices that align with the current economies of worth and evidence-based justification of worth, researching heritage as commons could point to alternative horizons by several paths. One possible path would be genealogical analyses which explore the his-toric entanglements between environments, social groups, creative forces and power structures, thus denaturalising capitalist enclosures and exploitations, while pluralising alternative historic routes of ownership, care and production.1 In heritage practice, this would entail acknowledging, memorising and inter-preting practices, groups, personalities, places and moments of rupture which tell alternative stories about ways of organising life and social production in diverse territories. Furthermore, research would require recognising and interpreting both historic and existing heritage practices from the perspective of the commons; researching those efforts that understand heritage-making as

1 Such is the recurring interest in valorisation of Yugoslav heritage and the social-ist arrangements instituted and practised in the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia after the 1974 Constitution. These include social property as a frame-work for use and care for resources and production, managed by self-organised communities of workers in a type of participative democracy.


commons and those that negotiate knowledge and historic spaces as places of the commons. Finally, the important work pursued by critical heritage studies in relation to the struggles for recognition of subaltern heritages and contesta-tions of the authorised heritage discourse should be expanded beyond identity politics, to incorporate questions of economic arrangements, structural ine-qualities and spatial entanglements in the processes of understanding, creation and negotiation of heritage.

Conclusion: thinking topics, frameworks and arrangements for future heritage research

Thinking about the future research agenda for heritage, the discussion over what gets on the agenda in terms of themes, issues and methods should not preoccupy us more than the questions of how we get to think about and do research in the future, as well as who gets to do it. We will discuss this in more detail in the final chapter of this book. Amid increasing neoliberalisation and the intertwinement of integrated global capitalism with science, research and education (Lynch 2006), funding for heritage research comes with a narrowing of research agendas to focus on particularly ‘useful research’ for the needs of the state, supra-national and commercial actors; on ‘desirable research’ within the context of current geopolitics; and on the research topics that privilege or disadvantage certain actors as research subjects.

Dominant funding and market frameworks and agendas, however, not only define the form in which production of knowledge takes place, but narrow down the space for intellectual imaginations, locking out alternative possible worlds through the research we do, the questions we pose and the ways we observe. The most problematic aspect of research produced through such arrangements is not the research itself, but everything that is left out – ques-tions that have not been explored because of the how and who of research arrangements. For these reasons, thinking new research agendas requires us to also think new research arrangements and new ways of subjectivising ourselves as researchers; because the very choices of the forms of knowledge regulation influence the ways in which we are able to think, feel and imagine.


References

Anderson, B. (1983), Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso.

Antonioli, M. (2018), ‘What is ecosophy?’, European Journal in Creative Practices in Cities and Landscapes. Accessed 15 October 2019 at: https:// cpcl .unibo .it/ article/ view/ 8587/ 8334

Aronsson, P. and G. Elgenius (eds) (2015), National Museums and Nation-building in Europe 1750–2010. Mobilization and Legitimacy, Continuity and Change, London: Routledge.

Ashworth, J.G. (2014), ‘Heritage and economic development: Selling the unsellable’, Heritage and Society, 7 (1), 3–17.

Barrère, C. (2018), ‘Cultural heritage: Capital, commons, and heritages’, in A.M. Labrador and N. Asher (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Public Heritage Theory and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 139–54.

Baslar, K. (2012), The Concept of Common Heritage of Mankind in International Law, The Hague, Boston and London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Bender, B. (2001), ‘Landscapes-on-the-Move’, Journal of Social Archaeology, 1 (1), 75–89.

Benesch, H., F. Hammami, I. Holmberg, and E. Uzer (eds) (2015), Heritage as Common(s), Common(s) as Heritage, Gothenburg and Stockholm: Makadam Publishers.

Bennett, T. (1995), The Birth of the Museum. History, Theory, Politics, London and New York: Routledge.

Bennet, T., F. Cameron, N. Dias et al. (2017), Collecting, Ordering, Governing: Anthropology, Museums and Liberal Government, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Boltanski, L. and L. Thevenot (2006), On Justification: Economies of Worth, Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Breithoff, E. and R. Harrison (2018), ‘From ark to bank: Extinction, proxies and biocap-itals in ex-situ biodiversity conservation practices’, International Journal of Heritage Studies. Available 15 October 2019 at: https:// www .tandfonline .com/ doi/ full/ 10 .1080/ 13527258 .2018 .1512146

Butler, J., E. Laclau and S. Žižek (2000), Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left, London and New York: Verso.

CHCfE Consortium (2015), Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe, Krakow: International Cultural Centre.

Colette, A. (ed.) (2007), Climate Change and World Heritage, UNESCO World Heritage Reports 22.

Connerton, P. (1989), How Societies Remember, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corten, J.-P., E. Geurts, P. Meurs and R. Vermeulen (eds) (2014), Heritage as an Asset for Inner-City Development, Rotterdam: NAi010.

De Cesari, C. and R. Dimova (2019), ‘Heritage, gentrification, participation: Remaking urban landscapes in the name of culture and historic preservation’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25 (9), 863–9.

Desvallées, A. (ed.) (1992), Vagues: Une Anthologie de la Nouvelle Museologie, vol. 1, Paris and Macon: Éditions W.M.N.E.S.

https://cpcl.unibo.it/article/view/8587/8334

https://cpcl.unibo.it/article/view/8587/8334

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13527258.2018.1512146

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13527258.2018.1512146


Desvallées, A. (ed.) (1994), Vagues: Une Anthologie de la Nouvelle Museologie, vol. 2, Paris: Savigny-Le-Temple: M.N.E.S.

DeSilvey, C. (2017), Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Dümcke, C. and M. Gnedovsky (2013), The Social and Economic Value of Cultural Heritage: Literature Review, EENC Paper.

Duncan, C. (1995), Civilizing Rituals. Inside Public Art Museums, London: Routledge.Escobar, A. (2018), Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy and

the Making of Worlds, Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.Fukuyama, F. (1989), ‘The end of history?’ The National Interest, 16, 3–18.González, P.A. (2015), ‘Conceptualizing heritage as a common’, in P.F. Biehl, D.C.

Comer, C. Prescott and H.A. Soderland (eds), Identity and Heritage: Contemporary Challenges in a Globalized World, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht and London: Springer, pp. 27–35.

Guattari, F. (2000), The Three Ecologies, London and New Brunswick, NJ: The Athlone Press.

Guatarri, F. (2019), ‘Pratiques écosophiques et restauration de la cité subjective’, Chimeres, 17, 1–18. Accessed 15 October 2019 at: https:// www .revue -chimeres .fr/ Chimeres -17 -Pratiques -ecosophiques -et -restauration -de -la -Cite -subjective.

Hall, S. (1999), ‘Whose heritage? Un-settling “the heritage”, re-imagining the Postnation’, Third Text, 13 (49), 3–13, https:// doi .org/ 10 .1080/ 09528829908576818.

Handler, R. (1987), ‘Review: heritage and hegemony: Recent works on historic preser-vation and interpretation’, Anthropological Quarterly, 60 (3), 137–41.

Hardt, M. and A. Negri (2004), Multitude, London and New York: Penguin Random House.

Hardt, M. and A. Negri (2009), Commonwealth, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Harman, G. (2018), Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything, London: Pelican.

Harman, G. (2019), ‘Hyperobjects and prehistory’, in S. Souvatzi, A. Baysal and E.L. Baysal (eds), Time and History in Prehistory, London: Routledge, pp. 195–209.

Harrison, R. (2013), Heritage: Critical Approaches, Abingdon: Routledge. Harrison, R. (2017), ‘Freezing seeds and making futures: Endangerment, hope, security,

and time in agrobiodiversity conservation practices’, Journal of Agriculture and Environment, https:// anthrosource .onlinelibrary .wiley .com/ doi/ full/ 10 .1111/ cuag .12096

Harvey, C.D. and J. Perry (2015), The Future of Heritage as Climates Change: Loss, Adaptation and Creativity, New York: Routledge.

Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution, London and New York: Verso.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992), Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge, London and New York: Routledge.

ICOMOS (2019), The Future of Our Pasts: Engaging Cultural Heritage in Climate Action, July 1, 2019, Paris: ICOMOS.

Janssen, J., E. Luiten, H. Renes and E. Stegmeijer (2017), ‘Heritage as sector, factor and vector: Conceptualizing the shifting relationship between heritage manage-ment and spatial planning’, European Planning Studies. Accessed 15 October 2019 at: https:// www .researchgate .net/ publication/ 317118439 _Heritage _as _sector _factor _and _vector _conceptualizing _the _shifting _relationship _between _heritage _management _and _spatial _planning

https://www.revue-chimeres.fr/Chimeres-17-Pratiques-ecosophiques-et-restauration-de-la-Cite-subjective

https://www.revue-chimeres.fr/Chimeres-17-Pratiques-ecosophiques-et-restauration-de-la-Cite-subjective

https://doi.org/10.1080/09528829908576818

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cuag.12096

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cuag.12096

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317118439_Heritage_as_sector_factor_and_vector_conceptualizing_the_shifting_relationship_between_heritage_management_and_spatial_planning




Kisić, V. (2014), ‘Stvaralac, saučesnik, konzument: ka okvirima mnogostrukih lica učešća građana u stvaranju baštine’ (Creator, participant, consumer: Understanding multiple frameworks of citizens’ involvement in heritage-making), Kultura 144: New Museology, 106–27.

Kisić, V. (2016), Governing Heritage Dissonance: Promises and Realities of Selected Cultural Policies, Amsterdam: European Cultural Foundation.

Kisić, V. (2018a), ‘Shaking the solid – heritage in the era of plurality’, in A.-M. Halme, T. Mustonen, J-P. Taavitsainen, S. Thomas and A. Weij (eds), Heritage Is Ours: Citizens Participating in Decision Making, Helsinki: Europa Nostra Finland, pp. 134–42.

Kisić, V. (2018b), ‘Beyond celebrations and divisions: Re-politicizing heritage disso-nance in Europe’, Economia della Cultura, 4/2018, 465–78.

Kisić, V. (2019), ‘Reconciliation through cultural heritage in the post-Yugoslav space: An apolitical endeavor’, in S. Labadi (ed.), The Cultural Turn in International Aid: Impacts and Challenges for Heritage and the Creative Industries, London: Routledge, pp. 173–92.

Labadi, S. (2008), Evaluating the Socio-economic Impacts of Selected Regenerated Heritage Sites in Europe, Amsterdam: European Cultural Foundation.

Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leite, R.P. (2013), ‘Consuming heritage: Counter-uses of the city and gentri-fication’, Vibran: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology, 10 (1), 165–89. Accessed 15 October 2019 at: http:// www .scielo .br/ scielo .php ?script = sci _arttext & pid = S1809 -43412013000100009 & lng = en & nrm = iso

Light, D. (2000), ‘An unwanted past: Contemporary tourism and the heritage of com-munism in Romania’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 6 (2),145–60.

Lynch, K. (2006), ‘Neo-liberalism and marketisation: The implications for higher edu-cation’, European Educational Research Journal, 5 (1), 1–17.

Macdonald, S. (2009), Difficult Heritage: Negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and Beyond, New York: Routledge.

Mol, A. (1999), ‘Ontological politics. A word and some questions’, in J. Law and J. Hassard (eds), Actor Network Theory and After, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 74–89.

Morgan, J. and S. Macdonald (2018), ‘De-growing museum collections for new heritage futures’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, https:// doi .org/ 10 .1080/ 13527258 .2018 .1530289

Morton, T. (2013), Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Morton, T. (2017), Humankind: Solidarity with Non-Human People, London: Verso. Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically, London: Verso.Pereira Roders, A. and F. Bandarin (eds) (2019), Reshaping Urban Conservation: The

Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action, Singapore: Springer.Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017), Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More Than

Human Worlds, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Ranciere, J. (1999), Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy, Minneapolis, MN: University

of Minnesota Press.Sabbioni, C., P. Brimblecombe and M. Cassar (2010), The Atlas of Climate Change

Impact on European Cultural Heritage: Scientific Analysis and Management Strategies, London and New York: Anthem Press.

Salazar, B.N. (2010), ‘The glocalisation of heritage through tourism: Balancing stand-ardisation and differentiation’, in S. Labadi and C. Long (eds), Heritage and Globalisation, London: Routledge, pp. 130–47.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1809-43412013000100009&lng=en&nrm=iso

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1809-43412013000100009&lng=en&nrm=iso

https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1530289

https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1530289


Sham, D.H.-M. (2017), ‘Imagining a new urban commons: Heritage preservation as/and community movements in Hong Kong’, Asia Research Institute Working Paper Series No. 260. Accessed 15 October 2019 at: http:// www .nus .ari .edu .sg/ pub/ wps .htm

Silverman, H. (2011), Contested Cultural Heritage: Religion, Nationalism, Erasure, and Exclusion in a Global World, New York: Springer-Verlag.

Smith, L. (2006), Uses of Heritage, London: Routledge.Swyngedouw, E. (2010), ‘Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of

climate change’, Theory Culture Society, 27, 213–32. Till, E.K. (2012), ‘Wounded cities: Memory-work and a place-based ethics of care’,

Journal of Political Geography, 31 (2012), 3–14.Timothy, D. and S. Boyd (2006), ‘Heritage tourism in the 21st century: Valued tradi-

tions and new perspectives’, Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1 (1), 1–16. Tolia-Kelly, P.D., E. Waterton and S. Watson (2016), Heritage, Affect and Emotion:

Politics, Practices and Infrastructures, Abingdon: Routledge.Tunbridge, J.E. and G.J. Ashworth (1996), Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the

Past as a Resource in Conflict, New York: Wiley.Van Laerhoven, F. and E. Ostrom (2007), ‘Traditions and trends in the study of the

commons’, International Journal of the Commons, 1 (1), 3–28. Vecco, M. and M. Piazzai (2015), ‘Deaccessioning of museum collections: What do we

know and where do we stand in Europe?’, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 16 (2), 221–7.Vergo, P. (ed.) (1989), The New Museology, London: Reaktion Books.Waterton, E. and L. Smith (2010), ’The recognition and misrecognition of community

heritage’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16 (1), 4–15. Waterton, E. and S. Watson (2013), ‘Framing theory: Towards a critical imagination in

heritage studies’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19 (6), 546–61. Winter, T. (2013), ‘Clarifying the critical in critical heritage studies’, International

Journal of Heritage Studies, 19, 532–45.

http://www.nus.ari.edu.sg/pub/wps.htm

http://www.nus.ari.edu.sg/pub/wps.htm

39

3 The value of heritage in sustainable development and spatial planning

Koenraad Van Balen and Aziliz Vandesande

Cultural heritage and sustainable development

UNESCO’s Hangzhou Declaration (2013) attempted to rectify the omission of culture in the millennium goals. Anticipating the revision of the millennium goals in 2015, the conference and document presented culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development, in addition to the three recognized ‘pillars’ of society, environment and economy. However, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (2015) that resulted from the revision did not sufficiently reflect the valuable contributions of the Hangzhou conference, in particular, the potential contribution of cultural and cultural heritage to sustainable develop-ment. The concept of culture as the fourth pillar was introduced in Hawkes’s work Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning (2001). Recognition of this was made explicit through his contribution to the UNESCO conference, more than ten years after his publication. Although the concept of the fourth pillar helps make the role of culture in sustainable development explicit and visible, today we may wonder, without entering too much into a conceptual debate, whether the lack of integration of culture into the sustainable development concept (as in the SDGs) is due to not explicating how the ‘environment’, ‘society’ and ‘economy’ each have a cultural dimen-sion. But, as is often the case in the cultural heritage sector also, the obvious is overlooked and overruled by manifestations of the powerful. The integral nature of cultural heritage then hampers its visibility and position.

The consortium led by Europa Nostra that published the influential report Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe (CHCfE Consortium 2015) was asked to develop a method to measure and define the impact of cultural heritage in


Europe. We proposed using the four-pillar concept to analyse the impact of cultural heritage for Europe, identifying its contribution to sustainable devel-opment. The collected evidence allowed the research team to systematically identify the contribution of cultural heritage to the sustainability of different types of efforts (e.g. education) and resource streams (e.g. resources earmarked for transnational collaboration, as in the Interreg programmes). This can be considered a major contribution to a change in perspective on the impact of cultural heritage, which has been summarized as the ‘upstream approach’. In this chapter we will highlight some of the findings and policy recommenda-tions from the work. In the second part, based on the developed four-pillar concept, we propose a sustainable management and development framework that can help translate these Europe-wide findings into local contexts, and thus integrate cultural heritage into local development strategies.

Collecting evidence in four dimensions

Based on a literature review, we developed an understanding of the wider context and trends and revealed existing qualitative and quantitative indi-cators to measure the contributions of cultural heritage to the four pillars. Next, we collected the main body of data through an online survey (December 2013–September 2014) of representatives of institutions working in the fields of culture and heritage, academics and organizational employees in European Union (EU) member states. We complemented this data with expert collab-oration and desk research. Expert collaboration was especially important in the context of Central Europe, a region of great linguistic diversity and a lack of formal data and accessible impact studies. ‘National’ experts, all scholars specializing in various aspects of cultural heritage management, were asked to search for relevant data and text in their native language to insert in an English-language survey. Moreover, in a ‘Central European Round Table on Cultural Heritage’ held in Krakow (October 2014), experts from the region, joined by colleagues from Western Europe, discussed, analysed, compared, contrasted and verified the findings.

In total, 221 entries to the online questionnaire were generated by external input and the research partners. In the analysis of the data, we identified subdomains of cultural heritage impact within the four pillars. The analysis of the data also allowed us to identify trends (in time and space) regarding the understanding of the dimensions that express the impact of cultural heritage.

THE VALUE OF HERITAGE IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SPATIAL PLANNING 41

For more detail, we then looked at a selection of case studies to illustrate pos-sible approaches to assessing the impact of cultural heritage in a local context. We studied in more detail such generally considered ‘good practice’ case studies as Mechelen (Belgium) – a historic city in Flanders characterized by its outstanding cultural heritage – and Łódź (Poland) – the renovation and mod-ernization of the Gallery of Polish nineteenth-century Art and the conversion of a nineteenth-century factory building into the Muzeum Sztuki. For each of the case studies, collecting local data allowed us to identify the impact on the four domains of sustainability. The micro-level research was complemented by an analysis of 40 valid responses to a specific questionnaire, received from winners of the EU Prize for Cultural Heritage/Europa Nostra Awards between 2002 and 2014, using Europa Nostra’s approach for assessing the impact of the winning projects.

Presenting findings in four dimensions

The findings and the policy advice distilled from the Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe report are available online (CHCfE Consortium 2015). In this chapter we highlight those findings that refer to the contribution of cultural heritage to wellbeing and practices of good planning. Based on the four pillars of sustainability, the project defined the ‘holistic four domain approach to the impact of cultural heritage’. This is illustrated in the central figure (p. 60) of the report (Figure 3.1).

The scheme allowed us to fine-tune the identification of the possible impact of cultural heritage, and the contributions of the overlaps of different fields (or pillars) to sustainable development. It is obvious that the planning aspects or aspects of wellbeing require a multidimensional approach to benefit especially from the overlaps of the four dimensions. The study’s hypothesis, therefore, was that the more overlaps exist, the more sustainable the development is.

While ‘sustainable development’ was initially defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED 1987: 43), since then the concept has mainly focused on ecological, economic and human or social dimensions. Throsby’s argument for liberating the word ‘sustainable’ from its environ-mental connotation – he proposed to use it in ‘its substantive intrinsic sense connoting long-term self-supporting viability of any type of system’ – has led to the understanding that culture itself can be seen as sustainable (Throsby 1997: 10–11).

Note: © CHCfE Consortium.

Figure 3.1 Sustainable development and the four pillars


Various publications and practices collected during the project demonstrated that efforts or investments earmarked for economic, social, environmental or cultural purposes, when invested in the safeguarding of cultural heritage, resulted in an impact in one or more of the four domains. Cases of ‘pure’ economic investment to safeguard cultural heritage (e.g. certain types of investment in tourism) resulted in positive impacts beyond that. For example, such investments were found to positively affect the social domain (e.g. better mutual understanding among people from different backgrounds), the envi-ronmental domain (e.g. reuse of existing buildings) and the cultural domain (e.g. boosting of cultural practices). Similarly, sociocultural projects such as the reconciliation programmes in the Balkans, which invested in safeguarding


of cultural heritage for peacebuilding, also resulted in positive impacts on the economic and environmental domains.

The study demonstrated that safeguarding cultural heritage acts as a ‘diffuser’ or ‘multiplier’ through which investments or efforts have impacts on multiple domains beyond the domain they are earmarked for. This increased the effect as well as the level of sustainability of the outcome. We showed, then, that resources that are not necessarily or directly earmarked for cultural heritage can still be aligned with heritage activities, and have the potential to improve their sustainability. This confirms the ‘upstream’ perspective (see ‘Figure 4.3 “Upstream” perspective on cultural heritage impact’ in CHCfE Consortium (2015)) on built heritage impact, whereby traditional investment schemes are linked with resources from other sectors. This implies that introducing non-heritage funding into the context of built heritage, to achieve non-heritage goals such as social cohesion or reducing unemployment, can improve her-itage while also improving the sustainability of the outcome of the funding. For example, the cultural integration of such interventions can generate more acceptance and increase the carrying capacity of the community, resulting in more lasting outcomes.

In that sense, sustainable planning should acknowledge the contribution of cultural heritage in domains which at first sight do not seem related to culture. Connecting cultural heritage to those other drivers is the essence of the upstream approach. This is based on the ‘trading zone’ approach, used in anthropological sciences to define specific interdisciplinary collabora-tions. Although sectors have different objectives and viewpoints, they use forms of exchange by building an intermediate language, which allows them to communicate and create new cooperation (Galison 1997). The work of Gustafsson (2009) introduced the ‘trading zone’ concept to the built heritage field through the ‘Halland Model’ experience in Sweden, whereby traditional financial investment schemes allocated with built heritage conservation were augmented with resources from other sectors; that is, employment and the labour market (Vandesande 2017).

The upstream model starts by inducing impact with resources from a single sector on a multitude of sectors through the successful introduction of new or altered processes and organizational structures. This process generates a growth in output that exceeds the growth in inputs; that is, productivity growth (Fox and Van Rooyen 2004). Thereby, the innovative economic process aims at cross-sectoral collaboration to ensure sustainable built herit-age management, while inducing local productivity growth, innovation and development.


Figure 3.1 shows how such sub-domains as ‘sense of place’; ‘regional attractive-ness’, ‘regional competitiveness’ and ‘knowledge creation and skill building’, which are embedded in non-cultural domains, can benefit from a cultural component to enhance their sustainability. The study has identified many such examples in which cultural heritage contributed by providing a cultural component. We illustrate a few of them below.

Cultural heritage versus the environment

As identified in Figure 3.1, cultural heritage can contribute to increasing the sustainability of the environmental pillar by adding (at least) a cultural dimen-sion to it. There are various ways this contribution could be made explicit. The first is quite straightforward, through the reuse of existing (heritage) buildings. The (often economic) driver to replace them with new constructions is reduced. From a material sustainability evaluation point of view, the most sustainable construction is indeed the one that has already been built. The deposit (and thus waste) of existing embodied energy through demolition of existing buildings, and the need to create additional embodied energy (includ-ing labour, transport and raw material) in new construction, signifies a double environmental loss. New constructions can have higher energy performance, but often the embodied energy is overlooked in calculations of overall energy use (Lidelow et al. 2019).

Another way to make more explicit the contribution of cultural heritage to sustainability is to understand cultural heritage as a knowledge depository; an accumulation of different forms of knowledge and experience. To illus-trate this, take the above-mentioned aspect of energy savings in buildings (to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and the use of non-renewable resources). Considering traditional construction technologies, it should be understood that traditional societies had difficulties in gaining access to energy and mate-rials and were – as we are today – driven towards energy- and material-saving (local) solutions. These solutions were, of course, defined in their respective sociotechnical ecosystems, jointly considering social, economic and tech-nical boundaries, and were adapted to their respective local environmental conditions. Thanks to slow but not less effective empiric evaluation systems, these solutions have evolved and become most effective; an effectiveness it is challenging to understand in today’s global world, based on universal models. Recognizing the power of example and respectfully identifying solutions developed in the past – which can be found in cultural heritage, whether archives, practices or material examples – are valuable resources to preserve,


and also valuable sources of information to identify local sustainable solutions. An obvious example is the recognition of the durability and sustainability of earthen constructions in many parts of the world. These can deliver appropri-ate hygro-thermic living conditions, often provide good resistance to earth-quakes and can easily be maintained by local craftsmen using local materials. Adding to this rather technical consideration, adapted local behaviour such as seasonal dressing and practices of how buildings were used were also ways to deal with the same socioeconomic technical ecosystem. Some of these practices are considered (intangible) heritage. The diversity of possible and comfortable personal responses to different boundary conditions, even today, is something models do not take into account. There are thus good arguments for con-sidering cultural heritage in support of environmentally driven sustainable efforts of society today, for example, the adapted reuse of existing and historic constructions.

Integrating cultural heritage into local sustainable development through a systemic approach

In this section, the social, economic and cultural pillars are addressed through the Sustainable Management and Development (SMD) framework (Vandesande 2017), developed within the UNESCO Chair on Preventive Conservation of Monuments and Sites at KU Leuven. This identified that a preventive approach requires an integrated and systemic approach (Van Balen 2015). Here we aim to connect this systemic approach, based on preven-tive conservation, to local sustainable development; analysing built heritage, which is by definition bound to locations. Based on the previously described upstream approach, this implies that cultural heritage is not positioned in the core of the model, but local sustainable development is. This allows us to iden-tify the contribution of cultural heritage to the overall process, and to identify the complementary needs and resources.

Many built-heritage-preservation-centred projects have aimed to centralize efforts and resources on the preservation of the fabric, often overlooking the cultural, social and intellectual rationale for sustainable management (Vandesande 2017). The disproportionate investment of financial and societal resources in large, often prestigious heritage interventions, without consider-ing sustainable heritage quality protection, has often proven to be inefficient. One example would be large investments in heritage preservation which eventually result in restored buildings without proper management capacity.

Source: Vandesande (2017).

Figure 3.2 The SMD framework


Preservation of heritage values relates to the protection of the intrinsic quality of the built heritage. It therefore requires the specialized knowledge and skills of individuals involved in the management and intervention process; but how can this be connected to local sustainable development? Communities in historic urban and rural environments with their own local specificities also influence built heritage management, and their active participation can increase social capital and strengthen local networks. The SMD framework shows how interrelating all these thematic patterns, combined with a closer integration of built heritage into other sectors, entails that sustainable built heritage management can become a source for local development (Figure 3.2).

Within this framework, heritage-quality protection is the starting point of (ideal-typical) sustainable built heritage management as, at the end, ‘quality’ refers to the protection of heritage values. Managing built heritage through the framework, thereby placing local development at the core, combined with productivity growth based on new or altered processes following the upstream model, entails sustainable ‘production’ for built heritage. Here, ‘production’ refers to the process of managing built heritage, which is sustainable due to the efficient use of resources and the long-term capacity to sustain this production through operationalizing an innovative economic process that fosters produc-tivity growth.

The four components of the SMD framework represent components of a system contributing to preventive conservation; they also refer to the interre-lationships between dimensions that help to enhance sustainability in line with the upstream approach.


Quality protectionThe first SMD framework component is quality protection; a loaded term with multiple relations to built heritage. The most direct relation concerns the physical fabric, including both building condition and performance and the authenticity and integrity of the heritage asset. Considering that built heritage structures themselves are the most important repository of heritage values, historic materials and construction techniques, their long-term value-based sustainable management depends on the quality of interventions, considering the complexity of existing historic structures, the specificity of historic build-ing materials and techniques, workmanship, workability and the stakeholders who influence the intervention. These variables determine the durability and performance of interventions and the avoidance of waste of materials, energy, efforts, money and time. The quality of interventions therefore depends on balancing these variables during the built heritage management process. The quality protection of intervention results in efficiency, or the optimal use of resources in realizing the objective (Fox and Van Rooyen 2004); that is, sus-tainable management of built heritage.

In understanding built heritage as ‘ingrained’ in the urban environment, the quality of the historic urban environment should also be considered. Research from the building information field endorses this long-term perspective, stating that ‘sustainable management of the built environment requires the preservation of both natural capital and man-made resources, which means using artefacts for as long as possible’ (Kohler et al. 2009: 451). The physical quality protection of historic cities and public spaces can foster social inclusion, citizenship and place prosperity for local residents (Gallacher 2005). Moreover, the quality of the historic built environment can also induce ‘multiplier’ and ‘derived’ effects (Bowitz and Ibenholt 2009); the presence and ‘attractiveness’ of built heritage in an urban environment also holds a large potential for local development (CHCfE Consortium 2015). Risks of inequality via gentrification should also be considered. All these factors demonstrate relationships with the different pillars mentioned earlier.

Innovative economic processesThe need for public sector policies and support measures to conserve built heritage has long been advocated at a European level, specifically through the Council of Europe (CoE). Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers first brought attention to funding issues in the 1960s and 1970s, including administrative, financial and intervention measures (Pickard 2011). Since the 2000s, a considerable amount of research has been conducted on alternatives


to increase private investment, including limited liability companies, revolving funds, concession agreements, transfer of development rights, grant-aided subsidies, loan and credit facilities and fiscal measures (Pickard 2009). These alternatives mostly focus on short-sighted instrumentalization of built herit-age and are often not linked to a sustainable management process, failing to take into account the ever-increasing demand for funding and the costs of long-term property management (for maintenance and so on) (Della Torre 2010). The CHCfE research identified how economics was, for a long time, the principal pillar addressed in publications on cultural heritage, whereas most recent publications on more sustainable examples combine the economic pillar with others. The upstream approach concept therefore explains how traditional investment schemes, when linked to resources from other sectors, make outputs more sustainable.

Skill buildingThe third SMD framework pillar, ‘skill building’, is most directly related to concerns from stakeholders involved in built heritage interventions, for whom skill building can ensure an ongoing dedication to quality protection and high standards in service delivery. While skills can be seen as practices related to intangible heritage, they are simultaneously instrumental to the preserva-tion of the quality of built heritage. Also, contractors and conservators who implement manual labour require adequate skills to do so. Unfortunately, in Western Europe, a steepening decline is observed in the availability of expe-rienced (heritage-specialized) contractors, trades- and craftspeople who have adequate knowledge, skills and competence (Hutchings and Corr 2012). Skill shortage and tacit knowledge transfer (due to a ‘greying’ labour force) is still today perceived as a growing problem which is commonly attributed to a lack of training for contractors or inadequacies in professional training for special-ized built heritage activities (Swallow 1997; Wood 2005). The lack of awareness among youngsters (and their parents) when choosing their professional career, and of the benefits of heritage professions, also seems to play a crucial role.

In addition to skill building on an individual level, local capacity building (i.e. self-organization) and the capacity for adaptation to strengthen resilience and sustainable management (Tidball and Krasny 2007), is becoming more important in international and European policy (Smedby and Neij 2013). In the specific context of historical urban and rural environments, multilevel gov-ernance – the entanglement between various levels of authority – is defined as a prerequisite for resilience and sustainability (Dieleman 2013), necessitating capacity building between different levels and actors (Folke 2006). In practice, several analytical frameworks on multilevel governance and capacity building


have been developed and tested through empirical work, demonstrating effects on local sustainability (Holden 2010) and social learning processes (Loorbach 2007). Sustainable management of historical urban and rural environments implies strengthening the capacities of local stakeholders to take into account social, economic and organizational conditions and understand what change is required in response to external influence. In this way, specifically strength-ening local urban governance capacities helps sustain the quality of cities (Magalhães et al. 2002).

Public participation The origins of the discourse on public participation trace back to the 1970s (Council of Europe 1975 European Charter of the Architectural Heritage, art. 9 and UNESCO 1976, art. 21). This issue gained increasing focus during the 1990s (Smith et al. 2003), when the responsibility for built heritage conservation was shifting from expert- and government-oriented practice to more participatory management approaches involving local stakeholders (Vandesande et al. 2012). Today, public participation, community involve-ment and engagement of civil society are increasingly activated within built heritage interventions to ensure long-term sustainability of the management process. This approach is reflected in the concept of the ‘heritage community’, as articulated in the 2005 Faro Convention, and in different actions by the EU to involve civil society in its activities in the field of culture since the adoption of the European Agenda for Culture in a Globalizing World (2007). There have been several successful case studies relating to built heritage management and community involvement (Van Balen and Vandesande 2015).

Next to ensuring long-term sustainability of the management process, public and civil society participation in built heritage has also gained recognition as an important factor in development (World Bank 2002). More specifically, participation processes create local networks which are based on continuous interaction and mutual trust (Magalhães et al. 2002). Within these networks, social capital is generated through ‘social processes which turn information into meaningful knowledge and knowledge into action’ (Innes 1995: 185). That is, networking through the engagement of the local community (Lampis 2009; Canziani and Moioli 2010) and personal mastery through skills such as self-awareness, communication, collaboration and participative actions (Dieleman 2013). Research on social capital demonstrates that this process improves living conditions in the whole community (Isserman et al. 2009), facilitates cooperation for mutual benefit and, in turn, enhances the benefits of investment in physical and human capital (Putnam 1993). Moreover, participation processes in built heritage can foster a local identity in times of


economic and cultural globalization (Swensen et al. 2012) or create a larger community identity of which non-inhabitants are also proud (Hewison and Holden 2006).

Conclusion

In this chapter we explored the concept of the upstream model, which illus-trates how cultural heritage should not only be seen as an instrument for (local) development in itself; the contribution of cultural heritage to other resource streams can enhance the sustainability of those resources. Therefore, cultural heritage is a resource to be taken on board in spatial planning, contributing to the sustainability of developments which have different drivers or use different types of resources. Arguments have been given to consider cultural heritage in supporting the environment-driven sustainable efforts of society today.

The elaboration of the Sustainable Management and Development framework primarily addressed social and economic dimensions. Taking local sustainable development at the core, as sustainable planning should do, the four possible fields of action (components) of the framework were identified and discussed. The discussion of those components demonstrated the interaction and syner-gies between the various pillars of sustainable development. This explains how the preservation of the values of cultural heritage, which define its heritage qualities, cannot be properly undertaken unless a variety of complementary components are present or pursued.

References

Bowitz, E. and K. Ibenholt (2009), ‘Economic impacts of cultural heritage research and perspectives’, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 10, 1–8.

Canziani, A. and R. Moioli (2010), ‘The learning-based cultural district and the Monza and Brianza case. Learning from cultural heritage’, in M. Mälkki and K. Schmidt-Thomé (eds), Integrating Aims. Built Heritage in Social and Economic Development, Aalto, Finland: Aalto University (Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Publications), 157–79.

CHCfE Consortium (2015), Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe, funded by the EU Culture Programme (2007–13), 295. ISBN: 978-83-63463-27-4: http:// blogs .encatc .org/ cu lturalheri tagecounts foreurope/ outcomes/ (accessed 22 July 2020).

Della Torre, S. (2010), ‘Preventiva, integrata, programmata: le logiche coevolutive della conservazione’, in G. Biscontin and G. Driussi (eds), Pensare la prevenzione: manu-fatti, usi, ambienti, Atti del convegno, Venice: Arcadia Ricerche, 67–76.

http://blogs.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope/outcomes/

http://blogs.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope/outcomes/


Dieleman, H. (2013), ‘Organizational learning for resilient cities, through realizing eco-cultural innovations’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 171–80.

European Agenda for Culture in a Globalizing World (2007), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, adopted on 10/05/2007 (COM(2007) 242 final).

Folke, C. (2006), ‘Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses’, Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–67.

Fox, W. and E. Van Rooyen (2004), The Quest for Sustainable Development, Cape Town: Juta Academic.

Galison, P. (1997), Image & Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Gallacher, P. (2005), Everyday Spaces: The Potential of Neighbourhood Space, London: Thomas Telford.

Gustafsson, C. (2009), ‘The Halland Model. A trading zone in concert with labour market policy and the construction industry, aiming at regional sustainable develop-ment’, Göteborg: doctoral dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology.

Hangzhou Declaration (2013), http:// www .unesco .org/ new/ fileadmin/ MULTIMEDIA/ HQ/ CLT/ images/ Fi nalHangzho uDeclarati on20130517 .pdf (accessed 22 July 2020).

Hawkes, J. (2001), The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning, Melbourne: Cultural Development Network, 70 . ISBN: 1 86335 049 7.

Hewison, R. and J. Holden (2006), ‘Public value as a framework for analysing the value of heritage: the ideas’, in K. Clark (ed.), Capturing the Public Value of Heritage: The Proceedings of the London Conference 25–26 January 2006, London: English Heritage.

Holden, M. (2010), ‘Public participation and local sustainability: questioning a common agenda in urban governance’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(2), 312–29.

Hutchings, J. and S. Corr (2012), ‘A framework for access to the conservation-restoration profession via the mapping of its specialist competencies’, Higher Education, 63, 439–54.

Innes, J. (1995), ‘Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 183–9: 185.

Isserman, A., E. Feser and D. Warren (2009), ‘Why some rural places prosper and others do not’, International Regional Science Review, 32(3), 300–42.

Kohler, N., P. Steadman and U. Hassler (2009), ‘Research on the building stock and its applications’, Building Research and Information, 37(5–6), 449–54.

Lampis, A. (2009), ‘Marketing, capability building and increasing of cultural needs: the Bolzano Province experience’, in F. Putigano (ed.), Learning Districts: patrimonio culturale, conoscenza e sviluppo locale, Milan, Maggioli Editore: Sant’Arcangelo di Romagna, 61–73.

Lidelow, S., T. Örn, A. Luciani and A. Rizzo (2019), ‘Energy-efficiency measures for heritage buildings: a literature review’, Sustainable Cities and Society, 45, 231–42.

Loorbach, D. (2007), ‘Transition management: new mode of governance for sustainable development’, PhD dissertation, Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.

Magalhães, C., P. Healey and A. Madanipour (2002), ‘Assessing institutional capacity for city centre regeneration: Newcastle’s Grainger Town’, in G. Cars, P. Healey, A. Madanipour and C. Magalhães (eds), Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 45–64.

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/images/FinalHangzhouDeclaration20130517.pdf

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/images/FinalHangzhouDeclaration20130517.pdf


Pickard, R. (2009), Funding the Architectural Heritage: A Guide to Policies and Examples, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Pickard, R. (2011), ‘Funding sources and strategies’, Context, 118, 12–15.Putnam, R. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy,

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Smedby, N. and L. Neij (2013), ‘Experiences in urban governance for sustainability: the

constructive dialogue in Swedish municipalities’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 148–58.

Smith, L., A. Morgan and A. Van Der Meer (2003), ‘Community-driven research in cultural heritage management: the Waanyi Women’s History Project’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 9(1), 65–80.

Sustainable Development Goals (2015), Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https:// su stainabled evelopment .un .org/ post2015/ transformingourworld (accessed 29 May 2020).

Swallow, P. (1997), ‘Managing unoccupied buildings and sites’, Structural Survey, 15(2), 74–9.

Swensen, G., G. Jerpasen, O. Saeter and M. Tveit (2012), ‘Alternative perspectives? The implementation of public participation in local heritage planning’, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography, 66(4), 213–26.

Throsby, D. (1997), ‘Sustainability and culture: some theoretical issues’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 4(1), 7–19.

Tidball, K. and M. Krasny (2007), ‘From risk to resilience: what role for community greening and civic ecology in cities?’, in A. Wals (ed.), Social Learning Towards a More Sustainable World, Wageningen: Academic Press, 149–64.

Van Balen, K. (2015), ‘Preventive conservation of historic buildings’, International Journal for Restoration of Buildings and Monuments, 21(2), 99–104.

Van Balen, K. and A. Vandesande (2015), ‘Community involvement in heritage’, a series by the Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation, vol. 1, Antwerp: Garant.

Vandesande, A. (2017), ‘Preventive conservation strategy for built heritage aimed at sustainable management and local development’, PhD thesis for the degree of Doctor of Engineering Science, Civil Engineering, KU Leuven.

Vandesande, A., O. Vileikis, K. Van Balen and M. Santana Quintero (2012), ‘A value mapping tool for assessing archaeological ensembles’, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Archaeology (1007–22). Presented at the First International Conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Archaeology, Menorca, 9–13 April 2012. ISBN: 978-84-695-6782-1.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987), Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wood, B. (2005), ‘Towards innovative building maintenance’, Structural Survey, 23(4), 291–7.

World Bank (2002), Social Development Update: Monitoring Civic Engagement in Bank Lending and Policy Instruments, Washington DC.

PART II

Current research in heritage planning: projects from Europe

SECTION A

Heritage and identity

57

4 Introduction to heritage and identity: from planning and policies to communities, and back

Remi Wacogne

In this section, you will find four chapters that explore cases around the theme of identity in heritage planning. While the chapters share the general assump-tion that identity and heritage planning are strongly interrelated, they all address rather different governance scales, management concepts and heritage perspectives dealing with the built environment. Ranging from urban heritage sites to cultural landscapes, the chapters consider places both as landscapes, characterized by specific morphologies, values and practices, and as the con-texts for various traditions, operations and activities.

Archaeological sites raise specific issues for conservation, management, acces-sibility and interpretation, as much as post-industrial areas do; also, Europe as a whole is said to be a landscape characterized by a distinctive heritage. At that level, while heritage is constantly promoted as something shared by all Europeans, and as such as a key element of a common identity (see, for instance, Navracsics 2018), heritage appears as a complex issue of law and policy. While the first three chapters focus on experiments in heritage manage-ment, they shed light on national and local contexts, which often raise as many new challenges as they provide opportunities. The last chapter suggests that the same is true at the European Union (EU) level. In that sense, this section suggests that heritage professionals from all backgrounds and institutional contexts shouldn’t be too satisfied with the celebratory tone adopted through-out the European Year of Cultural Heritage, but should rather question the aims and outcomes of their practices.

Significantly, the EU itself has substantially financed a project dedicated to ‘The Role and Spatial Effects of Cultural Heritage and Identity’ (Dynamo Trans-National Group 2006). This identified the following as ‘cultural heritage


and identity components’: ‘monuments, protected cultural landscapes and conjuncts, museums and galleries, events, cultural diversity, cultural profes-sionals, cultural infrastructure and organizations, intellectual capital, and cultural excellence’. While such an approach promoted the role of planning, it somewhat downplayed that of local communities, in spite of the recent adop-tion of the European Landscape and Faro Conventions. However, as already suggested by Hague and Jenkins (2005), how to deal with heritage and identity in landscape and urban heritage management seems to be the key challenge, and heritage practices could still learn from much of the theory that has been developed in relation to both concepts over the last two decades, as much singularly as concurrently.

Although heritage was only incidentally addressed by Manuel Castells in his extensive inquiry into The Power of Identity (2008), his conclusion that ‘there is, worldwide, an increasing tension between political participation, social demands, and the responsiveness of democratic institutions’ (p. 411) is critical for this field. Laurajane Smith’s influential analysis of the Uses of Heritage (2006), still at a global level, unveiled the similar power of heritage sites and items, which commonly serve discourses and operations of appropriation and protest, either from ‘experts’ or local communities. Since then, several volumes, edited by at least two different authors and collecting diverse contri-butions, have been dedicated to the relationship between heritage and identity, suggesting that this issue can hardly be addressed from a single perspective. First, Ashworth et al. (2007) emphasized how much heritage is an expression of plurality and, as such, provides a key opportunity to foster pluralism in our multicultural societies. This postcolonial perspective, which had been introduced, for instance, by Hall (1999), was shared by the editors and authors of another key publication, which summarized ‘the interconnections between two slippery and ambiguous yet dynamically important concepts’ of heritage and identity (Graham and Howard 2008, 1). Aiming to reassess the ‘affective qualities’ of heritage over its appreciation within discourses and representa-tions in critical interdisciplinary heritage studies, Harrison (2012) addressed the unprecedented abundance of heritage nowadays and argued for the neces-sity of promoting ‘connectivity’ and ‘dialogue’. Where do we stand now? Have practices and contexts evolved much since Stuart Hall (1999) asked ‘Whose heritage?’

