ARCHITECTURE HERITAGE and DESIGN
Carmine Gambardella
XVII INTERNATIONAL FORUM
Mercanti
Vie
Le
dei
WORLD HERITAGE and LEGACY
C u l t u r e | C r e a t i v i t y | C o n t a m i n a t i o n
ARCHITECTURE HERITAGE and DESIGN | 4 Collana fondata e diretta da Carmine Gambardella
ARCHITECTURE HERITAGE and DESIGN | 4 Collana fondata e diretta da Carmine Gambardella
Scientific Committee: Carmine Gambardella
UNESCO Chair on Landscape, Cultural Heritage and Territorial Governance President and CEO of Benecon
Past-Director of the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”
Federico Casalegno
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston Massimo Giovannini
Professor, Università “Mediterranea”, Reggio Calabria Bernard Haumont
Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture, Paris-Val de Seine Alaattin Kanoglu
Head of the Department of Architecture, İstanbul Technical University David Listokin
Professor, co-director of the Center for Urban Policy Research
of Rutgers University / Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, USA Paola Sartorio
Executive Director, The U.S.- Italy Fulbright Commission Elena Shlienkova
Professor of Architecture and Construction Institute of Samara State Technical University Isabel Tort Ausina
Universitat Politècnica De València UPV, Spain Nicola Pisacane
Professor of Drawing
Department of Architecture and Industrial Design_University of Studies of Campania Head of the Master School of Architecture - Interior Design and for Autonomy Course Pasquale Argenziano
Professor of Drawing
Department of Architecture and Industrial Design_University of Studies of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” Alessandra Avella
Professor of Drawing
Department of Architecture and Industrial Design_University of Studies of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” Alessandro Ciambrone
Ph.D. in Architecture (University of Campania) and Territorial Governance (Université Paris X) UNESCO Vocations Patrimoine 2007-09 / FULBRIGHT Thomas Foglietta 2003-04
Rosaria Parente
Ph.D. in “Architecture, Industrial Design and Cultural Heritage” at University of Studies of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”
Editorial Committee: Pasquale Argenziano Alessandra Avella Alessandro Ciambrone Nicola Pisacane Rosaria Parente
Carmine Gambardella
WORLD HERITAGE and LEGACY Culture, Creativity, Contamination Le Vie dei Mercanti
XVII International Forum
Editing: Alessandro Ciambrone
Il volume è stato inserito nella collana Architecture, Heritage and Design, fondata e diretta da Carmine Gambardella, in seguito a a peer review anonimo da parte di due membri del Comitato Scientifico.
The volume has been included in the series Architecture, Heritage and Design, founded and directed by Carmine Gambardella, after an anonymous peer-review by two members of the Scientific Committee.
©
Proprietà letteraria riservata
Gangemi Editore spa Via Giulia 142, Roma
w w w . g a n g e m i e d i t o r e . i t Nessuna parte di questa pubblicazione può essere memorizzata, fotocopiata o comunque riprodotta senza le dovute autorizzazioni.
Le nostre edizioni sono disponibili in Italia e all’estero anche in versione ebook. Our publications, both as books and ebooks, are available in Italy and abroad.
Carmine Gambardella
WORLD HERITAGE and LEGACY
Culture, Creativity, Contamination
Topics:
Heritage
Tangible and intangible dimensions History Culture Collective Identity Memory Documentation Management
Communication for Cultural Heritage Architecture Surveying Representation Modeling Data Integration Technology Platforms Analysis
Diagnosis and Monitoring Techniques Conservation Restoration Protection Safety Resilience Transformation Projects Technologies Materials Cultural landscapes Territorial Surveying Landscape Projects Environmental Monitoring Government of the Territory Sustainable Development
WORLD HERITAGE and LEGACY
Culture, Creativity, Contamination
Le Vie dei Mercanti
XVII International Forum
Naples | Capri
6 - 7 - 8 June 2019
President of the Forum
Carmine Gambardella
President and CEO Benecon, UNESCO Chair on Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Territorial Governance
International Scientific Committee
Components:
Aygul Agir
Professor, Department of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey
Ahmed Abu Al Haija
Professor and Head, Environmental Design, Urban and Architectural Heritage,
Faculty of Engineering,Philadelphia University, Jordan
Ali Abu Ghanimeh
Vice president Al al-Bayt University Almafraq – Jordan
Pilar Garcia Almirall
Professor, UPC Ecole Tecnica Superior d’Arquitectura Barcelona, Spain
Harun Batirbaygil
Head, Department of Architecture, Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey
Artur Beu
Professor, University of Art, Tirana, Albania
Massimiliano Campi
Professor, University of Naples Federico II, Italy
Cevza Candan
Professor, İstanbul Technical University, Turkey
Federico Casalegno
Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
Alessandro Ciambrone
Joaquín Díaz
Professor and Dean, Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen-University of Applied Sciences, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Germany
Yurdanur Dulgeroglu
Professor and Head of the Department of Architecture, İstanbul Technical University, Turkey
Yonca Erkan
Chairholder UNESCO Chair, Kadir Has University, Turkey
Kutgun Eyupgiller
Professor, Department of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey
Yankel Fijalkow
Professor, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture Paris Val de Seine, France
Xavier Greffe
Professor and Director, Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne Paris, France
Manuel Roberto Guido
Director Enhancement of Cultural Heritage, Planning and Budget Department, Italian Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Italy
Bernard Haumont
Professor, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture Paris Val de Seine, France
Tatiana Kirova
Professor, Polytechnic of Turin, Italy
Alaattin Kanoglu
Professor, İstanbul Technical University, Turkey
Ilknur Kolay
Professor, Department of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey
Mathias Kondolf
Professor, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, University California Berkeley
David Listokin
Professor, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, USA
Andrea Maliqari
Professor and Rector of the Polytechnic University of Tirana, Albania
Sabina Martusciello
Design and Communication Degree Course (President) University of Campania ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’, Italy
Massimo Menenti
Department of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Faculty of Civil Engineering Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Rusudan Mirzikashvili
Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Georgia
Doe Morelli
Professor, University of Campania ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’, Italy
Louise Mozingo
Chair, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, University California Berkeley, USA
Maria Dolores Munoz
Florian Nepravishta
Dean of the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Polytechnic University of Tirana, Albania
Luis Palmero Iglesias
Politècnica de València UPV, Spain
Jorge Peña Díaz
Professor, Facultad de Arquitectura, Instituto Superior Politécnico José Antonio Echeverría, Cuba
Rosaria Parente
Ph.D. in “Architecture, Industrial Design and Heritage” at University of Studies of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Benecon UNESCO Chair, Italy
Michelangelo Russo
Professor, University of Naples Federico II, Italy
Paola Sartorio
Executive Director, The U.S.- Italy Fulbright Commission, Italy
Lucio Alberto Savoia
Ambassador, Secretary General Emeritus, Italian National Commission for UNESCO, Italy
Maria Anita Stefanelli
Department of foreign lenguagers, literature and Culture, Università degli studi RomaTRE, Italy
Elena Shlienkova
Professor of Architecture and Construction Institute of Samara State Technical University, Russia
Eusebio Leal Spengler
Professor, Historiador de la Ciudad de La Habana, Presidente de Honor del Comité Cubano del ICOMOS, Cuba
Isabel Tort
Professor, Universitat Politècnica de València UPV, Spain
Andrey V. Vasilyev
Head of Department, Samara State Technical University of Russian Federation
Yaliang Xiang
Professor, China Academy of Art, China
Yang XiuJing
Professor and Director, China Academy of Art, China
Natasa Zivaljevic-Luxor
Director, National Heritage Foundation, Belgrade, Serbia
Scientific and Organizing Local Committee
Alessandro Ciambrone
Coordinator of the scientific program and relationships with the International Scientific Committee
Rosaria Parente
Scientific Assistant of the International Committee President
Luciana Abate, Giuliana Chierchiello, Vincenzo Ferraro
Graphics and layout
Dario Martimucci
Scholars has been invited to submit researches on theoretical and methodological as-pects related to Smart Design, Planning and Technologies, and show realapplications and experiences carried out on this themes.Based on blind peer review, abstracts has been accepted,conditionally accepted, or rejected.Authors of accepted and condi-tionally accepted papershas been invited to submit full papers. These has beenagain peer-reviewed and selected for the oral session and publication, or only for the publi-cation in the conference proceedings.
300 abstracts and 650 authors from 39 countries:
Albania, Australia, Benin, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brasil, Bulgaria, Califor-nia, Chile, China, Cipro, Cuba, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kosovo, Lalaysia, Malta, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montserrat, New Jersey, New York, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Texas, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom.
Peer review
The XVII Forum “World Heritage and Legacy” addresses the issue of the handed down in the sense of transmission over time of generation, at the state of knowledge, the material and immaterial heritage that comes from the past. A generational commitment to operate, in the cyclical temporal process, in order to preserve and protect the cultural heritage; a duty of the present generations to deliver to the future generations the legacy of the past at least in the same conditions in which it is received.
A commitment that takes on an even more meaningful significance in a historical moment that is crossed by destructive and iconoclastic wars and by great migration phenomena involving abandonment of territories undermining the identities of places, traditions, material and immaterial culture, which characterize the Cultural Landscapes. A re-appropriation by humanity of the value of a biological continuity that is traceable in its genetic complexity as a custodian and bearer of the memory of the past and, at the same time, belonging to those who live in the future by living the present. Moreover, “to the state of knowledge” should not be interpreted as a limitation but as an exhortation not to live on the position income and above all to remind men that they were not “made to live like brutes but to follow virtues and knowledge”. Knowledge therefore contains an evolutionary value in the history of progress. Where knowledge is substituted by acts or policies conducted by brutal and unreasonable actions against Humanity and its Patrimony, a fracture on historical continuity is created, which produces a negative value due to the great expenditure of economic resources and loss of human values . Therefore, in the awareness that the value produced by the past generations, which have given us and above all entrusted as heritage to be transmitted to the future is not commensurable to the value of time to re-establish and restore continuity to the regenerative space of the common good, it is impossible to activate more and more moments of reflection and I would say to monitor the behavior of supranational cultural policies.
This in the spirit of inducing to avoid the disastrous temporal intervals that involve serious losses of the human heritage, which break the glue that binds the generations. Architecture, Cities, Infrastructures and Landscape not only represent the form of time but all the disciplines that have contributed to and contribute to their characterization. The form of time is the body of a cultural program of society and the modification project makes use of the knowledge at the date. Economics, mathematics, physics, in one the sciences are always traceable in the construction of man’s works, from the simple artifact to monumental architectures, to cities, to large infrastructures. In fact, with Preface
the previous sixteen editions of the International Forum “Le Vie dei Mercanti” an interdisciplinary community has been created of about 6000 scholars and researchers, coming from over 50 Countries of the World. These have presented realized projects, theoretical research, good practices, technological innovations, which are recognized in the principles and actions to be carried out so that the Planet with its species can always adapt itself to the needs of humanity in a sustainable reciprocal relationship for the salvation of the same Planet. And if Beauty will save the world, the principles and actions shared in these sixteen previous years will find with the seventeenth Forum a moment of evaluation of the state of art so that they can increasingly reach, interest and belong to as many people as possible such as Governments, Institutions, Universities, and Enterprises.