The chapters in this section suggest that engagement in heritage has made little progress in general, although they acknowledge significant efforts in that direction. For instance, new approaches and tools have been developed to make up for the challenges that archaeological sites raise in that sense. Thus, in the first chapter of the section, Tom Moore and Gemma Tully present and

INTRODUCTION TO HERITAGE AND IDENTITY 59

discuss the results of a comparative analysis of four oppida sites, situated in England, France and Spain. As archaeological sites, these can be ‘participa-tory landscapes’ only through a strong commitment from their management systems, which have demonstrated a certain capacity to engage with local com-munities. Rather than a challenge pertaining to heritage assets’ typical ‘nature’, this might then be a question of management and governance, approaches and tools.

The next chapter by Loes Veldpaus and Remi Wacogne deals with urban her-itage. It shows how public austerity measures have corresponded to significant evolutions in that sense. Based on four case studies carried out as part of the PICH project in former industrial areas in England, Italy, Norway and the Netherlands, it analyses recent shifts from public to private and from govern-ment to governance, with increasingly important roles for ‘other-than-public’ actors in partnerships. Although regulation and management, as well as issues including decontamination of brownfield areas, characterize former industrial sites as a special type of urban heritage, they offer significant insights into the governance of the built environment in general. In particular, the authors highlight how local communities, including former workers, are generally left out of conservation–planning processes.

By providing 4D reconstructions of heritage assets no longer existing in their original and successive forms, the CHT2 project has proved to be a compelling experiment in the use of digital technologies. This is evoked in the following chapter by Laura Loredana Micoli, Gabriele Guidi, Pablo Rodríguez-Gonzálvez and Diego González-Aguilera. Moreover, it is demonstrated that such tech-nologies are an opportunity not only in terms of interpretation of heritage (tangible and intangible) and public accessibility, but also as a means to engage local communities.

Finally, in the last chapter in this section, Francesca Fiorentini, Kristin Hausler and Andrzej Jakubowski discuss the findings of the HEURIGHT project, dealing with the tension between member states and the EU bodies in that field as expressed, for instance, by Brexit, but also by the setback in Italy’s ratifica-tion of the Faro Convention. Here also, recent changes in the social, political and economic fields are identified as key challenges for heritage and planning; the authors argue that the legal and policy framework at the EU level needs to be further systematized and made more balanced as well as more inclusive.

Remarkably, despite the authors’ diverse backgrounds, objects and aims, all the chapters share the view that only through the engagement of all categories of stakeholders can heritage be managed in a sustainable way. If some of the


writers differ in their assumptions about identity as a concept, they concur in showing that places are constantly shaped at once physically, affectively and ideally by communities, and as such should be planned considering ‘ordinary’ people’s practices and values, either as residents, users or visitors, in relation to their environments. Thus, while ‘the existence of a common European cultural heritage should not be taken for granted’, as argued in the last chapter in this section, all four chapters suggest that ‘to keep bringing European cultural her-itage to the forefront’ (Navracsics 2018) implies its effective integration within planning and policies (see also Pendlebury 2015) but also, and maybe more critically, a strong stance in favour of communities rather than identities (see also Pendlebury and Veldpaus 2018).

References

Ashworth, G.J., B.J. Graham and J.E. Tunbridge (2007), Pluralising Pasts: Heritage, Identity and Place in Multicultural Societies, London: Pluto.

Castells, M. (2004), The Power of Identity, Malden, MA: Blackwell.Dynamo Trans-National Group (2006), The Role and Spatial Effects of Cultural Heritage

and Identity (2004–2006). Executive Summary (ESPON project 1.3.3), co-financed by the European Community through the Interreg 18 ESPON Programme. Accessed 10 May 2021 at: https:// www .espon .eu/ sites/ default/ files/ attachments/ 1 .ir _1 .3 .3 -full .pdf.

Graham, B. and P. Howard (eds) (2008), The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate.

Hague, C. and P. Jenkins (2005), Place Identity, Participation and Planning, London: Routledge.

Hall, S. (1999), ‘Whose heritage? Un‐settling “the heritage”, re‐imagining the Postnation’, Third Text, 13 (49), 3–13, doi: 10.1080/09528829908576818.

Harrison, R. (2012), Heritage: Critical Approaches, London: Routledge.Navracsics, T. (2018), ‘Exploring heritage and identity – towards embracing a European

identity’, opening speech delivered at the Interpret Europe Conference on ‘Heritage and Identity’, held in Koszeg, Hungary, 23 March 2018. Accessed 10 May 2021 at: https:// iask .hu/ en/ heritage -and -identity -interpret -europe -conference/ .

Pendlebury, J. (2015), ‘Heritage and policy’, in E. Waterton and S. Watson (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 426–41.

Pendlebury, J. and L. Veldpaus (2018), ‘Heritage and Brexit’, Planning Theory and Practice, 19 (3), 448–53.

Smith, L. (2006), Uses of Heritage, London: Routledge.

https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/1.ir_1.3.3-full.pdf

https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/1.ir_1.3.3-full.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/09528829908576818

https://iask.hu/en/heritage-and-identity-interpret-europe-conference/

61

5 Exploring archaeology’s place in participatory European cultural landscape management: perspectives from the ‘REFIT’ project

Tom Moore and Gemma Tully

Introduction: participatory landscapes

The nature of landscape means it requires collective definition: international agreements emphasize the importance of community participation in environ-mental policy (United Nations 1992, Principle 10; Aarhus Convention, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 1998). The European Landscape Convention (ELC) (Council of Europe (CoE) 2000) also emphasizes how landscapes are a ‘common good’, crucial to inhabitants’ quality of life. Consequently, participatory engagement with landscapes has grown signifi-cantly (e.g. Jones and Stenseke 2011; Egoz et al. 2018). Participation and land-scape definition often remain limited to professional stakeholders, however (CoE 2006, 173–8; Butler 2016; Conrad 2017), while heritage and archaeology often remain marginalized concerns (see e.g. Bateman and Balmford 2018). This is despite Europe’s recognition of their importance to well-being and sense of place (CoE 2005).

Exploring the place of heritage in participatory landscape management is becoming increasingly relevant as Europe’s landscapes face greater pressures from climate change, development and agricultural intensification. In this chapter we explore how heritage, specifically archaeology, has the potential to play a more central role in participatory understandings of landscape character and choices. Rather than engaging people with heritage for its own ends, archaeology can be fundamental to collective landscape management.


We explore how taking biographical approaches (Kolen and Renes 2015) enables archaeology to contribute to arenas that engage stakeholders in social discourse. Focusing on the results of our own research project (REFIT),1 which examined the place of archaeology in the management of specific landscapes in England, France and Spain, we discuss the practicalities of situating archaeol-ogy in integrated landscape management. Many of our findings resonate with studies of landscape management elsewhere, allowing us to outline some key issues for European heritage agendas.

The place of archaeology in landscape management

The concept of ‘cultural landscapes’ as core to European landscape manage-ment (Fairclough and Rippon 2002) has meant that archaeology and heritage are widely regarded as integral to landscape character. Heritage remains, however, just one facet of complex landscape-related legislation (Spek 2017, 150), and the extent to which it figures in participatory processes is often unclear.

Archaeology is increasingly recognized as just one amongst many ‘cultural ecosystems’ (Hølleland et al. 2017), while it is considered that participation in heritage should focus less on preservation than on its role in stimu-lating engagement in landscape choices (Turner 2013). Developing from this perspective, REFIT explored how archaeological heritage is situated in landscape management and how it might figure in more effective partici-patory approaches. Focused on landscapes which included large Iron Age monuments, known as oppida,2 we examined four case studies: Bagendon and Salmonsbury (Cotswolds, England), Bibracte (Burgundy, France) and Ulaca (Ávila, Spain).

Oppida were chosen because they represent a particular challenge for heritage management. Their scale (often hundreds or thousands of hectares) yet unspec-tacular upstanding remains, alongside poor public recognition (Pierrevelcin and Guichard 2009), mean that their management balances heritage protection

1 Resituating Europe’s First Towns: A case study in enhancing knowledge trans-fer and developing sustainable management of cultural landscapes: http:// www .refitproject .com.

2 Oppida (sing. Oppidum) are major monuments dating from the third century BC to the first century AD, potentially representing Europe’s first urbanism (Moore 2017).

http://www.refitproject.com


ARCHAEOLOGY’S PLACE IN PARTICIPATORY CULTURAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 63

with roles as working landscapes. Our case studies were situated in very differ-ent landscapes with contrasting management structures. Bibracte EPCC (étab-lissement public de coopération culturelle) is a quasi-autonomous government body which manages 1004 ha around the oppidum; Salmonsbury oppidum is situated in a landscape owned and run by a wildlife charity; Bagendon and Ulaca are only subject to general planning and heritage legislation.

To minimize the privileging of one perspective, the project was coproduced with a range of stakeholder organizations with varying expertise: archaeolog-ical researchers, heritage managers, businesses, wildlife organizations, local government and landscape managers. Recognizing contested definitions of ‘participation’ (Egoz et al. 2018), we emphasized a broad concept of ‘com-munities’ (Smith and Waterton 2009), made up of diverse stakeholders and valuing different perspectives.

Perceptions of landscapes and their management

Before developing approaches to participation, it is essential to understand stakeholders’ existing perceptions of landscapes and their management. Despite the ELC’s emphasis on participation (Article 5c and 6B.c), how this is articulated varies (Conrad 2017). In our case studies, there was little evidence that stakeholder views had been incorporated within landscape management. Where this had taken place, it was through large-scale surveys (Powell and Clark 2003) rather than detailed engagement with stakeholders. To redress this, REFIT examined stakeholder perceptions using a variety of methods, including perception mapping, semi-structured interviews and online ques-tionnaires (Moore and Tully 2018, 770–72). Despite their differing character, these approaches drew out issues common to all our case studies.

Landscape valuesThe interweave of natural and cultural factors in landscape character is widely recognized, but how this concept is communicated to, or resonates with, communities has received less attention. Surveys of stakeholders in our case studies revealed that only 20–30 per cent were aware of the term ‘cultural landscape’, with even some in management unfamiliar with the concept (Tully et al. 2019). Interviews revealed, however, that this concept resonates with stakeholders’ views of landscape. The varied values our stakeholders associated with landscapes echoed other studies (e.g. Spencer 2011) in revealing that most recognize how landscapes are created by a combination of factors. The impli-


cation is that concepts of cultural landscapes resonate with all stakeholders, but their underpinning philosophy needs better communication. Reflecting similar studies, stakeholders consistently valued heritage very highly (Tully et al. 2019). Despite frequently recognizing the pressures heritage can place on development and farming practice, most stakeholders did not see this as simply being to their detriment, but rather as requiring trade-offs in policies.

Landscape biographies Participation needs to emerge from an understanding of the dynamic nature of landscapes (Kolen and Renes 2015). Our surveys revealed a generally limited appreciation of the ways in which landscape character had emerged and the choices concerning landscapes in the present. We found, instead, a tendency to view landscapes as static, or as places where change had only taken place recently. Many stakeholders also focused on specific narratives and narrow perceptions of significance. At Bibracte, for example, these focused on the landscape’s Iron Age past, overlooking its more recent history. In all case studies there were strong perceptions of how the landscape should look; seen, for example, in the emphasis in the Cotswolds on the importance of dry-stone walls. Despite the strength of these views, there was little appreciation that these represent the retention (or replication) of specific landscape forms. Such perspectives are largely the product of management organizations’ communi-cation and focus on the significance of certain periods and particular landscape elements, which have contributed to a perceived regional aesthetic. These views of landscape character are, in effect, derived from a narrow sector of the population’s ideas of value (Smith and Waterton 2009, 50), which come to be accepted as ‘authentic’, rather than emerging from more diverse participatory processes.

We also encountered a lack of awareness of how to engage with landscape decisions. At Bibracte, for example, despite a public presentation of alternative landscape futures (Guichard 2012), these were little known. This largely relates to a disconnect between residents’ perceptions of the ‘heritage landscape’, focused on Bibracte, and their own ‘lived’ landscapes (Moore et al. 2020). Such dissonance may relate to the scale at which stakeholders conceive and experi-ence landscape. Although there are a range of scales at which landscapes need to be understood and managed, REFIT’s mapping exercises emphasized that most stakeholders engage with landscapes at a relatively small scale (cf. Spek 2017, 158). Within these landscapes, many stakeholders connect with elements of experienced heritage rather than with imposed ideas of significance (Smith and Waterton 2009). Using such heritage to connect stakeholders’ participa-


tion in landscape management with concepts of landscape biographies may be one way of bridging divisions between experience and management.

Engaging managementThe numerous participatory approaches implemented since the ELC (Jones and Stenseke 2011; Egoz et al. 2018) might suggest that stakeholders are increasingly aware of landscape management. REFIT’s surveys revealed, however, limited awareness of current strategies (Tully et al. 2019). In England, for example, despite living in close proximity to landscapes managed under stewardship, even landowning stakeholders knew little about what had happened and why (Moore and Tully 2018). This reflects the recognition that attempts in the UK to engage communities, through Local Landscape Character Assessments (Tudor 2014) and Neighbourhood Plans (DCLG 2011, Localism Act), have had limited impact and have seldom increased participa-tion (Brookfield 2017, 402). The same appears true elsewhere; around Bibracte only around 25 per cent (n = 420) of stakeholders surveyed were aware of how the landscape is managed.

Interviews suggested this was not due to a lack of interest. Many participants noted that no one has ever told them how and why the landscape looks the way it does and that they do not know how to source this information. This lack of awareness relates significantly to how landscape information is presented: divided between aspects such as heritage, geology, ecology and agronomy. For some themes, information is not easily accessible and even where landscape organizations disseminated information on, for example, both wildlife and heritage, these were separated between different leaflets or noticeboards. Across all three countries there also remain structural divisions between ‘cultural’ and ‘ecological’ management, while the planning processes, in which they are embedded, disconnect the roles of many stakeholders (Stenseke 2016, 199). The impression is that, while individual participatory schemes are highly effective, a widespread impact on rural populations’ participation in landscape planning has yet to be felt.

Engaging stakeholders in landscape participation

The themes which emerged from REFIT’s surveys suggested two major issues. The first was the need to better equip stakeholders with an appreciation of the integrated and dynamic nature of cultural landscapes. The second was that, despite the value placed on heritage by stakeholders, it is seldom at the


forefront of integrated management. Exploring how heritage might enhance participation in landscape management, we drew on two concepts. Ideas of landscape biographies (Kolen and Renes 2015) were useful in addressing lacunae in current presentations of cultural landscapes. Meanwhile, ideas of the ‘landscape as commons’ (Ostrom 1990; Le Roy 2016) were drawn on in developing communities’ role in decision-making.

Biographical approaches to the landscape (Kolen and Renes 2015) enable stakeholders to place themselves in a longue durée of landscape change. Archaeology, rather than re-treading specific narratives, has the potential to facilitate such biographies, stimulating stakeholders’ choices about landscape change and moving beyond dichotomies of preservation versus development. REFIT undertook this by coproducing guides with non-heritage stakeholders. These leaflets, digital downloads and interactive web guides (including a suite of videos)3 combined information on archaeology, ecology and modern land use. They emphasized the importance of inhabitants’ places in landscape biog-raphies, incorporating perspectives from varied stakeholders. To ensure that neither local resident nor managerial perspectives were privileged, both were included, emphasizing knowledge exchange and the multiplicity of values. At relatively low cost, these allowed sustainable presentations of cultural land-scapes, directed towards both local and external stakeholders.

We also explored how archaeology might facilitate arenas for communities to engage in landscape choices. Recognizing stakeholders’ differing understand-ings of heritage, but also the value they place on it, participation needs to emerge from stakeholders’ interests. To do this, at Bibracte, local stakeholders were engaged through landscape workshops to coproduce assessments of landscape character (Chazelle 2017). These revealed residents’ interest in the region’s rural trackways (Darroux 2017). Tracing these, and considering their history, current use and future preservation, acted as a shared interest amongst diverse stakeholders, providing a gateway into broader reflection on the landscape’s future. This approach echoes other studies which demonstrate how heritage, especially that which structures the landscape (trackways: Le Dû-Blayo et al. 2015; irrigation networks: Martín Civantos and Bonet García 2015; waterways: Vallerani and Visentin, this volume) has the potential to unite the interests of varied stakeholders. In the Cotswolds, farming and ecology stakeholders were engaged through participatory events using the archaeological technique of augering (Figure 5.1; Tully and Allen 2018). Developing from stakeholders’ existing interests in soils and species in relation to land use, and looking at past

3 Guides for these landscapes can be found at: http:// www .refitproject .com.



human impact on landscape, these acted as a stimulus to reflect on contempo-rary land uses. In all these approaches, stimulating physical engagement with the landscape provided a powerful method for reflection on wider issues.

To ensure greater reach, larger engagement events were necessary. Open days at Salmonsbury, Ulaca and Bibracte included workshops and presentations by experts from different disciplines, focusing on issues of landscape change. Around Bibracte, holding these at local farms engaged stakeholders in their own environment, breaking down barriers between ‘expert’ and ‘lived’ spaces. These events were coproduced to ensure heritage, ecology and agronomy were not presented as distinct; they used the archaeology of the oppida not as the focus but as hubs for dialogue.

Addressing these concerns, REFIT suggested that enhancing participation might best be achieved through the use of existing ‘landscape leadership’. These are stakeholders who, through their existing connections to a range of other stakeholders, provide a sustainable participatory focus in the landscape. In REFIT’s case studies, such ‘leaders’ varied. From its focus on heritage, Bibracte is developing as a space which connects national and regional agen-cies, academics and local communities (Guichard 2017). At Salmonsbury, the Wildlife Trust has a diverse membership and wide-ranging landscape con-nections. Where no obvious leader exists, REFIT echoed some other studies (García Martín et al. 2016, 51) in realizing that the social capital of individual farmers or politicians is key to facilitating integration. This was true in the Ávila case study landscape, for example, where the local mayor acted as the nexus for stakeholder interaction. The landscape role or specialism of these ‘leaders’ (ecology, heritage management, and so on) is less important than providing a focus to facilitate engagement.

Discussion: challenges for archaeology’s place in participatory landscapes

Ensuring that management is participatory is now widely recognized as impor-tant if landscapes are to be managed sustainably (Reed 2008). The practicalities of participation and ensuring well-informed stakeholders remain challenging, however. Despite the small scale of the REFIT project, many of its findings resonate with other studies (e.g. Hercules n.d.), allowing us to point to some key areas which may improve heritage’s role in landscape management. These are outlined below.

Source: Image courtesy of Mike Boyes.

Figure 5.1 Participatory augering workshop at Salmonsbury (Greystones Farm), 2017



Improving knowledge exchange REFIT revealed that greater efforts to explain existing strategies are required to foster participation. Concerns that stakeholders are not interested in landscape management were not borne out by REFIT’s surveys; instead, these encoun-tered a widespread wish to engage in decision-making (cf. Selman 2004). As some governments align farming subsidies towards ‘public money for public goods’ (DEFRA 2018), the desire to understand how landscapes are managed seems likely to increase. Dissemination of information on existing strategies needs to be improved, therefore. This might be through enhanced web portals, but dissemination is likely to be unsuccessful without forums for knowledge exchange. Building on existing ‘landscape leaders’ may be one way of fostering more active stakeholders while ensuring sustainable participation.

Ensuring sustainable participationThere is increasingly good practice in participatory integrated management (e.g. García Martín et al. 2016; Bieling and Plieninger 2017), yet many strate-gies still include relatively little participation beyond management or farming stakeholders. Concepts of landscapes as ‘commons’ address these concerns but, in practice, power imbalances between stakeholders must be mitigated, while recognizing that other stakeholders (tourists, the general public, exter-nal interest groups) are essential contributors (Jones 2011, 34). As the UK’s attempts at increased localism reveal, without facilitation such approaches are likely to be skewed to particular stakeholders, increasing rather than reducing dissatisfaction with management (Brookfield 2017). Championing a bottom-up approach may work in landscapes where traditions of communal decision-making exist (Le Roy 2016), but the same may not be true elsewhere. Active organizations, such as heritage managers or wildlife organizations, acting as ‘landscape leaders’, may play key roles in ensuring and diversifying participation. There remains, however, a need for governments to develop mechanisms for engagement, such as through more participatory Landscape Character assessments, like those in the UK (Butler 2016), and funding for partnership-based projects.

Heritage and archaeology as drivers of landscape biographies The widespread recognition that cultural heritage is valued across the stake-holder spectrum suggests that it has the potential to act as a focus for connect-ing stakeholders. However, its role in integrated management is often limited. Heritage stakeholders need to emphasize that it is an essential element of any landscape biography, not an optional extra. To do so, heritage professionals


need to develop coproductive relationships with other stakeholders to ensure it becomes an active element of landscape discourse. Archaeology, in particular, has remained surprisingly slow to move away from models of ‘community archaeology’ based on simply engaging people in stories about the past (Tully and Allen 2018, 3). Archaeology, however, has significant potential to act as a lever in creating landscape biographies. Its longue durée perspective on landscapes allows communities to contextualize future changes. At the same time, the materiality and physicality of archaeology enable physical landscape engagement rather than passive reflection, in our experience often stimulating more wide-ranging discourse. Without exploring its potential, archaeology remains in danger of leaving landscapes to other disciplines (Fairclough and Rippon 2002), to the detriment of landscapes’ vibrancy and sustainability.

Situating experts as stakeholders Through coproduction with existing landscape leaders, there are pathways for ensuring archaeology is not perceived as a marginal ‘cultural ecosystems service’. This includes raising the profile of archaeological heritage but also, more crucially, situating archaeology as integral to discourse on landscape biographies. In an era when experts are frequently regarded suspiciously (Pendlebury and Veldpaus 2018, 448), breaking down distinctions between stakeholder roles facilitates, rather than imposes, definitions of landscape (Butler 2016), and may increase participation. Situating specialists, such as archaeologists, as fellow stakeholders rather than managers may be one way of fostering more inclusive and less ‘top-down’ approaches as part of a move to more integrated and sustainable European landscapes.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to REFIT’s co-investigators, Vincent Guichard and Jesus Alvarez-Sanchis, the other project researchers (Jonhattan Vidal, Jesus Rodríguez, Chiara Pai and Elodie Delhommeau) and our partner organiza-tions, as well as local residents, for their support and input into the project. This research was funded by the European Union’s Joint Programme Initiative on Cultural Heritage through the research agencies of France (ANR), Spain (Mineco) and the UK (AHRC grant: AH/N504403/1).


References

Bateman, I. and B. Balmford (2018), ‘Public funding for public goods: A post-Brexit perspective on principles for agricultural policy’, Land Use Policy, 79, 293–300.

Bieling, C. and T. Plieninger (eds) (2017), The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brookfield, K. (2017), ‘Getting involved in plan-making: Participation in neighbour-hood planning in England’, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35 (3), 397–416.

Butler, A. (2016), ‘Dynamics of integrating landscape values in landscape character assessment: the hidden dominance of the objective outsider’, Landscape Research, 41 (2), 239–52.

Chazelle, Cl. (2017), Bibracte Mont-Beuvray. Gestion du Grand Site et de ses ter-ritoires. Eléments de diagnostic paysager, Clermont-Ferrand: Atelier Claude Chazelle, accessed 1 May 2018 at http:// www .bibracte .fr/ media/ bibracte/ 163210 -2017 _chazelle _diagnostic _paysager .pdf.

CoE (Council of Europe) (2000), European Landscape Convention, accessed October 2016 at https:// rm .coe .int/ Co ERMPublicC ommonSearc hServices/ DisplayDCTMContent ?documentId = 09000016802f80c6.

CoE (Council of Europe) (2005), ‘Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro)’, accessed October 2016 at https:// rm .coe .int/ 1680083746.

CoE (Council of Europe) (2006), Landscape and Sustainable Development. Challenges for the European Landscape Convention, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Conrad, E. (2017), ‘Human and social dimensions of landscape stewardship’, in C. Bieling and T. Plieninger (eds), The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 38–53.

Darroux, C. (2017) ‘Journée participative: paysage et patrimoine à Glux en Glenne 11 juillet 2017’, accessed 10 May 2021 at https:// reflaction .hypotheses .org/ 386.

DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2018), ‘A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment’, accessed August 2018 at http:// www .gov .uk/ government/ publications.

DCLG (2011), Localism Act 2011, Department for Communities and Local Government, accessed July 2021 at https:// www .legislation .gov .uk/ ukpga/ 2011/ 20/ contents.

Egoz, S., K. Jørgensen and D. Ruggeri (2018), Defining Landscape Democracy. A Path to Spatial Justice, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Fairclough, G. and S. Rippon (eds) (2002), Europe’s Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists and the Management of Change, Brussels: Europae Archaeologiae Consilium.

García Martín, M., C. Bieling, A. Hart and T. Plieninger (2016), ‘Integrated landscape initiatives in Europe: Multi-sector collaboration in multi-functional landscapes’, Land Use Policy, 58, 43–53.

Guichard, V. (2012), ‘An example of integrated management of a heritage site: Bibracte-Mont Beuvray (Burgundy, France)’, in C. Gambardella (ed.), Less More Architecture Design Landscape. Le Vie dei Mercanti. X forum Internazionale di Studi, Napoli: La sucuola di Pitagora (Fabbrica della Conoscenza 16), pp. 120–3.

Guichard, V. (2017), ‘Bibracte: le paysage au c‘ur du projet de site/Bibracte: Die Landschaft im Zentrum des Projekts der archäologischen Stätte’, in C. Dunning and

http://www.bibracte.fr/media/bibracte/163210-2017_chazelle_diagnostic_paysager.pdf

http://www.bibracte.fr/media/bibracte/163210-2017_chazelle_diagnostic_paysager.pdf

https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802f80c6

https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802f80c6

https://rm.coe.int/1680083746

https://rm.coe.int/1680083746

https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freflaction.hypotheses.org%2F386&data=04%7C01%7CLoes.Veldpaus%40newcastle.ac.uk%7Cce558f32dd7f4662861908d913c43330%7C9c5012c9b61644c2a91766814fbe3e87%7C1%7C0%7C637562557303702023%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=avQuzExM%2FketC%2BViwuBLiFiIeiY%2FKLg0dhlLh6KmsYE%3D&reserved=0

http://www.gov.uk/government/publications

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents


E. Dunning (eds), Paysages entre archéologie et tourisme / Landschaften zwischen Archäologie und Tourismus, Bienne: ArchaeoTourism, pp. 102–13.

Hercules (n.d.), ‘The landscape approach: Recommendations towards landscape-centred policies’, accessed June 2018 at http:// www .hercules -landscapes .eu/ tartalom/ publications/ articles _5 .pdf.

Hølleland, H., J. Skrede and S.B. Holmgaard (2017), ‘Cultural heritage and ecosystem services: a literature review’, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 19 (3), 210–37.

Jones, M. (2011), ‘European landscape and participation: rhetoric or reality?’, in M. Jones and M. Stenseke (eds), The European Landscape Convention: Challenges of Participation, Dordrecht: Springer, 27–44.

Jones M. and M. Stenseke (eds) (2011), The European Landscape Convention: Challenges of Participation, Dordrecht: Springer.

Kolen, J. and H. Renes (2015), ‘Landscape biographies: key issues’, in J. Kolen, H. Renes and R. Hermans (eds), Landscape Biographies. Geographical, Historical and Archaeological Perspectives on the Production and Transmission of Landscapes, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 21–48.

Le Dû-Blayo, L., V. Van Tilbeurg, C. Thenail and D. Le Coeur (2015), ‘Paths that trace a territorial thought through the landscape’, in Y.Luginbühl, P. Howard and D. Terrasson (eds), Landscape and Sustainable Development: The French Perspective, London: Routledge, pp. 47–61.

Le Roy, E. (2016), ‘Des communs “à double révolution”’, Droit et Société, 94, 603–24.Martín Civantos, J.M. and M.T. Bonet García (2015), ‘MEMOLA project. Mediterranean

Mountainous Landscapes: an historical approach to cultural heritage based on tra-ditional agrosystems’, European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies, 5, 347–56.

Moore, T. (2017), ‘Alternatives to urbanism? Reconsidering oppida and the urban question in Late Iron Age Europe’, Journal of World Prehistory, 30 (3), 281–300.

Moore, T. and G. Tully (2018), ‘Connecting landscapes: examining and enhancing the relationship between stakeholder values and cultural landscape management in England’, Landscape Research, 43, 769–83.

Moore, T., V. Guichard and J. Álvarez Sanchís (2020), ‘The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management. A case study comparing landscapes with Iron Age oppida in England, France and Spain’, Journal of European Landscapes, 1, 9–28.

Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pendlebury, J. and L. Veldpaus (2018), ‘Heritage and Brexit’, Planning Theory and Practice, 19 (3), 448–53.

Pierrevelcin, G. and V. Guichard (2009), ‘Protection et accessibilité des oppida. Bilan de la visite de quelques sites’, in I. Benková and V. Guichard (eds), Gestion et Présentation des Oppida: Un Panorama Européen, Glux-en-Glenne: Bibracte Monograph 15, 15–26.

Powell, J.R. and M. Clark (2003), Cotswold AONB Survey 2002: Your Ideas, Concerns and Aspirations, Project Report. Cheltenham: Cotswolds Conservation Board.

Reed, M.S. (2008), ‘Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a litera-ture review’, Biological Conservation, 141 (10), 2417–31.

Selman, P. (2004), ‘Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47 (3), 365–92.

http://www.hercules-landscapes.eu/tartalom/publications/articles_5.pdf

http://www.hercules-landscapes.eu/tartalom/publications/articles_5.pdf


Smith, L. and E. Waterton (2009), Heritage, Communities and Archaeology, Bloomsbury: London.

Spek, T. (2017), ‘The future of the past’, in C. Bieling and T. Plieninger (eds), The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 148–63.

Spencer, N. (2011), ‘Participation within the landscape of the river Dart catchment, Devon, England’, in M. Jones and M. Stenseke (eds), The European Landscape Convention: Challenges of Participation, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 239–60.

Stenseke, M. (2016), ‘Integrated landscape management and the complicating issue of temporality’, Landscape Research, 41 (2), 199–211.

Tudor, C. (2014), An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment, Sheffield: Natural England.

Tully, G. and M. Allen (2018), ‘Participatory augering: a methodology for challenging perceptions of archaeology and landscape change’, Public Archaeology, 16 (3–4), 191–213.

Tully, G., C. Piai, J. Rodríguez Hernández and E. Delhommeau (2019), ‘Understanding perceptions of cultural landscapes in Europe: A comparative analysis using “oppida” landscapes’, The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 10 (2), 198–223.

Turner, S. (2013), ‘Landscape archaeology’, in P. Howard, I. Thompson, E. Waterton and M. Atha (eds), The Routledge Companion to Landscape Studies, London: Routledge, pp. 155–65.

UNECE (1998), UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention), accessed July 2021 at https:// unece .org/ environment -policy/ public -participation/ aarhus -convention/ introduction.

United Nations (1992), The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June, accessed July 2021 at https:// www .un .org/ en/ conferences/ environment/ rio1992.

https://unece.org/environment-policy/public-participation/aarhus-convention/introduction

https://unece.org/environment-policy/public-participation/aarhus-convention/introduction

https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/rio1992

https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/rio1992

75

6 Industrial heritage and conservation planning, changing governance practices, examples from Europe

Loes Veldpaus and Remi Wacogne

Introduction

In most European countries, there exists a regulatory system for conser-vation planning and heritage management, consisting of a combination of subnational, national and supranational guidelines, policies, codes and laws. Whether the policies and laws that apply are very rigid, more indicative or mostly absent, they have an impact on the historic built environment, historic preservation and the perception of heritage. They not only set limits of accept-able change but also effectively decide what is considered heritage: officially and, more broadly, perceptually. However, as heritage is a cultural practice, practitioners play a significant role in defining and developing its workings and doings. This also means that practices can significantly vary, even within the same legal framework. Heritage management practices are constantly evolving, and ideas around heritage are shifting; notably affected by changes in urban governance, in addition to the pressure (or lack thereof) of urban development.

In this chapter, we will discuss some of the results of the project ‘The impact of urban planning and governance reform on the historic built environment and intangible cultural heritage’ (PICH). In this project, our aim was to examine the complex structure of policies, processes, practices and people that is driving decision-making for the historic environment in the Netherlands, England, Italy and Norway. The research consisted of 12 in-depth case studies,


using policy analysis, documentary research, expert interviews and street interviews with visitors and residents. We looked at three settings: historic urban cores, former industrial areas and the urban landscape across these four countries (Nadin et al. 2018). By analysing a variety of localities across Europe, we sought to further the understanding of how changes to urban governance are influencing heritage management across Europe. By taking a governance perspective, the aim is to draw attention to the limitations of the formal organization of government and its planning policies and heritage protection mechanisms.

Historically, urban heritage management practices intended essentially to preserve the fabric of the past for future generations, focusing on the tangible and aesthetic dimensions of heritage. This was challenged by the concept of Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) developed by Smith (2006, 11), who questioned why ‘heritage’ often seems limited to ‘“old”, grand, monumental and aesthetically pleasing sites, buildings, places and artefacts’. The past decades have seen a push for broadening the heritage concept, and a move from such a restricted AHD, with its inherent materiality and assumed intrinsic value. Heritage is now more commonly understood as a process mobilizing socially constructed values, as well as a distinctively performative one in relation to places (Hall 1999; Smith 2006, chapter 6; Harrison 2012, chapter 5). It is seen as a way of (re)enacting and mobilizing some past(s) in the present (Hart 2011; Meskell 2015). As such, heritage can be seen as a process of instrumentalizing place, using the past as a social, political or economic resource (Graham et al. 2000) as well as a process of constructing (un)belongingness, and thus a con-structed ‘other’ who can never fully belong. Work that looks at what heritage ‘does’ rather than what it ‘is’ is becoming much more common (Crooke and Maguire 2018; Smith et al. 2018). A lot of this work is being done within the museum sector, and there is a need for further development of this thinking in urban contexts (Kisić 2017; Tolia-Kelly et al. 2017; Sinclair-Chapman 2018).

Changes to heritage governance

By looking at the influence of global forces such as the economic crisis, we aimed to understand how structural changes are shared (or not) and dealt with within different planning and heritage systems. In Italy, the Netherlands and England, the 2008 crisis brought austerity measures; in all four countries, so including Norway, it led to changing values and attitudes toward priorities for development (and a growth agenda) and to a much-reduced capacity for local governments to intervene directly in urban development and conservation.

INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE AND CONSERVATION PLANNING 77

This reinforced and accelerated neoliberal thinking in urban governance, leading to more market-oriented mechanisms for delivering services and projects, and a loosening of public regulation (Pendlebury et al. 2019). It also led to an increased emphasis upon the economic value of heritage assets and narratives, as heritage has become an even more explicit means to instrumen-talize place (Wacogne 2018; Veldpaus and Pendlebury 2019). Concurrently, there has been a push for a more liberal approach to heritage, aiming not just at increasing the range of what can become heritage, but also at stimulating participatory practices and a push for increased local involvement.

In the cases we looked at, both these neoliberal and liberal trends led to varying degrees of visible change in urban heritage governance, depending on the national political, economic and cultural contexts, as well as on the type of heritage and its location. Much of the change we observed was prompted by austerity measures leading to less public investment, and thus to a need for commercial or civil society-led projects. Local heritage and planning authorities act more and more as facilitators, guiding and shaping policies and activities of other key actors rather than directly implementing and financing change. As such, the form and level of influence that public bodies and public investment have in the conservation of the historic environment is changing critically. While this may undermine collective efforts to conserve, it may also bring in new civil and private actors and inward investment into the heritage sector, and as such it is a platform for new actors and thus for new voices.

Our aim was to look at the governance of the historic environment. While the regulatory system has not changed significantly since the 2008 crisis in any of the countries we looked at, conservation practices, and particularly the roles and responsibilities of the actors involved, did change quite considerably in some of our cases. The two themes we focus on in this chapter are firstly, the further normalization of partnership working – in particular, the chang-ing roles and responsibilities within those partnerships – and secondly, the increased focus on pragmatic and highly selective heritage practices, or on what could be termed ‘useful’ heritage.

Partnerships

Partnership working in urban governance or heritage management processes isn’t new (Davoudi 1995; Pendlebury 2002), but it has intensified and changed in nature over the last decade. Originally, partnerships were often set up and led by the public sector according to the ‘New Public Management’ approach,


with the aim of fostering a more competitive, accountable, efficient and entrepreneurial public sector (Cook 2009). In this project, we saw that these urban governance arrangements are moving towards what Rex (2018) calls ‘other-than-public’ forms of management of urban processes, places or assets. She defines these ‘other-than-public’ forms of management as those that are not public sector led, but still use a language of affinity with public sector ethics, ideals and ambitions; for example, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (e.g. a trust or charity) or some sort of cooperative or community and/or not-for-profit company. So, while local authorities still take part in such processes, and also still have to deal with planning and heritage permit applications, they are no longer the initiating or leading partner, even when it comes to area development (Veldpaus and Pendlebury 2019).

Whether it is following development logics, austerity, small-state ideology or a push for participatory approaches, or a mix of all the above, we see a redis-tribution of roles and responsibilities in partnerships involved in (urban) heritage governance. We found that other-than-public actors are taking, and are expected or encouraged to take, larger responsibilities, including lead roles, in urban heritage governance. Subsequently, the (local) government’s role is in some cases being reduced to that of a ‘critical facilitator’. The outcomes of conservation interventions then come to depend more and more on both the capacity and the aims of those other-than-public actors, and the new govern-ance arrangements influence the uses, concepts and narratives of heritage. This was stronger in the English context than it was in the other countries, but to some extent these results of shifting roles and responsibilities were visible in all cases. These other-than-public actors, while using the ‘public’ discourse, usually have little legal or formal responsibility toward the wider public. Therefore, it is up to them how inclusive and responsive they are in their approaches and ideas. They also seek more flexibility, as their potential in terms of networks, resources, knowledge and experience affects their projects’ outcomes. Lack of democratic accountability, long-term sustainability and responsibility are also potential issues in such processes.

To explain in more detail how these partnership workings influence heritage, we now turn to the industrial heritage ‘typology’, one of the three themes in the PICH project, along with historic urban cores and urban landscapes (Nadin et al. 2018). These areas are a commonplace feature of most cities as changing demands of industry and economic restructuring have made many industrial sites redundant. Their location – close to city centres – in combination with relatively low land values makes them attractive for transformation. The four industrial heritage cases represent different industrial periods. In Italy we looked at the Goccia area in Bovisa, Milan, a former complex of gasworks and


chemical plants; in Norway and the Netherlands, the case studies were former shipyards, respectively Nedre Elvehavn (TVM) in Trondheim and Rotterdam Droogdok Maatschappij (RDM); and in the UK (more specifically England) we focused on Ouseburn Valley, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which was at first the location of pottery industries in the seventeenth century, but now consists of a mix of small-scale – some still active – industries. In Milan and Rotterdam, Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) were the main new users and developers, while in Trondheim the new use for the area, promoted through its redevelop-ment, was leisure. In this case, Nedre Elvehavn, a public–private partnership, was initially set up, but public austerity following the 1980s crisis rendered the project inactive for a decade and the municipality had to sell its stake in the project to private companies. They then developed the site privately. In Ouseburn, the Ouseburn Partnership (18 partners), led by the Ouseburn Trust (a local NGO), initiated the redevelopment of the area by successfully bidding for £2.5 million from central state funding (the ‘Single Regeneration Budget’).

The cases within the (post-) industrial theme of the research project are especially interesting to look at here because the approaches used were rather experimental and less essentially heritage-centred; more so than in historic urban cores and urban landscapes. Although heritage plays a role, in all four industrial case studies the partnerships were set up for the management and redevelopment of the area. The processes were characterized by a certain degree of flexibility toward heritage and, although we did not investigate the reasons behind this further, it was clearly considered more acceptable to make material changes to industrial heritage, in comparison to the heritage consid-ered within the historic urban core. This is partly because most countries have little direct policy on what industrial heritage is (thus differentiating it from heritage in general) and how it should be protected, and partly due to a lack of funding for what are often vast derelict areas to develop, and (as a result) pressures to develop for commercial uses.

Ownership structures are related to former use, and influence how both the areas and the partnerships develop. With only one or a few larger landowners and a fairly singular industrial use, there tends to be a more sudden shift, for example after bankruptcy, from active to inactive, as well as the other way around. Also, the need for decontamination and other sometimes very challenging conditions (retaining walls, very robust or very fragile ruinous buildings) have impacted on partnership formation and transformation pro-cesses, slowing them down or bringing them to a halt altogether, sometimes for several years (they are still going on in the Italian case, more than two decades after the last plant shut down). The role of time, both in terms of the processes at work and the more ‘recent’ nature of most of the industrial heritage sites we


looked at, seems an important factor in the more flexible approach to these sites (Carughi and Visone 2017).

Experiment, as we encountered it, relates to this more flexible attitude, as well as the need to negotiate between developers’ interests and conservation requirements. The other-than-public stakeholders are often new to herit-age and have had to learn rapidly to operate in this specialized field. They are, however, not new to area development and come with new ideas and approaches, as they bring their own knowledge and expertise to the govern-ance arrangements of heritage area development practices. For instance, they utilized or developed their own governance and area-management mecha-nisms (e.g. port companies, campus development), largely unknown in the heritage field. The approaches we observed included all sorts of branding and marketing tools, used to create a favourable climate for specific groups of users (i.e. artists, education workers, start-ups) that ‘fit’ the brand, for example by providing low-rent and longer-lease options, rent and facilities ‘package deals’ or shared facilities. When deemed important to such groups, there was also an emphasis on the opportunity offered to new users to have a say in future development, for example by collaborative planning, the (co-)organization of place ‘branding’ activities and events (cultural events, pop-ups, markets, festi-vals, expositions) or by developing guidance on how to deal with the historic buildings.

For those new actors, however, using (former) industrial areas is not necessarily about heritage. It is just as much, or more, about the type of space, the freedom and flexibility in reuse granted to industrial heritage, the location in relation to the city centre, the geography, or the identity it gives, as being alternative, ‘quirky’ or a ‘maker space’. This we saw in particular in Rotterdam and Milan, where HEIs were redeveloping former industrial spaces through projects that were very much about using heritage to foster identity, building on an image of the area and of its industrial ‘glory’ – an area of creators, inventors, makers, innovators – but were also very practical about the large spaces the buildings offer. In both cases, at least initially, an HEI approached the areas as ‘industrial’ heritage – in the broad sense of the word – and undertook an adaptive reuse project, but without having to adhere to the legal framework around heritage. In Italy, high costs of land decontamination and the restrictive regulations associated with this process played a decisive role in downgrading conserva-tion as a priority. In Rotterdam, the partnership negotiated a guided (by the Netherlands Heritage Agency) process of redevelopment, while agreeing that listing would only happen after this process had finished.


As partnerships were generally set up to negotiate planning and generate funding for future development, they always had to involve or engage with local authorities to some extent. Financing often came from the market, or through specific sectoral public funding (central or regional state, subsidies, area-regeneration schemes, national project investments or loans, European funding). In more recent times, community funding (e.g. crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, community shares) was added into the mix. In particular, national and European Union (EU) sectoral funding or area-regeneration funds tended to offer consistent incentives to develop certain areas in particu-lar ways, as they are generally associated with a specific focus or guidance in terms of how the money can be spent. Obtaining almost all of these funds has become highly competitive and it was evident how those successful in winning funding in this way had benefitted from having strong networks, a (national) lobby and the presence of a pre-existing delivery framework and consortium.

The level (or lack of) of restriction characterizing the respective heritage man-agement systems conditioned the partnership negotiations. In the Dutch and Norwegian cases, heritage was used as a carrot or stick. In the Netherlands, negotiations between private and public actors were resolved through the involved buildings only after heritage-sensitive development, while in Norway, developers were allowed to develop the area for profit only if they would also fund heritage conservation. In the Italian and English cases, partnerships were instead driven – or opposed – by a group of users with a vested interest in the area, which they passionately cared for (England), facilitated by the local governmental planning frameworks. In the Newcastle case, this group, the Ouseburn Trust, which was established in the 1990s to oppose large-scale developments in the valley, later came to lead the partnership to regenerate the area. In Bovisa, Milan, a group of citizens have recently opposed the partnership plans for the redevelopment of the Goccia area, calling for a more environmentally sustainable option and greater public consent.

Usefulness

We also identified an increased focus on pragmatic and highly selective heritage practices, in other words on ‘useful’ heritage. To gain and retain legitimacy in a planning process with a growth agenda, one has to follow its logic. Heritage conservation processes thus can’t be seen to block or even to be neutral towards economic development; they have to facilitate and stimulate it. Heritage has to be ‘useful’. ‘Useful’ often refers to bringing buildings back into use, but also to making a positive impact in terms of well-being, tourism


or land value, for instance. Likewise, the stories told and histories mobilized become means of place branding, tourism development or investments. This is not to say that using heritage never happened before, nor that it is inherently a bad thing, but rather that it shows how heritage management is becoming more and more strategic.

The strategic location and the trendiness of post-industrial areas make them attractive for development. Such development schemes generally aim to benefit from a certain ‘industrial character’ while only loosely engaging with, or conforming to it – or even, in some cases, adversely impacting this character. In all cases, we saw the industrial heritage being used as an attractive setting for twenty-first-century development, especially for certain industries and businesses (e.g. creative, digital, crafts, manufacturing, cafés, bars, restaurants). The use of heritage narratives to create favourable conditions for specific groups of users, such as students, artists and start-ups, or restaurants, cafés and ‘unique’ or ‘quirky’ shops, has been observed in all cases. In fact, all the new strategies we identified have been at least partly about branding: getting the right people to that place, making spaces more attractive to a particular audience. This was not unexpected given the push for more market-driven approaches and finance mechanisms and market-led partnerships, as discussed above. Competition provides a general push for branding, putting oneself on the map – and, while drawing upon place identity, tends to generate forms of gentrification and commodification. These are consequences of the process of using – or instrumentalizing – heritage, which are regularly de-problematized or even celebrated. These processes are not necessarily new, but they have deepened and become considered unavoidable or even necessary.

In terms of conservation, links to the industrial past are mostly made in the reuse of parts of buildings and leftover elements (e.g. cranes, machinery) and thus according to a focus on aesthetics and materiality (details, particular materials and colours). Industrial aesthetics are used as an element for ‘cre-ative industries’ branding; as a reference to a more intangible heritage, such as engineering, manufacturing and innovation. New developments not only use these stories, but also portray current projects as seemingly frictionless continuations of a glorious industrial past; much less attention is paid to, for example, the trauma of lost industries and jobs, hazards and contamination. Such projects rarely address questions of belonging, or if they do, they ignore less positive heritage narratives. The aim is to use heritage sites in a way that makes them attractive and investment-worthy rather than to represent an inclusive story of their history. In fact, in the cases observed, little interpreta-tion of their heritage was offered; the remnants of the past were assumed to be largely self-explanatory and self-evident.


Argued from a heritage point of view, this means there is a highly selective practice going on, which is mobilizing only the ‘useful’ stories and assets. Furthermore, the identification of what is ‘useful’ is now decided or at least negotiated by the main other-than-public actor involved. Of course, such pro-cesses are still mediated by regulatory systems, common practices and funding bodies, and – hopefully – by some participatory process. However, in such a context we would argue that it is increasingly difficult to challenge meanings, or to stimulate a multiplicity of them. This leads to a further closing down of the capacity of heritage to be a space for debate and a platform for multiple voices and belongings. As such, we would say, academics as well as local actors could question more what heritage does, and how and for whom it is being (made) useful. What are the alternative or complementary stories not being told; who is excluded? What of the histories of manual labour, shipbuilding, diseases and casualties, or squatting and illegal use?

What future do we imagine, and on which pasts is it built?

By analysing a variety of localities, we saw how both liberal and neoliberal tendencies are changing urban governance and subsequently heritage man-agement across Europe. The wider governance arrangements revealed further ongoing shifts from public to private, from government to governance, and increasingly important roles for other-than-public actors in partnerships. As discussed above, the changes to partnership working seem to lead to a situation in which the ‘use of heritage’ turns into the ‘usefulness of heritage’.

Heritage has been and will likely always be used for different aims, be it to develop and/or affirm national or local identities or more blatantly as an eco-nomic commodity. It will probably also be contested as well as appropriated by ‘other’ actors, whose interest in heritage might be neither political nor economic. The common focus on the usefulness of heritage emphasized here generally corresponds to the neglect of, or rather to a convenient dismissal of, less ‘useful’ histories. Little or no space is dedicated to what is often referred to as ‘other’ stories, such as those of the working class, women, people of colour or LGBTQ, unless there is some – usually financial or ideological – incentive to do otherwise. In other words, investment in those stories the hegemonic group doesn’t consider ‘theirs’ is only made when they serve other aims or ideas of the key actors involved, such as diversity or funding. Once again, the question of which pasts are at work in heritage practices is critical. In this context, it doesn’t help that roles and responsibilities within governance arrangements


are changing – often forcefully and rapidly – and that those changes are not necessarily supported by resources, knowledge and experience.

Industrial and urban heritage in general raises this last question in quite dis-tinctive terms. Indeed, compared for instance to museums, urban spaces are daily used by a diverse audience that is not necessarily aware of their history, although they will experience a version of it. At the same time, even consider-ing former industrial areas and buildings as extreme examples, the interpre-tation and conservation of urban heritage are still very much in the hands of a limited number of actors, be they public or private. Local communities above all, but also other types of users, should be part of conservation planning pro-cesses. In some of the cases observed they are indeed already taking significant – and sometimes unexpected – roles. However, as in more grassroots-driven processes, wider awareness, democratic accountability and an (overt) focus on particular groups and thus histories are also issues to be considered. Heritage is a means to an end, but what end? What future do we imagine, and how and why do we mobilize the past for this? What does heritage do, and is it what we intended it to do? We would argue that those working in and on heritage will need to ask these questions more frequently.

References

Carughi, U. and M. Visone (eds) (2017), Time Frames: Conservation Policies for Twentieth-Century Architectural Heritage, 1st edn, London and New York: Routledge.

Cook, I.R. (2009), ‘Private sector involvement in urban governance: The case of busi-ness improvement districts and town centre management partnerships in England’, Geoforum, 40 (5), 930–40.

Crooke, E. and T. Maguire (2018), Heritage after Conflict: Northern Ireland, London and New York: Routledge.

Davoudi, S. (1995), ‘City challenge: the three-way partnership’, Planning Practice and Research, 10 (3–4), 333–44.

Graham, B., G. Ashworth and J. Tunbridge (2000), A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture, and Economy, London and New York: Arnold, Oxford University Press.

Hall, S. (1999), ‘Whose heritage? Un‐settling “the heritage”, re‐imagining the Postnation’, Third Text, 13 (49), 3–13. https:// doi .org/ 10 .1080/ 09528829908576818

Harrison, R. (2012), Heritage: Critical Approaches, London and New York: Routledge.Hart, S. (2011), ‘Heritage, neighborhoods and cosmopolitan sensibilities:

Poly-communal archaeology in Deerfield, Massachusetts’, Present Pasts, 3 (1), 26–34, doi: 10.5334/pp.42.


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09528829908576818


Meskell, L. (2015), ‘Introduction: Globalizing heritage’, in L. Meskell (ed.), Global Heritage: A Reader, Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Nadin, V., W. van der Toorn Vrijthoff, A.A. Kermani et al. (2018), Cultural Heritage: A Challenge for Europe. The Impact of Urban Planning and Governance Reform on the Historic Built Environment and Intangible Cultural Heritage (PICH), Delft: TU Delft, retrieved from https:// planningandheritage .files .wordpress .com/ 2018/ 04/ pich -final -report -060418 .pdf

Pendlebury, J. (2002), ‘Conservation and regeneration: Complementary or conflicting processes? The case of Grainger Town, Newcastle upon Tyne’, Planning Practice and Research, 17 (2), 145–58.

Pendlebury, J., M. Scott, L. Veldpaus, W. van der Toorn Vrijthoff and D. Redmond (2019), ‘After the crash: The conservation-planning assemblage in an era of auster-ity’, European Planning Studies, doi: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1629395

Rex, B. (2018), Local Authority Museums after the Cuts: A Study of Other-than-Public Forms of Management (PhD Thesis), Newcastle University, School of Arts and Cultures: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.


Smith, L. (2006), Uses of Heritage, Abingdon, UK and New York: Taylor and Francis.Smith, L., M. Wetherell and G. Campbell (2018), Emotion, Affective Practices, and the

Past in the Present, London and New York: Routledge.Tolia-Kelly, D.P., E. Waterton and S. Watson (eds) (2017), Heritage, Affect and

Emotion: Politics, Practices and Infrastructures, London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Veldpaus, L. and J. Pendlebury (2019), ‘Heritage as a vehicle for development: The case of Bigg Market, Newcastle upon Tyne’, Planning Practice and Research, 1–15, doi: 10.1080/02697459.2019.1637168.

Wacogne, R. (2018), ‘Venezia (in-)sostenibile. Usi e pratiche del patrimonio urbano’, in G. Fini, V. Saiu and C. Trillo (eds), UPhD Green: Il dottorato come luogo esplorativo della ricerca sulla sostenibilità. Servizio monografico: Planum Magazine, 37 (2), 127–35.

https://planningandheritage.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pich-final-report-060418.pdf

https://planningandheritage.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pich-final-report-060418.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1629395

https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2019.1637168

87

7 Developing participation through digital reconstruction and communication of ‘lost’ heritage

Laura Loredana Micoli, Gabriele Guidi, Pablo Rodríguez-Gonzálvez and Diego González-Aguilera

Introduction

We consider knowledge of urban history and cultural assets, especially among younger generations, as fundamental to the development of an understanding of a place and its identity, as well as to face the current challenges of heritage conservation. Public participation is at the forefront of planning heritage and cultural policy agendas (e.g., Faro Convention 2005; UNESCO 2011; ICOMOS 2018). Particular attention is dedicated to the different meanings, forms and effects of participation (Chiabai et al. 2013). In this chapter, we follow the 2009 UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics’ definition of cultural participation:

cultural practices that may involve consumption as well as activities that are undertaken within the community, reflecting quality of life, traditions and beliefs. Moreover, cultural participation covers both active and passive behaviour. It includes the person who is listening to a concert and the person who practices music.

Another significant current theme is related to digital technologies that enable cultural innovation and participation (Ciasullo et al. 2016). In recent decades, digital media have changed the ways to operate in research, preservation, management, interpretation, representation, creation and access to cultural heritage (Cameron and Kenderdine 2007; Taylor and Gibson 2017).


In the case studies presented in this chapter, we explore how digital tools can help active participation by citizens, and have a fundamental and concrete role in different phases of heritage research: in the initial phase of study and research, especially where citizens are owners of goods or custodians of information on assets, and in subsequent phases of representation of the results through digital media. Ethics considered, the use of results and tools by citizens can also provide quantitative and qualitative data that allow improve-ments to the contents and the communication tools.

This chapter presents two cases in which research involving citizen participa-tion took place in various forms, using digital tools at various stages. The work was undertaken within the international research project ‘Cultural Heritage Through Time’ (CHT2). In this project, we developed a general methodology for creating 4D models (which are 3D models associated with different times) of cultural heritage assets, ranging from a building to an urban context or a landscape. The general purpose was to generate 4D digital models, revealing changes, through time, of the chosen heritage sites, and developing such meth-odology by maintaining an active collaboration with the stakeholders, mainly represented by the institutions in charge of management and conservation of the heritage assets under investigation.

Another aim of the project was to provide tools for effectively visualizing 4D models, capable of making the material accessible online, in order to share multi-temporal information on the web and to further accommodate public participation.

The two case studies, here presented, were located in Italy and Spain. The inhabitants living near the heritage assets got involved during the research phase by sharing their knowledge of the heritage site, allowing access to private properties involved in the research, and verifying the usability and impact of the digital products produced by the project. This active involvement worked as a catalyst, producing an amplifier effect in the project’s visibility, and trig-gering greater public attention and involvement in later phases.

Triggering public participation through 4D reconstruction of cultural heritage assets

Memory has become a major preoccupation – in Europe and beyond – in the twentieth century and into the twenty-first … Europe has become a memoryland – obsessed with the disappearance of collective memory and its preservation.

DEVELOPING PARTICIPATION AND ‘LOST’ HERITAGE 89

These words, which open the book Memorylands: Heritage and Identity in Europe Today, by the anthropologist MacDonald (2013), well summarize the current level of attention with respect to the cultural phenomenon of memory. Memory has also been labelled a ‘metaphor of a physical location’ and as such is intimately bound up in efforts to construct territory and place (Wright and Falconer 1998). However, such places do not carry meaning inherently but give their audience the capacity to make meaning (Buckley 1998). Our 4D models aim to develop further possibilities for people to produce and share such understandings and meanings.

Cultural heritage, tangible and intangible, is perceived as a public good (see, e.g., Fiorentini et al., this volume). The general question of quality interventions, and the complexity of involved stakeholders, disciplines and approaches, requires an integrated and participatory approach to safeguarding and managing cultural heritage (see, e.g., Moore and Tully and Veldpaus and Wacogne, this volume). Continuously monitoring cultural assets’ state, for example, allows both evaluating their physical conservation and considering how they are perceived by the public, shaping new strategies for raising aware-ness of and participation in cultural heritage research. For some, tangible and visual elements of cultural landscape, such as buildings or monuments, play crucial roles as icons of cultural identity and determine a strong connection between the spatiality and history of places (McDowell 2008), while they can also exclude others from feeling that they belong (Anderson 1983; Hall 1999). Urban fabric represents an integral part of cultural heritage, and thus also shapes the senses of belonging somewhere (or not), of social traditions and cultural identity (Doulamis et al. 2018).

Furthermore, in heritage research, attention has shifted to emphasizing the immaterial nature of heritage and culture and the dissonance between various cultural expressions (Smith 2006). It has been noted that there can be a plu-ralistic notion of value according to a specific spatial, cultural and historical framework (Pendlebury 2009), and it has been underlined that heritage has to be intended, not as something fixed that is inherited from the previous generation, but as a fluid process always changing in relation to the present (Harrison 2013). With an awareness of critical heritage studies, here the idea of preservation is defined as protection from ageing and physical restoration of material heritage objects, and as an action aiming to safeguard their multiple symbolic meanings, old and new. Digital representation adds to this notion of preservation by offering different ways of interacting with the heritage and learning about its material and symbolic meanings, representing strong cultural identity elements.


The history of a culturally significant site is not singular, and it tends generally to be blurred in the memory of people; such a site is often perceived as ‘distant’ in time and space. The site offers pieces of physical evidence through which people can enter into an emotional relationship in the present time, becoming a source of understanding(s) of the past as well as personal memories. ‘The building where my school used to be …’, ‘the Roman column close to which I hang out with my friends drinking a beer …’, ‘the ancient portal that I used as the landmark for meeting with my fiancée …’ are just some of the examples we encountered of physical landmarks becoming part of everyday personal experiences.

Case studies

The 4D digital models generated by the project, in addition to ‘technical’ use related to conservation and urban planning, may be used as ‘connectors’ between something vividly present in someone’s memory and historical content. Navigating such digital representations of artefacts allows us to vir-tually visit a place in different time periods, generating a ‘time machine’ effect that represents a powerful tool for linking history and space. This helps people to position the site where they live in a more general historical framework, possibly creating a stronger connection between them and their territories (G7 2017). The outcomes of the CHT2 project have shown that the relationship between past and present is an aspect that fascinates people and leads them to a broader approach to cultural heritage, increasing their sense of identity. The experiments conducted in the framework of the CHT2 project were carried out at several European sites, two of which, located in Italy and Spain, respectively, made the connection mentioned above particularly evident.

The first case concerns an important monument almost completely invisible to the untrained eye, located in Milan: the late Roman circus, an archaeo-logical structure for chariot races, built when Milan was the capital of the Western Roman Empire (AD 286 to 402). Nowadays, the monument is almost unknown because only a few remains are visible; many others lie beneath the urban fabric. This is the case for many monumental buildings of the Roman period in Italian and other European cities: they have almost completely dis-appeared over time, being gradually dismantled and reused as construction materials elsewhere, making space for dense urbanization. As the remains of the past are only partially visible and hardly perceptible in their entirety, digital representation technologies are particularly useful, supporting investigation and visualization that leads to an understanding of cultural heritage and its


connections with the contemporary city. Furthermore, the digital visualization of sites or monuments through time can help general audiences to build and add individual or collective cultural memory (Frischer 2014), without physi-cally visiting the site. This last aspect is particularly significant as it shows how, when someone is able to identify the link between past and present through physical entities that are part of their personal experience, a process of identifi-cation with the specific site is triggered (Chiabai et al. 2013).

In the Milan case, the connection between diachronic views and public par-ticipation has been a constant leitmotif of all the work. The reconstruction through time was based on a mix of historical data and georeferenced geomet-ric data. Since most of the monument’s relics lie underground, accessible only from privately owned cellars, the first step in collecting geometric data was a capillary inspection in the area where the circus was expected to be. This meant examining a region of about 100 × 500 m in the heart of the city, contacting the local residents and explaining the purpose of the research in order to gain access to their homes for the practical execution of the survey. The preliminary creation of a condition of trust towards the project team was crucial for getting the permission of the owners to enter the basements of their houses to identify the shape and position of the Roman circus ruins using laser scanners and other 3D technologies. Considering that in this way sensitive data were also collected, such as the structure of the house, it was necessary to clarify the use of such data in the framework of the project and to handle data protection with great care, always obtaining consent. Therefore, this progressive level of engagement at a personal level with the various individuals involved in this process – often represented directly by the owners of the build-ings – generated an increasing interest in the project from several people living in that area, previously uninformed about the details of the relics contained under their houses.

The georeferenced 3D digitization of the remains still standing was the next step for the scientifically supported reconstruction of the monument. In addi-tion, those who owned historical photographs of the area were asked to share them. Another interesting aspect was the gathering of oral testimonies from older residents who remembered the radical transformations that the area had suffered from the 1940s to the present, following the serious bombings of the Second World War and the subsequent phase of urban reconstruction. Older people remembered, for example, devastated buildings that showed portions of ancient archaeological remains in the subsoil areas, which are no longer visible today because they have been removed or covered by new buildings; or blocks with different shapes from the current ones. Subsequently, many citi-zens contacted for the research followed its development with great interest. At


the end of the research project, an event was organized at the Archaeological Museum of Milan to present the results of the 3D diachronic reconstruction of the Roman circus and the area that housed it. This event had a large audi-ence, including journalists, academics and the general public, a large part of which consisted of citizens of the area that had participated in the research. Subsequently, further dissemination events were organized, for example, in the schools of the district located where the circus used to be and in which the 3D digitization of the ruins had been carried out. Students were fascinated by the idea of daily frequenting a place on top of such a spectacular structure for chariot races, and also expressed experiencing a sense of greater belonging to the place.

In order to foster public participation in a project concerned with preservation and enhancement of cultural heritage, we recommend involving the area’s residents from the earliest investigation phases. In this way, people feel part of the process of discovery and actively gain and contribute knowledge, as well as developing affection for the area and its cultural content.

In the case of the Milan Roman circus, collected data enabled an integrated interpretation of all the widespread archaeological pieces of evidence for a credible digital reconstruction of the monument as a whole. The correct placement of the circus in respect to the modern city allowed us to achieve a diachronic visualization of the urban area by connecting the shape of the modern city and its architecture with the ancient monument. The use of 4D reconstruction, as shown here (Figure 7.1), supports developing further understanding of changes that have occurred between the present and the past. Portions of the city become interpretable as the results of a historical process, while the availability of such knowledge facilitates comprehension.

This was evident at the public presentation of the project’s results, where many of the owners of the basements containing the circus remains participated with great interest, proud of the role of their contribution to the project and sincerely curious about the final results. Such increased interest among the local inhabitants in the ‘invisible’ Roman circus gave tangible evidence that, for some people, knowing about the evolution of the place where they live provides an increased sense of belonging and the will to participate actively in such an evolutionary path. Also, this leads such residents to voluntarily commit themselves to becoming ambassadors active in the diffusion of such knowledge.

Moreover, 3D and 4D digital reproductions can be managed by museums or public administrations, both for on-site and online visualization. Using 3D–4D

Source: Visible on the website https:// cht2 .eu/ index .php/ ONLINE -VISUALIZATION.

Figure 7.1 3D textured models of two historical moments: the circus in late Roman times (left) and the same area in the contemporary era (right) visualized through the CityEngine web viewer (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA)


digital exploration, it is possible to acquire an awareness of the enormous evolution of an area over the centuries. All 3D representations of the project, which define the variations over time of the studied areas, are visible on the project website, which allows end-users to interact with 4D urban landscapes through a common web browser. Through this tool it is possible to explore maps, display specific layers for individual historical periods and enrich the experience with informative elements linked to hot spots on the model.

This allows for the dissemination of information on a cultural heritage site to a potentially very broad audience. In particular, tourists walking through the relevant city could enjoy the display of ancient monuments, possibly over-lapped with the real city, by using augmented reality technologies.

For Ávila (Spain), the diachronic reconstruction of its medieval wall was focused on the citadel (Alcázar) and on some extramural buildings, which disappeared in 1882 and 1930, respectively. Since Ávila’s case was selected for its lost assets (e.g., towers demolished and reconstructed elsewhere), the col-lection of historical sources implied an intense effort to extract the information needed – sometimes just textual and not supported by a graphical representa-tion – and to translate it into detailed and visually rich 4D models.

https://cht2.eu/index.php/ONLINE-VISUALIZATION


During the integration of historical and archaeological sources, several con-tradictory documents were discovered. The most significant case was related to the eighteenth-century plans (from two different authors), which gave different information about the internal structure and arrangement of the citadel. Thanks to old photographs (twentieth century) and written testimo-nies (nineteenth and twentieth centuries), it was possible not only to identify these errors, but also to avoid the creation of a false historical reconstruction.

The project, aimed at a diachronic reconstruction of the citadel prior to the mid-eighteenth century, was meant to face a challenge in terms of scarce reli-able historical information. Since a virtual 3D reconstruction of a portion of a city like the one proposed here, in order to be believable, needs to show not only the specific monumental building that is the object of the research (i.e., the Alcázar) but also the surrounding urban fabric, historically based con-structive hypotheses were employed to ‘fill the gaps’. These hypotheses were based on similar medieval military constructions, considering construction techniques and tools available in that temporal frame.

For this case, we focused on the involvement of a test audience, for tool development. The diachronic model and the 4D visualizer were presented to a group of 24 end-users, ranging from tourists to specialized users such as heritage experts and government (planning) officers. The users interviewed agreed that 4D models raised their awareness about local cultural heritage. The diachronic models were considered a way to learn about history more effec-tively. It has to be emphasized that journalists, who were the most inquisitive regarding the results of the project (even at the initial stages), stated that they were better able to see the effective evolution and changes of the monument.

In relation to the dissemination of the results on the web, the feedback was positive, as the non-scientific public expressed its astonishment about the technology used for creating diachronic models. Some discussions were raised in relation to modifications carried out through history, for instance, the displacement of the south canvas towers during their reconstruction, the presence of some residential buildings annexed to the medieval wall and the change of the perception of the space, if the citadel had been preserved up to now. Feedback from those in national and local administrations underlined the desire for a tool that can help to improve the management of cultural heritage assets (e.g., restoration planning, simulation of possible future risks) and to draw the attention of potential tourists who become fascinated by the interactive time-travel through the cultural heritage assets, together with the historical and additional information provided.


Conclusions

Material heritage is significant for understanding the history of a place as well as, for example, attracting cultural tourism and generating economic benefits for a cultural site and the area in which it is located. Virtual heritage and multimedia exhibitions could be used as complementary to the real visit. This was one of the leading inspirational lines of the CHT2 project, providing both high-fidelity replicas of real heritage assets and historical reconstructions of heritage assets no longer existing in their original form.

Regarding the development of such virtual heritage applications, several forms of participation can be identified, in agreement with the three categories iden-tified by Morrone (2006). The first type of participation is active and occurs before the generation of the 4D models, for example, by providing information useful to the creation of the virtual models or by contributing to data collection and authorizing access to private areas or documents. The second type of par-ticipation is passive and occurs after the 4D models are completed; it is related to attending presentations or receiving information from the 4D models of the heritage asset. The third type of participation is again active and can be identi-fied as occurring when the public develops a novel affection for and interest in the heritage asset, and voluntarily participates in dissemination, new research or various cultural support projects.

Although the 4D models developed by this project specifically targeted build-ings and cityscapes, typically identified as ‘tangible heritage’, cultural identity originates from a mix of such iconic elements and traditions, songs, dances and other non-material cultural activities, identified as ‘intangible heritage’. As stated by Bouchenaki (2003),

Cultural heritage is a synchronized relationship involving society (that is, systems of interactions connecting people), norms and values (that is, ideas, for instance, belief systems that attribute relative importance). Symbols, technologies and objects are tangible evidence of underlying norms and values. Thus, they establish a symbiotic relationship between the tangible and the intangible. The intangible heritage should be regarded as the larger framework within which tangible heritage takes on shape and significance.

In the project presented here, we explored the relationship between both her-itage expressions by means of 4D models.


References

Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Bouchenaki, M. 2003. ‘The interdependency of the tangible and intangible cul-tural heritage’. 14th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium: Place, memory, meaning: preserving intangible values in monuments and sites, 27–31 October 2003, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. Accessed 10 May at https:// pdfs .semanticscholar .org/ baa9/ 83afa9 412875f773 2ac1652d48 34b5ea854a .pdf

Buckley, A. 1998. ‘Introduction. Daring us to laugh: Creativity and power in Northern Irish symbols’, in A. Buckley (ed.), Symbols in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, Queen’s University Press, 87–108.

Cameron, F. and S. Kenderdine (eds). 2007. Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage. A Critical Discourse. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Chiabai, A., K. Paskaleva and P. Lombardi. 2013. ‘e‐Participation model for sustainable cultural tourism management: A bottom‐up approach’. International Journal of Tourism Research 15 (1), 35–51.

Ciasullo, M.V., A. Gaeta, M. Gaeta and G. Monetta. 2016. ‘New modalities for enhanc-ing cultural heritage experience. The enabling role of digital technologies’. Sinergie 99, 119–39.

Doulamis, A., N. Doulamis, E. Protopapadakis, A. Voulodimos and M. Ioannides. 2018. ‘4D modelling in cultural heritage’, in M. Ioannides, J. Martins, R. Žarnić and V. Lim (eds), Proceedings of the International Workshop Advances in Digital Cultural Heritage. Cham: Springer, 174–96.

Faro Convention. 2005. ‘Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society’. Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 199. Accessed 10 May at https:// www .coe .int/ en/ web/ conventions/ full -list/ -/ conventions/ rms/ 0900001680083746

Frischer, B. 2014. ‘Cultural and digital memory: Case studies from the Virtual World Heritage Laboratory, Memoria Romana’, in G. Karl Galinsky (ed.), Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 151–64.

G7. 2017. ‘The protection of cultural heritage rules, practices and education’. Florence, Italy, 30 March 2017. Accessed 10 May at http:// www .g7italy .it/ sites/ default/ files/ documents/ Protection _of _cultural _heritage _italian _contribution/ index .pdf

Hall, S. 1999. ‘Whose heritage? Un‐settling “the heritage”, re‐imagining the Postnation’ Third Text 13 (49), 3–13. https:// doi .org/ 10 .1080/ 09528829908576818

Harrison, R. 2013. Heritage. Critical Approaches. London: Routledge.ICOMOS. 2018. ‘European Quality Principles for Cultural Heritage Interventions’.

Document produced in the framework of the EU Initiative ‘Cherishing heritage: developing quality standards for EU-funded projects that have the potential to impact on cultural heritage’. Accessed 3 March 2019 at https:// agcult .it/ wp -content/ uploads/ 2018/ 11/ For -Venice -Quality -Document -14 -11 -18 .pdf

McDowell, S. 2008. ‘Heritage, memory and identity’, in The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 37–53.

MacDonald, S. 2013. Memorylands: Heritage and Identity in Europe Today. London: Routledge.

Morrone, A. 2006. Guidelines for Measuring Cultural Participation. Montreal, Canada: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

Pendlebury, J. 2009. Conservation in the Age of Consensus. London: Routledge.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/baa9/83afa9412875f7732ac1652d4834b5ea854a.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/baa9/83afa9412875f7732ac1652d4834b5ea854a.pdf

https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680083746

https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680083746

https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.g7italy.it%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2FProtection_of_cultural_heritage_italian_contribution%2Findex.pdf&data=04%7C01%7CLoes.Veldpaus%40newcastle.ac.uk%7Cf526fcc4c0b04ed7f49e08d913932f85%7C9c5012c9b61644c2a91766814fbe3e87%7C1%7C0%7C637562345885080411%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0&sdata=K5r%2FkBbh6BxYoddd5WwAl38gckdb5TY9YFy69QlgSn4%3D&reserved=0

https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.g7italy.it%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2FProtection_of_cultural_heritage_italian_contribution%2Findex.pdf&data=04%7C01%7CLoes.Veldpaus%40newcastle.ac.uk%7Cf526fcc4c0b04ed7f49e08d913932f85%7C9c5012c9b61644c2a91766814fbe3e87%7C1%7C0%7C637562345885080411%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0&sdata=K5r%2FkBbh6BxYoddd5WwAl38gckdb5TY9YFy69QlgSn4%3D&reserved=0

https://doi.org/10.1080/09528829908576818

https://agcult.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/For-Venice-Quality-Document-14-11-18.pdf

https://agcult.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/For-Venice-Quality-Document-14-11-18.pdf


Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London and New York: Routledge.Taylor, J. and L.K. Gibson. 2017. ‘Digitisation, digital interaction and social media:

Embedded barriers to democratic heritage’. International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (5), 408–20.

UNESCO. 2011. General Conference, Resolution 15 adopted by the General Conference at its 36th session. Accessed 10 May at https:// unesdoc .unesco .org/ ark:/ 48223/ pf0000215084 .page = 52

Wright, F. and A. Falconer. 1998. Reconciling Memories. Dublin: Columba Press.

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215084.page=52

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215084.page=52

99

8 Cultural heritage and European identity in European Union law and policy

Francesca Fiorentini, Kristin Hausler and Andrzej Jakubowski

Introduction

According to the founding treaties of the European Union (EU), the EU coor-dinates, supports and supplements the policies and measures of its member states in cultural matters, without any power of legislative harmonization over them.1 This institutional structure is a consequence of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles underlying the nature of competences conferred to the EU,2 but above all reflects the member states’ political will: they are very reluctant to lose legislative competence over cultural matters. Since the forma-tion of modern nation states, culture has been established and maintained as a national competence, functional to the idea of nurturing a sense of national identity (e.g. Deutsch 1966).

This chapter builds on the results of the three-year HEURIGHT14 research project,3 which analysed the EU’s legal and policy approaches to cultural herit-

1 See Art. 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consoli-dated version) 2012 (TFEU).

2 Art. 5 Treaty on the European Union (consolidated version) 2012 (TEU). 3 The project ‘The Right to Cultural Heritage – Its Protection and Enforcement

through Cooperation in the European Union’ (HEURIGHT14) was carried out by a consortium chaired by Dr Andrzej Jakubowski, Project Leader, University of Fine Arts, Poznan, and Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, and managed by two other Principal Investigators: Kristin Hausler, British Institute for Comparative


age in the context of the above-mentioned regulatory framework. In particular, the chapter underlines the links between the notions of ‘cultural heritage’ and the twin concepts of ‘European cultural heritage’ and ‘European identity’, with the latter having developed since the beginning of the European project with the specific political aim of supporting the integration process. It also attempts to assess the current meaning of these notions for the EU, and to point to possible future research paths in this field. The present chapter thus analyses references to cultural heritage in the EU’s legal texts and documents and how it is acknowledged and protected in the constitutional and human rights framework of the EU. It also considers the potential limits of the ‘participatory governance’ model advocated by the Council of Europe (CoE) and the EU for cultural heritage. In that regard, the way the EU deals with the cultural heritage of minorities and immigrants is particularly relevant. Considering all of these issues allows the identification of a selected number of EU policy areas that still require further analysis, and from which recommendations for legal reform or improved organizational structures should be drawn.

Cultural heritage, European identity and the European Union: building a link

The designation of 2018 as the ‘European Year of Cultural Heritage’4 was the culmination of years of efforts undertaken by the EU to integrate cultural heritage into its policies and actions. While the EU’s (limited) competence in this field was only established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992,5 policy efforts to strengthen a feeling of belonging to the European polity and advance European integration had already led to a number of initiatives in the field of cultural heritage prior to Maastricht (Psychogiopoulou 2008, 7–24). In the 1970s and 1980s, the notion of a ‘shared’, ‘common’ or ‘European cultural her-itage’ had already been introduced by the European Communities as a means to strengthen a sense of European identity through highlighting European values (e.g. De Witte 1987; García 1993), as well as through cultural heritage

and International Law, London, and Professor Francesca Fiorentini, Department IUSLIT, University of Trieste. It was a Heritage Plus project funded under the EU’s Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage and Global Change (June 2015–May 2018).

4 See Decision (EU) 2017/864 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on a European Year of Cultural Heritage (2018) (Decision (EU) 2017/884).

5 See Arts 3, 128 and, subsequently, Arts 2(5), 6 and 167 TFEU.

CULTURAL HERITAGE AND EUROPEAN IDENTITY IN EU LAW AND POLICY 101

diplomacy initiatives (Scott 2019). Since then, the general concept of cultural heritage has vastly expanded, and has come to include not only architectural monuments and sites, museums, libraries and archives, but also ‘traditions, transmitted knowledge, and expressions of human creativity’ (CEU Press Release 52/17 2017). The concept of ‘European cultural heritage’, as adopted at the EU institutional level, is also now understood to include a ‘shared source of remembrance, understanding, identity, dialogue, cohesion and creativity, [which] contributes to economic growth and social cohesion’.6 Furthermore, Europe’s ‘common cultural heritage’ transcends the sum of member states’ heritages, serving as an important, axiological foundation for the EU. Despite the fact that the conceptualization of cultural heritage has greatly developed over the past decades, a number of obstacles associated with its understand-ing still prevent it from becoming truly inclusive and thus unleashing its full potential in meeting the political desire to strengthen the European identity. These obstacles mainly pertain to the components of cultural heritage itself and their relations with one another, as well as to the legal conceptualization of cultural heritage within the EU legal system and the consequent impact it has on the European integration project.

The conceptualization of cultural heritage in EU law and policy

Identifying the precise components of cultural heritage is difficult as its legal notion – exactly like the notion of culture – is in constant flux (Blake 2000); it is also linked to national contexts and sometimes conflicting perspectives on history. As a result, its conceptualization is generally broadly encompassing but also unclear, for at least two reasons.

The first reason lies in the classification of a particular asset as ‘cultural her-itage’, which implies a value-based decision, which may change from time to time. In particular, such a decision depends on the context and the interests attaching to it (e.g. Forrest 2010, 3ff). While some stakeholders – the general public, for example – may not have the authority to classify a particular object as cultural heritage, those who do have such authority may do so for differ-ent reasons, whether they are cultural experts (historians, archaeologists or curators) or government representatives. The second reason is that different

6 See Legislative Train Schedule: Culture and Education 2018 and Decision (EU) 2017/864.


manifestations of cultural heritage require different measures of protection, adding a layer of complexity to the wide range of stakeholders in cultural heritage matters. Carving out different legal regimes for different categories of cultural heritage is a challenge, given the multi-layered structure of governance in that field, where local, national and supranational levels intersect; there are also distinct lawmakers, such as governmental authorities, which may adopt both hard and soft law, or professional associations (museums, dealers, and so on) which may also adopt their own self-regulative instruments in the form of guidelines or standards (Fiorentini 2014).

In terms of providing legal protection to specific forms of cultural heritage, there are some fields that can be identified as still lacking adequate consid-eration at the legal and policy levels, such as intangible cultural heritage and cultural landscapes. Although EU policy documents and actions include ‘intangible’ aspects in the heritage discourse (e.g. the attempts by the European Parliament to create a narrative on ‘musical and ethno-anthropological herit-age’), they do so in an imprecise manner, which leads to a fragmented policy strategy for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage (Schreiber 2019). The EU appears to have so far strictly focused on tangible heritage as a vector for economic and social development; that is, contributing to the growth of cultural industries and creating jobs, but also contributing to social inclusion and cohesion and working as an element to strengthen identities.7

Similarly, the term ‘cultural landscapes’ remains unclear under EU law, despite the existence of international instruments specifically devoted to it, which have contributed to the identification of this notion.8 Under EU law, its conceptu-alization is limited, emphasizing the natural values of rural and/or cultural landscapes rather than cultural values and the ways in which people interact with and relate to those landscapes. This limitation is reflected in the recent amendment to Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (EIA Directive), which equates

7 One example of transnational cooperation financed by the EU and focused on intangible cultural heritage is the 2011–14 Cultural Capital Counts project which brings together ten areas from six central European countries with the joint aim of promoting the region’s development on the basis of its traditions, knowledge and know-how and highlighting its intangible cultural heritage as part of this cooperation. The project has been implemented as part of the Central Europe Programme (Cultural Capital Counts 2018).

8 The European Landscape Convention 2000 promotes the protection, manage-ment and planning of European landscapes and organizes European cooperation in this field. Landscapes are here intended as a reflection of European identity and diversity (Preamble and Art. 5). See also World Heritage Centre (2018).


landscape with a ‘view’; in the Common Agricultural Policy,9 where the focus is on maintaining the rural scenic quality of agricultural landscapes (Fischler 2001); and within EU environmental law, where the emphasis is placed on nature and the protection of natural habitats (Kramer 1997). Cultural land-scapes also entail intangible elements relating to the way in which they are being used, a dimension that should be better considered to ensure their effec-tive protection (Strecker 2018, 113–28). The consequence of the fragmented conceptualization of cultural landscapes within the EU, dependent on other policy areas like agriculture or environment, is limited access to justice for breaches relating to cultural landscapes. This is due in particular to narrow standing requirements at the national level and the marginal status of cultural heritage within the EIA Directive.

In determining what cultural heritage means for the EU, emphasis has often been placed on certain specific manifestations or sites which have been for-mally recognized as part of ‘European cultural heritage’, such as those falling under the European Heritage Label (EHL) (Čeginskas 2018). For example, the EHL has been granted to the European District of Strasbourg, which ‘bears witness to European integration, the defence of human rights, democracy and the rule of law’, as well as to the Maastricht Treaty itself. The pressure to nom-inate some assets that differ from traditional monuments or sites clearly shows how heritage is instrumentally used by the EU for identity-building purposes (Kaiser 2014).

The human dimension of cultural heritage in EU law and policy

The notion of cultural heritage has evolved over time into a powerful legal concept linked to the identity of nations, communities and individual persons; however, this particular aspect has also not yet been fully taken into account under EU law and policy.

Although primary EU law does not formally define cultural heritage, its consti-tutional principles derive from international human rights instruments, which today also comprise reinforced cultural human rights. The general principles

9 E.g. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations 1999.


of EU law thus include the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, embracing those that have been applied to enforce access to Europe’s cultural heritage. The EU Treaties also refer to ‘Europe’s cultural heritage’, ‘bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore’ and preserving ‘cultural heritage of European significance’, and address the ‘commonalities’ along with references to cultural diversity (e.g. 167 TFEU). Hence, it may be argued that within the EU legal space, everyone holds the human right to create, maintain and enjoy their heritage in a society based on freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law, which also allows cultural diversity to flourish (e.g. Craufurd Smith 2004, 279–89). In addition, the EU and its member states are subject to international law and thus are bound to comply with their international human rights law obligations in the realm of cultural heritage (Hausler 2019). The humanization and constitutionalization of inter-national cultural heritage law thus affect the cultural heritage provisions under EU law, particularly those referring to Europe’s common cultural heritage. Given the international legal obligations pertaining to cultural heritage that bind member states, the legal conceptualization of cultural heritage should not only refer to what is relevant to Europe but also encompass its conceptualiza-tion at the international legal level.

Besides the primary sources of EU law and their relationship to international law, the judicial protection of cultural heritage at the European level is also relevant in shaping the actual level of protection and enjoyment of cultural heritage by individuals and public organizations. Indeed, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have reached the field of cultural heritage and thus need to be considered. However, the former has not yet reached a holistic conceptualization of cultural heritage. For example, the ECtHR case law con-cerned with landscapes adopts a narrow understanding of the concept, one that is limited to their scenic or preservationist character, rather than includ-ing the relationship (or use/practice) between people and a place over time, as understood under cultural heritage law (Strecker 2019). As a result, only certain aspects of cultural landscapes can be the object of legal proceedings at the European level, with others being left out of the judicial system.

Access to the ECtHR is another issue. So far, when applicants have argued for landscape protection on the basis of human rights, their cases have almost always been dismissed based on a lack of standing and identifiable victims (e.g. Kyrtatos v Greece). Therefore, the ECtHR has not yet adopted a conceptual-ization of cultural heritage in line with the current understanding at the global level; such a conceptualization might then trickle down to the CJEU. It is also worth noting that the CJEU does not yet refer to cultural heritage but rather


still uses the term ‘cultural objects’ (formerly ‘cultural goods’), even when referring to objects that have a symbolic, identity-formative value for a nation (Bieczyński 2019). This stresses not only the material aspects of cultural herit-age but, especially, the (internal) market-oriented perspective of the CJEU (see e.g. Beyeler v Italy, para. 113). Of course, the limited conceptualization of cul-tural heritage by the CJEU also stems from the limited types of disputes it hears on the topic; that is, cases involving ‘national treasures’ and a national interest in preserving cultural heritage, from the angle of the freedom of circulation in the internal market (see Graziadei and Pasa 2019).

The instrumentalization of cultural heritage

The EU has sought to strengthen its role in cultural heritage governance, affirming that ‘cooperation in heritage preservation, conservation and promo-tion, can only be achieved at the EU level’. Nevertheless, in accordance with the division of competences and the institutional structure set out in Article 167 TFEU, its role is limited to coordinating and supporting member states with their respective national competences (Legislative Train Schedule 2018).