This is to create and disseminate a new Humanism that acts as a generational glue through a review of the inheritance concept, or of an ongoing heritage formed by resources intended as lot, which, declined as an income statement, create solidarity, peace, trust, work with art and quality of life.
For these reasons and for the history of the Forum, I am sure that the scientific community will establish a debate in Naples and Capri on 6th, 7th and 8th of June which will bring further richness to the discussion among researchers who have faced the protection and safeguard of heritage handed down to us and the researchers who through their works will be the bearers of the future legacy.
Carmine Gambardella President and Founder of the Forum
Heritage Community Resilience for sustainable and resilient human
settlements
Maria Rita PINTO,1 Katia FABBRICATTI2, MartinaBOSONE3
(1) Department of Architecture DiARC, Polytechnic school and basic sciences, University of Naples
Federico II, Naples, Italy [email protected]
(3) Research Institute on Innovation and Development Services IRISS, National Council of Research
CNR, Naples, Italy [email protected]
Abstract
The value of cultural heritage for sustainable and resilient human settlements is recognized in international documents and agendas. These documents underline the importance of protecting and enhancing the identity values of the places to contribute both to the creation of a heritage community and to the strengthening of the community resilience.
Small and medium-sized cities are today subjected to global and local challenges. The contribution of cultural heritage in facing these challenges is limited by its state of abandonment and degradation, the lack of investments in recovery and maintenance, the lack of often emigrated skills. The recovery of the built environment can be strategy aimed at preserving and enhancing the cultural heritage and improving the quality of life and at the same time privileged action for community involvement and for implementing new cooperative management models.
The paper investigates the relationship between the increase in regeneration actions on cultural heritage, conducted by activating a network of multi-level partnerships, and the increase in social cohesion, awareness, innovation, reaction and recovery capacity. The research hypothesizes heritage community resilience indicators, i.e. performance indicators capable of gathering the link between the increase in relations between the local actors and the quality of urban regeneration actions.
Keywords: heritage community, community resilience, cultural heritage, urban regeneration, multi-level
partnership
1. Introduction
The value of cultural heritage for sustainable and resilient human settlements is recognized in international documents and agendas [1][2][3][4]. Cultural heritage, as a tangible and intangible representation of the identity of populations, represents a fundamental component for the well-being and satisfaction of human beings.
The recognition of the value of cultural, social, environmental, economic “resource” of this heritage by the communities is a decisive step to strengthen social cohesion, improving the quality of life of the population and triggering economic development processes. The process of identification between community and place where it lives contributes to the creation of the so-called heritage community. It is identified by the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for the Society (Faro Convention, 27 October 2005) as «the group of people who assign specific values and aspects to the cultural heritage, and who wishes, within the framework of public action, to support them and pass them on to future generations» [5]. In this way the social value of the cultural heritage is highlighted; it becomes the element that characterizes and holds together a community [6].
The value of cultural heritage for the resilience of the territory and communities emerges in international documents, which contributed to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Hangzou
Declaration [2], in defining the actions to place culture at the heart of the future policies for sustainable development [3], states that: «The appropriate conservation of the historic environment, including cultural landscapes, and the safeguarding of relevant traditional knowledge, values and practices, in synergy with other scientific knowledge, enhances the resilience of communities to disasters and climate change. The feeling of normalcy, self-esteem, sense of place and confidence in the future among people and communities affected by disasters should be restored and strengthened through cultural programmes and the rehabilitation of their cultural heritage and institutions» [2]. In the subsequent Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 [4], the various contributions that cultural heritage can offer to address global and local risks are highlighted. «Both tangible and intangible cultural heritage incorporates useful elements to overcome potential risks, being the result of long periods of adaptation between man and his environment of life. […] It can be a powerful catalyst for interacting with local populations, bringing them together and reinforcing the sense of belonging in the preventive and recovery phases; moreover, the protection of the cultural heritage can sustain a rapid recovery and reconstruction through the economy generated in the sectors linked to tourism activities» [4].
The value of cultural heritage therefore for the creation of sustainable and resilient human settlements, and also for the creation of heritage communities and resilient communities [7].
Small and medium-sized cities are today subjected to global and local challenges (globalization, emigration of skilled people, aging populations, economic downturn, physical degradation etc.). The contribution of cultural heritage in facing these challenges is limited by the abandonment and decay, the lack of investments in recovery and maintenance, the lack of skills that are often emigrated. The result is that in many cases communities have become disconnected from cultural heritage, which defines their locality. The recovery of the built environment can be a strategy aimed at preserving and enhancing the cultural heritage and improving the quality of life and at the same time privileged action for community involvement. From the knowledge to the planning phase up to the implementation and monitoring, the recovery of the built environment can in fact be an effective vehicle for the involvement of the communities, as a process that increases the ability of individuals or groups to make decisions and to transform them into desired actions and effects. This idea of recovery includes the recognition of heritage as a common good, in which the relationship between community and place becomes a prerequisite for its care and conservation. This allows to improve and translate the collective creativity of local communities into synergistic actions that contribute to sustainable development, generating economic, social and cultural values. Built environment and community can be recognized as two systems that interact in the landscape: as well as a community relates to the built environment through its culture changing its internal structure, at the same way the built environment contributes to configure the community as a social organization [8]. The recovery of the built environment can be the basis for implementing new models of cooperative management, as a "third way" that overcomes the conflicts between public and private public interests [9][10].