However, the EU’s policy actions in cultural heritage show that its institutions have sought to maximize the role of cultural heritage within the mentioned legislative limits, and this has occurred in parallel with the broadly encompass-ing understanding of cultural heritage gradually developed at the EU level. In particular, the EU has integrated the contribution of cultural heritage to social, (inter)cultural, political, educational, symbolic, economic and environmental values into a variety of policy areas beyond culture. However, the basis for its actions has not been consistent. The EU has sometimes based its actions on the ‘transnational element’ of the relevant activities concerned and the promotion of partnerships and networks; at other times, it has highlighted the European significance of heritage assets and events at the national or local level, as well as the duty of its institutions to promote cultural diversity and sustainable development. In most instances, even if cultural heritage is acknowledged and protected per se by EU law, with the limits stressed in this chapter, EU institutions have adopted an instrumental approach to cultural heritage (Council Conclusions on Cultural Heritage 2014, para. 9). This means that they have used cultural heritage as a medium: a vehicle to fulfil different aims, such as strengthening the European identity, fostering intercultural dialogue, supporting economic and social development, and promoting social inclusion. For instance, digitizing the collections of European museums, libraries and archives is not only a way to safeguard cultural heritage per se; by increasing


access to it, it is also a means to democratize society and even increase par-ticipation in heritage governance (e.g. Council Conclusions on Participatory Governance 2014, para. 23). Digitization reinforces Europe’s symbolic prestige and cultural status, both within the EU (as an element of integration) and towards the rest of the world. More specifically, it is an important means for integration with regard to the enlargement process. Inasmuch as its implemen-tation has required the creation of jobs and an entire industry across Europe, digitization has also served as a motor for economic growth for the EU, as well as a means to exercise economic influence around the world, albeit not free of risks arising from the instrumentalization and commodification of heritage (Manikowska 2019).

Cultural heritage governance: making the participatory model work

The striving to strengthen European identity as a foundation for a successful European project is possibly at odds with the diversity of cultural practices implicit to heritage in a highly diverse continent. The EU promotes a ‘partic-ipatory governance’ model of cultural heritage as a tool to foster democracy, ‘democratic participation, sustainability and social cohesion and to face the social, political and demographic challenges of today’ (Council Conclusions on participatory governance 2014, para. 8). Assessing the level of protection of the cultural heritage of communities (and minorities in particular) allows us to identify possible obstacles to the implementation of this model. Within international human rights law, the cultural heritage of minorities is spe-cifically protected as a means to exercise cultural rights as a group, as well as to enjoy their culture.10 However, the EU has not yet developed adequate principles pertaining to the cultural heritage of minorities, in particular those that are not officially recognized as such (Xanthaki 2019). Thus, minority communities usually only benefit from general measures protecting regional or local cultural heritage. Their heritage is even at risk of being appropriated by the majority and presented as national heritage. At the EU level, the concept of Europe’s cultural heritage may exclude minorities’ heritage, which may not be deemed as representative enough. The ‘participatory governance’ model should minimize the risks to minority cultural heritage. In order for the partic-

10 See the two fundamental instruments of the CoE: Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities 1995; Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society 2005.


ipatory model to be truly successful, policies should take cultural diversity into account and ensure that all minorities and communities are seen as stakehold-ers in the same way as experts or historians.

Stakeholders in cultural heritage also include migrants. With the migration crisis being one of the key challenges for the EU at present, offering sufficient protection to the cultural heritage of migrants may be a way to successfully address it. With regard to new migrants in particular, their cultural heritage is neither adequately recognized nor protected within the EU. At present, initiatives in the fields of cultural heritage and migration appear inconsistent (Chechi 2019), with programmes and actions aimed at building a cohesive and multicultural European society being limited by those actions adopted by the EU institutions and member states to control immigration. For example, those same EU institutions and EU states that have established the Creative Europe Programme (European Commission 2018) to celebrate the contribution that migrants have historically made to cultural diversity in Europe have responded to the recent mass movement of migrants and refugees by building legal and material barriers. It may also appear paradoxical that, while the EU is investing consistently in the safeguarding of cultural heritage in conflict areas, the cul-tural heritage of those fleeing those conflicts and arriving in Europe does not clearly fall under any specific protection measures.

Adopting and linking integration with management strategies would support the development of a successful participatory model in cultural heritage gov-ernance, one where all individuals may be effectively involved in the cultural life of the country they live in. In turn, this may facilitate a strengthened social inclusion and aid in avoiding marginalization and the rise of extremism. Awareness raising is also important in this regard, and could be aimed, for example, at educating the receiving state population about the migrants’ cul-tural heritage.

Conclusion

At a time when the EU is facing pressing challenges – including armed con-flicts and humanitarian crises in neighbouring regions, migration, threats to democracy and to the EU legal framework and integrity (including Brexit), ter-rorism, populism and economic difficulties – cultural heritage should continue to serve as an anchor for peace and a vector for well-being and development. Our research highlights that careful instrumentalization of cultural heritage, along the lines of the long-standing types of actions established by the EU insti-


tutions as sketched above, will only become more relevant to counteracting disintegrative forces threating the European project. To ensure the strength-ening of a constructive utilization of cultural heritage, coordination between European institutions should be reinforced and systematized. Our research has also pinpointed a number of key areas that need to be better considered. First, the participatory model of governance in the field of cultural heritage must be truly inclusive of all stakeholders, including vulnerable groups such as new migrants or members of minority groups; otherwise, existing imbalances may perpetuate exclusion rather than closing the gap. More generally, legal and policy instruments must specifically protect the cultural rights of those vulnerable groups, including their right to access and enjoy their cultural heritage. All legal and policy instruments must also adopt a holistic approach to cultural heritage; this means that they must not be limited to certain aspects of cultural heritage (e.g. monuments and sites) to the detriment of others. At the judicial level, the rule of law must be fully implemented with regard to cultural heritage. In particular, barriers to access to justice must be removed. For example, the European courts (ECtHR and CJEU) and domestic courts must fully grasp the current conceptualization of cultural heritage within the international human rights framework. Training on cultural heritage matters should be considered for lawmakers, policymakers and the judiciary, in order to ensure that the future instrumentalization of cultural heritage is construc-tive rather than destructive.

In addition, our research has concluded that the current challenges facing Europe should be addressed by legal instruments and operational technical tools which take into account the ‘strong emotional link with Europe, a shared heritage and thus … a vision of a shared future’ (Pomian 2019, p. xxii). The existence of a common European cultural heritage should not be taken for granted. The recent crises (EU Open Data Portal 2017) may support the view that the EU has not yet established a unifying sense of European identity and shared European values. The research agenda envisaged in this book will be a useful means to reinforce an emotionally positive vision of a shared Europe and European identity, which is now vacillating. As demonstrated by our research, a form of heritage governance that is truly participatory could also contribute to global efforts in protecting and enhancing the cultural dimension of human existence.


References

LiteratureBieczyński, M. (2019), ‘The “Right to Cultural Heritage” in the European Union:

a tale of two Courts’, in A. Jakubowski, K. Hausler and F. Fiorentini (eds), Cultural Heritage in the European Union – a Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, Leiden, Netherlands and Boston, MA: Brill, 113–40.

Blake, J. (2000), ‘On defining the cultural heritage’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 49 (1), 61–85.

Čeginskas, V.L.A. (2018), ‘The added European value of cultural heritage. The European heritage label’, Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 4 (2), 29–50.

Chechi, A. (2019), ‘Migration, cultural heritage, and cultural rights: a critical assessment of European Union law and policy’, in A. Jakubowski, K. Hausler and F. Fiorentini (eds), Cultural Heritage in the European Union – a Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, Leiden, Netherlands and Boston, MA: Brill, 294–323.

Craufurd Smith, R. (2004), ‘Article 151 EC and European identity’, in R. Craufurd Smith (ed.), Culture and European Union Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 277–97.

De Witte, B. (1987), ‘Building Europe’s image and identity’, in A. Rijksbaron, W.H, Roobol and M. Weisglass (eds), Europe from a Cultural Perspective, The Hague, Netherlands: Nijgh & Ditmar Universitair, 121–51.

Deutsch, K.W. (1966), Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality, 2nd edn, Cambridge, MA: Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Fiorentini, F. (2014), ‘A legal pluralist approach to international trade in cultural objects’, in J.A.R. Nafziger and R. Kirkwood Paterson (eds), Handbook on the Law of Cultural Heritage and International Trade, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 589–621.

Fischler, F. (2001), ‘The European Union’s rural development policy: protecting our heritage’, Naturopa, 95, 20–21.

Forrest, C. (2010), International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage, London and New York: Routledge.

García, S. (ed.) (1993), European Identity and the Search for Legitimacy, London: Pinter.Graziadei, M. and B. Pasa (2019), ‘The Single European Market and cultural heritage:

the protection of national treasures in Europe’, in A. Jakubowski, K. Hausler and F. Fiorentini (eds), Cultural Heritage in the European Union – a Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, Leiden, Netherlands and Boston, MA: Brill, 79–112.

Hausler, K. (2019), ‘Cultural heritage within the European Union’s external relations: more than a policy objective?’, in A. Jakubowski, K. Hausler and F. Fiorentini (eds), Cultural Heritage in the European Union – a Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, Leiden, Netherlands and Boston, MA: Brill, 365–94.

Kaiser, S. (2014), The European Heritage Label: A Critical Review of a New EU Policy (Thesis, Master of Arts in European Union Studies), University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, accessed 14 December 2018 at https:// core .ac .uk/ download/ pdf/ 29175015 .pdf.

Kramer, L. (1997), Focus on European Environmental Law, 2nd edn, London: Sweet & Maxwell.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/29175015.pdf

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/29175015.pdf


Manikowska, E. (2019), ‘Digitization. Towards a European cultural heritage’, in A. Jakubowski, K. Hausler and F. Fiorentini (eds), Cultural Heritage in the European Union – a Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, Leiden, Netherlands and Boston, MA: Brill, 417–44.

Pomian, K. (2019), ‘European heritage and the future of Europe’, Foreword to A. Jakubowski, K. Hausler and F. Fiorentini (eds), Cultural Heritage in the European Union – a Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, Leiden, Netherlands and Boston, MA: Brill, ix–xxii.

Psychogiopoulou, E. (2008), The Integration of Cultural Considerations in EU Law and Policies, Leiden, Netherlands and Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Schreiber, H. (2019), ‘Intangible cultural heritage, Europe, and the EU: dangerous liaisons?’ in A. Jakubowski, K. Hausler and F. Fiorentini (eds), Cultural Heritage in the European Union – a Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, Leiden, Netherlands and Boston, MA: Brill, 324–64.

Scott, C. (2019), ‘Conceptions of a shared, common, or European heritage in the emerging heritage diplomacy of the European Union, 1973–92’, in A. Jakubowski, K. Hausler and F. Fiorentini (eds), Cultural Heritage in the European Union – a Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, Leiden, Netherlands and Boston, MA: Brill, 13–32.

Strecker, A. (2018), Landscape Protection in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Strecker, A. (2019), ‘The protection of cultural landscapes in the European Union’, in A. Jakubowski, K. Hausler and F. Fiorentini (eds), Cultural Heritage in the European Union – a Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, Leiden, Netherlands and Boston, MA: Brill, 395–416.

Xanthaki, A. (2019), ‘The cultural heritage of minorities and indigenous peoples in the EU: weaknesses or opportunities?’ in A. Jakubowski, K. Hausler and F. Fiorentini (eds), Cultural Heritage in the European Union – a Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, Leiden, Netherlands and Boston, MA: Brill, 269–93.

Legal and policy instrumentsCouncil conclusions on cultural heritage as a strategic resource for a sustainable Europe

2014Council conclusions on participatory governance of cultural heritage 2014Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the

European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations 1999

Decision (EU) 2017/864 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Year of Cultural Heritage (2018) 2017

Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment 2014

European Landscape Convention 2000Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities 1995Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society 2005Treaty of Maastricht 1992Treaty on the European Union (consolidated version) 2012Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated version) 2012


Case lawBeyeler v Italy, ECHR 2000-I 57Kyrtatos v Greece, ECHR 2003-VI 257

Web sourcesCEU Press Release 52/17 (2017), ‘European Year of Cultural Heritage in 2018: cele-

brating the diversity and richness of our European heritage’, 9 February, accessed 12 December 2018 at https:// europa .rs/ european -year -of -cultural -heritage -in -2018 -celebrating -the -diversity -and -richness -of -our -european -heritage/ ?lang = en.

Cultural Capital Counts (2018), About the Project, accessed 10 December 2018 at http:// www .c ulturalcap italcounts .eu/ index .php/ en.

EU Open Data Portal (2017), ‘Special Eurobarometer 466: Cultural Heritage’, 8 December (as updated), accessed 15 December 2018 at http:// data .europa .eu/ euodp/ en/ data/ dataset/ S2150 _88 _1 _466 _ENG.

European Commission (2018), Creative Europe, accessed 10 December 2018 at https:// ec .europa .eu/ programmes/ creative -europe/ node _en.

Legislative Train Schedule Culture and Education (2018), European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018, accessed 15 December 2018 at http:// www .europarl .europa .eu/ legislative -train/ theme -culture -and -education/ file -european -year -of -cultural -heritage -2018.

World Heritage Centre (2018), ‘Cultural Landscapes’, accessed 12 December 2018 at https:// whc .unesco .org/ en/ culturallandscape/ .

https://europa.rs/european-year-of-cultural-heritage-in-2018-celebrating-the-diversity-and-richness-of-our-european-heritage/?lang=en

https://europa.rs/european-year-of-cultural-heritage-in-2018-celebrating-the-diversity-and-richness-of-our-european-heritage/?lang=en

http://www.culturalcapitalcounts.eu/index.php/en

http://www.culturalcapitalcounts.eu/index.php/en

http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2150_88_1_466_ENG

http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2150_88_1_466_ENG

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/node_en

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/node_en

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-culture-and-education/file-european-year-of-cultural-heritage-2018



https://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/

SECTION B

Heritage and climate

115

9 Introduction to heritage and climate change: current gaps and scientific challenges

Claudio Margottini

As conservation has been defined as the management of change (Fairclough 2003), undoubtedly it is also a way to face, or to adapt, to climate change. Climate change is one of the most significant global challenges facing the society, and that heritage properties are affected by the impacts of climate change is widely acknowledged (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2021a, 2021b). This section of the book explores some of the ways that research and practice on heritage and climate change have evolved over the past two decades.

Climate change is a significant and truly global problem, clearly associated with increased risks for humans, other species, landscapes and built infrastructures. When we consider heritage as the evidence of millennia of adaptations by humans to their environment, climate change is a very relevant and interesting topic. In the future, the results of climate change might be considered heritage. For the moment, however, the focus of this type of research is more on the heritage sites currently deemed important, looking at how they are continu-ously impacted by the results of climate change; both by major sudden natural hazards like heavy rainfall and floods but also by slow, cumulative processes such as erosion. As such events can also lead to large migration streams, and to long-term changes in landscape and land use, there are also heritage-related challenges that are more indirect, but not less significant.

This section focuses on the direct effects of issues that are either caused or compounded by the effects of climate change.

Climate follows the ‘average weather’, whereas disasters (depending on type) are strictly derived from local extreme weather conditions, occurring in a very short time window. Likewise, climate is a global process, whereas disasters very


often involve quite local/district impact. In addition, there are limitations in the available data and in climate modelling, describing the future occurrence and impact of natural hazards. The field is occupied by different schools of thought and osmosis through disaster science and climate science is still very weak.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2012) focused for the first time on interactions between extreme weather and climate events, and exposed and vulnerable human and natural systems. Some limitations still exist: confidence in projecting changes in the direction and magnitude of climate extremes depends on many factors, including the type of extreme event, the region and season, the amount and quality of observational data, the level of understanding of the underlying processes, and the reliability of the simulations in models.

Cultural heritage is exposed to a number of risks. These can be divided into geo-hazards (e.g. earthquakes and volcanic eruptions), hazards related to climate change (e.g. increased precipitation, flooding, droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels) and other human-induced threats which are essentially social and economic in nature. The last group ranges from increased urbanization, mass tourism and traffic congestion to industrial air pollution and increasing energy demand (Jigyasu 2006).

While close attention is paid to the protection of human life and livelihoods, as well as economic infrastructure, the protection of cultural heritage has been somewhat overlooked and underprioritized. A key factor indicating the need to increase the resilience of heritage sites to the impacts of climate change is the particular fragility of their historic material, and thus their vulnerability to the effects of climate change and impacts of natural hazards (Chmutina et al. 2016). An attempt to classify the many impacts of climate change on cultural heritage is reported by Colette (2007).

The above discussion clearly shows how complex it is to couple cultural herit-age (conservation) with climate change (Sabbioni et al. 2010). This is because the conservation of heritage is an evolving multidisciplinary field; especially in dealing with climate change. At the same time, climate change necessitates deeper knowledge of the mechanisms of atmospheric circulation and how to relate them to local extreme weather. Furthermore, as shown by ICOMOS (2019), the quantitative methods often used in climate literature might not easily match the narrative-based and qualitative methods generally applied when studying cultural heritage. This is one reason why cultural aspects have not been well integrated into climate change analyses and policies (Adger et

Note: Data for 2020 are not complete.Source: Based on data from SCOPUS© (accessed 18 December 2020).

Figure 9.1 Number of peer reviewed publications stored in SCOPUS© and retrieved for the terms ‘Cultural Heritage’ and ‘Climate Change’ (left axis) and ‘Cultural Heritage’ + ‘Climate Change’ (right axis) in the fields ‘Article title’, ‘Abstract’ and ‘Keywords’

INTRODUCTION TO HERITAGE AND CLIMATE CHANGE 117

al. 2013). The ICOMOS (2019) report presents examples of the mutual rela-tionship between climate and heritage, where heritage not only contributes to climate change actions (e.g. climate adaptation and mitigation) but can be adversely affected by climate change impacts.

Having in mind the above-described complexity, and despite a high level of scholarly interest in climate change impacts on various natural and socioeconomic systems, only in the past decade has a comprehensive under-standing begun to emerge of climate change impacts on cultural heritage at a global scale and across disciplines (Fatorić and Seekamp 2017). Fatorić and Seekamp (2017) carried out a systematic literature review. Applying their methodology and using the SCOPUS© database, we found almost 300,000 publications on ‘Climate Change’, and almost 32,000 publications mentioning ‘Cultural Heritage’. However, less than 500 publications have combined the two (1985–2020). While this number is low, there has been an increase in the last 10–15 years (Figure 9.1).

What is the reason for such a low level of scholarly interest, while the topic ‘cul-tural heritage and climate change’ is on the agenda of the most representative


institutions dealing with conservation of heritage? From the data it is possible to discern, at least, a partial answer.

Apart from the more qualitative approach of cultural studies discussed previ-ously (Adger et al. 2013), conservation of heritage is a typical interdisciplinary field, requiring expertise from material science, engineering science, archi-tecture, earth science, social science, humanities and more. If we add climate change, the required sciences are even more numerous, from widely dispersed disciplines, adding complexity to the working group.

Another limitation is the geographical distribution of knowledge. Mapping the available data from SCOPUS©, it is possible to notice that the majority of scientific production is in Europe, followed by the US and Australia.

The final point is the support from funding agencies and institutions, at both national and international levels. Clear data are not available and only a few documents report detailed information. From the SCOPUS© repository, it is possible to identify the sponsor of some of the collected documents. As a pre-liminary indication, the main funding agency for peer reviewed articles con-taining the terms ‘Cultural Heritage Climate Change’ in the period 1985–2018 was the European Commission.

The above discussion has tried to identify the importance of bringing climate change processes into the cultural heritage conservation. Climate change will have physical, social and cultural impacts on cultural heritage. It will change the way people relate to their environment. This relationship is characterized by the way people live, work, worship and socialize in buildings, sites and landscapes with heritage value. The resulting socioeconomic changes will have a greater possible impact on the conservation of cultural heritage than climate change alone (UNESCO 2006).

From the attention that the scientific community is paying to the evaluation of proper preventive and corrective actions for the safeguard of cultural heritage from climate change (and the related impact in terms of direct risks as well as indirect physical, social and cultural influence), it is clear that urgency and relevance are missing. Although both climate change and cultural heritage are attracting funding and researchers, the coupling of them is yet to reach matu-rity, even while the damage to individual monuments and sites is becoming more and more apparent.

There is certainly a need to shift the way of thinking about conservation of her-itage, including long-term strategies for reducing the effects of climate change.

INTRODUCTION TO HERITAGE AND CLIMATE CHANGE 119

For more sustainable heritage planning, it is advisable to study and apply human history, in terms of local expertise and traditional knowledge. During the last few millennia, human beings have faced similar periods when they were affected by natural variations in climate, and they adapted themselves to the changing environment through nature-based solutions. When possible, these ways, methods and structures should be applied again. Proper land-use planning and management, as well as modern structural and non-structural intervention, are the other ways of operating (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016).

Finally, the European Commission is recognized in many sectorial publica-tions as the most relevant programming and funding institution for mitigating the effects of climate change on cultural heritage. Unfortunately, its efforts are still not enough to preserve the legacy of our past. Considering the traditional and well-known long perspective of European Union policy on science, we are expecting new and innovative programmes, for the benefit of European and worldwide citizens (Kropp et al. 2011).

The present section focuses on some of the problems introduced above, showing how interdisciplinary approaches can provide new insights into archaeology and conservation sciences. One example is PROTHEGO, where innovative monitoring of climate-related threats to cultural heritage, such as landslides and subsidence, can be implemented through satellite radar inter-ferometry, with low environmental impact and high accuracy.

The project CLIMA focused on the important topic of impacts of soil erosion on buried or rupestrian archaeological sites, also magnified by climate change. New modelling and Gamma Spectrometer processing chains from remote sensing provided high-resolution input data, suitable to assess hazard and vulnerability maps for risk analysis.

Finally, EUWATHER focused on cross-cutting fluvial systems such as rivers and canals in Europe, where people initially settled down and these areas then grew and developed. This is a very interesting example of the deep intercon-nections between environmental change and archaeology.

References

Adger N.W., J. Barnett, K. Brown, N. Marshall and K. O’Brien (2013), ‘Cultural dimen-sions of climate change impacts and adaptation’, Nature Climate Change, 3, 112–17.


Chmutina, K., R. Jigyasu and L.S. Bosher (2016), ‘Understanding the impacts of climate change on cultural heritage buildings: a case of York, UK’, Presented at the CIB World Building Congress: Intelligent Built Environment for Life, Tampere, Finland, 30 May–3 June, 188–98.

Cohen-Shacham, E., G. Walters, C. Janzen and S. Maginnis (eds) (2016), Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, xiii, 97.

Colette, A. (ed.) (2007). Climate Change and World Heritage, UNESCO World Heritage Reports 22.

Fairclough, G. (2003), ‘Cultural landscape, sustainability and living with change?’ in J.M. Teutonico and F. Matero (eds), Managing Change: Sustainable Approaches to the Conservation of the Built Environment, 4th annual US/ICOMOS International Symposium, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Getty Conservation Institute, April 2001, Getty Conservation Institute, Proceedings series, J. Paul Getty Trust, 23–46.

Fatorić, S. and E. Seekamp (2017), ‘Are cultural heritage and resources threatened by climate change? A systematic literature review’, Climatic Change, 142, 227–54.

ICOMOS (2019), The Future of Our Pasts: Engaging Cultural Heritage in Climate Action, 1 July 2019, Paris: ICOMOS.

IPCC (2012), ‘Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, in C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor and P.M. Midgley (eds), Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jigyasu, R. (2006), ‘Integrated framework for cultural heritage risk management’, Disasters and Development, 1 (1), accessed 11 May 2021 at: https:// nidm .gov .in/ journal .asp.

Kropp, J.P., G. Walker, S. Menoni et al. (2011), ‘Risk future in Europe’, in S. Menoni and C. Margottini (eds), Inside Risk: A Strategy for Sustainable Risk Mitigation, Padua, Italy: Springer Verlag, 187–244.

Sabbioni, C., P. Brimblecombe and M. Cassar (2010), The Atlas of Climate Change Impact on European Cultural Heritage: Scientific Analysis and Management Strategies, London and New York: Anthem Press.

UNESCO (2006), Issues Related to the State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties: The Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Properties. WHC-06/30 .COM/ 7 .1, Distribution limited.

UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2021a), UNESCO World Heritage Centre – Compendium [online]. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Accessed 11 May 2021 at: https:// whc .unesco .org/ en/ compendium/ 80.

UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2021b), Climate Change and World Heritage [online]. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Accessed 11 May 2021 at: https:// whc .unesco .org/ en/ climatechange/ .

https://nidm.gov.in/journal.asp

https://nidm.gov.in/journal.asp

https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwhc.unesco.org%2Fen%2Fcompendium%2F80&data=04%7C01%7CLoes.Veldpaus%40newcastle.ac.uk%7C9a7f475130ed477d73cd08d9149ee869%7C9c5012c9b61644c2a91766814fbe3e87%7C1%7C0%7C637563495005705693%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=pVJ5QibMMnOXmxGgH7tOgxmWS5FxjgbEYviHurMocvk%3D&reserved=0

https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwhc.unesco.org%2Fen%2Fclimatechange%2F&data=04%7C01%7CLoes.Veldpaus%40newcastle.ac.uk%7C9a7f475130ed477d73cd08d9149ee869%7C9c5012c9b61644c2a91766814fbe3e87%7C1%7C0%7C637563495005705693%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=TJIslCvx%2By4QfwTq8VQcy4cP2FqOyO6OLlTrDPAmG84%3D&reserved=0

https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwhc.unesco.org%2Fen%2Fclimatechange%2F&data=04%7C01%7CLoes.Veldpaus%40newcastle.ac.uk%7C9a7f475130ed477d73cd08d9149ee869%7C9c5012c9b61644c2a91766814fbe3e87%7C1%7C0%7C637563495005705693%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=TJIslCvx%2By4QfwTq8VQcy4cP2FqOyO6OLlTrDPAmG84%3D&reserved=0

121

10 New uses for old waterways

Francesco Vallerani and Francesco Visentin

Introducing watery heritage

Surface freshwaters system management can be considered as one of the most relevant issues affecting the quality of lived spaces in the western world. Growing water pollution and consumption, along with the opposing intensity of sudden floods and long-lasting drought, are exacerbated by the remarkable spread of both the urban sprawl phenomenon and the intensification of agri-business. This leads to irreversible loss of the main support underpinning the basic ecosystems, with special regard to the dynamic of the hydro-geological system.

The chapter explores how the digital census and recovery of waterways as cul-tural and environmental heritage are becoming central features in European spatial planning. The long-lasting historical interaction between the natural base and anthropic intervention has produced peculiar waterscapes that today are linear paths of high cultural value, where it is possible to identify specific and unique cultural and environmental heritage (Castonguay and Evenden 2012; Roe and Taylor 2014). In the geographical field, many scholars consider waterscapes as the result of the intellectual (cultural) and material transfor-mation of nature, by means of which human groups define and represent the specific dynamics of their inhabited space (Scarborough 2003; Cosgrove 2008). Rivers and canals thus become chances to place water resources and hydrographic networks at the core of urban and rural landscape planning, in which environmental, cultural, social, economic and hydraulic aspects interact (Cosgrove and Petts 1990; Mauch and Zeller 2008; Coates 2013; Gandy 2014).

The chapter aims to answer the pivotal question concerning the relationships between waterways and heritage. This research promotes knowledge of one of the most relevant characteristic forms of European heritage: rivers and canals should today be considered as a whole system that is unique world-


wide. Waterways historically favoured the expansion of urban centres and the development of trade in Europe, thus interacting with the construction of rural landscapes. Rivers and canals were corridors that enabled the spread of trade, human mobility and knowledge, and at the same time spaces of conflicts, disasters and geopolitical territorialization.

Indeed, such a cultural and historical heritage, being a crucial component of European identity, today requires much more attention for the better preser-vation, use and promotion of this historic network.

Matching the main goals of this book, our contribution presents water heritage as a good example of how heritage could be interpreted and positioned dynam-ically as a resource for spatial planning, involving a wide range of territorial stakeholders. We develop a methodology for supporting communities and partners, including academics, to engage in research which involves producing stories, where community history and storytelling are understood as research practices. The abandoned waterways and landscape can speak to the present and tell stories related to heritage through collecting rare interviews and narratives, in order to demonstrate their rich past and contrast with generic stereotypes.

This approach is perfectly suited to historic European waterways, especially when considering minor hydrographic networks. Historical waterways man-agement actually implies innovative conservation practices; entailing not only cultural issues, but also economic interests, social needs and ecological aspects.

Minor rivers and historic canals are particularly challenging in the ongoing evolution of climate change. We are furthermore aware of the need for a new paradigm of water management to secure more sustainable water uses, through a far-sighted combination of digital technologies with innovative models of heritage planning (Opmeer and Visentin 2018). Taking into account the results achieved by the international research project ‘EUWATHER’ (European Waterways Heritage), this chapter will try to demonstrate how minor rivers and historic canals, as cultural corridors, allow societies to take advantage of the positive connections between cultural and environmental dimensions, between landscape and heritage and between local attitudes and global changes. Freshwater’s general dwindling could be coped with through better management of inland hydrography as recovered cultural her-itage, thanks to the increased demand for river tourism and leisure activities (Prideaux and Cooper 2009).

NEW USES FOR OLD WATERWAYS 123

European historical waterways: towards a polyphonic geography

After World War II, the decline of waterways transport in Europe implied also the loss of the symbolic and memorial values of old waterscapes as cultural heritage. It was only during the last decades of the twentieth century that a more mature consideration developed of the historical and cultural meaning of premodern European waterways. We are now dealing with a well-defined hydrographic heritage and current times are ready for broadening the aware-ness of waterways with regard to their multifunctional role, especially when considering spatial planning processes. Waterways have become places of entanglement where it is possible to enlarge the platform of local actors, thereby integrating the institutional range of heritage and tourism experts (Tang and Jang 2010; Kaaristo and Rhoden 2017).

Our account focuses on the comparative analysis of three case studies in Italy, Spain and England as interesting sample areas for evaluating the mul-tifunctional nature of the cultural heritage detectable along the hydrographic network, to be collocated within the pan-European discussion on water management. From this point of view, tied to the complex multifunctional approach, an attempt was made to assess the functional evolution of these minor rivers and historic canals not only as elements contributing to the equi-librium of the area, both ecological and hydraulic, but also as cultural corridors to be recovered.

Italy: minor rivers and canals in the Venice inlandIn Italy, we looked at the hinterland of Venice, in particular inland terri-tory crossed by the low course of the Bacchiglione and Sile rivers, roughly extending from Padua and Treviso towards the Venice lagoon. This specific hydrographic context, started in the Middle Ages and developing since the mid-fifteenth century, represents an important example of fruitful construc-tion of one of the most productive agrarian landscapes in Europe (Ciriacono 2006). This complex rural landscape, crossed by a waterways network, gave life to what has been recognized as a ‘Palladian Landscape’ (Cosgrove 1993).

Similar transformations have required specialized knowledge to deal with natural landforms and hydro-morphology, while accommodating specific cultural approaches and socioeconomic contexts. Yet, despite the high level of sophistication of its historic water-landscape, the rich heritage of the Venetian waterways along the inland canal system is today largely forgotten. After the


fall of the Venetian Republic (1797), up to the mid-twentieth century, the hydrographic system managed to maintain a fair balance between agricultural functions and hydraulic energy and the environmental quality of a suggestive rural landscape. Modernity produced changes, which have continued up to the present day, as in the case of hydro-geological risk or the extensive pollution of surface waters and groundwater caused both by industry and by the fertilizers used in agriculture. The concrete loss of ecological and cultural heritage caused by the frequent burying of entire drainage systems, due to uncontrolled urban and agricultural development along river banks, has also reduced people’s tangible and intangible recognition or appreciation of waterscapes and related heritage. The result is the obliteration of the waterways heritage to the extent that today it is in a state of abandonment and disrepair, causing ecological and even water management problems.

Spain: the historic canals of Bajo Ampurdàn – multifunctionality or abandonment? In its final stretch, the river Ter flows over a plain called Bajo Ampurdàn (Province of Girona, Catalonia). In this area, the first attempts to regulate the river date back to Roman (first and second centuries) and Arab times (seventh and eighth centuries). Despite these early efforts, up to the modern age the area has always been considered swampy, above all due to the frequent overflowing of the river Ter. Between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, small drainage canals, barriers and dykes were built to drain the water and make the plain fertile and inhabitable (Soldevila 2007). Between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a number of canals were upgraded and strengthened. The complex system of hydraulic infrastructures was designed and implemented not only to drain and control the waters which invade this plain, but also to irrigate fields and vegetable gardens and drive numerous mills.

Ever since they were built, right up to the present, these canals have also played a crucial role from the environmental point of view. These blue and green lines are a favourable habitat for many kinds of animals and plants. They also act as ecological corridors and, finally, affect the regulation of the water table and floodwaters. The routes of the two canals should not be underestimated: they cross a number of historic boroughs, giving them an original character and determining particular types of settlements and architectures (Ribas et al. 2012; Llausàs et al. 2020). This delicate watery heritage is at risk due to a number of modernization projects proposed by the Comunitat de Regants (Canal management and maintenance bodies) for the purpose of cutting both the consumption of water for irrigation and routine maintenance costs. These projects were opposed by a number of environmental groups, but also by


important sectors of the Comunitat de Regantes and local communities. The doubts concern not only economic aspects, in view of the high costs involved – around €30 million – but also the concrete risk of abandoning historical courses, a reduction in ecological functionality and the hydro-geological state of the area (Pavon et al. 2014).

England: from canal mania to restoring maniaThe extensive network of English canals is interlinked with an equally complex natural hydrographic pattern with constant water flows. Along with the consolidation of political and commercial power in England during the sev-enteenth century, the hydraulic issue became a strategic one for land develop-ment. The building of the Rochdale and Ashton Canal in Greater Manchester between 1794 and 1804 was one of the most daring engineering works of the age and one that embodies and kindles the panorama of the modernist dream to transform the natural environment (Clew 1985). This historical period has been defined by many scholars as the ‘Canal Age’ or ‘Canal Mania’, underlining a widespread interest in the construction of inland waterways to link seaports with the thriving manufacturing and mining districts of the hinterland (Hadfield 1969). This network fell largely into dereliction after the introduction of railways.

The redundancy of these hydraulic works risked jeopardizing the heritage value of landscape characteristics essential in defining the nature of English rurality and urban waterfronts. And, in fact, after World War II, thanks to the efforts of the Inland Waterways Association (IWA) with the aid of numerous local volunteers who formed groups to restore individual canal sections, a slow but growing interest began in artificial waterways, reinventing this landscape as a space mostly for leisure and tourism. The role of these associations was essential in initiating extensive restoration works funded by the government and coordinated by the government body British Waterways (BW).

Today, the majority of the waterways are managed by the Canal and River Trust (which has replaced the BW), which promotes their use by the 65.5 million population of the UK, nearly half of whom live within 8 km of a water-way – where one can find five World Heritage Sites, 47 scheduled monuments and the third-largest collection of listed buildings in the country (Canal and River Trust 2016). Apart from these figures, the social, environmental, eco-nomic and landscape value of waterways has enabled the English countryside to maintain the imaginary image of traditional rurality, and has also developed numerous new activities, especially related to leisure boating, angling, walking


and cycling, able to give back meaning to places and restore ecological quality along the hydrographic network (Monahan and Spencer 2004).

Minor waterways as cultural corridors

From the case-study analysis, it becomes evident that there is a growing inter-est in waterscapes among the public in general, consistent with more general topics tied to current discussions on the new socioeconomic structures of the post-industrial age. The suggestive intertwining of waterways, most of which are marginal with respect to the urban expansion subsequent to the prevalence of roadways, represents a major environmental heritage, where the interaction between natural base and anthropic intervention has produced significant landscape types. Effective in this respect is the definition of waterways as ‘cultural corridors’, thanks above all not only to the presence of constructions related to specific hydraulic functions, but also of stately homes, places of worship, country homes and proto-industrial activity buildings.

This is besides an environmental system with a keen vocation for cultural tourism, involving not only leisure boating but also special trips along the rivers (Erfurt-Cooper 2009). The recovery of post-industrial structures is deemed a good strategy to achieve profitable environmental planning. It follows that artificial waterways represent, in all regional contexts, a concrete challenge for developing policies aimed at increasing biodiversity, managing freshwater supply and balancing negative effects of urban sprawl.

A range of topics from modernity to citizenship, once largely inland matters, are now on the waterfront, materially and imaginatively (Daniels 2018). Certain social developments contribute to this new aquatic scholarly sensi-bility, especially when considering the problems of water supply and floods in expanding urban areas, and the rediscovery and gentrification of for-merly working waterfronts, from docklands to canals, in most of the global post-industrial cities. Rising sea levels, associated with global warming, seep into the urban imagination. Minor rivers and small canals offer a great oppor-tunity to analyse and develop new studies and approaches in specific contexts (Vallerani and Visentin 2018). Our attention paid to minor hydrographic networks could be retained as an interpretative model to fill the gap between cultural heritage and environmental issues, with special regard to water runoff management and blue-ways regeneration. The project investigated how citi-zens’ perceptions have been developing a shared awareness about waterways. The information coming from our research – the workshops, the personal


meetings with local experts and historians, the surveys and the field work – must be understood as an innovative attempt to evaluate the increasing role of bottom-up competencies.

The EUWATHER conceptual framework for this research is known as the Collaborative Stories Spiral (CSS). It is a new approach to the generation and use of oral histories (Gilchrist et al. 2015). Building upon conventional par-ticipatory approaches to research, CSS offers a framework within which oral histories are simultaneously generated, mediated and remediated as a means of co-creating a deep cultural understanding of Europe’s smaller waterways. Through the CSS, it is possible to recognize that minor hydrography offers not only valuable assets that are at the core of landscape management, but also the preservation of a hidden local culture patrimony.

Such hydraulic heritage has to be furthermore considered for its intangible aspects that could matter deeply to people, involving both ‘familiarity’ and the complex emotional (and often unknown) relationships that affect what is understood as ‘sense of place’ (Vallerani 2018, 9–11). The whole of Europe is an endless repository of water-related stories simply waiting to be re-told, re-evaluated, surveyed and catalogued, to deal with the silent and hidden impoverishment of a significant aspect of our continent’s cultural heritage (Ricoeur 1984). Oral history has thereby been taken into account, according to the increasing relevance of the ‘telling turn’ (Lorimer and Parr 2014). This specific point of view has allowed us to stress the ‘productive’ and ‘living’ disposition of small stories and how these stories could stimulate the develop-ment of a sort of hydraulic humanism, which should underpin the recovery and reorganization of European hydro-geological management.

One of the final project outputs was to develop new opportunities for ecot-ourism and outdoor recreation as a driver for sustainable development. For this purpose, a number of digital itineraries have been co-designed with local communities, commercial stakeholders and the public sector as a way for outdoor public mobilization and education. We have sought to understand the impact of free-choice learning experiences on tourists’ understanding and appreciation of minor water heritage sites. From the first empirical tests, the results indicate that learning is a cumulative process that not only occurs onsite, but also is highly influenced by pre-visit assets and post-visit experi-ences (Ballantyne and Packer 2011; Opmeer and Visentin 2018, 128).


Further research trajectories

Much has been written about the multiple values of the major waterways of Europe. The network of secondary or ‘minor’ regional hydrography – minor rivers and historic canals, for example – is equally significant in forming a multifunctional resource that can address the objectives of both the Water Framework Directive 2000/60 and the new European agenda as set out in Europe 2020. The idea of multifunctionality is consistent with a holistic under-standing of the culture–nature relationship, going well beyond the framework of customary heritage conservation found in traditional cultural landscape studies. Nowadays, the evolutionary process affecting global environmental quality is really relevant; therefore, surface freshwater system management can be considered one of the most strategic issues in an effectual interaction with the recovery of awareness of ordinary landscapes.

Water management activities have also come under increased scrutiny, not only because they refer to physical elements of natural systems, but because they are strategic for people’s quality of life. As underlined by the Water Framework Directive 2000/60 in the incipit (DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC: 1), the relationship between water resources and people’s lives needs new policies that take into account the local expertise to achieve better hydrography manage-ment. Improving the involvement of riverine communities in decision-making is crucial to transmit to future generations a truly supported, holistic approach to water rather than just false nostalgia for premodern singular and coherent places as a palliative in a technocratic approach led by faith in physical trans-formations of waterscapes.

In geographical studies related to tourism, the presence or absence of river tourism activities along a waterway can tell us what kinds of relationships a society has with the hydrographic networks of its territory and what kinds of cultural dialogues spring from it. This discourse is not only about tourism per se, but also about how waterscapes are responding to political and eco-nomic changes at all levels. Thus, no studies of changes to rivers and canals should overlook tourism, and efforts must be made to examine how tourism fits into broader questions of sustainable growth and development related to waterscapes. One of the aims was to join the research interests (on tourism and analysis of the cultural water heritage) with some of the potential key factors for the development of local awareness in order to create renewed visions and a new imaginary about inland water in order to avoid disconnecting imagina-tion of the landscape from its natural environment.


The research is thereby devoted to the users of inland waterways, exposing the importance of a new accessibility to heritage through digitalization. This approach should improve people’s understandings of waterways, fostering policies to maintain their character of a common good. The socioeconomic potential of the cultural heritage along minor river corridors and historic canals could furthermore be used to improve regional and economic devel-opment in terms of increases in tourism and local leisure activities. It follows that the social benefits arising from renewed multiple functionalities of minor hydrography networks could be enhanced in the process of regeneration of neglected or abandoned waterscapes (Visentin 2019).

In order to further substantiate these findings, the research group aims to go ahead in investigating in depth the socio-spatial relations activated by water elements in the past to be able to analyse the present-day relationship between members of society and their landscapes (Pitt 2018; Pitt 2019). Therefore, this research is strongly related to more innovative conservation practices, includ-ing profitable interactions with landscape design, urban planning and tourism economics. The landscape of water – the hydro-landscape – is not the mere result of human activity: it is both a material thing and a conceptual framing of the world. It follows that the key concept of our contribution cannot only be the ‘recovery of waterfront’ according to the commonly accepted definition, affecting relevant sections of cultural landscapes where the post-industrial option is now increasingly an attractive starting point for interaction between global processes and local perspectives. Rather, it is a unique setting where old infrastructures and abandoned artefacts may greatly inspire collective imagination.

Thus, it is almost a vital necessity to be aware of the growing social demand for blue spaces and attractive landscapes like waterways and small river corridors. Finally, such a revalorization process of water landscapes plays a relevant role not only in urbanized areas but also in the sectors of the lower plains (like in the Spanish and Italian case studies we are dealing with) that were transformed in the past by large drainage projects to make the land suitable for agribusiness.

References

Ballantyne, R. and J. Packer (2011), ‘Using tourism freechoice learning experiences to promote environmentally sustainable behaviour: the role of post-visit “action resources”’, Environmental Education Research, 17 (2), 201–15.


Canal and River Trust (2016), Our canal & River Network, accessed 11 December 2018 at https:// canalrivertrust .org .uk/ enjoy -the -waterways/ canal -and -river -network

Castonguay, S. and M. Evenden (eds) (2012), Urban Rivers. Remaking Rivers, Cities and Space in Europe and North America, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Ciriacono, S. (2006), Building on Water: Venice, Holland, and the Construction of the European Landscape in Early Modern Times, Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Clew, K.R. (1985), The Kennet & Avon Canal, Newton Abbot: David & Charles.Coates, P. (2013), A Story of Six Rivers. History, Culture and Ecology, London: Reaktion.Cosgrove, D. (1993), The Palladian Landscape: Geographical Change and Its Cultural

Representations in Sixteenth Century Italy, Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Cosgrove, D. (2008), Geography and Vision: Seeing, Imagining and Representing the World, London and New York: Tauris.

Cosgrove, D. and G. Petts (eds) (1990), Water Engineering and Landscape, London and New York: Belhaven Press.

Daniels, S. (2018), ‘Towards homogeneous waterfronts? Historical woodworking waterfronts in transition’, in F. Vallerani and F. Visentin (eds), Waterways and the Cultural Landscape, London and New York: Routledge, 19–28.

Erfurt-Cooper, P. (2009), ‘European waterways as a source of leisure and recreation’, in B. Prideaux and M. Cooper (eds), River Tourism, Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, 95–116.

Gandy, M. (2014), The Fabric of Space. Water, Modernity and Urban Imagination, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gilchrist, P., C. Holmes, A. Lee, N. Moore and N. Ravenscroft (2015), ‘Co-designing non-hierarchical community arts research: the collaborative stories spiral’, Qualitative Research Journal, 15 (4), 459–71.

Hadfield, C. (1969), The Canal Age, Newton Abbot: David & Charles.Kaaristo, M. and S. Rhoden (2017), ‘Everyday life and water tourism mobilities:

mundane aspects of canal travel’, Tourism Geographies, 19 (1), 78–95.Llausàs, A., A. Ribas, S. Ricart and D. Roset (2020), ‘What future for decommis-

sioned historic irrigation canals? Crafting new identities in the Lower Ter (Spain)’, Landscape Research, 45 (5), 601–14.

Lorimer, H. and H. Parr (2014) ‘Excursion – telling stories and journeys’, Cultural Geographies, 21 (4), 543–7.

Mauch, C. and T. Zeller (eds) (2008), Rivers in History: Perspectives on Waterways in Europe and North America, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Monahan, D. and C. Spencer (2004), ‘From trade to tourism: the Rochdale Canal, 1794–2004’, Transactions of the Halifax Antiquarian Society, 12, 31–47.

Opmeer, M. and F. Visentin (2018), ‘Geo-based technology in support of creating a seamless free-choice learning experience on minor water-heritage sites. Lessons learned from the EUWATHER project’, in V. Albanese, V. Greco and M. Proto (eds), Geography and the ICT. New Technologies & Geographical Research, Bologna: Bononia University Press, 113–32.

Pavon, D., F. Visentin, A. Ribas and F. Vallerani (2014), ‘Multifuncionalidad y retos de futuro en el paisaje cultural del regadio del Bajo Ter’, in C. Sanchis-Ibor, G. Palau-Salvador, I. Mangue-Alferez, and L.P. Martinez-Sanmatín (eds), Irrigation, Society and Landscape. Tribute to Thomas Glick, Valencia: Editorìal Politècnica, 720–37.

Pitt, H. (2018), ‘Muddying the waters: what urban waterways reveal about bluespaces and wellbeing’, Geoforum, 92, 161–70.


Pitt, H. (2019), ‘What prevents people accessing urban bluespaces? A qualitative study’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 39, 89–97.

Prideaux, B. and M. Cooper (eds) (2009), River Tourism, Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.

Ribas, A., A. Llausàs, D. Saurí and D. Roset (2012), ‘El paper dels recs de Sentmenat i del Molí de Pals en la configuració de la plana agrí cola del Baix Ter’, Estudis d’Història Agrària, 23, 319–34.

Ricoeur, P. (1984), Time and Narrative, vol. 1, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Roe, M. and K. Taylor (eds) (2014), New Cultural Landscapes, London and New York:

Routledge.Scarborough, V. (2003), The Flow of Power: Ancient Water Systems and Landscapes,

Santa Fe: School of American Research.Soldevila, X. (2007) ‘Entre les aigües i el bosc. Impression del paisatge medieval a la

plana del Baix Ter (segles XII–XIV)’, in Actes del Congrés: El Paisatge, element verteb-rador de la identitat empordanesa, vol. II, Figueres: Institut d’Estudis Empordanesos, 345–53.

Tang, L. and S. Jang (2010), ‘The evolution from transportation to tourism: the case of the New York canal system’, Tourism Geographies, 12 (3), 435–59.

Vallerani, F. (2018), ‘Introduction. Flowing consciousness and the becoming of water-scapes’, in F. Vallerani and F. Visentin (eds), Waterways and the Cultural Landscape, London and New York: Routledge, 1–16.

Vallerani, F. and F. Visentin (eds) (2018), Waterways and the Cultural Landscape, London and New York: Routledge.

Visentin, F. (2019), ‘Idro-geografie e senso del luogo: dalle memorie al ruolo delle comunità locali’, Semestrale di Studi e Ricerche di Geografia, XXXI (1), 119–35.

133

11 Satellite monitoring of geo-hazards affecting cultural heritage

Daniele Spizzichino and Claudio Margottini

Rationale and theoretical background

A comprehensive investigation for all UNESCO sites in the world, with a simplified methodology, was proposed by Pavlova et al. (2017). Onsite observation has been the most common way of studying and monitoring the world’s cultural heritage sites and monuments. However, this procedure, which includes field surveying, ground-based data collection and periodical observations, is time-consuming and expensive. Moreover, the installation of monitoring devices, such as optical targets, GPS stations or inclinometers, on the heritage sites and monuments can lead to aesthetic and functional impacts that can affect the integrity and availability of the heritage. Since 1992, new space technology based on radar interferometry has been capable of moni-toring, with millimetre precision, surface deformation for reflective targets named persistent scatters (PS), which consistently return stable signals to the radar satellites. A special project (PROTHEGO) applying this new technique was recently approved by the European countries funding heritage research, together with the European Commission (Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage and Global Change (JPI-CH)), in order to provide a stand-ard methodology for all monuments and sites that are potentially unstable due to landslides, sinkholes, settlement, subsidence, active tectonics and structural deformation, all of which could be amplified by climate change and human interaction. After the remote sensing investigation, detailed geological inter-pretation, hazard analysis, local-scale monitoring, advanced modelling and field surveying for the most critical sites were carried out to discover the cause and extent of the observed motions. To magnify the impact of the project, the


approach was implemented in all 399 sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List (WHL) in continental Europe.

Based on the literature, a number of guiding principles are suggested for the improvement of management plans and the integration of hazard and risk in cultural heritage (e.g. Taboroff 2000; UNESCO et al. 2010; Michalski and Pedersoli, Jr. 2017). These studies aim also to reduce the risks to World Heritage properties from natural and human-made disasters, and provide methodology to identify, assess and mitigate disaster risks. Despite this, since the many threats show different areal impacts (e.g. earthquake vs. landslide) involving local or regional environmental processes, a homogeneous overview of expected risk for cultural heritage is still missing and probably also beyond the state of the art. In fact, since a cultural heritage site is a local exposed element, any ‘rigorous’ risk assessment methodology must be developed at local level and, later on, harmonized at regional/global scale (Margottini and Menoni 2018). On the other side, the lack of a regional/global rank in the expected risk is complicating the prioritization of intervention and allocation of funds for those international agencies and/or governmental organizations dealing with heritage conservation.

Project main objectives

The PROTHEGO project aims at developing, in the UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Europe, a local-global-local approach, by means of:

1. high-resolution local monitoring based on satellite radar interferometry;2. definition of a qualitative global hazard analysis and risk assessment for

three available threats: earthquake, landslide and volcano; comparison of local satellite monitoring with global risk assessment;

3. selecting high-risk heritage sites and calibration of satellite data with tradi-tional geotechnical monitoring and local site engineering surveys.

The satellite radar interferometry (InSAR) was therefore the connection between local ground deformation monitoring (mirroring surfaces of the order of a few m2 for new satellite constellations – e.g. Cosmo SkyMed – with accuracy of mm), a preliminary standard hazard analysis and risk assessment at regional/global level and a final investigation at local level for potentially risk-prone heritage sites. SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) is a form of radar that is used to obtain images of objects, such as landscapes or other static targets. Interferometry is a family of techniques in which, usually, electromagnetic

SATELLITE MONITORING OF GEO-HAZARDS 135

waves acquired at different times are superimposed in order to extract infor-mation about the waves (phases and amplitude). When using radar waves, the technique is called SAR Interferometry or InSAR. The original values, which range from –p to +p (as they correspond to phase variations), are converted to a map of elevation changes with mm accuracy (PS: Permanent Scatterer or Persistent Scatterer technique). To test the methodology and to demonstrate the potentiality offered by this new technique, all the 399 cultural heritage sites in continental Europe inscribed in the UNESCO WHL have been analysed. The first step was to provide an updated and actual geographical overview and a detailed analysis of available datasets concerning WHL sites and geo-hazards in Europe. For the first time, the contour data of the 399 UNESCO sites located in continental Europe have been collected and/or and digitized, in terms of core and buffer zones, in a common format with a standard procedure, and into a unique GIS platform (Spizzichino et al. 2016). Data came from national authorities, UNESCO Focal Points and Open Data Catalogues (39 per cent) and by new digitizing of UNESCO jpeg/pdf documentation (61 per cent), allowing the realization of 2351 core polygons and 932 buffer polygons belong-ing to the 399 sites. In a second step, a catalogue of satellite-derived ground motion information was collected from the sites, based on interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data, elaborated with PS techniques. For all the 399 sites, the available satellite data has been made accessible through a dedicated web site (www .protego .eu). The research activity was implemented through the analysis of satellite InSAR and PS datasets available at European scale. The harmonization of InSAR and PS ground motion data was carried out through the creation of digital factsheets. The final goal of the project was to generate a GIS catalogue of the available satellite InSAR data for the UNESCO WHL sites of Europe (Prothego mapviewer), and digital factsheets summariz-ing the observed ground motion velocities and deformation histories of the PS reflectors within each WHL site (Cigna and Tapete 2017).

The polygons were compared with natural hazards available at European Union (EU) level, such as earthquakes, landslides and volcanic eruptions. Of the European Heritage Sites (EHS), 16 per cent belong to the High seismic hazards category, 12 per cent are located in Very High landslide susceptibility zones and 14 per cent in High susceptibility zones, and 26 EHS are in High vol-canic hazard areas (Figure 11.1). In this project, flood and subsidence hazards were not considered, even if suitable to be investigated by InSAR, due to the lack of a homogeneous EU map. A GIS-based multi-criteria risk analysis was implemented to identify and rank the most critical UNESCO WHL sites at the European scale. The method was based on a quantitative heuristic analysis, which was preferred over probabilistic or deterministic approaches due to the lack of homogeneous information on the probability of occurrence of hazard

http://www.protego.eu/

Note: The sites were divided into cultural and mixed sites (C/M – dot) and natural sites (N – cross). The values were linearly rescaled between 0 and 1 on the basis of the highest possible risk.Source: Modified from Valagussa et al. (2018), https:// creativecommons .org/ licenses/ by/ 4 .0/ .

Figure 11.1 Risk ranking of the 2,351 WHS property parts based on the multi-criteria methodology


and the impossibility of assessing the vulnerability or fragility of the many European heritage sites in a homogeneous way (Valagussa et al. 2018).

Finally, in selected case studies, the Satellite Interferometry analysis was validated, calibrated and tested through site-scale field surveys, geotechnical advanced models and detailed monitoring data, by means of traditional geotechnical monitoring and advanced diagnosis. Local-scale monitoring can


then be used for damage assessment, identification, monitoring and conserva-tion procedures. All the data were placed in a proper web GIS and summarized in a factsheet for any UNESCO heritage site, at www .prothego .eu.

Lessons learned from applying the technique to the case studies

The Satellite Interferometry analysis was validated, calibrated and tested through site-scale field surveys, geotechnical advanced models and detailed monitoring data, following the above-mentioned methodological framework (diagnosis, monitoring, mitigation and preservation). Seven more in-detail case studies (Themistocleous et al. 2016a; Themistocleou 2016b; Mateos et al. 2018) were chosen (at least one for each partner country). The test sites are described below.

The Aurelian Wall in Rome (Italy)The ancient city walls were investigated using high-resolution satellite radar images (CSKmed® ASI mission data from 2011 to 2014) and PS InSAR techniques (Figure 11.2). The entire circuit (both Mura Aureliane and Mura Gianicolensi) was digitalized and geo-referenced. Possible deformations, cracks and ruptures due to the interaction between hazards (e.g. subsidence, landslides, earthquakes, excavations, sinkholes) and archaeological remains were investigated, highlighted and identified at site-specific scale. A specific data sheet of several ruptures was created and filled in to produce a geographic inventory of past damage as a tool for future conservation polices. This case study was implemented in cooperation with Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali of Rome (Leoni et al. 2020).

The Derwent Valley Mills (UK) The Derwent Valley Mills (DVM) World Heritage Site is the birthplace of the modern factory system. The Derwent Valley and its associated mill com-plexes, infrastructure and housing facilities were included in the UNESCO WHL in 2001. The current state of activity of the identified geo-hazards was monitored using Sentinel-1 space-borne imageries (Copernicus program) acquired between 2015 and 2017 and processed using the InSAR technique. The technique allowed the researchers to clearly identify damages connected to a recent flooding event in Belper town. This case study was implemented in

http://www.prothego.eu/

Not

e:

Col

our l

egen

d: g

reen

= s

tabl

e; w

arm

col

ours

= lo

wer

ing;

col

d co

lour

s =

uplif

t.So

urce

: Le

oni e

t al.

(202

0).

Figu

re 1

1.2

Buff

er (a

long

the

inve

stig

ated

anc

ient

city

wal

ls) o

f CO

SMO

-Sky

Med

PS

disp

lace

men

t vel

ocity



cooperation with the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage team (Harrison et al. 2018).

The Alhambra and Albaycin district (Spain) All the Alhambra and Albaycin UNESCO monumental complex in Granada was investigated (both regional and local scale) with satellite data (Sentinel-1 and CSKmed®). It was not possible to highlight any deformation trends from satellite analysis, even though this was of extreme detail. The landslide that threatens a portion of the north cliff (known as the ‘Tacco de San Pedro’) was analysed with the support of new technologies (e.g. Terrestrial Laser Scanner (TLS), Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), digital photogrammetry). An advanced 3D stability model was implemented to support the site manager for future mitigation measures and monitoring polices. The CSKmed® high-resolution radar images were used instead, with great success, for the control of an Arab palace (Dar Al Horra Palace) in the Albaycin neighbour-hood, affected since 2014 by a potential slow landslide. This case study was implemented in cooperation with the Patronato de la Alhambra y Generalife.

The Choirokoitia archaeological site (Cyprus) The Neolithic settlement of Choirokoitia, occupied from the seventh to the fourth millennium BC, is one of the most important prehistoric sites in the eastern Mediterranean, and has been included in the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage list since 1988. The site was recently threatened by rockfall, erosion and subsidence. The local-scale monitoring methodology included in situ observation; remote sensing techniques, such as PS techniques, were used to validate the impact of geo-hazards. Topographic surveying using differential Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), UAV images, photogrammetry and InSAR data was used to map slow ground movements, which were then compared and validated with ground-based geotechnical monitoring in order to evaluate the cultural heritage site’s deformation trend and to understand its behaviour over time (Themistocleus and Danzi 2020).

The Tramuntana Range Cultural Landscape (Spain) The Bàlitx area is located on the steep coastal side of the Tramuntana Range (Majorca); a mountainous region which was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 2011 in the cultural landscape category. The Bàlitx site was occupied by farming areas with dry-stone constructions and water-storing systems of both Roman and Islamic origin. Block spreading morphologies were identified along the escarpment. Additionally, numerous geomorpholog-


ical slope features were identified in the area: landslides, rockfalls and, more specifically, long and deep cracks in the hanging wall block of the fault, which also revealed active lateral spreading processes. Satellite SAR images from the ALOS PALSAR mission were exploited; these covered a period spanning from 2007 to 2010. The images were processed using the Persistent Scattered Interferometry (PSI) technique. The PSInSAR results revealed that the rate of movement for the Bàlitx lateral spreading is extremely low (−5.2 mm/year on average), but major activity was detected in the northeast sector, where veloc-ity rates can reach values of up to −16 mm/year. The Bàlitx case study could provide a testimony to the effects of mass movements and coastal dynamics in an exceptional example of a Mediterranean agricultural landscape (Mateos et al. 2018).

Conclusion

The major outcome of the PROTHEGO project is the application of the new space technology, based on radar interferometry – which is now capable of monitoring surface deformation with millimetre precision – to the cul-tural heritage sector. By applying this methodology to 399 UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Europe and by integrating these data with existing databases of geo-hazards, PROTHEGO identified and ranked the most critical cultural heritage sites over the entirety of Europe. PROTHEGO’s goals are also to enhance cultural heritage management practices at the national level; reinforce institutional support and governance through knowledge and innovation; identify, assess and monitor risks; and strengthen disaster preparedness for heritage properties in the future. The project promoted interdisciplinary and collaborative R&D activities, transferring the highest level of knowledge, quality and standards from space and earth sciences to cultural heritage con-servation sciences. A general agreement around the use of satellite services for monitoring of geo-hazards affecting cultural heritage needs to be implemented in order to define best-practice guidelines and standard methodologies for adoption by practitioners in this field. A multidisciplinary approach between earth science disciplines, data providers and data processers, and from within the cultural heritage protection domain, is required to truly make a positive difference. There is a need to develop simple and dedicated tools or down-stream services which enable practitioners to make better use of available data and knowledge about geo-hazards and how these hazards may affect cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is an important pillar both for economic and social impacts across Europe. Better understanding of natural hazard processes


affecting cultural heritage through low-impact monitoring techniques like satellite methodologies improves resilience and reduces general vulnerabil-ity, saving money from post-disaster recovery and obtaining long-term cost benefits.

The PROTHEGO project has certainly reduced the distance between the world of cultural heritage conservation and the earth sciences and space domains. Finally, the following major outcomes and future perspectives can be men-tioned from the project:

1. incorporation of InSAR methodology into the management plans of UNESCO sites, as discussed in the final meeting at UNESCO headquarters in Paris;

2. emphasizing the relevance of proper management at both international and national level;

3. enhancement of cultural heritage risk awareness and risk management, through an interdisciplinary approach;

4. strengthening disaster risk assessment and management at the local level (UNESCO, 2010);

5. a new potential market in the field of low-impact monitoring techniques;6. involvement and awareness of final users and stakeholders (e.g. site man-

agers, tourists, citizens) for long-term sustainable mitigation measures;7. emphasizing the relevance of low-impact techniques in diagnosing and

monitoring heritage sites;8. emphasizing the relevance of low-impact techniques, sustainable practices

and involvement of local knowledge and materials to preserve existing sites;

9. application of the PROTHEGO strategy to other countries, as discussed during the project meeting in Petra, Jordan;

10. enlargement of number and type of hazards to assess, such as flood, fire, man-made disasters and others.

In conclusion, it is advisable that the PROTHEGO approach is enlarged and implemented in all the European cultural heritage sites (not only to UNESCO WHL) in order to easily produce tools and downstream services. A specific summer school is currently under organization to promote the approach in the UNESCO sites outside Europe.


References

Cigna, F. and D. Tapete (2017), ‘PROTHEGO Deliverable D.02.01: Available satel-lite InSAR data for the European WHL sites, Version 1.0. JPI-CH Heritage Plus PROTHEGO project’, Open Report. Date DD/03/2017, iii, 18, 23, accessed 8 May 2021 at http:// www .prothego .eu/ downloads .html

Harrison, A.M., A. Novellino, P.R.N Hobbs et al. (2018), ‘Local scale investigation and advanced modelling of the geo-hazards affecting the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Case Study Site’, Version 1.0. Nottingham, UK: British Geological Survey, 51. (OR/18/008).

Leoni G., Spizzichino D., Marcelli M. and C. Carta (2020), ‘Il monitoraggio satellitare nelle aree archeologiche: il caso delle mura Aureliane di Roma’, in A. Russo and I. Della Giovampaola (eds), Monitoraggio e Manutenzione delle Aree Archeologiche: Cambiamenti Climatici, Dissesto Idrogeologico, Degrado Chimico-Ambientale. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Roma, Curia Iulia, 20–21 March 2019. Collana Bibliotheca Archaeologica. L’Erma di Bretschneider, 217.

Margottini, C. and S. Menoni (2018), ‘Hazard assessment’, in P. Bobrowsky and B. Marker (eds), Encyclopedia of Engineering Geology. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. Cham: Springer.

Mateos, R.M., P. Ezquerro, J.M. Azañón et al. (2018), ‘Coastal lateral spreading in the world heritage site of the Tramuntana Range (Majorca, Spain). The use of PSInSAR monitoring to identify vulnerability’, Landslides, doi 10.1007/s10346-018-0949-5, received: 1 December 2017, accepted: 12 January 2018, © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Michalski, S. and J.L. Pedersoli, Jr. (2017), The ABC Method: A Risk Management Approach to the Preservation Of Cultural Heritage. Canadian Conservation Institute.

Pavlova, I., A. Makarigakis, T. Depret and V. Jomelli (2017), ‘Global overview of the geological hazard exposure and disaster risk awareness at world heritage sites’, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 28, 151–7.

Spizzichino, D., G. Leoni, V. Comerci et al. (2016), ‘PROTHEGO deliverable D.01.01: UNESCO cultural heritage vs. natural hazards at European scale’, Version 1.0. JPICH Heritage Plus PROTHEGO project, Open Report, Date 15 December 2016, accessed 8 May 2021 at http:// www .prothego .eu/ downloads .html

Taboroff, J. (2000), ‘Cultural heritage and natural disasters: incentives for risk manage-ment and mitigation. Managing disaster risk in emerging economies’, New York: World Bank, Disaster Management Risk, 2, 71–9.

Themistocleous, K., A. Agapiou, B. Cuca et al. (2016a), ‘Methodology for locale-scale monitoring for the PROTHEGO project: the Choirokoitia case study’, Proceedings SPIE 2016 conference.

Themistocleous, K., B. Cuca, A. Agapiou et al. (2016b), ‘The protection of cul-tural heritage sites from geo-hazards: the PROTHEGO project’, Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection, 6th International Conference, EuroMed 2016, Nicosia, Cyprus, 31 October–5 November 2016, Proceedings, Part II, Springer Verlag.

Themistocleous, K. and C. Danezis (2020), ‘Monitoring cultural heritage sites affected by geo-hazards using in situ and SAR data: the Choirokoitia case study’, in D. Hadjimitsis et al. (eds), Remote Sensing for Archaeology and Cultural Landscapes. Springer Remote Sensing/Photogrammetry. Cham: Springer at https:// doi .org/ 10 .1007/ 978 -3 -030 -10979 -0 _16

http://www.prothego.eu/downloads.html

http://www.prothego.eu/downloads.html

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10979-0_16

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10979-0_16


UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN (2010), Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage. World Heritage Resource Manual, Paris: UNESCO, 1–6.

Valagussa, A., P. Frattini, G.B. Crosta and N. Berta (2018), ‘Definition of GIS-based multi-criteria methodology for the selection of case studies’, Version 1.0. JPICH Heritage Plus PROTHEGO project, Open Report, Date 1 February 2018, accessed 8 May 2021 at http:// www .prothego .eu/

Valagussa, A., P. Frattini, G.B. Crosta et al. (2021), ‘Multi-risk analysis on European cultural and natural UNESCO heritage sites’, Natural Hazards, 105, 2659–76 at https:// doi .org/ 10 .1007/ 10 .1007/ s11069 -020 -04417 -7

http://www.prothego.eu/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-020-04417-7

145

12 Archaeological site monitoring and risk assessment using remote sensing technologies and GIS

Stefano De Angeli and Fabiana Battistin

Threatened archaeological heritage: climate change and soil-related hazards

Archaeological heritage includes all the moveable objects, structures, earth-works, monuments and developed sites created, transformed and left by people through time, whether located on land or under water; both pre-served standing above the soil surface and still buried (see Valletta 1992). All this legacy, together with all other heritage resources, is nowadays at risk, endangered by different natural and anthropogenic factors that can cause the physical degradation and destruction of ecofacts and materials. Being made of matter and depending on their environmental setting, any feature interacts with atmospheric and soil processes – natural or human-induced – that can lead to the degradation of materials and to other types of damage to ancient remains. The effects of those processes are today exacerbated by the action of climate change, which can contribute to accelerating them and, therefore, to the damaging of standing and buried archaeological features (UNESCO 2007; also Caneva et al. 1991; Sabbioni et al. 2010).

In the last 15 years, European research has focused on possible climate change effects on historical built heritage. Examples include the ‘Noah’s Ark Project’, which aimed at determining the meteorological parameters and changes most critical for the conservation of European historical built heritage (Brimblecombe et al. 2011; Sabbioni et al. 2010), or the more recent projects STORM (www .storm -project .eu/ en) and HERACLES (www .heracles -project .eu), mostly concerned with the health of standing structures and their sta-

http://www.storm-project.eu/

http://www.heracles-project.eu/

http://www.heracles-project.eu/


bility. Looking at these experiences, it appears that the same attention has not yet been systematically dedicated to investigating the level of risk for the pres-ervation of archaeological heritage, in particular for areas of buried remains, regarding the impact of human actions and climate change.

The preservation of buried archaeological features, including structures and stratigraphy (Harris 1979; Carandini 1991; Renfrew and Bahn 1991), is strictly connected with soil nature and condition, which contribute to their protection. In this regard, it is no coincidence that among the various ecosystem functions of soil, recognized by the European Soil Framework Directive as worthy to be protected, there is also the cultural function of soil, as an archive of historical and archaeological heritage and as a fundamental part of landscape (COM 2006, 231; see also van Zanten et al. 2014). If the health of soil is compromised, there can be consequences for the balance reached through time between materials and soil, which can cause the damaging, and even the loss, of archae-ological traces and evidences.

Based on this awareness, the CLIMA project was designed and developed with the aim of promoting highly interdisciplinary soil-oriented research, involving a wide variety of experts: archaeologists, soil scientists, geomorphologists, geologists, botanists, experts in geographic information system (GIS) and remote sensing technologies (terrestrial, aerial and satellite). The project specifically focused on some of the most prominent soil-related threats, such as soil erosion, land movement, land use change and vegetation. It aimed at the monitoring and estimation of such specific hazardous phenomena and at the detection and mapping of archaeological features, as well as at the definition of an effective methodology of risk assessment, culminating in the creation of a GIS Platform able to help in the preservation of archaeological heritage. CLIMA’s case study sites were the Roman town of Falerii Novi (Italy), the Graeco-Roman city of Nea Paphos (Cyprus) and the Antonine Wall in Scotland (UK).

This chapter illustrates the main results of the project with respect to the mon-itoring and assessment of soil erosion, which can well exemplify the mutual impact of climate change and anthropic pressures on buried archaeological heritage. Through the example of the procedure adopted, it will also highlight the importance of carrying on research in this field and how, in this sense, cooperation with public authorities might be fruitful both for knowledge and for the actual protection of archaeological heritage.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE MONITORING 147

Soil erosion and archaeological buried heritage: the CLIMA risk assessment methodology

Together with urban sprawl, infrastructure development, intensive exploita-tion of natural resources and sociocultural misuse of heritage, agriculture and other intensive land management schemes are the principal cause of damage to archaeological features (Trowl and Holyoak 2014: limited to the phenomenon in England). Doubtless, intensive agricultural activities pose a range of imme-diate and future threats to sensitive cultural landscapes and to the historical, archaeological and environmental archive they preserve. They can produce an increase in natural processes such as soil erosion (Nearing et al. 2004) and disturb the near-equilibria between archaeological materials and soil, reducing the ability of soil to preserve buried heritage, affecting structural stability and amplifying the natural deterioration of exposed structures.

The impact of agriculture on landscape formation processes increased at an enormous scale from the 1950s onwards because of large-scale mechanization of agricultural practices (Binswanger 1986; Kienzle et al. 2013; van Zanten et al. 2014). Since then, tillage erosion has increased conspicuously, becoming dominant over natural water erosion (Van Oost et al. 2005) and leading to a heavy negative impact on archaeological heritage. Intensive ploughing prac-tices produce tillage erosion of topographical features and truncation of soil profiles; they have reduced numerous archaeological sites to ‘ploughsoil scat-ters’, bringing the physical destruction and degradation of buried structures, stratigraphy, artefacts and ecofacts. Nowadays, the situation is made worse by climate change, in particular by extreme weather phenomena such as flooding, drought and intense rainfall, which contribute to amplifying the impact of natural water erosion on soil (Nearing et al. 2004).

In the 1980s and the early 1990s there were some studies regarding the rela-tionship between soil erosion and buried archaeological sites (Reynolds and Schadla Hall 1985; James et al. 1994; Wainwright 1994). These stimulated the academic debate on the topic, with the aim of overcoming the broadly shared idea that the further a structure is buried, the more it is protected from hazards acting on soil. Today there is a widely shared awareness that the erosion of archaeological stratigraphy causes material loss, like mould attacking archival documents and so making them illegible. The destruction of archaeological stratigraphy, even partial, determines a definitive loss of invaluable informa-tion, in which respect any scale of supposed importance assigned to the type of artefact would be inadequate to illustrate the severity of the loss (Milanese 2007; see also Davidson and Wilson 2006).


In 2006, the UNESCO report Predicting and Managing the Effects of Climate Change on World Heritage, presented to the World Heritage Committee, highlighted that soil erosion is one of the most serious consequences of climate change affecting archaeological heritage, both exposed above ground level and buried (UNESCO 2007). More recently (2008), a specific conference was organized about these issues: ‘The Erosion of Archaeology, the Archaeology of Erosion’ (Meylemans et al. 2014a). The conference showcased some significant European experiences, focusing not only on the occurrence of the soil erosion phenomenon in archaeological sites but also on a more detailed quantification of it towards the creation of decision support systems for cultural heritage management (Ducke 2014).

Even if there is great potential for integrating archaeological heritage manage-ment aspects within national and international agro-environmental schemes, as for instance in relation to soil erosion prevention and heritage management stewardship, the topic does not seem to have found a suitable space within European research regarding the protection of cultural heritage. Despite a few exceptions on the national scale (see e.g. Oxford Archaeology 2002; DEFRA 2005), European policies and guidelines regarding the use of soil (e.g. in the Common Agricultural Policy, ec .europa .eu/ info/ food -farming -fisheries/ key -policies/ common -agricultural -policy/ cap -glance _en) are still lacking in attention to these cultural and archaeological issues, contrasting also with developer-funded archaeology as stipulated in Article 5 of the Valletta Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Valletta 1992).

The development and growing availability of GIS technology, and the possi-bility to create geospatial data such as high-resolution digital terrain models (DTM), allow today for the production of erosion and sedimentation maps, which can help vastly in surveying, assessing and visualizing the risk to archaeological heritage at regional and local scales. Moreover, in the last three decades, some important tools have become available for quantitative erosion and sediment transportation modelling, ranging from very simple empirical to highly complex, process-based models (Meylemans et al. 2014b).

In the context of CLIMA, soil erosion has been evaluated via two different methods: the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), which gives an estimated amount of soil loss per year that can be visualized as a map of the area (Cuca and Agapiou 2017, 2018); and the Gamma Spectrometer, a tool implemented by the project in order to calculate lateral soil movement in ploughed fields (Varley et al. 2017; Varley et al. 2018).

https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cap-glance_en

https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cap-glance_en


RUSLE was chosen because it is a simple and cost-efficient empirical model that considers soil and terrain properties, vegetation cover and rain param-eters. All these data, mostly produced through remote sensing applications (optical/multispectral images from satellite and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)), allow reliable predictions of the magnitude of erosion threat to fields. A limit of RUSLE is that it can carry on averaged per-field erosion assessments, but cannot model sediment deposition, another important and critical compo-nent for heritage management.

In order to compensate for this limitation of the RUSLE, instead of using other soil erosion models, it was deemed appropriate to test the Gamma Spectrometer. This tool using large-volume NaI mobile and in situ detectors, enables real-time, non-destructive drive-over surveys to map soil erosion and vertical disturbance depths across buried archaeological sites. Utilizing patterns of anthropogenically derived and atmospherically deposited 137-Cs in the soil, the tool is able to give a complete mapping of the lateral soil distur-bance phenomenon as it formed during the late twentieth century, identifying areas of soil removal and thinning, and areas of soil deposition and deepening.

Both the RUSLE and the Gamma Spectrometer were applied to the sites of the Antonine Wall and Falerii Novi. Both sites are characterized by the presence of wide areas of buried archaeological features, which are affected by agricultural activities that generate soil erosion. For its part, the case study of Nea Paphos, as it is an archaeological park, presents different management conditions: it is not affected by agricultural activities and tillage erosion. For this reason, it was not a suitable case for testing the Gamma Spectrometer; therefore, project activities concerned only water soil erosion assessment through RUSLE.

The combined application of the two methods was meant to compare at least the results regarding soil erosion areas. This was possible in the case of the Antonine Wall, but unfortunately, in Falerii Novi, the results of Gamma Spectrometer were compromised by the intensity of natural radioactive sub-stances inside the soil, which created a disturbance in the measuring of 137-Cs deposited. However, those activities produced a large amount of data regard-ing soil erosion, which was used to generate specific hazard maps.

Nevertheless, evaluating the threatening phenomenon is only a part of a proper risk assessment. In this regard, CLIMA followed a consolidated methodology (applied to all the hazards analysed by the project), considering the risk as the result of hazard and vulnerability interaction; that is to say, between the threat and the object potentially at risk, because it is exposed to the hazard (see in particular Cardona et al. 2012).


Regarding soil erosion risk assessment, the output data coming from the RUSLE and the Gamma Spectrometer processing chains were stored in the GIS platform and then processed to translate the data into specific hazard maps, where the intensity of the erosive phenomenon was expressed by a simplified ranking from 0 to 3.

At the same time, in order to produce archaeological vulnerability maps, archaeological data were collected, and then aerial/satellite and terrestrial remote sensing technologies were applied for further detection. A degree of vulnerability from 1 to 3 was then assigned to each feature.

The parameter used to define the scale of vulnerability was the level of the available knowledge of archaeological features because the high variability of weaknesses that any archaeological feature presents required a more general approach. In this scale, the minimum value is assigned to soil marks (only identified on aerial and satellite images and not verified on soil), a medium value to areas of fragments of archaeological materials scattered on the soil surface (observed through a field walking survey, but not yet verified through geophysical survey or excavation), and a maximum value to standing struc-tures and excavated areas (visible), and buried structures (ascertained and mapped through geophysics).

Regarding the effect of soil erosion on buried structures, an index of exposure was added. This was applied in order to take into consideration that structures can be more or less at risk from superficial erosion depending on their burial depth.

In Falerii Novi, this procedure was applied to the south-east sector of the town, characterized by the underground presence of the Roman theatre. To identify the actual depth of archaeological structures, the area was surveyed with Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR). For the Antonine Wall, a fairly detailed assessment of the underlying archaeological features existing in the test area was held by Historic Environment Scotland (HES). It provided data regarding the spatial extents of individual features (such as the ditch, wall and forts) and their average burial depth. In the case of Nea Paphos, the entire area of the archaeological park was considered. This was assigned an average burial depth of buildings of 30 cm, based on direct observations of excavated areas and buried structures visible in section.

In all three case studies, the combining of hazard and vulnerability maps using GIS led to the production of risk maps, able to show not just the areas of more


intense soil erosion, but also the degrees of risk for archaeological buried structures and contexts.

Concluding remarks and research perspectives

From the point of view of soil-related threats, the project represents an initial step towards a more extensive analysis of soil processes threatening archaeo-logical remains. The aim, in the future, is to refine the soil erosion risk assess-ment methodology and to consider not just physical soil threats, but also soil biochemical processes induced by climate change and affecting the material preservation of buried archaeological artefacts.

The risk assessment methodology adopted in CLIMA represents a concrete innovation because it is not limited to simply highlighting the presence and intensity of a certain threat but aims at quantifying the possible impact of the threat on buried archaeological structures, based on the evaluation of a major or a minor exposition to it, as shown in the case of soil erosion.

The possibility of quantifying the intensity of a threat in action, and relating it with accuracy to buried archaeological structures, can also allow for the appli-cation of mitigation measures to contain or slow down the phenomenon and therefore its impact on archaeological heritage.

With regard to soil erosion, if soil is not used for agriculture, it is possible to adopt land-covering solutions that include the planting of vegetal species with non-invasive root systems. Conversely, if there are agricultural activities, it is possible to choose methods that allow cultivation with less pressure on the soil, as, for example, the no-tillage agriculture. This technique requires lightly working the soil only once. It reduces the number of actions usually needed to plough up and sow, and therefore the production of CO2, the impact on soil and, as a consequence, on everything contained in it.

Further research aims at improving the platform. A new project (RESEARCH – REmote SEnsing techniques for ARCHaeology – H2020-MSCA-RISE – grant agreement No. 823987 – www .re -se -arch .eu) is carrying on the work started with CLIMA to reach complete automation of the generation process of hazard and vulnerability maps from output data of the different environmental (related to soil erosion, land movement and land use change) and archaeolog-ical data processing chains. The ultimate aim is to produce comparable hazard

http://www.re-se-arch.eu/


and vulnerability maps from which to automatically generate specific risk maps (Battistin and De Angeli 2020).

For all these reasons, it is of paramount importance to promote the GIS platform and the related risk assessment methodology among public author-ities responsible for the protection and management of private and public archaeological heritage. Such tight cooperation between public authorities and research groups will allow the testing and validation of the procedure on other sites, proving its degree of replicability and its limits, thus improving the methodology itself and enlarging the number of sites for which risk maps will be available.

Furthermore, wider knowledge and application of the risk assessment meth-odology and the platform will contribute to addressing regular activities of research, and to the protection and promotion of a site for the collection of both archaeological and environmental data. This is needed for a risk assess-ment adequate for the application of specific mitigation measures and the safeguarding of sites.

References

Battistin, F. and S. De Angeli (2020), ‘Da CLIMA a RESEARCH. Monitoraggio e valutazione del rischio nei siti archeologici mediante l’applicazione di tecnologie di remote sensing e GIS’, in A. Russo and I. Della Giovampaola (eds), Monitoraggio e manutenzione delle aree archeologiche. Cambiamenti climatici, dissesto idrogeologico, degrado chimico-ambientale. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Roma, Curia Iulia, 20–21 Marzo 2019), Bibliotheca Archaeologica 65, Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 275–9.

Binswanger, H. (1986), ‘Agricultural mechanization: a comparative historical perspec-tive’, The World Bank Research Observer, 1 (1), 27–56.

Brimblecombe, P., C.M. Grossi and I. Harris (2011), ‘Climate change critical to cul-tural heritage’, in H. Gökçekus, U. Türker and J. LaMoreaux (eds), Survival and Sustainability. Environmental Earth Sciences, Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, 195–205.

Caneva, G., M.P. Nugari and O. Salvadori (1991), Biology in the Conservation of Works of Art, Roma: ICCROM.

Carandini, A. (1991), Storie dalla terra. Manuale di scavo archeologico, Torino: Einaudi.Cardona, O.D., M.K. van Aalst, J. Birkmann, M. Fordham, G. McGregor, R. Perez,

R.S. Pulwarty, E.L.F. Schipper and B.T. Sinh (2012), ‘Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability’, in C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor and P.M. Midgley (eds), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 65–108.

COM 2006, 231: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee of the regions. Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (2006), Commission of the European Communities, COM, Brussels (231 final), accessed 20 January 2019 at https:// eur -lex .europa .eu/ legal -content/ EN/ TXT/ ?uri = celex %3A52006DC0231.

Cuca, B. and A. Agapiou (2017), ‘Impact of land use change to the soil erosion estima-tion for cultural landscapes: case study of Paphos district in Cyprus’, International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLII-5/W1, 25–9, https:// doi .org/ 10 .5194/ isprs -archives -XLII -5 -W1 -25 -2017.

Cuca, B. and A. Agapiou (2018), ‘Impact of land-use change and soil erosion on cultural landscapes: the case of cultural paths and sites in Paphos district, Cyprus’, Applied Geomatics, December, 10 (4), 515–27.

Davidson, D.A. and C.A. Wilson (2006), ‘An assessment of potential soil indicators for the preservation of cultural heritage’, Final report, University of Stirling.

DEFRA (2005), Controlling Soil Erosion. A Manual for the Assessment and Management of Agricultural Land at Risk of Water Erosion in Lowland England, London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

Ducke, B. (2014), ‘An integrative approach to archaeological landscape evaluation: loca-tional preferences, site preservation and uncertainty mapping’, in E. Meylemans, J. Poesen and I. In’t Ven (eds), The Erosion of Archaeology, the Archaeology of Erosion. Proceedings of the Brussels Conference (April 28–30, 2008), Relicta Monografieën 9, Brussels, 13–22.

Harris, E.C. (1979), Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy, London: Academic Press.James, P.A., Ch. B. Mee and G.J. Taylor (1994), ‘Soil erosion and the archaeological

landscape of Methana, Greece’, Journal of Field Archaeology, 21, (4), 395–416.Kienzle, J., J.E. Ashburner and B.G. Sims (eds) (2013), ‘Mechanization for rural devel-

opment’, Integrated Crop Management (FAO), 20, Rome.Meylemans, E., J. Poesen and I. In’t Ven (2014a), The Erosion of Archaeology, the

Archaeology of Erosion. Proceedings of the Brussels Conference (April 28–30, 2008), Relicta Monografieën 9, Brussels.

Meylemans, E., B. Vanmontfort and A. Van Rompaey (2014b), ‘The evaluation of archaeological sites using LIDAR and erosion/sedimentation modelling’, in E. Meylemans, J. Poesen and I. In’t Ven (eds), The Erosion of Archaeology, the Archaeology of Erosion. Proceedings of the Brussels Conference (April 28–30, 2008), Relicta Monografieën 9, Brussels, 23–36.

Milanese, M. (2007), ‘Voci delle cose: fonti orali, archeologia post-medievale, etnoar-cheologia’, in M. Milanese (ed.), La Voce Delle Cose. Fonti Orali e Archeologia Post-Medievale, Atti del convegno di studi (Pisa, 15 March 2002), Firenze, All’insegna del Giglio, 11–30.

Nearing, M.A., F. Pruski and M.R. O’Neal (2004), ‘Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: a review’, The Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 59 (1), 43–50.

Oxford Archaeology (2002), The Management of Archaeological Sites in Arable Landscapes, BD1701, CSG15, accessed 20 January 2019 at http:// sciencesearch .defra .gov .uk/ Document .aspx? Document=BD1701_514_FRA.pdf.

Renfrew, C. and P.G. Bahn (1991), Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, New York: Thames and Hudson.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52006DC0231

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52006DC0231

http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?%20Document=BD1701_514_FRA.pdf

http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?%20Document=BD1701_514_FRA.pdf


Reynolds, P.J. and R.T. Schadla Hall (1985), ‘Measurement of plough damage and the effects of ploughing on archaeological material’, Occasional Papers, Department of the Environment, Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, 3, 114–22.

Sabbioni, C., P. Brimblecombe and M. Cassar (2010), The Atlas of Climate Change Impact on European Cultural Heritage, London and New York: Anthem Press.

Trowl, S. and V. Holyoak (2014), ‘The erosion of archaeology: the impact of plough-ing in England’, in E. Meylemans, J. Poesen and I. In’t Ven (eds), The Erosion of Archaeology, the Archaeology of Erosion. Proceedings of the Brussels Conference (April 28–30, 2008), Relicta Monografieën 9, Brussels, 55–62.

UNESCO (2007), World Heritage Reports No. 22 – Climate Change and World Heritage, accessed 20 January 2019 at https:// whc .unesco .org/ en/ activities/ 474.

Valletta (1992), European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised), European Treaty Series, 143, Valletta, Malta.

Van Oost, K., W. Van Muysen, G. Govers, J. Deckers and T.A. Quine (2005), ‘From water to tillage erosion dominated landform evolution’, Geomorphology, 72, 193–203.

Van Zanten, B.T., P.H. Verburg, M. Espinosa et al. (2014), ‘European agricultural land-scapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: a review’, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34 (2), 309–25.