The development of a multilevel network, in which several actors are involved in a process of acquisition of shared competence of doing together, accompanies the community in the achievement of a shared awareness of material culture as a strategic factor to protect, manage and develop the urban and human environment in which it lives. Experiences of multilevel partnership and local community engagement in preservation and reactivation of the cultural heritage to support cultural and socio-economic development are slowly spreading, in urban such as rural areas. The research examines Best Practices of urban regeneration in which cooperation among different local actors has led to an increase in the awareness of the value of “resource” of her own landscape by the community and activated a virtuous circle of self-sustaining actions. The research develops heritage community resilience indicators, i.e. performance indicators of the link between local actors and the quality of urban regeneration actions.
2. Heritage community e community resilience for urban sustainability and resiliency
The international documents highlight the strategic role of the community is taking in the processes of protection, management and maintenance of the cultural heritage understood as a common good, also in relation to stress and shock phenomena that require particular skills of prevention, response, recovery and reconstruction [4]. Some authors argue that: «[…] the first resource for the community problems is the community» [11], considering the results of experiences of collaboration among different actors, institutional and social, aimed at cultural heritage.
In recent years, the Faro Convention on the value of cultural heritage for society [5] shifts the focus from the cultural heritage in itself to the people, their relationship with the surrounding environment and their participation in recognizing cultural values. In this scenario, cultural heritage is a resource at the center of a vision of sustainable development and promotion of cultural diversity for the construction of a peaceful and democratic society [12]. The relationship that truly connects a community to a place goes beyond physical belonging to it. The sense of belonging recalls an active factor, a conscious choice, which recognizes in a given landscape the visible expression of the values of collective identity [13].
The identification between community and place contributes to create the heritage community, highlighting the social value of the cultural heritage, which becomes the element that characterizes and holds together a community [5]. The Council of Europe through the Faro Convention emphasizes the importance of cultural heritage and individual responsibility, shared by businesses, civil society and citizens. The Faro Convention marks a turning point in the management of the cultural heritage and promotes integrated governance policies for the conservation of cultural heritage. Cultural heritage thus becomes a factor of social and political development but also of economic development. In fact, one of the goals of the Convention is «to fully utilize the potential of cultural heritage as a factor in the sustainable economic development» [5].
An advancement of the role of the community for cultural heritage, but also of cultural heritage for the community, is represented by the New Delhi Declaration [14]. The Declaration emphasizes that heritage is a fundamental right and responsibility of all. It is the starting point for a fair future that ensures and celebrates diversity, social participation, equality and justice for all cultures. The Declaration also underlines the individual and collective responsibility, promoting inclusive and democratic community processes «of all, by all, for all» for heritage management [14]. The involvement of the communities is founded on ethical and educational principles for heritage since «intellectual and physical access to cultural resources educates people to its protection» [14].
The aim of these international documents is to demonstrate, not only the value of heritage for a society to improve the quality of life, but above all to understand how communities can play an active role in protection and promotion of their cultural heritage (British Council, 2018). The heritage thus becomes a dimension that "unites" and allows the comparison among multiple identities, represented by the traditions, skills and talents of the communities, mediating between different points of view, in a perspective of a common interest [6].
International documents dealing with the Global Agenda on Sustainability and Resilience of Human Settlements still highlight the active role of the local community in dealing with perturbative events, due to the experience and competence of the community. «Indigenous peoples, through their experience and traditional knowledge, provide an important contribution to the development and implementation of plans and mechanisms, including for early warning» [4]. These documents underline the role of educational and research institutions in supporting the various actors in the phases of prevention, response, recovery and reconstruction. «[...] Academia, scientific and research entities and networks [provide] to: focus on the disaster risk factors and scenarios, including emerging disaster risks, in the medium and long term; increase research for regional, national and local application; support action by local communities and authorities; and support the interface between policy and science for decision-making» [4].
On the basis of international documents, within the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction the importance of activating community actors emerge, by virtue of their skills and their being custodians and interpreters of the local culture emerges.
The need to coordinate different types of stakeholders to increase urban resilience was also highlighted by Michael Berkowitz, the managing director of 100 Resilient Cities, in his plenary speech at the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III, 2016). «The story of resilience is really one of collaboration. It takes all levels of government, the private sector, and civil society, working cooperatively toward a common purpose: reducing catastrophic risk and, at the same time, improving the daily lives of residents» [15].
In the scientific literature on resilience e in policymaking discourses on sustainability, therefore, community resilience is gaining prominence as a targeted process of societal development [16]. It concerns community learning and the willingness of communities to take responsibility and control of their development pathways [17]. Gunderson and Folke defined it as «people's ability to learn and change (which, in turn, is partially determined by the institutional context for knowledge sharing, learning, and management, and partially by the social capital among people)» [18]. It contributes, together with the system's capacity for renewal in a dynamic environment, to the general resilience of the social-urban system.
The most recent studies on community resilience highlight some of its features: knowledge skills and learning, community networks, people attachment to places, community infrastructures, diverse and innovative economies, engaged governance [19].
A community resilience, as well as a heritage community, is therefore characterized by the belonging to places, by the willingness of all stakeholders to cooperate (local authorities and civil society), by the participation of the actors to governance, by the commitment and the use of the resources. In the case of the community resilience, the knowledge skills and learning, of diverse and innovative economies are marks of the dynamic and adaptive dimension of the community in the adapting to rapid and frequently crises-driven change.