Varley, A., A. Tyler, M. Dowdall, Y. Bondar and V. Zabrotski (2017), ‘An in situ method for the high resolution mapping of 137Cs and estimation of vertical depth pene-tration in a highly contaminated environment’, Science of The Total Environment, 605–606, 957–66.

Varley, A., A. Tyler, Y. Bondar, A. Hosseini, V. Zabrotski and M. Dowdall (2018), ‘Reconstructing the deposition environment and long-term fate of Chernobyl 137Cs at the floodplain scale through mobile gamma spectrometry’, Environmental Pollution, 240, 191–9.

Wainwright, J. (1994), ‘Erosion of archaeological sites: results and implications of a site simulation model’, Geoarchaeology, 9, 173–201.

https://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/474

SECTION C

Heritage and development

157

13 Introduction to heritage and development: the agency of heritage in rural and urban development practices

Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist

This section explores a variety of cases around development in relation to heritage. In planning, heritage and development were long seen as opposites, so that heritage had to be protected from development. In recent decades, this narrative has changed; now, heritage is often argued to be a crucial asset in urban development and regeneration processes (Corten et al. 2014). Heritage is seen as an integral part of society that can be pivotal in supporting cohesion and providing routes towards smarter, more sustainable and more inclusive societies in the longer term, as also evidenced by its inclusion in the Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2016).

For better or worse, heritage is a globalized economic commodity (Guzmán et al. 2017; Pendlebury and Porfyriou 2017). It can be used to promote locally rooted economic development and help balance the globalization-caused fragmenta-tion of local livelihoods. Think, for example, about how micro-entrepreneurs can leverage their skills, resisting the growing mega-forces of food capitalism and large-scale tourism. Moreover, heritage-informed practices can be inte-grated into planning to incentivize and inspire more locally anchored spatial developments and policies. As prominently addressed in the ‘Integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe’, heritage is an ‘irreplaceable repos-itory of knowledge and valuable resource for economic growth, employment and social cohesion’ (European Commission 2014c). This acknowledges her-itage’s qualities, both tangible and intangible; indicating places, buildings and objects as foundations, as important as memories, emotions, stories, practices and meanings.

Realizing these abilities requires a policy context and planning process that are culturally sensitive, prepared to balance natural and cultural heritage values,


and able to catalyse entrepreneurial capacity. This section is concerned with the role that heritage can play in development; how the value and potential of cultural heritage can be responsibly used as resources for sustainable develop-ment and enhanced pride in place and quality of life in a constantly evolving society; and how policy, between the past and possible futures of places, can harness the potentials of different heritage expressions, to support sustainable resource use and development, while being attentive to both traditional and more recent or new practices.

This framework reinforces how heritage, if utilized sensitively and sustaina-bly, can have a positive impact on development, well-being, recreation and tourism. This does not imply that development strategies only focus on the commodifiable, ‘useful’ and ‘convenient’ histories and heritages, which often prevent various groups from developing a sense of belonging (e.g. Hall 1999; Sinclair-Chapman 2018; Veldpaus and Pendlebury 2019). Our argument is that, for heritage to be an effective and sustainable resource for development and to enhance pride in place and quality of life, policy, governance and regulation must be prepared to reimagine the role the past may have for the sustainable society. To support traditional and vibrantly contemporary practices, while being attentive to cultural diversity, the trans-local flows of capital and labour, gendered aspects, mobile communities, goods, technology and representations, the roles and perceptions of various actors must take centre stage. Since individuals and groups articulate, understand and value cultural significance differently, policy and planning need to acknowledge the intangible and tangible qualities of heritage. Places and landscapes, built sites, historical structures, objects and artefacts should therefore be approached as intermediaries and materials for memories, emotions, stories, myths, practices and meanings. Simply, the social worlds and everyday lives of local actors and local groups are critical to the effectiveness of attempts by policy sectors to stimulate local and regional development. It needs also to be remembered that heritage, represented by built sites and artefacts, songs, stories, brogues, prac-tices, myths, and the memories of people and local communities, contributes to our local, regional and national identities.

Recognizing these dimensions and the consideration of heritage as an asset or vector for local and regional development, and how heritage can support cohesion and sense of belonging in a world that appears to be increasingly fragmentized, the three chapters in this section address and demonstrate how heritage can be approached as a node not only for social and human capital, but also in terms of potential for economic development. The chapters demon-strate how heritage is a social process of giving meaning, emerging through the process of performance, coming into being through concerted, fortuitous,

INTRODUCTION TO HERITAGE AND DEVELOPMENT 159

embodied and lived practices. They amplify the idea that cultural heritage, if responsibly used as a resource for sustainable development, can bridge the past and possible futures of objects, places and landscapes; they demonstrate how heritage planning and management creates what Toda (1976) describes as ‘nested situations’. All the interrogated cases exemplify the dynamics asso-ciated with handling issues that are confined by socially, culturally, politically and economically framed commitments.

In the chapter ‘Cultural heritage and improvised music in European festivals’, Tony Whyton and Beth Perry discuss the to-date-undervalued position of festivals and improvised music in a European heritage context. They identify improvising, marketing and sounding jazz as nodes for analysing the relation-ship between heritage and place. An interesting and challenging proposition is that music festivals represent a fluid heritage, management of which is both difficult and critical. Festivals perpetuate unequal boundaries and xenocen-trism, and open up the possibility for marginalized groups not only to take part in, but also to develop their own cultural activities. The next chapter, ‘Cultural heritage at work for economy and society’, by Stefano Della Torre and Rossella Moioli, reveals the potentialities of integrated approaches to cultural heritage management by comparing three models that aim to achieve more effective management of cultural resources (in this case, built heritage). Turning its sights to the Netherlands, the Flanders province of Belgium, Italy and Sweden, the research project has a people-centred focus, interviewing stakeholders in order to define and compare the capacity of the models to organize sustainable interventions, to mobilize durable funding, and to involve people and commu-nities, as well as to identify the skills required to support the transition in built heritage activities from acute to more sustainable and preventive conservation schemes. The final chapter is ‘Gastronomy and creative entrepreneurship in rural tourism: encouraging sustainable community development’, in which Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist, Anna de Jong, Romà Garrido, Giuseppa Romeo and Wilhelm Skoglund discuss how small-scale businesses can be understood as sites where the ‘cultural becomes political’, a term used to describe the intersection of locality, community and practices carried out and forming the basis for alternative development. Including case studies from four countries in Europe, their project studies how the innovative use of different cultural dimensions, and tangible and intangible properties of places and landscapes, can support the development and creation of new employment opportunities and stimulate economic development. This is not least important for rural areas, since small businesses can boost economic and social resilience.

The three chapters unite in demonstrating how heritage can inculcate the ‘social glue’ of communities. In light of the objectives of European Union


policy in the areas of participatory governance, integrated approaches, strate-gic and sustainable development and identity (European Commission 2014a, 2014b, 2014c), and the Lisbon Treaty (European Commission 2007), heritage is identified as a vital resource for the implementation of the sustainable development objectives. This is now also globally recognized, as evidenced by heritage and culture being integral parts of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (for further analysis, see Labadi and Logan 2015; Pereira Roders and Bandarin 2019; UNESCO 2016).

Given the wide range of ways in which people relate to and value land and sea, we suggest that cultural values need to be defined by the stakeholders, rights holders and communities of interest within the planning area. While there are distinct advantages of heritage – in providing, for example, continuity and stability – there are also potential tensions and power asymmetries that must be continuously interrogated and acknowledged. This includes under-standing of what promotes greater sense of ownership and commitment to actions implemented to utilize and embrace different forms of capital (actors, material/immaterial resources, places, spatial connectivity and power); how the commercialization of heritage may compromise conservation and/or environmental sustainability values or result in gentrification and exclusion instead of cohesion; and how varied types of knowledge, understandings and perspectives can be consolidated to establish legitimate actions, solutions and strategies in a fragmented world.

Accommodating the concerned parties’ understandings and conceptualizations of heritage and associated dimensions should, however, be accompanied by critically asking about the value frameworks informing heritage planning and management. The importance of this question arises from the understanding that heritage is embedded within different frameworks of meaning and ration-ales of action. These may not always be compatible, thereby creating a need to explore conceptual and practical challenges associated with measures intended to overcome friction (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al. 2015; Sjölander-Lindqvist et al. 2018). As suggested by Strang (2009), ‘there is need to consider not just the formal institutions’ (p. 5), but also the ‘social complexities, diverse subcultural perspectives, and material opportunities and constraints’ (p. 6). Colebatch (2010) suggests similarly that ‘different frameworks of meaning and rationales of action’ (p. 31) will be mobilized by the interweaving of diverse actors, all of whom have their own agendas and values that influence their participation in planning and management. The three chapters in this section gather in the understanding that heritage should be appreciated as a bounded space for human thought and action, including both material and immaterial values

INTRODUCTION TO HERITAGE AND DEVELOPMENT 161

and meanings that will underpin its planning and management. These actions embed and reflect domains of meaning (Shore et al. 2011).

Summing up, it can be stated that heritage emerges as an arena confined by actors’ understandings and representations. This establishes planning and management as nested and heritage as ‘social’, in the sense that heritage resources are driven by idealized probabilities and attributes. As a shared space for human experience, imagination and significance, conservation and preservation become defined by political, economic and cultural structures, values and relationships. These realities of life, or interdependencies, must be recognized to achieve social sustainability. Some concerns are shared, others are not. All in all, the studied cases echo broader issues of entitlement to resources and value transformation that can stabilize but also disturb or even disrupt sustainability.

References

Colebatch, H. (2010), ‘Giving accounts of policy work’, in H. Colebatch, R. Hoppe and M. Noordegraaf (eds), Working for Policy, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 31–44.

Corten, J.P, E. Geurts, P. Meurs and R. Vermeulen (eds) (2014), Heritage as an Asset for Inner-City Development, Rotterdam: NAi010.

European Commission (2007), C 306/1 ‘Treaty of Lisbon: amending the treaty on European union and the treaty establishing the European Community’, Official Journal of the European Union, 2007/C 306/01, https:// eur -lex .europa .eu/ legal -content/ EN/ TXT/ ?uri = CELEX %3A12007L %2FTXT (accessed 19 July 2019).

European Commission (2014a), ‘Council conclusions on cultural heritage as stra-tegic resource for a sustainable Europe’, Official Journal of the European Union, 2014/C 183/08, https:// eur -lex .europa .eu/ legal -content/ EN/ TXT/ ?uri = CELEX %3A52014XG0614 %2808 %29 (accessed 19 July 2019).

European Commission (2014b), ‘Council conclusions on participatory governance of cultural heritage’, Official Journal of the European Union, 2014/C 463/01, https:// eur -lex .europa .eu/ legal -content/ EN/ TXT/ PDF/ ?uri = CELEX: 52 014XG1223( 01)andfrom = EN (accessed 19 July 2019).

European Commission (2014c), ‘Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe’, COM (2014) 477 final, https:// ec .europa .eu/ assets/ eac/ culture/ library/ publications/ 2014 -heritage -communication _en .pdf (accessed 13 July 2019).

Guzmán, P.C., A.R.P. Roders and B.J.F. Colenbrander (2017), ‘Measuring links between cultural heritage management and sustainable urban development: An overview of global monitoring tools’, Cities, 60 (Part A), 192–201.

Hall, S. (1999), ‘Whose heritage? Un-settling “the heritage”, re-imagining the Postnation’, Third Text, 13 (49), 3–13, doi: 10.1080/09528829908576818.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12007L%2FTXT

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12007L%2FTXT

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52014XG0614%2808%29

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52014XG0614%2808%29

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014XG1223(01)andfrom=EN

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014XG1223(01)andfrom=EN

https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/publications/2014-heritage-communication_en.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/publications/2014-heritage-communication_en.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/09528829908576818


Labadi, S. and W. Logan (2015), Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability: International Frameworks, National and Local Governance, London and New York: Routledge.

Pendlebury, J. and H. Porfyriou (2017), ‘Heritage, urban regeneration and place-making’, Journal of Urban Design, 22 (4), 429–32, doi: 10.1080/13574809.2017.1326712.

Pereira Roders, A. and F. Bandarin (eds) (2019), Reshaping Urban Conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action, Springer Singapore.

Shore, C., S. Wright and D. Però (eds) (2011), Policy Worlds: Anthropology and Analysis of Contemporary Power, New York and Oxford: Berghahn.


Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., M. Johansson and C. Sandström (2015), ‘Individual and col-lective responses to large carnivore management: The roles of trust, representation, knowledge spheres, communication and leadership’, Wildlife Biology, 21 (3), 175–85.

Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., A. Bendz, S. Cinque and C. Sandström (2018) ‘Research amidst the contentious issue of wolf presence: Exploration of reference frames and social, cultural, and political dimensions’, in T. Hovardas (ed.), Large Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions, London and New York: Routledge, 19–36.

Strang, V. (2009), Gardening the World: Agency, Identity, and the Ownership of Water, New York and Oxford: Berghahn.

Toda, M. (1976), ‘The decision process: A perspective’, International Journal of General Systems, 3 (2), 79–88.

UN (2016), Goal 11, Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, https:// su stainabled evelopment .un .org/ sdg11 (accessed 7 August 2017).

UNESCO (2016), Culture: Urban Future: Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development.

Veldpaus, L. and J. Pendlebury (2019), ‘Heritage as a vehicle for development: The case of Bigg Market, Newcastle upon Tyne’, Planning Practice and Research, doi: 10.1080/02697459.2019.1637168.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg11

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg11

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697459.2019.1637168?journalCode=cppr20

163

14 Cultural heritage and improvised music in European festivals

Tony Whyton and Beth Perry

Introduction: festivals, music and place

Festivals have an important – if undervalued – position in Europe’s cultural ecology, with their dynamic and synergetic relationship to spaces and cul-tural sites. Within this context, jazz and improvised music festivals provide a distinctive lens through which to explore key issues in heritage research, drawing on music’s unique and complex relationship to concepts of high and low culture, tradition, innovation, authenticity and (non)-European identity.

Festivals, music and place: these issues provided the starting point for the ‘Cultural Heritage and Improvised Music in European Festivals’ (CHIME) project, which ran from 2015 to 2018 under the JPI Heritage Plus programme. CHIME explored how music plays a key role in the sonic refiguring of the urban and rural landscapes, and feeds directly into issues linked to con-servation and use, cultural tourism, sustainability, urban regeneration and community engagement. Despite the growing interest in jazz studies as an interdisciplinary field of investigation (Gabbard 1995; Bohlman and Plastino 2016) and in the festivalization of culture (McKay 2015; Cudny 2016), we rec-ognized a clear absence of research that placed jazz festivals within the context of broader heritage studies and the discourses surrounding place-making, the marketization of heritage, urban governance and cultural policy.

CHIME has three main sets of findings. First, we produced a typology of fes-tivals and cultural heritage sites and identified how cultural heritage themes play out in different European festivals today (McKay 2018a, 2018b; Whyton 2018). Second, we identified three themes – improvising, marketizing and


sounding – which resonated through our three national contexts and case studies, and offered prospects for future research and practice. Finally, we developed a framework for locating jazz festivals, and festivals more broadly, in relation to wider debates about cultural heritage and sustainable development, and set out key proposals around festivals as integrated sites for understanding tangible–intangible entanglements (Perry et al. 2018, 2019).

Chiming together: research approach

In putting CHIME together, research teams in the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands developed case studies that blended historical and archival research with ethnographic studies and semi-structured interviews to obtain data on specific festivals and the relationships between people, music and festival sites.1 In addition, surveys of literature and policy were undertaken in order to place jazz festivals within the broader context of national arts policies and global agendas around sustainable development. Finally, different forms of action research were employed: from the creation of digital tools to be used during festivals to the development of a new annual festival in Birmingham, UK.

As part of their activities, the UK researchers provided an overview of the rela-tionships between jazz festivals and their uses and reuses of cultural heritage. The team undertook a historical survey of European jazz festivals (McKay 2018a), made a study of British jazz festivals and their relationship to the prob-lematic heritage of the transatlantic slave trade (McKay 2018b), and created a typology of cultural heritage sites and European jazz festivals (Whyton 2018). The UK team were concerned with mapping the festival landscape and explor-ing ways in which the temporal experience and evanescence of festivals could be captured and theorized, and each study sought to place festivals within

1 The UK team included Professor Tony Whyton (Project Leader), Professor Nicholas Gebhardt (also from Birmingham City University), Professor George McKay (University of East Anglia) and Professor Beth Perry (University of Sheffield). The Dutch team comprised Professor Walter van de Leur, Dr Loes Rusch (University of Amsterdam), Dr Marline Lisette Wilders (University of Groningen) and Beth Aggett (University of Amsterdam). The Swedish team included Professor Helene Brembeck, Dr Niklas Hansen and Dr Olle Stenbäck (University of Gothenburg). We also collaborated with Dr Rike Sitas (University of Cape Town) and Dr Laura Ager (freelance) through funding provided by our Associate Partner, Mistra Urban Futures.

CULTURAL HERITAGE AND IMPROVISED MUSIC IN EUROPEAN FESTIVALS 165

a heritage context. Whilst this work included theoretical discussions of the cul-tural value of jazz and its presentation at European festival events (Gebhardt 2016; Whyton 2017), and extensive policy and literature reviews (Webster and McKay 2015), a number of action-based research activities and public engage-ment events were organized in order to maximize the impact of the project.

In Sweden, research focused on jazz in the urban landscape of Gothenburg. Gothenburg Jazz Festival was disbanded in 2014. However, in 2015, two new festivals emerged that were launched in designated heritage locations; yet each spoke to very different audiences within the city. These were the Classic Jazz Festival and the Gamlestaden Jazz Festival (GMLSTN). Classic Jazz focused on traditional jazz music and tended to appeal to older audiences, whilst GMLSTN was founded as a modern jazz festival that featured younger bands playing experimental improvised music. The Swedish research team, therefore, looked at the city of Gothenburg and its new jazz festivals as consumption sites, and explored the role that heritage plays both in the sustainability of cultural events and the contemporary marketing of jazz. Within this study, the Swedish team examined the role heritage played in the success of each festival, and drew on ethnographic methods to capture and analyse different scenes. Initial surveys of activities included a report on the traditional Classic Jazz Festival, which drew on a series of interviews with a range of actors including festival organizers, musicians and audiences (Liimataine 2016).

The Dutch research team focused on two festival case studies that explored the relationship between festival sites, cultural heritage and different iterations of identity in the Netherlands. The first examined the relationship between improvised music, the bicycle and rural locations, through the lens of the Zomer Jazz Fiets Tour in Groningen. As part of their study, the CHIME team interviewed audiences, organizers and volunteers in order to get a sense of the relationship between music and place, of the feeling of belonging among returning fans, and to develop insights into the tensions at play between the festival experience and the rural heritage location. The second case study included an investigation into tourism and the country’s postcolonial history through the North Sea Jazz satellite festival in Curacao (Aggett 2016). In addition to festival case studies, the Dutch team also produced a travelling exhibition of Dutch festivals, working in collaboration with the Dutch Jazz Archive (Rusch 2017).

Our research design also included the identification of Associate Partners within the policy, practice and cultural sectors to support knowledge exchange and dissemination among a wider community of scholars and practitioners. Working with Associate Partner Mistra Urban Futures, we constructed a space


for dialogue between scholars and practitioners in the Global North and South working on a sister project, ‘Cultural Heritage and the Just City’. Through this space, we brought together a transdisciplinary network of scholars and prac-titioners, including social and natural scientists, arts and humanities scholars and cultural practitioners. The coordination of this comparative learning space at the intersection of these projects brought distinct advantages. It enabled less visible or prestigious ‘under-the-radar’ festivals to be identified, and it allowed for both the experiential and analytical dimensions of multiple festivals to be surfaced. Through a literature review and common survey, we identified 18 festivals to surface the relationship between tangible and intangible heritage and place. We were particularly interested in thinking about the relationship between the content and place-based context of the festivals as a way of understanding tangible and intangible heritage and sustainable urban devel-opment. This also enabled policy recommendations linked to UNESCO Global Challenges and issues of sustainable development (Perry et al. 2018).

Landscapes, themes and concepts: summary of findings

A diverse blend of traditional qualitative research methods and creative inter-ventions has provided a rich data set for transnational reflection which reveals fresh insights into the landscape of jazz festivals, thematic lenses through which we can interrogate jazz festivals in their specific spatial context and wider questions over the value of festivals in relation to cultural heritage and sustainable urban development.

The landscape of jazz festivals Importantly for this collection on heritage planning, jazz feeds into a series of complex questions about the relationship between cultural heritage, sound and place. One area of CHIME’s work explored site-specific heritage questions of the contemporary cultural practice of festivals of jazz. It did so by bringing together three areas for discussion and development: questions of slavery heritage and legacy; the location, built environment and (touristic) offer of the historic city; and the contemporary jazz festival, its programme and the senses or silences of (historical) situatedness in the festival package. For example, McKay’s work explored the troubling relations between jazz in Britain, historic or heritage locations and venues, and the degree of understanding – or lack of – of the transatlantic slave trade. The studied heritage centres clearly associated with the slave trade that also have significant (jazz) festivals included Bristol,


Cheltenham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Hull, Lancaster, Liverpool, London and Manchester (McKay 2018b).

Improvised music can add to the transitory nature of place and encourage unique interventions between people and their surroundings. As Perry et al. (2018, 45) state:

Places are not backdrops – but constitutive in themselves … The site of the festival provides important integrative spaces that are not only geared towards more cohe-sive human interaction, but foster more engaged relationships between the human and material, where the significance and power of place can be explored through temporary, transient and transitional meeting points.

Jazz festivals, therefore, can be a crucial element in disrupting established ways of thinking about heritage; when jazz enters particular spaces, it can provide a means of engaging with established discourses, reconfiguring histories, encouraging a renewed perspective on a particular location or community and re-engaging with the past. As Whyton (2018) argues, by viewing jazz festivals through the lens of cultural heritage, we can begin to challenge reified pres-entations of heritage that promote uncomplicated interpretations of nations, people and their associated cultural narratives. Festivals offer meaning to specific groups through acts of remembrance or commemoration. They have the potential to engage with a multitude of voices, and their locations enable people to negotiate a sense of belonging or to (re)consider their place in the world. A typology of festivals and cultural heritage sites demonstrates how concepts of cultural heritage are shifting and are often contested within a festi-val context. Drawing on interviews with members of the Europe Jazz Network, the following categories emerged to demonstrate how cultural heritage themes play out in different European jazz festivals today:

• Ancient Places/Archaeological Sites• Historic Towns and Buildings• UNESCO World Heritage Sites and Cities of Music• Landscapes, Social Responsibility and the Natural Environment• Post-industrial Spaces• Jazz Heritage Festivals• Heritage and Cultural Tourism• Voices from the Margins• Sub-cultural Heritage• Re-engaging with a National Story/Subverting Dominant Histories• Heritage as a form of Reconciliation• Heritage as a Vision of the Future.


These issues are illustrated further through our case studies in different national contexts.

Improvising, marketizing and sounding jazzThrough the case studies, we have identified three themes which offer ana-lytical purchase on jazz festivals, cultural heritage and place: Improvising, Marketizing and Sounding jazz.

Improvising draws attention to the potential disruptive function of festivals, which can provide platforms for participation and community engagement, and challenge both the status quo and people’s pre-reflexive assumptions around questions of cultural heritage. As part of the CHIME project, Professor Nicholas Gebhardt developed a new ‘Grow Your Own Festival’ (GYOF) that was aimed at engaging different communities in Birmingham, UK. The event provided an opportunity for different communities to engage in collaborative performance projects and showcases of their cultural backgrounds. A key finding was how the process of creating the festival enabled reflection on ques-tions of identity and what constitutes one’s ‘own’ festival, particularly in the context of debates about DIY cultural activity.

Marketizing draws attention to the cultural and economic value of festivals within heritage settings. Specifically, the Swedish team concluded that why festivals fail or succeed is linked to the ability to measure the impact, value and changing market positions of jazz festivals when tied to heritage sites. Although, in markets such as culture, it is understood that music festivals and heritage sites must maintain an economic balance, the knowledge and experiences exchanged among the public within festival settings are important in themselves rather than reducible merely to economic value and exchange. Social and economic values impact on the behaviour of cultural organizations and individuals and their attitudes to festivals and cultural events. Although festivals’ increased status as market(ing) objects has been explored elsewhere, CHIME’s work points to the continued need to explore the study of the alloca-tion of culture budgets and the monitoring of culture production via processes of valuation and commensuration.

The Gothenburg case study also reveals the complex relationship between festivals, cultural heritage and space. Gamlestaden Jazz Festival, or GMLSTN JAZZ as it is often written, takes place each spring in the city of Gothenburg and features jazz musicians playing live in multiple venues. It labels itself as a ‘modern’ jazz festival and the programme brings together famous interna-tional touring musicians alongside the city’s resident jazz artists. It partners


with local and regional cultural organizations, but these differ year on year depending on funding. However, the festival maintains a symbolic connection with Kvibergs Kaserner, a military heritage site in Gothenburg and one of its most eye-catching venues (Stenbäck 2017a, 2017b). This building is where the first edition of the festival was held in 2014. Gamlestaden, where the festival originated, is a suburban area in east Gothenburg, where residents come from various countries around the world. There is a mix of cultures here, and another of the ambitions of GMLSTN JAZZ has been to widen the definitions of what jazz is. GMLSTN JAZZ gives greater visibility and coherence to the jazz scene, bringing jazz, as a marginalized form of intangible heritage, to a wider audience. Over time the international orientation has been supplemented by an embeddedness in locality, with family-friendly activities such as learning jazz history.

Sounding draws attention to the acoustics and politics of jazz festivals in their spatial and politico-economic context, with particular attention to cultural and national identities. The ZomerJazzFietsTour (ZJFT), set up in 2000, takes place in the Reitdiep area, a rural area north-west of the city of Groningen, Netherlands. The idea behind the festival was to take advantage of the natural heritage assets of the region and to create alternative settings to experience jazz. This meant showcasing the landscape, churches and barns, as well as promoting more marginalized forms of music. Guests cycle from one church or barn to the next, across 29 locations that host over 30 concerts. The audience is largely Dutch, but increasingly international. There is a strong codetermi-nation between the content and the site: barns and medieval churches have different acoustics, enabling audience members to engage with and appreciate music in distinctive ways dependent on the setting. In this way, the program-ming is inseparable from the concept of the festival itself. Tangible (natural and built) and intangible (jazz) heritage meet through landscape, place and community. The artists’ vision is to counterbalance the dominant jazz festival culture through a match of landscape and location. Yet this is not without its challenges; for instance, in relation to the exponential growth of the festival historically, and the more recent need to limit the numbers of festival-goers in order to protect the natural environment of the region and maintain a balance between conservation and use (Wilders and Rusch 2019).

This case study reflects different approaches towards the reuse of found space – either landscape, built environment or both – and was selected specifically for its unusual and contrasting engagement with different types of Dutch heritage. The event offers insights into the significance and values that landscapes, sites and buildings hold for individuals and communities when viewed through the lens of jazz festivals. Additionally, it enables us to understand the meanings


that cultural heritage holds for people within festival settings and how they perceive, use and interpret it, as well as to explore the contested and conflict-ing issues around access to cultural heritage when different public spaces are ‘festivalized’.

Festivals and sustainable urban development Festivals should be recognized for their intrinsic value to populations, rather than simply for their use in place-making strategies. Through an analysis of 18 festivals across the Global North and South, researchers have devel-oped a framework for examining cultural heritage, sustainable develop-ment and place through the idea of entanglement (Perry et al. 2018, 2019). Tangible–intangible heritage entanglements are bidirectional, non-linear and co-dependent. While critical heritage scholars increasingly reject a binary, the distinction between ‘tangible’ and ‘intangible’ heritage is still used by many: the former refers to physical sites, buildings and artefacts and the latter to practices, representations and expressions that individuals and communities recognize as heritage (Ahmad 2006; Vecco 2010). Festivals are integrative sites where tangible and intangible cultural heritage cohere and collide, with both positive and negative consequences. By integrative sites, Perry et al. (2019) mean festivals where the relationship between context and content is dynamic; where place, meaning and cultural expression combine. The logic of integra-tive sites further implies plural levels of meaning within festivals themselves, resisting narrow typological differentiations. Festivals provide mechanisms through which plural heritage meanings can be surfaced and valued in the search for more sustainable urban transformations. Festivals can be studied for their subjective and historic meanings of place and culture, as well as their contribution to local economies and tourism strategies.

In a wider context, Perry et al. (2018) argue that festivals offer a way of under-standing how international agendas around culture and sustainable develop-ment land in different places in the Global South and North. Global agendas around sustainable development have increasingly recognized the impor-tance of place – evident in international frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals, New Urban Agenda, Agenda 21 and Agenda 2063. In par-ticular, the urban has become vital for economic growth, social development and ecological sustainability; but cultural heritage has been systematically marginalized from many urban discussions. Despite global assertions that cultural heritage matters, how cultural heritage is activated varies in different contexts. A wide range of assumptions temper how policies are interpreted and actioned on the ground. Festivals can be not only viewpoints on processes of spatial change, but parts of wider processes of transformation.


Future research and practice directions

Recognizing the fluidity of heritage is a challenge for policymakers, particu-larly in a climate where top-down approaches to heritage can perpetuate reified notions of nationhood, identity and belonging. As Laurajane Smith (2006) stresses, heritage research should be discursive; we should not only celebrate and appreciate the value of material things that have been passed on from one generation to the next but also view heritage as a communicative act that encourages people to make meaning for the present day. Heritage can help us understand who we are, as well as who we want to be. Within this context, the project moved from focusing on heritage in terms of historic or meaningful locations to thinking about heritage as a contested subject bound up with con-cepts of memory, belonging, cultural value and the politics of power, history and ownership.

When thinking about the context and spatial dimensions of heritage, our case studies in Sweden and the Netherlands and review of festivals in the Global South and North emphasize the need to consider different sustainable devel-opment outcomes, especially when they relate to environmental issues con-cerning the natural environment or climate change. The ecologies of festivals and the impact they have on local environments formed an important part of the Dutch and Swedish case studies. The increased presence of people brought by events needs to be carefully managed to minimize any direct detrimental impact on the local natural (and built) heritage from waste, increased footfall and noise disturbances to local wildlife. Organizers should constantly eval-uate and re-evaluate different sustainable development outcomes, especially as they pertain to the natural environment and climate change. There is an ever-present risk that the environmental dimension of sustainable develop-ment is given less priority than the social and financial dimensions.

Finally, the practice and process of developing festivals are important. The more plural, participatory and collective a process, the greater the potential for unpacking the power of people in place in the festival context. Festivals as critical creative practice should be aiming to trouble, tease or tamper with, rather than perpetuate, the status quo. When festival organizers build in routes to participation in the activities they offer, barriers between spectators and per-formers can be eroded as they interact and become immersed in the temporal space of the festival. This opens up the possibility of a different kind of cultural politics. Access to resources is a key challenge in this respect; both in terms of enabling marginalized groups to develop their own cultural activities and also in providing opportunities for different communities to gain access to festival


events, particularly when ticket prices can prove a barrier to participation. Alternative coalitions and partnerships can help to enable marginalized groups to gain access to resources. This is particularly important in the context of the movement to question cultural appropriation and ask whose heritage matters.

Acknowledgements

In addition to funding from JPI Heritage Plus for the CHIME project, we also acknowledge the financial support of our Associate Partners, Mistra Urban Futures, in co-funding the festivals survey conducted in the Global North and South.

References

Aggett, B. (2016), ‘Building on the power of the past: a political analysis of North Sea Jazz’, MA thesis, University of Amsterdam.

Ahmad, Y. (2006), ‘The scope and definitions of heritage: from tangible to intangible’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 12 (3), 292–300.

Bohlman, P. and G. Plastino (eds) (2016), Jazz Worlds/World Jazz, Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cudny, W. (2016), Festivalisation of Urban Spaces: Factors, Processes and Effects, Lodz, Poland: Springer International Publishing.

Gabbard, K. (ed.) (1995), Jazz Among the Discourses, Durham NC and London: Duke University Press.

Gebhardt, N. (2016), ‘Screening the event: watching Miles Davis’ “My Funny Valentine”’, in J. Doctor, P. Elsdon and B. Heile (eds), Watching Jazz: Encountering Jazz on Screen, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 221–38.

Liimataine, M. (2016), ‘Town by the riverside – jazz som kulturarv i Göteborg’, Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg.

McKay, G. (ed.) (2015). The Pop Festival: History, Music, Media, Culture, New York and London: Bloomsbury.

McKay, G. (2018a), ‘Festivals’, in F. Martinelli (ed.), The History of European Jazz: The Music, Musicians, and Audience in Context, Sheffield, UK: Equinox, pp.407–17.

McKay, G. (2018b), ‘The heritage of slavery in British jazz festivals’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, doi: 10.1080/13527258.2018.1544165

Perry, B., L. Ager and R. Sitas (2018), ‘Festivals as Integrative Sites: Valuing Tangible and Intangible Heritage for Sustainable Development’, Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield.

Perry, B., L. Ager and R. Sitas (2019), ‘Cultural heritage entanglements: festivals as inte-grative sites for sustainable urban development’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, doi: 10.1080/13527258.2019.1578987

https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1544165

https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2019.1578987


Rusch, L. (2017), ‘A history of Dutch jazz festivals in thirty-some objects’, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: University of Amsterdam, accessed 9 May 2021 at http:// chimeproject .org/ wp -content/ uploads/ 2018/ 03/ CHIME -travelling -exhibition -2017 .pdf

Smith, L. (2006), Uses of Heritage, New York: Routledge.Stenbäck, O. (2017a), ‘Where’s it at tonight? Discovering an urban jazz festival in

Gothenburg, Sweden’, Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg, accessed 9 May 2021 at https:// gupea .ub .gu .se/ bitstream/ 2077/ 48858/ 1/ gupea _2077 _48858 _1 .pdf

Stenbäck, O. (2017b), ‘Revisiting Kvibergs kaserner – the home of GMLSTN JAZZ’, CHIMEProject.eu blog, accessed 9 May 2021 at http:// chimeproject .eu/ revisiting -kvibergs -kaserner -the -home -of -gmlstn -jazz/

Vecco, M. (2010) ‘A definition of cultural heritage: from the tangible to the intangible’, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11 (3), 321–4.

Webster, E. and G. McKay (2015), ‘The impact of (jazz) festivals’, Jazz Research Journal, 9 (2), 169–93.

Whyton, T. (2017), ‘Moving to higher ground: the changing discourse of European jazz 1960–1980’, European Journal of Musicology, 17 (1), 13–22.

Whyton, T. (2018), ‘Space is the place: European jazz festivals as cultural heritage sites’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, doi: 10.1080/13527258.2018.1517375

Wilders, M.L. and L. Rusch (2019), ‘Moving the audience: Dutch landscape experienced through the SummerJazzCycleTour’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, doi: 10.1080/13527258.2019.1583271

https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fchimeproject.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2FCHIME-travelling-exhibition-2017.pdf&data=04%7C01%7CLoes.Veldpaus%40newcastle.ac.uk%7Cdad0495525694404f48c08d913a2e79c%7C9c5012c9b61644c2a91766814fbe3e87%7C1%7C0%7C637562414154261104%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0&sdata=8ZqDbJS%2BeR1qSFQCv6B2z5H4%2Fd3g%2BJuiLarJMXJSU%2Fo%3D&reserved=0



https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/48858/1/gupea_2077_48858_1.pdf

https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/48858/1/gupea_2077_48858_1.pdf

http://chimeproject.eu/revisiting-kvibergs-kaserner-the-home-of-gmlstn-jazz/

http://chimeproject.eu/revisiting-kvibergs-kaserner-the-home-of-gmlstn-jazz/

https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1517375

https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2019.1583271

175

15 Cultural heritage at work for economy and society

Stefano Della Torre and Rossella Moioli

Increasing demand for integrated conservation strategies

Research on how to achieve more effective heritage management models is more and more timely, moving from preservation to a more integrated approach (Shuster et al. 1997; Malkki and Schmidt-Thomé 2010; European Commission 2015). The resources for conservation of cultural heritage are diminishing. Sustainability concerns are increasingly driving investments in the construction sector – including conservation of historic buildings – towards new models (among many others, see Cassar 2009; Pereira Roders and Van Oers 2011; Biscontin and Driussi 2014). Societal changes are challenging the bases of some traditional approaches to preservation of national memories, while the rapid development of mass culture is triggering unforeseen and sometimes odd forms of enjoyment of heritage sites. It is therefore necessary to build new attitudes: opening up to a new understanding of historic preserva-tion, investigating the relationships between the heritage sector and the issues of the economy and society, and highlighting the returns on investments in conservation beyond the narrow circle of the heritage sector.

The principal keyword of the research we present in this chapter is integra-tion – which is not new, as integrated conservation was one of the main ideas proposed in 1975 by the Council of Europe. The focus of the research is built heritage; meant not as a separate field, but as a crossroads to include single objects as well as landscape, as the observed changes hold for all the scales and values. Integration concerns both domains and timescales. On the one hand, recent research points out the potential of the heritage sector as a factor for integrated policies concerning all four pillars of sustainability (CHCfE Consortium 2015). On the other hand, as arguments increasingly rise against large restoration works, a slow paradigm shift has been observed towards


Planned Preventive Conservation, Maintenance and Monitoring (Van Balen and Vandesande 2013), which entails a long-term vision. The main benefits of this new approach are expected to be cost-effectiveness for private owners and managers of historic properties, improved quality of protection of built heritage, environmental enhancement and also the empowerment of local communities, producing an increase in the human and relational capital available in a local context. The correct evaluation of these impacts is an issue, however, as available figures are often vitiated by advocacy or by an underes-timation of some effects that are understood as pure externalities (Van Balen and Vandesande 2016).

In the last few years, international research has argued that long-term care could be a very effective strategy to manage changes – in a framework of learn-ing environments, where heritage is understood as a tool for the production of social and human capital. We have observed a gap, however, when it comes to knowledge about the practical possibility of integrating the preventive con-servation mindset and practices into the operational frames of comprehensive conservation programmes relying on agreements between different actors.

The CHANGES project aimed at contributing to closing this gap through an exploration of the potentialities of integrated approaches to cultural heritage management. We identified and compared empirical experiences, mainly by desk analysis and by action research (involving and interviewing stakeholders), in order to pinpoint the characteristics of effective models capable of including the diversity of European cultural heritage, and to identify the skills required to support the transition in built heritage activities. In order to define these skills and models, we studied the economic mechanisms underlying built heritage conservation in the context of the regional economy and the wider construc-tion sector. The ultimate ambition was to enhance knowledge in heritage man-agement (and relevant supply chains), especially on funding schemes, where an actual demand has been recognized (Pickard 2009).

Framing three empirical models

Three main models were explored. The Monumentenwacht organization, as practised in the Netherlands and the Flanders province of Belgium, focuses on regular inspection and maintenance (Van Hees et al. 2015). The ‘Halland model’ experience in Sweden used funds for unemployment relief to recover buildings at risk, aiming at training workers and creating new jobs (Gustafsson 2009). And the Distretti Culturali programme developed in Italy aims at coor-

Figure 15.1 Workflow of the conservation process, pointing out the phases covered by the analysed models

CULTURAL HERITAGE AT WORK FOR ECONOMY AND SOCIETY 177

dinating public and private investments in order to reach higher standards of empowerment, involvement and management (Barbetta et al. 2013).

The research involved a systemic comparison of the models within their specific contexts, in order to better understand the different approaches and to prepare the applied actions. The comparison required a preliminary under-standing of the main differences, identifying in which phases of the process the models act. For this purpose, a simplified chart of the conservation process was drafted, highlighting the core aims, outputs and outcomes of each model (Figure 15.1). This chart may be useful in the future to develop further reflec-tions on policies in the heritage sector.

The chart describes a double circular process, with an inner circle focused on use, prevention and maintenance, and a wider circle passing through major works, programmed and designed before being executed. Control and assess-ment are the gates for step-by-step decisions on whether regular maintenance is enough – thus keeping activities in the frame of a preventive conservation system – or whether major interventions are needed, going through the crucial step of the programme phase. Together, the two sub-processes compose one management and decision-making system (Della Torre 2018). This position-ing helps to clarify how the individual models contribute to conservation, while a further comparison helps to identify and describe the spillover effects produced.


The Monumentenwacht model is focused on the monitoring of the state of conservation, or condition assessment; occasionally also encompassing small maintenance works, but staying away from other phases. The model was devel-oped first in the Netherlands, then in Belgium, and other replicas have been set up in several European countries. Tested for several years, it has proved to be successful in the implementation of a preventive approach to conservation.

The Halland model and the Distretti Culturali were created in different politi-cal, economic, legal and societal frames. Although embracing different targets and priorities, they both work on the programme phase. They use similar approaches, based on the involvement of many different players, to face, in the meantime, the issues of funding conservation works, improving conservation practices and exploiting the making of heritage as a driver for local develop-ment. In order to describe these processes, we have applied the ‘trading zone’ model, implying that very different actors can be called to interact and to cooperate, crossing borders between heritage and other societal and economic sectors (Gustafsson 2009). This approach has been called ‘upstream’ (CHCfE Consortium 2015, 195–8), as benefits are realized even before the interventions on cultural heritage are carried out. Dialogues and agreements between the different sectors produce territorial capital and contribute to an environment in which cultural heritage is recognized as a resource, finds the support that is needed, and plays a role in sustainable development.

In order to analyse the different models, a comparative assessment of their impacts was carried out, addressing conservation quality, enhancement of the capacity and skills of the involved target groups, involvement of people and communities, market factors and support for decision-making.

‘Conservation Quality’ refers to the basic target of conservation of built cul-tural heritage and was the focus of our field activities. One of the issues was to detect if better conservation is obtained by means of regular and careful maintenance activities and/or better conservation works, enhanced thanks to better programmes, projects and more skilled execution (Van Roy 2019). The link between works and maintenance proved to be affected by the different practical and legal contexts.

Under ‘Enhancement of Capacity/Skills’, analyses were developed of the evolv-ing attitudes of players directly involved in the process; that is, decision-makers, technicians and professionals, public officers and enterprises.

‘Governance and Social Capital’ was split into three themes: (a) people/com-munity involvement; (b) impact on the market; (c) impact on decision-making.


The evolving relationships between different public and private actors were analysed through these themes.

CHANGES partners described their experiences in the three models according to these criteria. The discussion produced some preliminary findings and questions to be checked in the following applied research.

Insights from the applied research

The study of the Monumentenwacht model focused on the relationship with the owners, checking the follow-up of inspections and reports in order to develop insights into side effects of the programme’s implementation, such as empowerment of persons and community involvement (Van Balen and Vandesande 2015). These effects were born as pure externalities, but they are more and more regarded as targets to be pursued. A set of representative cases were directly studied for maintenance practices, the decision-making process and the skills and knowledge involved in the process (Vandesande 2017; Van Roy et al. 2018). A critical review was carried out of the reception of Monumentenwacht reports by owners: the social and legal boundary con-ditions turned out to be crucial (Heinemann and Naldini 2018; Naldini et al. 2018). Thus, Monumentenwacht’s theoretical framework, and particularly its preventive conservation and monitoring tasks, were matched with practice. The effectiveness and quality of the interventions based on the reports were analysed, mainly through focus groups and questionnaires.

Observing together with the stakeholders the follow-up of the inspections, the CHANGES project developed new awareness about the relationship of the model to the conservation process at large – that is, beyond ordinary mainte-nance – and its effectiveness both in conservation and in popular involvement. A critical point was detected in the lack of control over the suggested works, the quality of which did not meet expectations. Many stakeholders under-lined how continuous care of historic properties is often impaired by a lack of budgeted resources. The problem seems to arise both over exceptional events (earthquakes, floods, fires, and so on) and more ordinary needs. Even clearly foreseen maintenance costs are seldom covered in private and public budgets. The CHANGES research highlighted some tested and implemented tools to carry out cost estimations, which should be integrated into facility management practices in order to budget planned and preventive conservation activities and promote effective risk preparedness.