3. Research Methodology
The research investigates the relationship between the regeneration actions on cultural heritage, through a network of multi-level partnerships and the capacity for innovation, reaction and recovery. This for demonstrating the useful link between a heritage community and a community resilience. To this end, the research analyzes Best Practices of Urban Regeneration in which cooperation between different actors has led to an increase in the awareness of the value of “resource” of her own heritage by the community and activated a virtuous circle of actions that feed on itself. The Best Practices are selected in relation to the number and type of actors involved in the process and to the type of collaboration tools between the actors (contractual forms, agreements, self-organized, etc.). In particular, as emerged from the scientific literature, among the actors it was chosen to select practices in which research and training institutions had a role of driver for the activation and support of resilient and sustainable urban regeneration processes. The data were drawn from media sources, scientific literature and semi-structured interviews with the actors of the selected processes. The practices are analyzed by highlighting the actors involved in the process, the activities carried out, the tools used, the intercepted dimensions (cultural, social, environmental, economic).
Based on the technical literature and the Best Practices analyzed, the research hypothesizes performance indicators capable of linking the relations between the local actors and the quality of urban regeneration actions.
4. Best practices of multilevel partnership and urban regeneration
The Best Practices analyzed are examples of partnerships between different actors who have activated virtuous circuits of involvement and participation, as well as urban regeneration, around the recovery and enhancement of cultural heritage.
The case study of the historic center of Ortigia (Tab. 1), in the Municipality of Syracuse, represents an example of cooperation between institutions through contractual forms, capable of triggering virtuous processes of urban regeneration and community empowerment, in a circle that involved both new residents, entrepreneurs and institutions. In particular, the practice highlights the role of the higher education as a driver of building recovery and urban regeneration and transfer of knowledge to construction companies [20]. During the 20th Century, the main productive activities developed on the mainland Sicily and the ancient district of Ortigia was depopulated and progressively abandoned. As a result of this trend, in the late 20th Century Ortigia was characterised, on the one hand, by stunning archaeological sites and heritage assets, on the other, by poor housing conditions and few public spaces, due to the high population density. Since the 1960es, the poor quality of living in Ortigia has caused a constant depopulation process. In the 70s and 80s the Region together with the municipality encouraged the redevelopment of the historic center, focusing on cultural heritage after the industrial decommissioning. Decisive was the Province's agreement with the University as one of the most powerful engines for a functional and economic relaunch of the historical centre. The transformation of Ortigia into a university city was based on the adaptation of ancient buildings into student housing, preserving their typological features. The Detailed Plan for Ortigia promoted urban regeneration of the historic centre also for tourist and cultural activities. For this purpose, it increased the number of hotels and tourist resorts near the marina and established a new tourist terminal. The Plan was successfully implemented through grants for building rehabilitation projects carried out by the Municipality, promoting citizens’ participation and new forms of Public/Private Partnerships.
The practice shows how the integrated actions of knowledge transfer, strategic decision-making and stakeholders’ engagement can foster successful heritage-led urban regeneration. In particular, local administration, higher education, cultural heritage entrepreneurship have proven to be the main pillars of a virtuous circular project aimed at empowering the civil society through built environment’s reuse and enhancement.
Tab. 1 - Regeneration process of the historic center of Ortigia, Syracuse, guided by the agreement between the Province and the University.
ACTOR ACTIVITY TOOLS DIMENSION
Sicily Region • Regional legislation
• Management of financial aspects • Regional Laws n. 70 of 1976 and n. 34 of 1985, aiming at protection of historical centres and providing special rules for the Ortigia district
Economic
Province of Syracuse
• Urban regeneration through culture and heritage buildings potential
• Agreement with the University of Catania and the Municipality of Syracuse Cultural, Social, Physical/ environmental, Economic Municipal Administration
• Performance of deliberative and technical/executive functions
• Implementation of regional laws
Cultural, Social,
• Performance of strategic decision-making
• Cooperation with an higher education provider (University) • Promotion of grants for building
rehabilitation projects carried out by the Municipality
• Promotion of citizens’ participation and new Public/Private Partnerships
• Determination for encouraging private residents to directly intervene on the cultural built heritage
• Detailed Plan for Ortigia (PPO), approved by the Region in 1990, as a variant of the existing Masterplan • Agreement with the University
of Catania and the Province of Syracuse
• Adhesion and implementation of the URBAN I 1994-1999 Community Initiative Program (CIP) Physical/ environmental, Economic University of Catania
• Production of knowledge and transfer of skills
• Compatible/adaptive reuse of obsolete and abandoned spaces and houses
• Resources mobilisation and management
• Training of local professionals • Promotion of spin-off companies
• Agreement with the Province of Syracuse and the Municipal Administration
Cultural
Cultural Heritage Entrepreneurship
• Reuse, rehabilitation and maintenance of cultural heritage (thanks to the interest of
stakeholders to invest both on built heritage and related industries)
• Participation to National, Regional, Municipal projects (the PRU and URBAN projects, etc.)
Economic, Physical/ environmental
Citizens • Reuse, rehabilitation and
maintenance of their own historic properties
• Participation to the call for applications promoting citizens’ participation and new Public/Private Partnerships (Regional Laws n. 70/ 1976 and n. 34/ 1985, Detailed Plan for Ortigia, etc.)
Social, Physical/ environmental
The Best Practice of Cortona, Arezzo (Tab. 2), represents one of the most complex case for the Collaboration Pacts, an Italian legal tool through which the Municipality activates projects in partnership with local actors.
In 2001, the Office of Social Services activated the “Laboratory of the Possible City”, contributing to the creation of a network among different actors with different skills. In 2014, the local administration adopted the "Regulation on collaboration between citizens and the administration for the care and regeneration of communal lands". Local actors were already involved in the dynamic collaborative network. In this context, the regulation represented an easy and progressive process, matched to the begging relationships.
Several pacts among the Municipality and actors: active citizens, institution of the Third Sector, Educational Institution, have been activated simultaneously. The pacts focused on different themes related to both tangible and intangible Commons: care of public spaces, health, disability, integration, multiculturalism, education, sport.
Each pact activated a laboratory in which individual or organized citizens, associations, schools, social cooperatives worked together with the Municipality. The laboratories are still today in progress, for the regeneration of local Commons and for the community well-being.
Also in this case, the role of educational institutions emerges. They contributed to the dissemination of participatory design practices, including also the immaterial goods, through the education in responsibility, legality, sense of citizenship and of ethics among generations.
The subsidiarity concept, at the basis of the collaboration pact, in each of the involved actors increased the awareness of being useful to the community, enhancing the “generativity” [6] of collaborative actions, which regards their productivity in terms of benefits to the well-being of people, activating other actions in a circular process.
This case demonstrates that the creation of a multi-stakeholders network allows not only cultural exchanges but also the development of stable projects during the time.
Tab. 2 – Regeneration process of the Municipality of Cortona, guided by Pacts of collaboration between the Municipality and active citizenship.
Active citizens • Promotion of citizenship, social security,
support for the common goods
• Delivery of public services and creation of new values
• Promotion of collective projects
• Knowledge and skill exchange among the community
• Association,
Cooperative, Pacts of collaboration with the Public administration Social, Physical/ environmental Public administration • Supply of utilities • Regulation of the market • Control of the rules
• Enlargement of the range of actors involved in public affairs
• Regulation on collaboration between citizens and
administration for the care and
regeneration of urban common heritage • Pacts of collaboration
with the citizens
Social, Economic, Cultural
Third Sector institution
• Implementation of general interest activities • Providing of utilities and creation of new
forms of value production
• Involvement in programming and co-planning of social policies through the accreditation of services to meet social needs
• Pacts of collaboration with the Public administration
Social, Economic
Educational Institution
• Providing of expertises
• Support to decision-making activities • Mediation among different needs
expressed by different actors • Promotion of collective projects
• Promotion of knowledge and sharing skills in the community
• Pacts of collaboration with the Public administration
Social, Cultural
The case study of the Municipality of Mamoiada (Tab. 3), a town of about 2500 inhabitants in the Province of Nuoro, represents an example of collaboration between municipal administration and community cooperatives, where cultural heritage is the driver of a virtuous long-term urban regeneration process.
In 2001, a ten-year municipal announcement for the creation of a museum linked to the traditions of the carnival of the village of Mamoiada pushed a group of active citizens to form a cooperative and take over the future Museum of Mediterranean Masks. Thanks to the involvement of local actors, the cooperative Viseras set up a production chain linked to the Masks of the Mamuthones and the Issohadores and to the other traditions of the territory. The productive development led to the reuse of numerous buildings in the historic center and to the redevelopment of the territory, contributing to the attractiveness of the country and to improving the quality of life of the inhabitants. The training of professional figures linked to the activities developed by the cooperative, also in agreement with the University of Cagliari, promoted this virtuous circle of involvement, with the strengthening of collective identity and empowerment of the Mamoiada community. The same cooperative over the years increased its skills and the quality of services offered. Through its empowerment, the cooperative was able to win the following ten-year announcement for the management of the museum and open further museums. From 2018, the community cooperative, with the collaboration of some associations, organized the first international mask festival, involving the Municipality of Mamoiada and the entire community, with the main objective of strengthening the synergies of a strongly identifying territory, rich in culture.
Starting from the numerous activities developed by the Museum of Mediterranean Masks, results in terms of improving the quality of life and urban regeneration are also confirmed by the positive demographic balance, negative to 2001.
The practice shows how the cooperating actors, the stakeholders’ engagement and the knowledge transfer, can foster successful heritage-led urban regeneration. In particular, the creation of a heritage community has triggered a virtuous circular project increasing the resilience of the community, through the new skills, economic sustainability and innovative capacity.
Tab. 3 – Regeneration process of the Municipality of Mamoiada, activated by the municipal administration and the Viseras community cooperative.
ACTOR ACTIVITY TOOLS DIMENSION
Public administration • Promotion of culture as a
driving for local development
• Competition for the assignment of the museum management service
Social, economic, cultural
• Enhancement of the local carnival through the Museum of Mediterranean Masks
• Deliberations of
assignment of the spaces of the Museum of Mediterranean Masks
Citizens • Management and promotion of the Museums (Museum of the Mediterranean Masks, Museum of Culture and Labor, Museum of Archeology and Territory) • Involvement of local actors • Training, capacity building • Organization of cultural
events (festival, guided tours, etc.) • Community cooperative • (informal) Collaboration network Social, economic, cultural Small entrepreneurs linked to the local culture, artisans, restaurateurs, hoteliers, etc. • Providing of services of general interest • Development of productive and cultural activities • Promotion of local resources
• (informal) Collaboration network
Economic, Cultural
Cultural associations • Promotion of local resources
• Organization of cultural activities
• Committment of the spaces for the realization of the Museum of Culture and Labor, Museum of Archeology and Territory
Social, Economic, Cultural
5. Heritage community resilience indicators
Basing on the sectorial literature and on the analyzed Best Practices, the research develops indicators of heritage community resilience. These are performance indicators able to express the link among the increase of partnerships between different actors and the quality of urban regeneration actions. In the perspective of this research, the definition of heritage community resilience has the purpose to focus the attention on a particular kind of community resilience, that is based on the acknowledgement of the cultural heritage as identity factor. The hypothesis is the recognition and sharing of common identity values, which takes place through action: "thinking together" and "doing together" on tangible and intangible cultural heritage. This is to promote people’s affection for their places, the acquisition of skills and knowledge learning, the development of community networks to create innovative solutions for cultural heritage management.