The models that focus on the programme phase (Halland and Distretti Culturali) were evaluated on their final results: first, in terms of the quality of the carried-out works, and second, in terms of the continuity of the projects. That sustainability often proved to be an issue, as projects turned out to be unable to continue by themselves after a financed start-up, even if the imple-mentation of a better and continuous management system had been one of the targets.

In Sweden, a ten-years-after analysis was carried out, checking what happened to the buildings recovered thanks to the Halland project. The results were dif-ferent in each of the places involved, as the management systems were locally based and not coordinated by a centralized agency. Nevertheless, most build-ings were still used and correctly maintained, telling interesting stories about community involvement and awareness in the context where the ‘trading zone’ concept had been implemented (Gustafsson and Ijla 2018). In Italy, the research was framed by the follow-up of the Distretti Culturali programme (Della Torre 2015) in the Brianza and Valtellina areas. The results included improvements to practices of conserving and managing heritage properties, replicable models of public–private partnership (Moioli 2018; Moioli et al. 2018) and integrated actions as indicators of the attitude to innovation in problematic areas (Foppoli 2018).

The common lesson learned

As stated earlier, integration concerns timescales as well as fields. Previous studies on long-term conservation activities detected owners’ attitudes as a critical point, as owners do not seem willing to anticipate expenses for an advantage which has yet to be seen (Dann 2004). In line with this, practi-tioners have not been very interested in predictive cost analysis. Similarly, decision-makers tend to avoid risk management regarding big hazards, even if the effects of climate change have already been pointed out as factors which make these issues more and more dramatic (Cassar 2005). Even if there is a consensus about the convenience of preventive attitudes, behaviours are gen-erally described as unresponsive. In terms of behavioural economics (Thaler and Sunstein 2008), the detected unresponsive attitudes are not surprising. The strategies studied by CHANGES partners are not based on nudging but on empowerment tools which aim at enhancing stakeholders’ capacity to adopt conscious decisions. In the CHANGES project, owners’ attitudes were analysed and discussed while working in the field side by side with the stake-holders in different national contexts. This process detected the same basic


criticalities, but also other ones more specifically linked to the organization of budgets; these can be addressed by empowerment techniques (Di Porto and Rangone 2015).

The main added value of the CHANGES research is the comparison of approaches, which previously had been developed successfully but studied separately. The focus has been moved to more general common targets, highlighting the limits of current activities as well as their potentialities from a more integrated perspective. A relevant point was the detection of different weaknesses in different countries. The diversity of national contexts not only follows the legal frameworks, but also different cultural approaches to preservation and forms of professionalism. The comparative analysis showed that in some countries, interventions are controlled by professional architects, generally obtaining a better quality of conservation work, at least for protected buildings. However, there is a lack of regular inspections and maintenance. In other countries, inspections are regular even for not-listed historic buildings, but the interventions, although timely, are not controlled, resulting in a lack of quality. This is also due to the scarcity of qualified craftsmanship. In other cases, there are concerns about the lack of diagnostics and scientific support, which spoil conservation quality.

Based on the analysis, we argue that engagement, capacity-building and dissemination are key in making projects more sustainable and improving conservation quality. This implies a change in attitude and a new toolkit. Conservation experts are therefore called to implement not only hard skills, but also the soft skills required to cooperate and get integrated into more and more complex processes, consistent with the ‘trading zone’ concept (Moioli 2019).

Guidelines to optimize investments towards integrated benefits

The project has resulted in recommendations to policymakers and influencers for more effective and sustainable funding policies. The recommendations can be further developed according to the different national rules and cultural contexts.

A first pointer is that regular inspection and maintenance can improve phys-ical conservation by prevention, and can also empower people and involve communities. Policies should facilitate innovative practices that build on


traditions, rather than simply stressing traditional crafts. Changes in local/national approaches and regulations are needed in order to holistically address all phases of the integrated conservation process, and to get more stakeholders engaged.

Second, planned and preventive strategies should address the uses of the prem-ises and the interaction with the environment. An integrated understanding of sustainability entails a comprehensive approach to heritage. The analysed case studies show that an integrated approach is fundamental to enhancing decision-making and helping the management of the properties. Yet, while awareness has risen of the potentially positive impact of cultural heritage on economic development, the factors which influence the capability of the heritage sector to trigger economic activities still need to be better clarified. The link between heritage, creativity and the economy is often represented in confused or oversimplified ways, even though recent collection of empirical data supports the importance of integration (Cerisola 2019). Furthermore, it is crucial to enlarge the perspective of preventive and planned conservation to the historic urban landscape; that is, larger settings including unprotected buildings.

Third, a shift in the attitudes of owners and policymakers is needed, stepping from emergency to prevention and management (including maintenance and major interventions). This means that cost–benefit estimation analyses and risk management should be taken into account, encouraging informed budg-eting for conservation over the long run. The availability of grants, loans and other financial incentives, especially targeted at prevention and small repairs, proved to be effective in encouraging owners to procure activities of contin-uous care. Future research is needed to focus on the use of the findings and to develop more interoperable and user-friendly (digital) tools, both for cost evaluation and for knowledge management, while keeping in mind that each heritage object is unique and impossible to standardize.

Another point is that restoration of strategically chosen monuments can foster integrated projects, in which benefits are much more sustainable if incorpo-rating sound management systems and capacity-building actions. The shift towards more sustainable and resilient management of historic properties requires a change in attitudes. This change should be among the aims of any investment in the heritage field. Therefore, strategic interventions should be embodied in comprehensive plans managed at regional level. The analysed cases proved that well-designed actions can foster openness to innovation, enhance managerial skills and create alliances between the public and the


private sector, creating value by the ‘upstream’ cooperation between different sectors and supply chains.

A fifth point is that the engagement of stakeholders, including owners, citizens and decision-makers, is often critical, so that this issue has to be carefully addressed from the onset of any project, in the spirit of the Faro Convention. One of the issues is how to involve private owners in a ‘trading zone’ discussion on the public role of privately owned cultural heritage. Single actions are often unable to durably engage actors. Comprehensive projects, led by regional and urban authorities, proved to be more effective and sustainable through tailored measures for the engagement of citizens, while learning lessons about the many criticalities that can obstruct innovation processes. The adoption of new business models and public–private partnerships (PPP) could be effective, provided that targets are clearly formulated from the beginning and popular involvement is not overlooked (Boniotti and Della Torre 2016).

All the previous research questions refer to a pivotal discussion about what is meant by ‘development’, as too often there is confusion between development and growth. The mainstream attitude to consumption is hardly compatible with the long-term vision, sustainability and intergenerational fairness of historic preservation. Does historic preservation have the capability to make development fully sustainable? The project outcomes show that further inter-disciplinary research is needed, given the complexity of the analysed processes, and in order to transfer the outcomes not only within the pilot cases, but to a variety of stakeholders and society. We have studied effective models, but it is advisable to follow these over time, including the testing of new services, such as digital archives for filing reports, planning maintenance and budgeting costs in advance. Further evidence-based research is needed, as the implemen-tation of these schemes at the national level could work better if supported and monitored by research.

Relationships with stakeholders proved to be a key factor in all the national contexts involved, and this issue must be carefully dealt with in the future.

References

Barbetta, G.P., M. Cammelli and S. Della Torre (eds) (2013), Distretti culturali dalla teoria alla pratica, Bologna: Il Mulino.


Biscontin, G. and G. Driussi (eds) (2014), ‘Quale sostenibilità per il restauro?’ International Conference ‘Scienza e Beni Culturali’ proceedings, Venezia: Arcadia ricerche.

Boniotti, C. and S. Della Torre (2016), ‘Innovative funding and management models for the conservation and valorisation of public built cultural heritage’, in G. Biscontin and G. Driussi (eds), Eresia e Ortodossia Nel Restauro, Progetti e Realizzazione, Venezia: Arcadia Ricerche, 105–14.

Cassar, M. (2005), Climate Change and the Historic Environment, London: UCL, Centre for Sustainable Heritage.

Cassar, M. (2009), ‘Sustainable heritage: challenges and strategies for the twenty-first century’, ATP Bulletin, 40 (1), 3–11.

Cerisola, S. (2019), Cultural Heritage, Creativity and Economic Development, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

CHCfE Consortium (2015), Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe. Full Report, available at: http:// blogs .encatc .org/ cu lturalheri tagecounts foreurope/ outcomes/ (accessed 9 August 2018).

Dann, N. (2004), ‘Owners’ attitude to maintenance’, Context, 83, 14–16.Della Torre, S. (2015), ‘Shaping tools for built heritage conservation: from architectural

design to program and management. Learning from Distretti culturali’, in K. Van Balen and A. Vandesande (eds), Community Involvement in Heritage, Reflections on Cultural Heritage Theories and Practice 2, Antwerp: Garant, 93–101.

Della Torre, S. (2018), ‘The management process for built cultural heritage: preventive systems and decision making’, in K. Van Balen and A. Vandesande (eds), Innovative Built Heritage Models. Reflections on Cultural Heritage Theories and Practice 3, Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema, 13–20.

Di Porto, F. and N. Rangone (2015), ‘Behavioural sciences in practice: lessons for EU rulemakers’, in A. Alemanno and A. Sibony (eds), Nudge and the Law: A European Perspective (Modern Studies in European Law), Oxford and Portland: Hart, 29–59.

European Commission (2015), Getting Cultural Heritage to Work for Europe. Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on Cultural Heritage, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Foppoli, D. (2018), ‘Cultural heritage as a resource for regional sustainable develop-ment: the example of the Valtellina Cultural District in Italy’, in K. Van Balen and A. Vandesande (eds), Innovative Built Heritage Models. Reflections on Cultural Heritage Theories and Practice 3, Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema, 167–74.

Gustafsson, C. (2009), The Halland Model. A Trading Zone in Concert with Labour Market Policy and the Construction Industry, Aiming at Regional Sustainable Development, Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology.

Gustafsson, C. and A. Ijla (2018), ‘Building conservation as a catalyst for regional sustainable development. Halland model as planning and acting sphere’, in K. Van Balen and A. Vandesande (eds), Innovative Built Heritage Models. Reflections on Cultural Heritage Theories and Practice 3, Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema, 161–6.

Heinemann, H. and S. Naldini (2018), ‘The role of Monumentenwacht: 40 years theory and practice in the Netherlands’, in K. Van Balen and A. Vandesande (eds), Innovative Built Heritage Models. Reflections on Cultural Heritage Theories and Practice 3, Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema, 107–15.

Mälkki, M. and K. Schmidt-Thomé (eds), 2010, Integrating Aims: Built Heritage in Social and Economic Development, Aalto, Finland: Aalto University, School of Science and Technology, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies.

http://blogs.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope/outcomes


Moioli, R. (2018), ‘The spinning mill in Sulbiate: a place for changes’, in K. Van Balen and A. Vandesande (eds), Innovative Built Heritage Models. Reflections on Cultural Heritage Theories and Practice 3, Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema, 151–9.

Moioli, R. (2019), ‘The increasing relevance of soft skills in the conservation profes-sion’, in K. Van Balen and A. Vandesande (eds), Professionalism in the Built Heritage Sector. Reflections on Cultural Heritage Theories and Practice 4, Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema, 51–8.

Moioli R., C. Boniotti, A. Konsta and A. Pili (2018), ‘Complex properties manage-ment: preventive and planned conservation applied to the Royal Villa and Park in Monza’, Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 8 (2) (special issue: Preventive and Planned Conservation Approaches Applied to Built Heritage), 130–44.

Naldini, S., H. Heinemann and R. van Hees (2018), ‘Monumentenwacht and preventive conservation: changes’, in K. Van Balen and A. Vandesande (eds), Innovative Built Heritage Models. Reflections on Cultural Heritage Theories and Practice 3, Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema, 117–24.

Pereira Roders, A. and R. van Oers (2011), ‘Bridging cultural heritage and sustain-able development’, Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 1 (1), 5–14.

Pickard, R. (2009), Funding the Architectural Heritage: A Guide to Policies and Examples, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Schuster, J.M., J.D. Monchau, and C.A.E. Riley (eds) (1997), Preserving the Built Heritage: Tools for Implementation, Hanover, Salzburg: University Press of New England, Salzburg Seminar.

Thaler, R. and C. Sunstein (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Van Balen, K. and A. Vandesande (eds) (2013), Reflections on Preventive Conservation, Maintenance and Monitoring of Monuments and Sites by the PRECOM³OS UNESCO Chair, Leuven: ACCO.

Van Balen, K. and A. Vandesande (eds) (2015), Community Involvement in Heritage, Leuven: ACCO.

Van Balen, K. and A. Vandesande (eds) (2016), Heritage Counts, Antwerp: Garant.Van Hees, R., S. Naldini and T. Nijland (2015). The Importance of a Monumentenwacht

system. The Situation in North-Brabant, Delft: Delft University of Technology, TNO.Van Roy, N. (2019), Quality Improvement of Repair Interventions on Built Heritage.

A Framework for Quality Improvement Based on Stakeholder Collaboration through Knowledge Enhancement and Continuous Care, PhD thesis, Leuven: KU Leuven.

Van Roy, N., E. Verstrynge, A. Vandesande and K. Van Balen (2018), ‘Implementation of maintenance systems: investigation on efficacy of maintenance practices in Belgium’, in K. Van Balen and A. Vandesande (eds), Innovative Built Heritage Models. Reflections on Cultural Heritage Theories and Practice 3, Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema, 125–33.

Vandesande, A. (2017). Preventive Conservation Strategy for Built Heritage Aimed at Sustainable Management and Local Development, Thesis submitted in partial ful-filment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Engineering Science (PhD), Civil Engineering, University of Leuven.

187

16 Gastronomy and creative entrepreneurship in rural tourism: encouraging sustainable community development

Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist, Anna de Jong, Romà Garrido Puig, Giuseppa Romeo and Wilhelm Skoglund

Introduction

The tourism sector and associated planning processes are increasingly consid-ered important arenas for facilitating territorial economic, social and ecologi-cal sustainability (McAreavey and McDonagh 2011; WTO 2018). This includes the rediscovery of tangible and intangible natural and cultural resources, which both entrepreneurs and planners understand to be vital for rural development (cf. Boniface 2001; Skoglund and Sjölander-Lindqvist 2020). Within development policies, sustainability narratives are heavily utilized to emphasize the potentials of gastronomy tourism as a form of diversification for rural and urban areas. According to the Framework Convention on Tourism Ethics (WTO 2017), tourism has the potential to contribute, both directly and indirectly, to the achievement of sustainable development as outlined in Agenda 2030. Tourism, featured as a target for inclusive and sustainable economic growth, sustainable consumption/production and the sustainable use of land, oceans and marine resources, can be a powerful driver for the revitalization of, for example, redundant buildings and open spaces. It can also provide opportunities for sustaining traditional and contemporary cultural values. This requires raising awareness among different actors of the role his-torical, cultural and social factors can play in the sustainable management of heritage resources (Fava and Guardia Bassols 2017; de Jong and Varley 2018;


McAreavey and McDonagh 2011), as well as understanding the potentials and limitations of current efforts, policies and agendas.

Recognizing these imperatives, the GASTROCERT project studied the oppor-tunities and limitations associated with gastronomy initiatives at regional levels in different European settings. The project focused on four European locations; it explored the conditions, opportunities and limitations associ-ated with gastronomy and entrepreneurship in rural tourism. We included Calabria in Italy, the Girona province of Catalonia, the Highlands of Scotland and Jämtland in Sweden in our study to develop and support greater critical understanding of gastronomic heritage as a means of stimulating business competitiveness and balancing the globalization-caused fragmentation of local livelihoods (Jamal and Stronza 2009).

The four regions share with many other rural areas the trends of shrinking agricultural and fishing sectors, outmigration, declining service provision and reduced tax income bases, industrial transformation, ill health and environ-mental challenges such as climate change, reduced biodiversity and anthro-pogenic effects. In such areas, there exists a need to find ways to diversify the economy to increase employment, enlarge the tax base and support sustainable business revenue growth (Hjalager 1996; Johns and Mattsson 2005). A study of how gastronomy efforts and associated planning processes worked in such contexts was understood to enhance knowledge regarding the relationship between localized food production inspired by cultural heritage, tourism and planning.

Conceptual framing: gastronomy, rurality and creativity

To address the fragmented character of European rural areas and to allow understanding of the power dynamics and the potential of each region’s rich natural larder and extensive food heritage, the study concerned itself with the construction through which gastronomy, entrepreneurship and rural tourism intersect. To reaffirm the importance of interdisciplinary critical research, participatory exercises were carried out at the local level in which participants from the public sector, non-governmental organizations, businesses and aca-demia explored and identified the nuances and complexity of practice. This component aimed to support dialogue across sectors (Marcianò and Romeo 2019).

GASTRONOMY AND CREATIVE ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN RURAL TOURISM 189

The study began from ‘gastronomy’ as an all-encompassing approach to food and drink, relating to the cultural and material processes through which certain things become consumable (Richards 2002; Scarpato 2002); and the notion of the ‘rural’ as embracing the social, cultural and economic dimensions of the human presence in areas beyond those more densely populated (Butler 2011).

The concepts of ‘creativity’ and ‘creative entrepreneurship’ were used to understand entrepreneurial efforts in the sector and how these businesses, in order to be competitive, add something ‘more’ and ‘new’ (Pine II and Gilmore 1998). In other words, through using human and creative capital such as collective memories, traditional skills or local renowned people, the entrepre-neurs, building symbolic value, bring new dimensions to development. This innovative use of different cultural dimensions, and the tangible and intangible properties of places and landscapes, supports the development and creation of new employment opportunities and stimulates economic growth (Johannisson 1990). Further arguments are provided by Pine II and Gilmore (2014), who state that businesses, to be competitive, must customize products and charge them with authenticity: a development that will eventually transform busi-ness behaviour throughout the advanced economies. While criticized for lacking conceptual rigour (Galloway and Dunlop 2007), the creative economy approach is also valued because it unites people who are passionate in their desire to reshape places, work, art, cities and so on (Howkins 2001 [2013]). It has arisen as more or less unavoidable in redirecting the futures of deindustri-alized places and areas (Hesmondhalgh 2002). Increasingly utilized in cultural policy and hospitality-industry strategies and agendas, ‘gastronomy tourism’ is acknowledged as an opportunity to encourage agriculture, support local businesses and enhance the visitor experience, hence supporting strength-ened cultural identity and a connection between people, places and cultural landscapes (Richards 2011; Sims 2009). Also, instead of globalization fostering cultural homogenization and disrupted places (Everett and Aitchison 2008; Ritzer 2011), distinctiveness is promoted through local entrepreneurship, policy measures and tourism development efforts (de Jong and Varley 2018).

Creative-industry development and tourism can of course have both positive and negative outcomes for communities and the preservation of natural and cultural resources. Benefits include community pride, provision of jobs and household income, building of social capital and a stronger sense of cultural identity (Besculides et al. 2002). Through the practices of production and consumption, a sense of belonging to an area is created and reinforced (Sjölander-Lindqvist and Cinque 2014). There may also be disbenefits. Such consequences include disrupted connections to land for residents; hierarchi-zation when certain heritage is celebrated while other memories, traditions


and practices are not proclaimed as valuable resources; and degradation of ecosystems (Briassoulis 2002). There may also be disputes when community members experience development in this direction as augmenting dilution and gentrification when planners prioritize idyllic settings to attract tourists before the continuous support of, for example, local fisheries (George et al. 2009; Stockdale 2010). In this sense, gastronomy can be a tourism resource of cultural value that might be representative of peoples and territories (Armesto and Gómez 2006) and contribute to the identity formation of postmodern societies (Richards 2002). However, if not elaborated, social injustice grows, negative environmental conditions intensify and economic revenues drop when tourists become disappointed with the values offered by the destination (Briassoulis 2002).

At the intersection of rural tourism, gastronomy and entrepreneurship

Food and gastronomy-related activities are important because they add vitality to rural communities. In Jämtland and the Highlands, a craft beer trend is stimulating the development of small-scale craft breweries (Figure 16.1). As the interest in and status of craft beer have increased, so has the demand to visit the cities and towns, production sites and people behind these beers (Nilsson 2007; Skoglund and Sjölander-Lindqvist 2020). The growing interest in ‘local’ food and drink, celebrating and fostering authenticity and the link between producer and place, contests global food homogenization (Everett and Aitchison 2008; Leitch 2003); it is also a way to encourage everyday life, small-scale agricultural practices and handcrafted food preparation for sus-tainable development at a regional level. This trend, referred to by some as ‘normative localism’ (DuPuis and Goodman 2005) or as ‘neolocalism’ (Flack 1997; Pezzi 2017), denotes, in short, a desire to ‘reconnect’ (Fava et al. 2018; Kneafsey et al. 2008) the producer with the consumer. It also illustrates associ-ations between a particular product or service and the producer, through place, landscape and cultural identities (Kneafsey et al. 2008). This is seen not least in the case of craft beer production in Jämtland, where the producers name the beers after a certain locally known place, sceneries of landscape and places or local people (Skoglund and Sjölander-Lindqvist 2020).

Potential for destination development is acknowledged both nationally and internationally, but effective implementation requires awareness of several complicating factors. One of the sources of tension is how to expand produc-tion without losing the fundamental ‘local’ and ‘traditional’ attributes. Indeed,

Source: Wilhelm Skoglund.

Figure 16.1 Brewery in Jämtland, Sweden


increased production levels might ‘devalue’ the local produce, be it through self-imposed or formal certification demands. In the case of the certified Calabrian Caciocavallo di Ciminà cheese, it is difficult to scale up production because the cheese must be produced with milk obtained from cows that graze on local pasture for as long as they can. When this is not possible, the process itself has to shift and the cultural heritage connection is diluted. Another tension is that entrepreneurs might not primarily aim at growth in a ‘tradi-tional’ sense. Instead of increasing revenues, raising profits or growing in size, several take an alternative road, centring their work on other dimensions: the social and the cultural but also the ecological. This is, in business terms and in the context of the growth economy, a rather unusual perspective; it links with the concept of community entrepreneurship in which the notion of the local and immediate environment of the entrepreneur motivates and legitimizes activity (Johannisson 1990). In our study, the entrepreneurs demonstrated a strong wish to contribute to development, based on a desire to strengthen local community spirit and livelihoods (Palladino et al. 2019). A sustainable and trustworthy destination development discourse should therefore include greater awareness among policymakers that small-scale producers are often driven by passion, lifestyle choices and care of the local context and commu-nity, as well as maintaining value by remaining flexible, small and sustainable. However, according to several of our studied entrepreneurs, policymakers often tend to focus more on traditional economic growth perspectives such as


scaling up production, exporting and growing in numbers. It is also important to question if local food promotion is effective in destinations with low average income, limited carrying capacity and long distribution routes. If policymakers and entrepreneurs find it viable to promote gastronomy and tourism efforts, these limitations and opportunities (such as the emerging trends of recycling of food waste into food products, vegan food, element hospitality and slow adventure tourism) should be discussed and considered against local and regional development dimensions.

The attractions of marketing distinctive food practices, ingredients and styles to visitors may also come with significant global economic, social and envi-ronmental impacts (Briassoulis and van der Straaten 2013). User pressure, including increased energy consumption and subsequent emissions (tourism contributed approximately 5 per cent to global anthropogenic emissions of CO2 in 2005); sewage; litter; cultural commodification; wage inequality; absentee ownership and other consequences often follow leisure and tourism development (UNEP 2012). With around 1.2 billion tourists travelling around the world, tourism represents approximately 10 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP), one in ten jobs and 7 per cent of global exports. In addition to its environmental impact, it has a decisive capacity to contribute to the achievement of the social and economic goals of the 2030 Agenda. This calls for actions that can support environmental protection and landscape diversity, while also providing livelihood opportunities in the broadest terms. While tourism can be harmful to the support systems for the unique qualities of places and landscapes, it may also be an important driver of diversification, innovation and employment (Hjalager 1996).

Another ecological sustainability challenge was detected in craft beer pro-duction, where producers felt the need to import hops and malt from the US, New Zealand and central Europe in order to enable consistent high-quality production of pale ales and similar types of ales or beers. Processes have started to replace these grains with locally grown ones, which could further charge the products with ‘local value’, as well as lowering the environmental impact of production.

Successful support measures

While there are environmental challenges, gastronomic heritage and its role in tourism development in rural areas can aid economic and social resilience. Our study reveals a number of favourable activities that respect this fine line. From


a policy perspective, a beneficial path could be to increase the size of ancillary activities to support entrepreneurial diversification, which is often a neces-sary livelihood strategy in remote locations. As we have found, strengthened support systems for tourism and the cultural and creative industries could include providing common transport and logistics systems, arranging tra-ditional business courses and inspiring further exchange of knowledge and opportunities to collaborate with other gastronomy actors. The availability of locally sourced food not only shortens transportation routes but also plays an important role in bringing cities and rural communities together. By improv-ing low-cost and environmentally friendly opportunities for distribution and logistics of goods, alternative economies and creative livelihood solutions can prosper. Such development supports and sustains rural development.

Additionally, public markets, festivals and celebrations are also significant in attracting tourists searching for ‘authentic’ experiences and ‘local’ produce that can bring them closer to the local region and day-to-day social practices (Fava et al. 2018; Nicolosi et al. 2017). It is therefore important to provide opportuni-ties such as food markets for the tasting and buying of products that come from the region. Cooking workshops, as offered by the Espai del Peix in Palamós, Girona, where fresh fish unloaded at the port and its culinary heritage are promoted, is an example of an activity that can support awareness and interest in local gastronomy and livelihood traditions.

As a further example, although in decline, the fishing industry remains of high cultural significance on Scotland’s west coast. For this reason, tourism actors value the symbols, performances and discourses of the fishing industry in the development of tourist destinations. In organizing a local food festival in the Scottish town of Mallaig, organizers focused on reinterpreting the spaces and symbols of the fishing industry, in attempts to add authenticity to the food tourism experience. Images of ‘fresh’, ‘wild’ langoustines, scallops, crab and herring, and the hard-working, working-class, masculine fisherman were central framings through which marketing promotion unfolded, ensuring that the fishing industry remained central to the concerns of the tourist industry (de Jong and Varley 2018). Hence, tourism might cause changing roles and responsibilities within rural communities where those from the tourism indus-try and the policy sector hold the potential to determine place development. Dialogue and collaboration between actors must be in place to build a deep-ened sense of cohesion across levels.


Conclusion

In these times, gastronomy has moved far beyond a focus on the consumption of food and drink. Connections between taste, culture and production are important not only to tourists but also to the entrepreneurs themselves. For example, when craft beer brewers refer to local mythology in company names, product stories and product names, they build a competitive edge (Murray and Kline 2015). They do this also by relating to natural, cultural and social worlds and reproducing collective memories, cultural heritage and socially binding frameworks (Zerubavel 1996). When human and creative capital are used instead of price in the competition for consumers’ interest, a web of images and feelings associated with the locality – which includes traits of landscape, cultural heritage and people – is woven, and a sense of belonging to the area is created or reinforced (Sjölander-Lindqvist and Cinque 2014). This suggests that entrepreneurship is more than an economic pursuit: it is an inherently social practice that is part of a certain sociocultural milieu. From this perspec-tive, the entrepreneur is a mediating agent whose acts reflect distinct social and cultural spheres and coincide with how mnemonic entrepreneurship informs the revitalization of rural areas (Sjölander-Lindqvist and Cinque 2014). Hence, the social and cultural dimensions of food make it a feasible and potential ‘vehicle’ for innovation and knowledge-creation that can support and drive regional development. This emphasizes its relevance for rural and regional business and policy development strategies, as well as its value in terms of research within rural development connected to tourism. The findings of this study are applicable to similar rural regions where gastronomy is picking up pace and producing direct and indirect opportunities in relation to employ-ment and new business development.

Policy is often built upon traditional industrial paradigms, with growth and profit as key components. Small-scale food producers are often driven by passion, lifestyle choices and care of the local context and community, as well as by a philosophy to remain flexible, small and sustainable. As entrepreneurs place emphasis on sustainability matters, utilizing local and regional gas-tronomy in tourism has the capacity to serve as somewhat of a role model in business development, thereby increasing attractiveness and symbolic value among local and external consumers, as well as boosting tourism development opportunities. Developing sustainable and trustworthy destination develop-ment discourse should include the building of stronger linkages between pro-ducers, service providers and policymakers. Future studies should therefore be attentive towards the capacity of local food promotion to be an effective and sustainable means for development in destinations with low average income,


limited carrying capacity and long distribution routes. If policymakers and entrepreneurs find it viable to promote gastronomy and tourism efforts, this viability needs to be further explored. So also do the role of networking and collaboration in overcoming the barriers and obstacles of being small and peripheral, and how disadvantages in terms of location can be turned into something with positive value.

References

Armesto, X.A. and B. Gómez (2006). ‘Tourism and quality agro-food products: an opportunity for the Spanish countryside’, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 97 (2), 166–77.

Besculides, A., M.E. Lee and P.J. McCormick (2002), ‘Residents’ perceptions of the cultural benefits of tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (2), 303–19.

Boniface, P. (2001), Dynamic Tourism: Journeying with Change, Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Briassoulis, H. (2002), ‘Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons’, Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (4), 1065–85.

Briassoulis, H. and J. Van der Straaten (2013), Tourism and the Environment: Regional, Economic, Cultural and Policy Issues, Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media, B.V.

Butler, R.W. (2011), ‘Sustainable tourism and the changing rural scene in Europe’, in D.V.L. Macleod and S.A. Gillespie (eds), Sustainable Tourism in Rural Europe, London and New York: Routledge, 15–27.

De Jong, A. and P. Varley (2018), ‘Food tourism and events as tools for social sustaina-bility’, Journal of Place Management and Development, 11 (3), 277–95.

DuPuis, E.M. and D. Goodman (2005), ‘Should we go “home” to eat? Toward a reflexive politics of localism’, Journal of Rural Studies, 21 (3), 359–71.

Everett, S. and C. Aitchison (2008), ‘The role of food tourism in sustaining regional identity: a case study of Cornwall, South West England’, Sustainable Tourism, 16 (2), 150–67.

Fava, N. and M. Guardia Bassols (2017), ‘Territori del cibo e nuovi spazi di socialità’, in L. Fontana (ed.), Food and the City, Venezia: Marsilio, 225–36.

Fava, N., M. Carrasco Bonet and R. Garrido Puig (2018), ‘Foodsheds and the role of public markets in the Provincia of Girona’, in J. Schröder, M. Carta, M. Ferretti and B. Lino (eds), Dynamics of Periphery. Atlas for Emerging Creative and Resilient Habitat, Berlin: Jovis Verlag GmbH, 238–50.

Flack, W. (1997), ‘American microbreweries and neolocalism: “Ale-ing” for a sense of place’, Cultural Geography, 16 (2), 37–53.

Galloway. S. and S. Dunlop (2007), ‘A critique of definitions of the cultural and creative industries in public policy’, International Journal of Public Policy, 13 (1), 17–31.

George, E.W., H. Mair and D.G. Reid (2009), Rural Tourism Development – Localism and Cultural Change, Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2002), The Cultural Industries, London: Sage. Hjalager, A.M. (1996), ‘Agricultural diversification into tourism: evidence of a European

Community development programme’, Tourism Management, 17 (2), 103–11.


Howkins, J. (2013), The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas, London: Penguin. Originally published 2001.

Jamal, T. and A. Stronza (2009), ‘Collaboration theory and tourism practice in pro-tected areas: stakeholders, structuring and sustainability’, Sustainable Tourism, 17 (2), 169–89.

Johannisson, B. (1990), ‘Community entrepreneurship – cases and conceptualization’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 2 (1), 71–88.

Johns, N. and J. Mattsson (2005), ‘Destination development through entrepreneurship: a comparison of two cases’, Tourism Management, 26 (4), 605–16.

Kneafsey, M., R. Cox, L. Holloway, E. Dowler, L. Venn and H. Tuomainen (2008), Reconnecting Consumers, Producers and Food: Exploring Alternatives, Oxford: Berg.

Leitch, A. (2003), ‘Slow food and the politics of pork fat: Italian food and European identity’, Ethnos, 68 (4), 437–62.

Marcianò, C. and G. Romeo (2019), ‘Action research and participatory decision-aid models in rural development: the experience of “Terre Locridee” local action group in Southern Italy’, in F. Calabrò, L. Della Spina and C. Bevilacqua (eds), New Metropolitan Perspectives, Cham: Springer, 29–41.

McAreavey, R. and J. McDonagh (2011), ‘Sustainable rural tourism: lessons for rural development’, Sociologia Ruralis, 51 (2), 175–94.

Murray, A. and C. Kline (2015), ‘Rural tourism and the craft beer experience: factors influencing brand loyalty in rural North Carolina, USA’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23 (8/9), 1198–216.

Nicolosi A., L. Cortese, G. Romeo, V.R. Laganà, M. Petullà and C. Marcianò (2017), ‘Erratic behavior and beauty of Costa Viola: sea villages heroic viticulture and gastro-nomic tourism’, Proceedings of the 20th IPSAPA/ISPALEM International Scientific Conference, Udine, 269–87.

Nilsson, M. (2007), Den hemlige kocken. Det okända fusket med maten på din tallrik, Stockholm: Ordfront.

Palladino, M., C. Cafiero and C. Marcianò (2019), ‘The role of social relations in promoting effective policies to support diversification within a fishing commu-nity in Southern Italy’, in F. Calabrò, L. Della Spina and C. Bevilacqua (eds), New Metropolitan Perspectives, Cham: Springer, 124–33.

Pezzi, M.G. (2017), ‘From peripheral hamlet to craft beer capital: Appechio and the Alogastronomia’, Italian Journal of Planning Practice, 7 (1), 154–85.

Pine II, B.J. and J.H. Gilmore (1998), ‘Welcome to the experience economy’, Harvard Business Review, July–August, 97–105.

Pine II, B.J. and J.H. Gilmore (2014), ‘A leader’s guide to innovation in the experience economy’, Strategy & Leadership, 42 (1), 24–9.

Richards, G. (2002), ‘Gastronomy: an essential ingredient in tourism production and consumption’, in A-M. Hjalager and G. Richards (eds), Tourism and Gastronomy, London and New York: Routledge, 3–20.

Richards, G. (2011), ‘Creativity and tourism: the state of the art’, Annals of Tourism Research, 38 (4), 1225–53.

Ritzer, G. (2011), The McDonaldization of Society, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scarpato, R. (2002), ‘Gastronomy as a tourist product: the perspective of gastronomy

studies’, in A-M. Hjalager and G. Richards (eds), Tourism and Gastronomy, London and New York: Routledge, 51–70.

Sims, R. (2009), ‘Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism experience’, Sustainable Tourism, 17 (3), 321–36.


Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. and S. Cinque, (2014), ‘Locality management through cultural diversity’, Food, Culture and Society, 17 (1), 143–60.

Skoglund, W. and A. Sjölander-Lindqvist (2020), ‘Caring for community through crafted beer: perspectives from North Sweden’, in G. Pezzi (ed.), Agritourism, Wine Tourism, and Craft Beer Tourism: Local Responses to Peripherality through Tourism Niches, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 208–25.

Stockdale, A. (2010), ‘The diverse geographies of rural gentrification in Scotland’, Journal of Rural Studies, 26 (1), 31–40.

UNEP (2012), Annual Report 2012. Division of Communications and Public Information.

WTO (World Tourism Organization) (2017), Framework Convention on Tourism Ethics. Madrid: UNWTO.

WTO (World Tourism Organization) (2018), Tourism for Development – Volume I: Key Areas for Action. Madrid: UNWTO.

Zerubavel, E. (1996), ‘Social memories: steps to a sociology of the past’, Qualitative Sociology, 19 (3), 283–99.

PART III

Research agenda for heritage planning. Perspectives for Europe (and beyond)

201

17 Towards a more just world: an agenda for transformative heritage planning futures

Loes Veldpaus, Višnja Kisić, Eva Stegmeijer and Joks Janssen

In this final chapter we address the key questions we consider to lie ahead for heritage planning, when pushing new practice and research frontiers. We build on and take forward the points made in Parts I and II, as well as discussions with authors and other heritage planning experts in academia and practice. We touch on those heritage issues that we believe could contribute to a more just, diverse and sustainable world. With this agenda, we aim to enrich and inspire both practice and research directions by suggesting new, combined, continued and alternative perspectives on doing, studying and reflecting on heritage planning. We focus on conceptual and thematic ways forward, sup-ported by methodological, governance and funding considerations. There are many angles to be explored, numerous ideas to be shared and actions to be undertaken. This agenda is but a small contribution.

Heritage planning and contemporary challenges

Spatial planning operates in a world full of context: tabula scripta. Developing spatial policies, plans and designs for the future always requires interaction with pre-existing conditions: structures, creations, ideas, uses, values, pollu-tions and other historic layers. Engaging with them can be seen as a restriction, or as an opportunity to work with the potential of place. We would therefore argue that, conceptually, all spatial planning is a form of heritage planning. Conversely, heritage planning cannot be limited to what is formally designated or listed. As also discussed in the introduction to this book (Chapter 1), formal definitions of heritage, as for example used in European policy contexts, have become much broader over time (Veldpaus et al. 2019).


Forging more direct links between heritage and planning in terms of policy and process has been one of the main items on the international agenda of heritage conservation in the twenty-first century. The relationship established between the two practices is more dynamic and increasingly aligned with wider societal challenges, such as sustainability and human rights agendas (e.g. CoE 2005; EU 2019; UNESCO 2011; UN-HABITAT 2016). While integrating with these wider agendas seems a logical step, the role that heritage planning could play in the context of the immense challenges our contemporary world is facing may feel insignificant. In the face of the climate breakdown, finan-cial crises, growing wealth inequalities, social and spatial injustice, political radicalization and a global pandemic affecting, threatening and changing life across the world, one may easily wonder what heritage planning can really do to contribute to solving these problems. A whole lot, we think!

Heritage planning, we argue here, has a role in creating, addressing and tack-ling the various crises and associated challenges. The agenda presented in this chapter aims to challenge the foundations of heritage and planning as practices and disciplines, as well as their integration and their role(s) in wider agendas. As this book shows, current research in heritage planning tends to be largely focused on understanding the impact that diverse challenges have on (built) heritage, in order to then manage and mitigate these ‘threats’ for the sake of heritage safeguarding. However, there is also a visible shift towards research that considers the roles and impacts – both positive and negative – of heritage planning in addressing societal challenges.

As became evident in Part II of this book, various ideas are entering and chang-ing heritage planning research and practices; for example, looking at the impact of the process of integrating heritage and planning domains, and deconstruct-ing the idea that certain things are inherently heritage. Heritage definitions are becoming more inclusive, in response to long-standing critiques that heritage is too often about a very limited and defined set of buildings, voices and values (Dicks 2000; Hosagrahar et al. 2016). This comes with the reconceptualisation of heritage as an iterative process and practice of (re)selecting, (re)interpreting and (re)presenting the past, rather than defining heritage as (just) a material asset with aesthetic and historic value.

As this book illustrates, heritage planning is a highly contextual process which takes place within a setting of complex regulatory frameworks, institutional processes, practices, funding, political and policy priorities, at various spatial and governance scales. Risks, roles and responsibilities vary and change, as they move between private, public and other-than-public actors (Rex 2018; Veldpaus and Pendlebury 2019). This book also underlines both the delay and

TOWARDS A MORE JUST WORLD 203

reciprocity between critique and change in the heritage and planning fields and highlights the need to move beyond the current focus on the ‘how’ of heritage planning. We need to also address what we intend heritage planning to do, and what it actually does, and to whom.

Our aim is to encourage wider, broadly engaged perspectives on heritage planning that contribute to addressing contemporary challenges in a compre-hensive manner and enhance creative ways of knowing and doing. We do this by deepening and broadening the issues and questions that this book poses regarding its three pivotal themes: social, environmental and developmental perspectives in and on heritage planning. We question the dominant frame-works of governance and interpretation, highlighting alternative perspectives on them. We end by exploring the need to question the structures and frame-works that govern how we think and do our research and work in heritage planning today. Finally, at the core of the agenda we are proposing is the idea that heritage planning helps us pose questions that could be at the centre of diverse movements for making the world a more just, diverse and sustainable place.

Social justice: beyond identity politics and the governance of inclusion

Over recent decades, there has been increasing attention to the positive role heritage plays in societal dynamics like participation, cohesion and identity formation. Studies of these ‘desirable’ characteristics are widely called for and funded, making it more important to recognize that heritage can just as well be used to curate, police and destroy identities and communities (Anderson 1983; Hall 1999). Working towards social justice means we need to recognize these processes, and thus scrutinize our actions as researchers, practitioners, volunteers, donors and policymakers in the field. We need to be willing to change and leave behind some of those actions and ideas. Chapters in this book touch upon the importance of the societal and social dimensions in heritage planning, either through engaging with participatory processes and tools (e.g. Chapter 7 Micoli et al.; Chapter 15 Della Torre and Moioli) or by acknowledg-ing the hidden, marginalized and not-so-obvious layers of heritage (Chapter 8 Fiorentini et al.; Chapter 14 Whyton and Perry). These examples show how heritage planning practice is reorienting itself, as well as how reflections from research can help with this process. Participation, of course, does not automatically lead to social justice, just as diversifying the heritage offer does not by definition create equality. Social injustices and inequalities are systemic


and structural issues which are deeply rooted in both heritage and planning practices and policies. This is why, in the following paragraphs, we suggest topics and approaches that can help address these, without shying away from the tensions and contestations that arise along the way. We hope our questions will open up pathways towards a more just world.

Co-governance: collaboration, participation, inclusionEven though expert-led decision-making remains the norm, especially in formal planning contexts, talk about civic engagement in heritage is growing, as is the number of experiments and initiatives in this area. In both policy and practice there is growing receptiveness to the idea of citizens emancipating themselves from being heritage consumers to being active partners, engaging in new interpretations of heritage. The road from desirable ideas to estab-lished practices is, however, not paved at all and is rutted with multiple future challenges and negotiations. Indeed, the questions and suggestions raised throughout the book, as well as in the interviews we have undertaken, address the processes of partnership and participation. They show the need for looking at the roles of expectations, collaborations and power relations; they underline the current lack of diversity in the field, as well as the (practical) challenges of participation and inclusion. A lot of these concerns come down to the ques-tion: how do we make participatory governance fundamental, valuable and ethical and not just the obligatory tick-box?

As argued by many, participatory processes, which come in many different shapes, forms and models, don’t automatically make things better (Kaza 2006; Meléndez and Parker 2019; Song 2015). We can never include everyone and everything all the time, so it is important to be open and clear about expec-tations and aims for those processes, as well as the governance models used. Within the existing structures, we can ask who is willing and able to participate in the first place. Who ‘allows’ and ‘tolerates’, and who is being ‘allowed’ and ‘tolerated’ in the process? But also, to what degree are space, resources and funding accessible to and claimed by, for example, other-than-public and non-governmental organizations, citizens and community groups? There are of course also questions regarding the practical side to this; for example, how tools and technologies can support, define or impede processes of partici-pation, plural interpretations and collaboration. By looking at the structural and institutional capacities and arrangements, we may be able to change procedures too. All of this would require institutional and policy change, and reconsidering everyday routines, practices and procedures.