It is strongly relevant to emphasize that, in defining the resilience of the community, the ability of a community to absorb change is accompanied by the ability to respond to it, regenerating itself in an innovative way. Therefore, in the case of the heritage community resilience the shared awareness and skills facilitate the development of innovative solutions for the management of the regeneration on the built heritage.
In this perspective the research identifies partnership tools as indicators of the heritage community resilience. They define and measure the actions on the built environment, towards the creation of resilient communities around cultural heritage, for generating a virtuous self-sufficient circuit.
These tools are classified in the category of Collaborative Resource Management, due the capacity to implement innovative ways for the partnership among the actors involved in the regeneration of the cultural heritage. Each of these tools is characterized by specific goal that depends to particular aspect of development strategies culture–led.
The Collaboration Pacts are instruments through which the «Municipality and active citizens agree on all that is necessary for the implementation of the care and regeneration action for common goods» (art. 5th of Regulation on collaboration between citizens and administration for the care and regeneration of urban common heritage). The content of the pacts depends on the actions and the timing of the collaboration. Each pact in particular defines: the goal of the collaboration and the actions of shared care; the timing of the cooperation, the types of action, the role and the mutual commitments of the actors involved, the requirements and the constraints of intervention; the modalities of collective fruition of the urban Commons; the guarantees to cover any damage; the forms of financial support and the promotional initiatives.
The partnership between Public Authorities and Higher Education Institutions usually focuses on the strategic role that higher education institutions can have as knowledge capital provider and promoter [20]. This partnership activates a strategic decision making to increase site attractiveness and to reinforce the overall virtuous socio-economic circle: the local authority guarantees the financial support, investing financial resource in favor to the University and enhancing the local culture, while University supports urban development and stimulatesinnovation and civic engagement.
The partnerships in which one of two actors is a cultural heritage entrepreneurship are called “creative partnerships” because they concretely exemplify the benefits that culture may bring both to society and to the economy. They demonstrate that culture and creativity are not a niche activity for leisure time, but that through cross-fertilization they may make a key contribution to tackling important societal challenges, as well as to innovation.
The Partnership between Cultural Heritage Entrepreneurship and Higher Education Institution emphasizes the capacity of cultural heritage entrepreneurship to exploit the cultural capital through a new paradigms that considers the strategic value of the territorial capital and focused on increasing the social capital of a human collectivity, located in an specific urban landscape. This kind of partnership reconciles economic value, cultural value and social value to transfer the knowledge, to enhance the skills, to preserve historical urban landscape and to achieve compatible/adaptive reuse.
The Partnership between Cultural Heritage Entrepreneurship and Public Authorities helps to elaborate a cultural strategy to satisfy the community needs. In some cases, local authorities have the role of mediator and coordinator of partnerships, but, in other cases, the mediating organizations may be purpose-built institutions. Anyway, the aim is to build and sustain networks and relations with stakeholders not only to link different skills, enriching the cultural offer, but also to attract funding. Another type of partnership is the Institutional Partnership among Authorities at different level (regional – local, provincial – local, etc.). In this case, the actors have a decisional role respect to the achievement of urban development goals and improvement of quality of life. This partnership produces, traditionally, strategic plan strategic addressed to different scales of the territory.
An innovative partnership is the Public-Private-People Partnership (4P). In this case, both the government and private actors work together with communities for social welfare goals. The collaboration among the actors aims to improve the resilience of the city in order to understand the different perspectives of the same reality.
The Community Cooperative is a model of social innovation where citizens are producers and users of goods and services. It is a model that creates synergy and cohesion in a community, putting the activities of individual citizens into system, enterprises, associations and institutions. This for responding to multiple mutual needs. The purpose of a community cooperative is to produce benefits by favoring a community to which the sponsor members belong or elect as their own. Community cooperatives value the centrality of human capital, establishing organizational and management models that encourage participation and involvement. These experiences combine questions and values of active citizenship, subsidiarity, management of common goods and solidarity.
Tab. 4 - Heritage community resilience indicators
CATEGORY
(OVERLAY) INDICATOR DESCRIPTION DATA SOURCE
Collaborative Resource Management Collaboration pacts (between municipality and citizens)
Percentage of collaboration pacts (in function of the size of population) to regenerate and care the tangible and intangible cultural heritage
Labsus Report 2017
Public authorities – Higher education partnership
Number of contractual agreement between a public agency (regional, provincial or local) and a higher education institution to activate a strategic decision making to increase site attractiveness and to reinforce the overall virtuous socio-economic circle
Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) - 9th General census of Industry and services: Survey of non-profit institutions Cultural heritage entrepreneurship – higher education partnership
Number of contractual agreement between cultural heritage entrepreneurship and a higher education institution to transfer the knowledge, to enhance the actors skills, to preserve urban context and to achieve compatible/adaptive reuse
Statistical register of active enterprises (ASIA)
Cultural heritage entrepreneurship – public authorities partnership
Number of contractual agreement between cultural heritage entrepreneurship and public authorities to attract funding through the engagement of stakeholders
Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) - 9th General census of Industry and services: Survey of non-profit institutions; Survey of public institutions Partnership among authorities at different level
Number of contractual agreement among authorities at different level (regional – local, provincial – local, etc.) to achieve the goals of urban development and improvement of life quality
Website of Campania Region
Public private people partnership (4P)
Number of partnerships between public sector, private sector and people represented by civil society through strategy to regenerate and care tangible and intangible cultural heritage
Data elaboration of the ISTAT 9th General census of industry and services: Survey of non-profit institutions
Community cooperative
Number of social innovation system in which individual citizens, enterprises, associations and institutions create a community that responds to multiple mutual needs
Regional Register of Social Cooperatives (BURC n. 9 of 18th February 2019)
6. Conclusion
The research identifies in the increase of partnerships among the actors of the landscape a driver to improve the social cohesion, the ability to react to difficulties, the capacity for innovation. The actions on cultural heritage can facilitate and strengthen the building a community, through the recognition of the value of “resource” of one’s own heritage and the willingness for its protection and care.