Power relations are important here, and we can learn from available work on co-governance, community organizing (e.g. Cahuas 2019; Emejulu 2011) and urban commons (e.g. Dellenbaugh et al. 2015; Foster and Iaione 2015). This includes research on the ethics of co-governance and participatory processes; how they construct and deny identities and heritage meanings and how they can be fair and sustainable. We can also learn from models of dealing with con-flict and contestation within co-organizing and co-governance arrangements, which could involve looking at consensus- or competency-led governance, as well as resistance, activism and protest as valid forms of participation. Practising and researching the ‘refusal to participate’, for instance, and having the right not to share or negotiate legacies, practices and heritages is another line we could be exploring (Salt 2020). Because what else is there, when the context you are in denies or threatens your very being? It would be helpful to (further) develop collaborative practices between practice and research, and learn from each other, by being involved in each other’s worlds and reflecting on them. This could be done through embedded, ethnographic, co-creative work, reflective workshops or action-research methods, as well as through working cross-boundary, using visual, archival, social, archaeological, techni-cal and medical research, and critically exploring intersections and implica-tions. In all this work, it will be important to consider our own positionality in collaborations, and not construct ourselves outside of them.

Embracing dissonance: exploring plural interpretations and contestations As Hall (1999) tells us, preserving things of value for posterity has always been related to the exercise of power, in which specific things are foregrounded just as other episodes and perspectives are forgotten. The selections, under-standings and interpretations of heritage, and whether and how these embrace dissonances and plurality, are thus challenges closely related to participation and co-governance. Planning and redesigning our environment involves selecting and reusing some objects, structures and pasts, while ignoring and even literally paving over others. Neither planning and heritage, nor their participatory processes, are innocent bystanders in this. In caring for some future worlds by selecting and safeguarding some pasts, we colonize or impede other possible future worlds. As a process of selecting and mobilizing pasts for future-oriented purposes, heritage planning can always be used in many ways, and is thus always contested.

Dealing with different, contesting interpretations of heritage and mobiliza-tions of history has been extensively discussed in heritage literature (Kisić 2016; Silverman 2010; Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996). So has the need for


recognition of layers of the past that might be shameful or painful (Light 2000; Macdonald 2010; Salt 2020; Sinclair-Chapman 2018). We can pose similar questions in the context of heritage planning, and question its relationship with these concepts. Strategies aimed at ‘governing’ plurality and dissonance in effect often create closures rather than openings. As argued by Kisić (Chapter 2), they often work towards consent and compromise, rather than acknowledg-ing difference and plurality. This can be a form of silencing that can actually make heritage more toxic (Wollentz et al. 2020). The planning context adds to this challenge, as heritage is often seen as only a small (obstructive) element to deal with while one is also having to negotiate economic interests and a raft of regulations, conditions and actors within and outside of heritage. The presentation and interpretation of histories in built heritage, spatial planning and public space is often very limited and unnuanced, erasing any plurality. Interpretations tend to get reduced to an interpretation board, plaque, map or tour, although there are inspirational examples of ‘alternative’ narratives, and materials pluralizing interpretations and guides (e.g. Pitts 2019; Tosch 2013).

Therefore, understandings of dissonance, plurality and restorative justice need further discussion, exploration and action in the context of heritage planning, as has become clear throughout this book, and far beyond in urgent societal debates such as the #BLM and #MeToo movements. We do observe a growing awareness in the heritage field of the plural (and often conflicting) layers and meanings of heritage. However, as Kisić (2018) argues, heritage dissonance should not be practised solely in a context where heritage is currently tagged as ‘difficult’, ‘contested’ or ‘dissonant’. It has to be acknowledged in issues of latent conflicts, silenced voices and epistemic injustices embedded in heritage that is deemed normal and unproblematic. Acknowledging dissonance can help question the often strictly policed heritage narratives, practices and place delineations that are followed in heritage planning, and their rootedness in discourses of ethnicity, nation, centre-periphery, class divisions, gender rela-tions and migrations, among others (Kisić 2018). This can enable us to notice, learn from and deal with the different ways of being, using, remembering, feeling and responding to and in place. Finally, it can pave the way for agonistic approaches (Mouffe 2013) in which conflictual views, positions and interests are deliberated and negotiated openly.

There are many questions that can guide future work, and touch on the rela-tions between heritage and politics in a plural world. What does it mean that interpretation in heritage planning – and thus the historic environment – is still very much curated by a few experts? Whose interpretations are labelled as ‘legitimate’, and whose as ‘informal’ or ‘alternative’? Who listens, chooses or decides when there are plural and conflicting interests? How do connection,


confrontation or annihilation work in heritage planning, making different his-toric experiences (in)visible in public spaces? How do we negotiate place-based versus on-the-move histories and heritages; for example, those of travelling communities, migrants, pilgrims, or indeed the homeless or sans papiers (see also Chapter 8 Fiorentini et al.)? What role can heritage planning play in restorative justice work when it comes to reckoning with the pasts of, for example, the slave trade, various genocides, patriarchy, colonialism or fascism? These questions mean we need to position heritage planning in the context of wider injustices and debates and acknowledge its role in both creating and addressing them. Of course, doing so will open up many more questions, both in practice and research.

Environmental justice: beyond sustainability and climate emergency

Global and local issues around climate change, environmental justice and sustainability are ever more pressing and they will become even more central to decision-making in heritage planning. Much of the current research that connects heritage and climate focuses on developing mitigation strategies to help ‘save’ heritage through risk assessment, monitoring and protection mech-anisms (see also Chapter 11 Spizzichino and Margottini; Chapter 12 De Angeli and Battistin). Consequently, the concepts of vulnerability and mitigation are at the forefront of today’s heritage planning. However, the understandable impulse to pursue mitigation strategies to protect heritage from climate change must be complemented by scenarios of adaptation or even of ‘curated decay’ and letting things go (DeSilvey 2017).

Between and beyond the current approaches of mitigation and adaptation are a myriad of other practical possibilities and planning and design inter-ventions, as well as many more fundamental questions we could pose. One line of thinking is on how we can respect and learn from historic structures and civilizations (Chapter 5 Moore and Tully), from different knowledge and value systems and from different worldviews, for example those of indigenous peoples. Such conceptualizations and mobilizations of pasts, presents and futures have to do not only with greening, reusing and adapting, but also with challenging the anthropocentrism of current research, practice and policy (Erickson 2020).


Sustainability and climate change: socio-environmental gain and lossThe way we deal with heritage in the complex context of climate change, with its many feedback loops, automatically leads to questions about continuity, change and loss. Considerations on what we preserve and why are magnified in the face of climate change. And what about the heritage of climate change? It is not possible or desirable to protect all heritage from climate change, bearing in mind that heritage planning is also contributing to climate change. Moreover, mitigation and protection to save material assets can have significant impacts on local communities, indigenous peoples and minority groups (e.g. Carter 2010; Kimmerer 2020). What and who is considered worth saving, heritage or people (or other-than-human life) is, of course, not neutral. In this vast and tangled web of political choices, questions of environmental, social and economic (in)justice are everywhere; thus, these are questions of power.

As decision-makers declare climate emergencies while frequently allowing the demolition of existing buildings in order to build new ones at unprecedented speed, heritage planning also provides mechanisms to encourage sustainabil-ity. Continued use or (adaptive) reuse of historic elements helps in ‘reducing, reusing or recycling’ material waste and containing the embodied energy of materials and labour (see also Chapter 3 Van Balen and Vandesande). This is also partly why there is an increased focus on adaptive reuse in heritage plan-ning policies in the EU and many European countries (Veldpaus et al. 2019). This stimulates us to think about how we care for material worlds. Can we con-sider material heritage and culture as circular, non-depleting resources? When we reduce environmental impacts through sustainable and adaptive reuse, how do we address the underlying choices, in terms of whose history, heritage and environments are considered valuable enough to keep?

Moreover, as experts worldwide agree that we must quickly deploy vast resources to mitigate and adapt to global warming, we should also think about who this affects and in what ways. Think about, for example, the energy tran-sition; building solar and wind farms across land- and seascapes, along with (inter)national and regional grids to connect them. This creates communities, heritage, archaeology and cultural landscapes as much as it disturbs them. Who gets to benefit from this ‘greening’ of energy, and will this new layer revalue or devalue the landscapes it is added to? These are just a few questions on the intersections with the energy sector, which could just as well be asked for transportation, agriculture, building and manufacturing, amongst other land uses.


Climate change measures do have a tendency to reinforce existing social and economic inequalities (Davoudi et al. 2019; Erickson 2020). How can we make sure they don’t lead to increased inequality, displacement, poverty, gentrifica-tion and the de-identification of heritage? This needs interdisciplinary and col-laborative work on the mutual, sometimes conflicting, relationships between social, economic and environmental values and needs. And we should not be afraid to ask difficult questions. What is the role of heritage in contributing to climate change, to environmental injustices, directly or indirectly; for instance, reliance on tourism and travel? Which (and whose) heritage are we willing to ‘sacrifice’ for climate-friendly solutions? How do the social and the environ-ment parts of sustainability interact and play out in heritage planning? Where and who benefits from protecting heritage from climate change, and who is being displaced or made homeless through extreme weather events? Which parts of the world are thought of as pristine and protected, and which will be ‘allowed’ to become ‘wastescapes’, facing massive pollution, or flooding or overheating issues? And what happens to the heritage of climate refugees? But also, are solar and wind farms only acceptable in landscapes that do not have legal protection mechanisms, which are peripheral or populated by people with fewer resources? Is the PR side of ‘good government’ or corporate social responsibility regarding climate goals being pursued at the expense of other global challenges such as fighting poverty and racism? We are convinced that heritage planning has the capacity to embrace both social and environmental justice (Agyeman 2005).

From risk reduction and adaption towards transformative practices Much heritage planning research and practice focuses on trying to reverse or mitigate the impacts of climate change, as well as understanding and increas-ing the existing social and economic resilience of heritage places and their communities in the face of accelerating changes (see Chapter 11 Spizzichino and Margottini; Chapter 12 De Angeli and Battistin). Building on this work, we argue that many additional factors could be considered or combined when considering exposure to and impacts of threats, such as the involved communities, the vulnerability of heritage sites and the adaptive capacity of decision-makers involved. Can more accurate risk assessments be developed if such site-specific conditions are also considered, in addition to, for example, proximity to hazards? The integration of heritage and climate research and climate policies is essential for this. This involves promoting heritage-specific knowledge, skills, methods and tools, but also bringing together critical think-ing and new conceptualizations as developed in both fields. Mainstreaming heritage in climate decision-making, and vice versa, starts with speaking each


other’s language and understanding and openness to perceptions and cri-tiques, to join up and develop our thinking and doing.

In addition to better informed and integrated preventive risk management and adaptation strategies, we argue that future heritage planning could also pursue more radical and creative transformations. As Kisić argues (Chapter 2), we should challenge nature–culture divides and look to other existing regimes of meaning-making and cultural significance (e.g. Dabiri 2020; Kimmerer 2020). The historic environment is a vast knowledge resource that has its own capacity to resist or adapt to climate change (see e.g. Chapter 10 Vallerani and Visentin). This stimulates revisiting our ways of dealing with the (natural) world and our (human) relation to and position in it, and reimagining the spaces we operate in. What would it mean, for example, to consider buildings or spaces not occupied by humans as more than vacant, brownfield, empty or green (Lowenhaupt Tsing 2017)? Can we think of a world beyond saving, or care without conservation, as DeSilvey (2017) asks? Do we dare to leave envi-ronments unplanned, allowing not only for re-wilding or re-wetting, but for non-human life to flow in unforeseen directions?

To achieve environmental justice requires structural change in heritage plan-ning. It is simply not enough to just ‘adjust’ and ‘mitigate’. We could imagine radically different post-fossil fuel futures, and take seriously worldviews that engage with indigenous knowledges, past societies or literary fiction. This implies different ways of conceptualizing, engaging with and thinking about life on earth and our environments, and thus our understandings of heritage, climate breakdown and sustainability. It then also encourages further and maybe unexpected collaborations, bridging between different ways of knowing and doing, between different worldviews and approaches. Heritage planning is a platform where many of those worlds can come together; as such it could lead in developing more integrated approaches with relevance way beyond its field.

Economic justice: beyond a means to an end for heritage planning and development

Throughout this book the emphasis has been on the ongoing integration of heritage into wider planning schemes, often accompanied by economic devel-opment objectives. As various chapters in this book show, integrating heritage and planning policies brings advantages. For example, it provides a base for dynamic, continued use, maintenance and care (see Chapter 1 Stegmeijer et al.); and it contributes to (regional) development objectives like skills devel-


opment, creating jobs, involving communities and local food production (see Chapter 3 Van Balen and Vandesande; Chapter 15 Della Torre and Moioli; Chapter 16 Sjölander-Lindqvist et al.). Other chapters show that heritage-led regeneration can lead to exploitation of heritage for (private) profit, and facil-itates if not instigates processes of gentrification, commodification and privat-ization of urban and rural commons (see Chapter 6 Veldpaus and Wacogne; Chapter 13 Sjölander-Lindqvist). Each of these chapters in their own way indicate that we should look at both the positive and negative impacts, at the intended and unintended results, of the alliance between heritage and planning and development policies.

This also reiterates that heritage is ‘for’ something; that it is used as a means to an end. Thus, when integrated into development-oriented policies, heritage is probably expected to facilitate a particular vision of development. This is visible in many (built) heritage policies which promote heritage as a positive force in society, contributing to fostering urban regeneration and economic development by being a (soft) location factor, attracting investment, bringing in visitors and improving spatial quality and quality of life, wellbeing and social cohesion. As much as the integration of heritage and planning benefits certain people and places, the same schemes can adversely impact the livelihoods and quality of life of others. Problems of inequality, erasure and dislocation need to be confronted much more rigorously. We need to address the role of heritage in achieving different policy objectives, in order to come up with alternatives. For this, we argue, we have to start thinking about heritage not simply as a means to an end, but as an actor that shapes our world.

Challenging commodification and growth: alternatives to market-driven heritage development? Over the last few decades, heritage planning has played a crucial role and made a substantial contribution to the (economic) development of places and landscapes. Throughout Europe, many buildings and vacant (post-industrial) spaces have been rehabilitated and refurbished into lively, mixed-use urban quarters. Since the 1990s, the aims to boost city economies and to creatively reuse heritage have very much aligned. Conservation and real estate develop-ment have become partial to each other. In many instances, the main reason for reuse will be profitability. Profit can be formulated rather narrowly, in money cashed by a developer or investor; or more broadly, as part of a long-term community interest in the socio-economic potential of a place. Whether profit is narrowly or broadly formulated, the heritage sector in many countries, in its effort to become central to discussions on regeneration, economic develop-


ment and planning, has become – and was pushed to be – strongly reliant on financial and market incentives as drivers for heritage conservation.

The context of growth pressures easily turns heritage into a commodity, although it could also be considered a ‘commons’, a public good (see also Chapter 2 Kisić). Consequences such as commodification, touristification, gentrification and privatization brought about by heritage planning are often still seen as mostly positive. Land value goes up, investments and developers’ attention are triggered, and the material heritage and a certain ‘character of place’ can be retained through those mechanisms. However, when the integra-tion of heritage and planning is predominantly driven by growth narratives, heritage assets and narratives selected are more likely to be the ones that are ‘useful’ in creating economic gain. When only the ‘useful’ histories are mobi-lized, many other histories are forgotten, including the layers, perspectives and voices that aren’t seen as worth listening to in the process of commodification (Veldpaus and Pendlebury 2019). Seen this way, heritage can be a clear tool in the process of gentrification; not just by making places unaffordable, but also by denying connections to place to those who are not included in the ‘useful’ histories. It would be interesting to look further into how (cultural) appro-priation works in heritage planning, when there is an interest in highlighting so-called alternative or marginalized heritage narratives. All this of course affects both the material and immaterial reality in terms of what is selected to be restored, reused, reiterated, redesigned, and ultimately, seen as heritage. We can also wonder, if concepts such as ‘place character’ or ‘place identity’ are ways of using heritage, while staying away from ‘formal’ protection mechanisms? Or do they more effectively bring a broader variety of heritage into planning realms than could ever be done through formal listing and protection?

It is also relevant to look into how heritage listings and accompanied funding and visitor streams favour (further) growth of particular cities and regions, while other places ‘that don’t matter’ (Rodríguez-Pose 2018) do not get to benefit in the same way. Selected regions get support in reusing their heritage buildings and landscapes, and attract more inward capital and talent, further enhancing their positive stance towards some heritage. Other regions are forgotten and risk losing their diversity in heritage. The process feeds back upon itself, creating a self-perpetuating cycle with little space for reflection on meanings and uses of heritage on either side. How can heritage planning counter these effects and take uneven development more seriously?

One way could be by deeper exploration of alternatives to market-driven development and pro-growth objectives. For example, learning from schol-arship on alternative governance and management models, ideas of ‘tourism


degrowth’, voicing the critique of (urban) over-tourism in popular desti-nations and selling cities as tourism commodities (Milano et al. 2019). Or perhaps following Ferreira and Schönfeld (2020) to explore what it means when economic growth and capital accumulation are not positioned centre stage in planning. Furthermore, we could engage with ideas on commons (Ostrom 1990), the ‘right to the city’ (Harvey 2003), collaborative planning (Healey 1997) and community organizing (e.g. Banks and Westoby 2019) to alter the way heritage planning is understood and done. Heritage-as-commons could offer a way to resist and disrupt the increasing production of heritage as commodity, open up new possibilities for pluralizing alternative ownership and stewardship (Pantazatos 2015), and enhance the shared care for, and production of, heritage. We should explore and counter dominant narratives of government-led and market-driven heritage conservation, and rethink heritage management frameworks based on property, profit and growth. This also means that we need to find, test, develop and normalize alternative legal, financial and governance models.

Heritage as an actor shaping our worlds In the introduction to the book we suggest that ‘heritage’ as a field moves between being a sector, a factor and a vector in relation to planning. Building on this conceptualization of heritage in planning and the issues set out above, we argue that there is a need for research and practice that understands her-itage as an actor. This is not about simply adding a fourth approach to how we deal with heritage in planning, but about fundamentally reconceptualizing what heritage is and does. It assumes that not only do we do things with and to heritage; heritage itself also does things with and to us. Heritage is an actor in the environment, and thus in daily life, as much as in conservation planning assemblages. Heritage is not (only) something to care for; it also cares for us (or not), and through it we can care for others.

Although this may not be a common way of thinking about heritage in the heritage planning context, it certainly isn’t new. The idea of heritage-as-actor builds on the heritage theory which argues that heritage is performative. It is made to ‘do’ things. So, whether it is put to work for wellbeing, urban develop-ment, tourism or other aims, it is (re-)enacting, (re)producing and mobilizing selective past(s) (Davidson 2016; Ugwuanyi 2020; Wong 2013) and often doing many other unplanned and unintended things. Moreover, it resonates with what has been coined the ‘affective turn’ in heritage studies (Crooke and Maguire 2018; Tolia-Kelly et al. 2017), showing how affect and emotions influence our dealings (and doings) with heritage and how heritage is affective and emotive (Buchczyk and Facer 2020). This is not just a theoretical debate, as


we discussed above. Heritage creates atmospheres and evokes feelings in public places, and we know that the same heritage moves people in very different ways.

So, instead of seeing heritage as a means to an end, or as a goal in itself, we propose to see it as an actor. That way, we can move beyond ‘using’ heritage to interacting with it and recognizing its agency. The main aim of proposing this is to redirect the thinking about the processes we engage in as researchers and practitioners. Heritage is often promoted as a positive force in society that can improve quality of life; for example, through improved wellbeing and social cohesion. We should, however, ask, who is it doing these things for and to? Whose wellbeing is being cared for, through caring for this heritage? It is hard to imagine, for example, that the celebration of a slaver in a public space is good for the wellbeing of those who are direct descendants of enslaved people. This dynamic should be taken into account when pursuing ‘wellbeing’ or ‘cohesion’ agendas in heritage policy and action. In trying to make environments more inclusive and accessible, we should look at what heritage does, intentionally and unintentionally, and how this puts up not just physical barriers, but also social, psychological and emotional ones.

This forces us to take a new look at the relations and networks that are con-stantly (re)created between heritage, people and environments, and between people through heritage, and between people and heritage through policies. Heritage planning can be seen as a way of caring for heritage, and thus of caring for people’s wellbeing through heritage, in terms of quality of life, social cohesion and belonging. Framing it this way might make us think through the ethics of these acts of caring for, about or through heritage. Caring, conserving, planning; none of those activities – however well meant – are inherently good, and we have to be aware of the social and political functions they perform (Ahmed 2017; Puig de la Bellacasa 2017). This happens in the everyday: in how we see our environment, in the use of space. It is part of maintenance and demolition, and deliberate or careless appropriation or dismissal of certain spaces, practices, symbolisms and narratives. It asks for a willingness to engage with more comprehensive understandings of history and thus heritage, thus engaging with conceptualizations, models and approaches that exist in differ-ent geographical, theoretical and sectoral contexts. We should also consider the methods we use, and address methodological whiteness (Bhambra 2017) and wilful indifference (Virdee 2019) to open up spaces for new questions, approaches and knowledges.


Agenda making: reflecting on practice and research

Heritage planning, understood as dealing with the layered, multifaceted material and immaterial histories of places and people in local and regional planning contexts, can help to sustain a more liveable future for everyone. In this final chapter, we have argued that heritage planning could be relevant to several movements for making our future world more just, inclusive and sustainable. As practitioners and academics, we always strive for betterment in some way, but better for whom? Who benefits from our actions? Are we willing to listen, to be critical and to change our current repertoire of doing research or making policy? With daunting environmental, societal and eco-nomic challenges ahead, we will have to reach beyond the comfort of our dis-ciplines and worldviews, and ask questions related to the frameworks within which our work and research operates, our own roles and the wider impacts of heritage planning.

As this book shows, the heritage planning assemblages are dynamic, and their processes and outcomes are fluid. They need to be understood and reflected on in context, in depth and in time. In addition to understanding this complexity, we need to confront some of the (hidden) assumptions and mechanisms that structure the reality of contemporary heritage planning – within and beyond the field. This means we need to look both at how to align heritage and plan-ning better, and at what the processes and politics involved in this integration do. We need to look at formal and informal heritage concepts, structures, practices and traditions; how they are, or are not, being used to inform plan-ning and design processes, policies or practices, and vice versa. Who benefits from the ‘added value’ of integrating heritage with planning? How can heritage planning drive and enable our striving for a better future?

Besides (re)assessing the institutional and theoretical frameworks of heritage planning, we need to look at frameworks that shape knowledge creation, dissemination and consumption. These include the influence of neoliberal science policy and management, for example, on the methods, organization and content of research (Lave et al. 2010); the rise of the entrepreneurial uni-versity, which leads to the commercialization and fortification of knowledge (Lynch 2006); and the project-form as a form of thinking, packaging and doing research (Pavićević and Spasića 2016). Funding for both research and practice tends to come with narrow agendas, privileging work that happens in and on certain places, and focuses on the wishes of the payers, whether these are state, commercial or civic actors. Funding priorities not only determine the focus of the projects that will be funded, but also link particular geographies and topics.


Moreover, there is an increased focus on the justification of research through its market or government uptake, and its (pathways to) impact. While such ‘instructed’ research is perfectly explainable and legitimate in itself, it cannot be the only form of knowledge accumulation or the only legitimized interac-tion between research and practice. Future research and practice could focus on how funding priorities support or disadvantage certain intersections of areas, projects, people, places, topics and concepts. Funders, at the same time, can push for more inclusive research through their calls.

Finally, all research agendas are ideological, and this one is no different. We aim to challenge and question. While we identify a trend towards the broad-ening and diversification of how heritage planning is understood, heritage planning research or practice can be challenged much more. It is often not very diverse; either in terms of the people involved or in the approaches and projects undertaken and acknowledged. Therefore, we have suggested ways to scrutinize and rethink the role(s) of heritage planning, and the aims we have for and with it. To actively engage with and take seriously worldviews and knowledges constructed outside of the hegemonic discourse, we need to span the boundaries between practices, policies and researches, as well as incor-porate intersectional feminist, indigenous, queer, disability or working-class perspectives and critiques.

This is why, as also proposed in Chapter 2 (Kisić), we need to not only ask what gets prioritized in terms of questions and themes, but also how we want to stimulate thinking about and doing research and practice, and who gets to do it and where. The question of how includes rethinking, discussing and reworking the circumstances, rules and frameworks under which our intellectual work proceeds, as well as the agendas and models to which it conforms. Creating a more dynamic relationship between science and policy is essential for responding to current and future societal challenges. But we also need to con-sider the ‘how’ of funding models. Different studies challenge current science policies that assume competitive funding to be the best way to boost the quality of science produced. In fact, competitiveness of funding and research quality are negatively correlated (Sandström and Van den Besselaar 2018). The ques-tion of who concerns who is deemed appropriate and legitimate to be involved in research or practice, as well as who decides on policy and funding priorities or funding models; who has access to the funding, production and dissem-ination of knowledge and who is affected by it. But it is also about our own positionality. For example, research is often constructed outside of practice, and vice versa. We acknowledge that, while all four authors of this chapter are moving between those two ‘worlds’ constantly, we still also do this! As bound-ary spanners we constantly ask ourselves how science can contribute to policy


and practice (and vice versa). How can we better facilitate ongoing interactions among research and policy communities to address complex social issues in the field of heritage planning?

Addressing the questions raised here and throughout the book requires struc-tural and institutional change within both academia and heritage and planning practice. Heritage planning can have major impacts on society. Taking seri-ously the transformative potential of the process of heritage planning, con-servation and reuse can help us to reposition and rethink heritage planning, allowing us to centre it within diverse movements for making our world more just, diverse and sustainable. To do so, we need truly challenging research that inspires new pathways and imaginings for the future!

References

Agyeman, J. (2005), Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice, New York: NYU Press.

Ahmed, S. (2017), Living a Feminist Life, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Anderson, B. (1983), Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism, London: Verso.Banks, S. and P. Westoby (2019), Ethics, Equity and Community Development, Bristol:

Policy Press.Bhambra, G.K. (2017), ‘Brexit, Trump, and “methodological whiteness”: on the mis-

recognition of race and class’, The British Journal of Sociology, 68 (S1), S214–32.Buchczyk, M. and K. Facer (2020), ‘The stuff of contention and care: affective material-

ity and everyday learning in Bristol, UK’, City & Society, 32 (3), 603–23.Cahuas, M.C. (2019), ‘Burned, broke, and brilliant: Latinx community workers’ experi-

ences across the Greater Toronto Area’s non-profit sector’, Antipode, 51 (1), 66–86.Carter, J. (2010), ‘Displacing indigenous cultural landscapes: the naturalistic gaze at

Fraser Island World Heritage Area’, Geographical Research, 48 (4), 398–410.CoE (2005), Faro Convention – Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural

Heritage for Society; CETS No.199, accessed 3 August 2016 at https:// www .coe .int/ en/ web/ conventions/ full -list/ -/ conventions/ treaty/ 199.

Crooke, E. and T. Maguire (2018), Heritage after Conflict: Northern Ireland, Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.

Dabiri, E. (2020), Don’t Touch My Hair, London: Penguin Books.Davidson, T. (2016), ‘Imperial nostalgia, social ghosts, and Canada’s National War

Memorial’, Space and Culture, 19 (2), 177–91.Davoudi, S., R. Cowell, I. White et al. (2019), The Routledge Companion to Environmental

Planning, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Dellenbaugh, M., M. Kip, M. Bieniok, A. Müller and M. Schwegmann (2015), Urban

Commons: Moving Beyond State and Market, Basel: Birkhäuser.DeSilvey, C. (2017), Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving, Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota Press.Dicks, B. (2000), Heritage, Place, and Community, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.


Emejulu, A. (2011), ‘The silencing of radical democracy in American community development: the struggle of identities, discourses and practices’, Community Development Journal, 46 (2), 229–44.

Erickson, B. (2020), ‘Anthropocene futures: linking colonialism and environmentalism in an age of crisis’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 38 (1), 111–28.

EU (2019), ‘Urban Agenda for the EU’, Text, accessed 26 May 2020 at https:// ec .europa .eu/ futurium/ en/ urban -agenda.

Ferreira, A. and K.C. von Schönfeld (2020), ‘Interlacing planning and degrowth schol-arship’, DisP – The Planning Review, 56 (1), 53–64.

Foster, S. and C. Iaione (2015), The City as a Commons, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2653084, Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 29 August, https:// doi .org/ 10 .2139/ ssrn .2653084.

Hall, S. (1999), ‘Whose heritage? Unsettling “the heritage”, reimagining the Postnation’, Third Text, 13 (49), 3–13, https:// doi .org/ 10 .1080/ 09528829908576818.

Harvey, D. (2003), ‘The right to the city’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27 (4), 939–41.

Healey, P. (1997), Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Vancouver: UBC Press.

Hosagrahar, J., J. Soule, L.F. Girard and A. Potts (2016), ‘Cultural heritage, the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and the New Urban Agenda’, BDC. Bollettino Del Centro Calza Bini, 16 (1), 37–54.

Kaza, N. (2006), ‘Tyranny of the median and costly consent: a reflection on the justifi-cation for participatory urban planning processes’, Planning Theory, 5 (3), 255–70.

Kimmerer, R.W. (2020), Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants, Place of publication not identified: Milkweed Editions.


Kisić, V. (2018), ‘Beyond celebrations and divisions: re-politicizing heritage dissonance in Europe’, Economia Della Cultura, 4, 465–78.

Lave, R., P. Mirowski and S. Randalls (2010), ‘Introduction: STS and neoliberal science’, Social Studies of Science, https:// doi .org/ 10 .1177/ 0306312710378549.

Light, D. (2000), ‘An unwanted past: contemporary tourism and the heritage of com-munism in Romania’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 6 (2), 145–60.

Lowenhaupt Tsing, A. (2017), The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins, Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Lynch, K. (2006), ‘Neo-liberalism and marketisation: the implications for Higher Education’, European Educational Research Journal, https:// doi .org/ 10 .2304/ eerj .2006 .5 .1 .1.

Macdonald, S. (2010), Difficult Heritage: Negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and Beyond, Abingdon: Routledge.

Meléndez, J.W. and B. Parker (2019), ‘Learning in participatory planning processes: taking advantage of concepts and theories across disciplines’, Planning Theory & Practice, accessed 26 August 2020 at https:// www .tandfonline .com/ doi/ abs/ 10 .1080/ 14649357 .2018 .1558748.

Milano, C., M. Novelli and J.M. Cheer (2019), ‘Overtourism and degrowth: a social movements perspective’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27 (12), 1857–75, doi: 10.1080/09669582.2019.1650054

Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically, London and New York: Verso.



https://doi.org/10.1080/09528829908576818

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710378549.

https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.1

https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.1

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649357.2018.1558748

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649357.2018.1558748

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09669582.2019.1650054?journalCode=rsus20


Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pantazatos, A. (2015), ‘The normative foundations of stewardship: care and respect’, in T. Ireland and J. Schofield (eds), The Ethics of Cultural Heritage, Springer New York, pp. 127–141.

Pavićević, D. and I. Spasića (2016), ‘Contribution to the critique of the project-form’, in A. Matković, M. Losoncz, I. Krtolica, Univerzitet u Beogradu and Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju (eds), Thinking beyond Capitalism, Belgrade: University of Belgrade, Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, pp. 107–18.

Pitts, J. (2019), Afropean: Notes from Black Europe, London: Allen Lane.Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017), Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More Than

Human Worlds, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Rex, B. (2018), From public to ‘other-than-public’ management: exploring local authority

approaches to securing ‘publicness’ in the case of community asset transfer, Keynote presented at the Organisational Reform and Public Interest Seminar, as organized by Media, Culture, Heritage (MCH), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018), ‘The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it)’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11 (1), 189–209.

Salt, K.N. (2020), ‘Imagining futures in the age of twilight’, Modern Languages Open, 1, 21.

Sandström, U. and P. Van den Besselaar (2018), ‘Funding, evaluation, and the perfor-mance of national research systems’, Journal of Informetrics, 12 (1), 365–84.

Silverman, H. (2010), Contested Cultural Heritage: Religion, Nationalism, Erasure, and Exclusion in a Global World, New York: Springer Science & Business Media.


Song, L.K. (2015), ‘Race, transformative planning, and the just city’, Planning Theory, 14 (2), 152–73.

Tolia-Kelly, D.P., E. Waterton and S. Watson (eds) (2017), Heritage, Affect and Emotion: Politics, Practices and Infrastructures, London and New York: Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group.

Tosch, J. (2013), ‘Black Heritage Tours Amsterdam & New York’, accessed 1 July 2020 at http:// www .blackheritagetours .com/ .

Tunbridge, J.E. and G.J. Ashworth (1996), Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict, Chichester: Wiley.

Ugwuanyi, J.K. (2020), ‘Time-space politics and heritagisation in Africa: understanding where to begin decolonisation’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 27 (4), 356–74.

UNESCO (2011), Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, accessed 25 January 2018 at http:// whc .unesco .org/ uploads/ activities/ documents/ activity -638 -98 .pdf.

UN-HABITAT (2016), ‘The New Urban Agenda’, accessed 26 May 2020 at http:// habitat3 .org/ the -new -urban -agenda/ .

Veldpaus, L. and J. Pendlebury (2019), ‘Heritage as a vehicle for development: the case of Bigg Market, Newcastle upon Tyne’, Planning Practice & Research, 1–15, doi: 10.1080/02697459.2019.1637168.

Veldpaus, L., F. Fava and D. Brodowicz (2019), Mapping of Current Heritage Re-use Policies and Regulations in Europe. Complex Policy Overview of Adaptive Heritage

http://www.blackheritagetours.com/



http://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda

http://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda

https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2019.1637168


Re-use, OpenHeritage: Deliverable 1.2, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, 254, December.

Virdee, S. (2019), ‘Racialized capitalism: an account of its contested origins and consol-idation’, The Sociological Review, 67 (1), 3–27.

Wollentz, G., S. May, C. Holtorf and A. Högberg (2020), ‘Toxic heritage: uncertain and unsafe’, in R. Harrison (ed.), Heritage Futures: Comparative Approaches to Natural and Cultural Heritage Practices, accessed 27 August 2020 at https:// www .uclpress .co .uk/ products/ 125034.

Wong, C.U.I. (2013), ‘The sanitization of colonial history: authenticity, heritage inter-pretation and the case of Macau’s tour guides’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21 (6), 915–31.

https://www.uclpress.co.uk/products/125034

https://www.uclpress.co.uk/products/125034

221

Index

agenda making 215–17agonistic pluralism 26AHD see Authorized Heritage DiscourseAlhambra and Albaycin UNESCO 139archaeological heritage 145–6archaeological site monitoring and risk

assessment 145–52archaeological buried heritage

147–51CLIMA risk assessment

methodology 147–51climate change 145–6research perspectives 151–2soil erosion 147–51soil-related hazards 145–6

archaeological sites 57–9Aurelian Wall in Rome 137austerity 16Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD)

76

buried heritage, archaeological 147–51

Castells, Manuel 58CHANGES project

conservation quality 178Distretti Culturali programme 176,

178, 180enhancement of capacity/skills 178governance and social capital 178–9guidelines for integrated benefits

181–3Halland model 176, 178, 180integrated conservation strategies

175–6Monumentenwacht model 178, 179

trading zone concept 178, 180upstream approach 178

Choirokoitia archaeological site 139CJEU see Court of Justice of the

European UnionCLIMA project 145–52climate and heritage planning 14–16,

115–19climate emergency 207–10co-governance 204–5collaboration 204–5Common Agricultural Policy 103common heritage of humanity 32conservation quality 178Convention on Intangible Heritage

(2003) 11Court of Justice of the European Union

(CJEU) 104creative entrepreneurship 189Creative Europe Programme 107creative-industry development 189–90creativity 188–90critical facilitator 78cultural corridors 126cultural ecosystems 62, 70cultural goods 105cultural heritage

3D–4D digital exploration 90–94case studies 90–94CHIME project see Cultural

Heritage and Improvised Music in European Festivals (CHIME) project

as diffuser/multiplier 43economy and society see CHANGES

project


environment vs. 44–5European Union law and policy

conceptualization of 101–3governance 106–7human dimension of 103–5instrumentalization of 105–6participatory governance model

106–7public participation through 4D

reconstruction 88–90SMD framework

components of 45–6innovative economic processes

47–8public participation 49–50quality protection 47skill building 48–9

sustainable development 39–40tangible and intangible 89upstream approach 40, 43

Cultural Heritage and Improvised Music in European Festivals (CHIME) project 163–72

festivals, music and place 163–4jazz festivals

cultural heritage 164–6improvising 168landscape of 166–8marketizing 168–9sounding 169–70themes of 163–4

research and practice directions 171–2

research approach 164–6Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe

(Europa Nostra) 39, 41‘Cultural Heritage Through Time’

(CHT2) 88cultural landscapes 62, 63, 102cultural objects 105cultural participation 87culture of loss 4culture of profit 4, 30

Declaration of Amsterdam (1975) 11Derwent Valley Mills (DVM) World

Heritage Site 137, 139development and heritage planning

16–17, 157–61digital terrain models 148

dissonance 205–7Distretti Culturali programme 176, 178,

180

economic justice 210–14advantages of 210–11commodification and growth

211–13heritage as actor shaping our world

213–14market-driven heritage development

211–13economies of worth 30ECtHR see European Court of Human

RightsEHL see European Heritage LabelELC see European Landscape

Conventionentrepreneurship 190–92

creative 189environmental justice 207–10

adaption towards transformative practices 209–10

climate change 208–9risk reduction 209–10socio-environmental gain and loss

208–9sustainability 208–9

European Commission 119, 133European Convention on Human Rights

104European Court of Human Rights

(ECtHR) 104European Heritage Label (EHL) 103European historical waterways 123–6

England 125–6Italy 123–4Spain 124–5

European Landscape Convention (ELC) 61

European Soil Framework Directive 146European Union law and policy

cultural heritageconceptualization of 101–3governance 106–7human dimension of 103–5instrumentalization of 105–6participatory governance model

106–7European identity 100–101

223INDEX 223

overview of 99–100European Year of Cultural Heritage 100

Faro Convention (2005) 11, 59Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s

Essential Role in Public Planning (Hawkes) 39

Framework Convention on Tourism Ethics 187

GASTROCERT project 188gastronomy 187–93Gebhardt, Nicholas 168geographic information system (GIS)

145–52GIS see geographic information systemgovernance and social capital 178–9

Habitat III New Urban Agenda 14Halland model 176, 178, 180Halland Model 43Hall, Stuart 58Hangzhou Declaration (2013) 39hazard maps 150hegemonies 23–7heritage as commons 29–34heritage commodification 29–34heritage community 49heritage dissonance 26, 205–7heritage governance 76–7heritage (with)in environment 27–9heritage landscape 64heritage planning 3–7

agenda making 215–17challenges 12–17contemporary challenges and 201–3crossovers 17–18culture see cultural heritagedevelopment see development and

heritage planning; sustainable development

diverse strategies 25–6economic justice 210–14

advantages of 210–11commodification and growth

211–13heritage as actor shaping our

world 213–14

market-driven heritage development 211–13

environmental justice 207–10adaption towards

transformative practices 209–10

climate change 208–9risk reduction 209–10socio-environmental gain and

loss 208–9sustainability 208–9

Eurocentric nature of 7identity and see identity and heritage

planningindustries see industrial heritagelayering 11–12as sector, factor and vector 8–10shifting approaches 7–12social justice 203–7

co-governance 204–5dissonance 205–7

socio-cultural and socio-spatial arrangements 4

identity and heritage planning 13–14, 57–60

affective qualities 58archaeological sites 57–9participatory landscapes 59plurality 58

inclusion 204–5inclusive heritage discourse 22, 24industrial heritage

future of 83–4governance 76–7overview of 75–6partnerships 77–81typology 78useful heritage 81–3

innovative economic processes 47–8InSAR see synthetic aperture radar

interferometryinstructed research 216intangible heritage 32, 95, 169, 170integrated conservation strategies 175–6Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) 116IPCC see Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change


jazz festivalscultural heritage 164–6improvising 168landscape of 166–8marketizing 168–9sounding 169–70themes of 163–4

knowledge exchange 69

landscape management see participatory landscape management

Lisbon Treaty 160

market-driven heritage development 211–13

material heritage 95Memorylands: Heritage and Identity in

Europe Today (MacDonald) 89Monumentenwacht model 178, 179

neolocalism 190New Public Management approach 77–8normative localism 190

oppida 62–3

Palladian landscape 123Paris Agreement 14participation 204–5participatory governance model 106–7participatory landscape management

61–2archaeological sites 59challenges 67–70

archaeology as landscape biographies 69–70

experts as stakeholders 70heritage as landscape

biographies 69–70knowledge exchange 69sustainable participation 69

cultural ecosystems 62cultural landscapes 62, 63perceptions of 63–5

landscape biographies 64–5landscape values 63–4management 65

place of archaeology 62–3

stakeholders 65–7partnerships 77–81place character 212place identity 212pluralism, agonistic 26pluriverse 23–7policed heritage 26polyphonic geography 123–6The Power of Identity (Castells) 58power relations 205PROTHEGO project

objectives 134–7outcomes and future perspectives

140–41rationale 133–4Satellite Interferometry analysis

Alhambra and Albaycin district 139

Aurelian Wall in Rome 137Choirokoitia archaeological

site 139Derwent Valley Mills 137, 139Tramuntana range cultural

landscape 139–40theoretical background 133–4

public participation 49–50, 87cultural heritage through 4D

reconstruction 88–90

quality protection 47

REFIT project 61–70remote sensing technologies 145–52Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

(RUSLE) 148–50rights to heritage concept 26risk maps 150–51rurality 188–90rural tourism see tourismRUSLE see Revised Universal Soil Loss

Equation

Satellite Interferometry analysisAlhambra and Albaycin district 139Aurelian Wall in Rome 137Choirokoitia archaeological site 139Derwent Valley Mills 137, 139Tramuntana range cultural

landscape 139–40

225INDEX 225

SDGs see Sustainable Development Goalsskill building 48–9Smith, Laurajane 58, 171social justice 203–7

co-governance 204–5dissonance 205–7

socio-environmental gain and loss 208–9soil erosion 147–51soil-related hazards 145–6spatial planning 4–5, 11, 201stakeholders 70

in cultural heritage 107participatory landscape

management 65–7sustainable community development

187–93sustainable development 22–3

cultural heritage 39–40, 45–50definition of 41evidence collection 40–41four pillars of 41–4systemic approach 45–50urban development 170–71

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 39

Sustainable Management and Development (SMD) framework

components of 45–6innovative economic processes 47–8public participation 49–50quality protection 47skill building 48–9

sustainable participation 69synthetic aperture radar (SAR) 134–5synthetic aperture radar interferometry

(InSAR) 135

tangible heritage 95, 169, 170tangible–intangible heritage

entanglements 170

threatened archaeological heritage 145–6tourism 187–93

creative entrepreneurship 189creative-industry development

189–90creativity 188–90gastronomy 187–93neolocalism 190normative localism 190overview of 187–8rurality 188–90support measures 192–3

trading zone concept 43, 178, 180Tramuntana range cultural landscape

139–40Treaty of Maastricht (1992) 100

UNESCO World Heritage List 134UNESCO World Heritage Sites 15, 134upstream approach 40, 43, 178urban sustainable development 170–71useful heritage 81–3Uses of Heritage (Smith) 58

Venice Charter (1964) 11virtual heritage 95vulnerability maps 150

Washington Charter (1987) 11Water Framework Directive 2000/60 128waterways 121–9

as cultural corridors 126–7in England 125–6in Italy 123–4overview of 121–2research trajectories 128–9in Spain 124–5

world heritage 32World Heritage Committee 148

Documents

A Research Agenda for Heritage Planning