In this scenario, the relationship between heritage community and resilience community is based on the enhancement of both concepts. The indicators of heritage community resilience are aimed to provide guidance tools for actions that can create community resilience around cultural heritage, thus generating a virtuous self-sustaining circuit. The indicators need to be further tested in small and medium towns. One of the most shared definitions of resilience describes it as the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure and feedbacks, and therefore identity [21] [22]. In our approach based on cultural heritage, the rediscovery of the local identity it is exactly the driver to reach the capacity of a system to absorb disturbances and reorganize itself.
The hypothesis of the research is that strategic partnerships, combined with the reuse and enhancement of cultural heritage have the potential to trigger successful socio-economic processes, strenghtening the community resilience.
Collaborations, culture, synergies, complementarities [20] have been identified in our research as the most important aspects of the heritage community resilience. Therefore, they are also the most challenging [23].
Bibliographical References
[1] UNESCO. Recommendations on the Urban Historic Landscapes. Paris, 2011.
[2] UNESCO. The Hangzhou Declaration Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development
Policies. Hangzhou, 2013.
[3] UNESCO. Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations, 2015.
[4] UNISDR. Sendai Framework 2015-2030. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015.
[5] COUNCIL OF EUROPE. Framework convention on the value of cultural heritage for society (Faro
Convention). Faro, 2005.
[6] NOCCA, Francesca, FUSCO GIRARD, Luigi. Towards an Integrated Evaluation Approach for Cultural Urban Landscape Conservation/Regeneration. In Region, 2018, vol.5, n.1., pp.33-51.
[7] PINTO, Maria Rita, FABBRICATTI, Katia, BOISSENIN, Lucie. Applying Resilience Thinking for the Cultural Landscape of the inner areas: new tools of knowledge and adaptive management. In Abitare la
Terra, 2018, n.46-47, pp.66-69.
[8] ONESTI, Anna, BOSONE, Martina. From tangible to intangible and return: hybrid tools for operationalising HUL approach. In BDC-Bollettino Del Centro Calza Bini, 2017, n.2.
[9] OSTROM, Elinor. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[10] BERTACCHINI Enrico, BRAVO Giangiacomo, MARRELLI Massimo, SANTAGATA Walker. Cultural
Commons. A New Perspective on the Production and Evolution of Cultures. Cheltenham, UK; Edward
Elgar Publishing, 2012.
[12] CARMOSINO, Cinzia. La Convenzione quadro del Consiglio d’Europa sul valore del patrimonio culturale per la società. In Aedo, 2013, n. 1.
[13] CATERINA, Gabriella. Conservazione, manutenzione e gestione degli spazi pubblici e dei beni architettonici. In CASTAGNETO, Francesca, Fiore, Vittorio (eds). Recupero Valorizzazione
Manutenzione nei Centri Storici. Un tavolo di confronto interdisciplinare. Siracusa: Lettera 22, 2013, pp.
14–17.
[14] ICOMOS. Delhi Declaration on Heritage and Democracy. New Delhi, India, 2017.
[15] BERKOWITZ, Michael. 2016. What is resilience and why does it matter now more than ever? Available at https://www.100resilientcities.org/what-is-resilience-and-why-does-it-matter-now-more-than-ever.
[16] CHELLERI, Lorenzo, MINUCCI, Guido, EIRINI, Skrimizea. Does community resilience decrease social–ecological vulnerability? Adaptation pathways trade-off in the Bolivian Altiplano. In Regional environmental change: natural and social aspects, 2016, n.16.
[17] WILSON, Geoff A. Community resilience: path dependency, lock-in effects and transitional ruptures. In Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2014, vol.57, n.1, pp.1–26.
[18] GUNDERSON, Lance H., FOLKE, Carl. Resilience—Now More than Ever. In Ecology and Society, 2005, vol. 10, n.2.
[19] MACLEAN, Kirsten, CUTHILL, Michael, ROSS, Helen. Six attributes of social resilience. In Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management, 2014, vol.57, n.1, pp.144–156.
[20] DE MEDICI, Stefania, RIGANTI, Patrizia, VIOLA, Serena. Circular Economy and the Role of Universities in Urban Regeneration: The Case of Ortigia, Syracuse. In Sustainability, 2018, vol.10, n.11, pp.4305-4331. DOI:10.3390/su10114305
[21] FOLKE, Carl, CARPENTER, Stephen R., WALKER, Brian, SCHEFFER, Marten, CHAPIN, Terry, ROCKSTÖM, Johan. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability, and transformability. In
Ecology and Society, 2010, vol. 15, n. 4, p. 20.
[22] WALKER, Brian, HOLLING, C.S., CARPENTER, Stephen R., KINZIG, Ann P. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems, In Ecology and Society, 2004, vol.9, n.2, art.5.
[23] KAPUCU, Naim. Disaster resilience and adaptive capacity in Central Florida, US, and in Eastern Marmara Region, Turkey. J. Comp. Policy Anal.: Res. Pract., 2012, vol. 14 (3), pp. 202–216.
