Several EU programmes propose an approach based on citizen participation for the protection and management of cultural heritage. Heritage buildings are perceived as a strategic resource with shared values recognised by the community and capable of contributing to socio-economic development. The perspective of cultural heritage as a common good leads to the outlining of new models of rehabilitation and shared management, for the care of abandoned buildings and urban public spaces in historical contexts, with reduced costs for public finance. The definition of strategies and roles of stakeholders (local administration, enterprises, citizens and third sector) in the implementation of enhancement processes for the built environment is based on the principle of horizontal subsidiarity. This leads to the following questions: can unused buildings and urban spaces really give back a voice to citizens for the use and transformation of their living environment? Under which conditions can the collaboration between active citizens and local authorities work in the care and management of heritage buildings?
The research presented in this book aims to answer these questions, learning from the successful and unsuccessful experiences of participatory management of cultural heritage in Europe, to define a methodology for assessing the feasibility and effectiveness of participatory management programmes. Through the analysis of good practices identified in the European context, the book aims to define criteria and conditions required for feasible and effective participatory management of cultural heritage. The case studies examined contribute to the definition of a set of key issues to assess alternative management scenarios, focused on the enhancement of tangible and intangible heritage. The proposed assessment tool promotes the progressive growth of values belonging to all members of the community, through the creation, protection, and shared management of cultural heritage. Indeed, effective shared enhancement strategies can increase the quality of the built environment, promote social cohesion and be powerful activators for urban regeneration processes. Quality control of reuse, redevelopment and maintenance of the built heritage is essential to activate processes of public use and co-management, aimed at fostering inclusive community policies and consolidating the links between citizens and the built environment.
Table of contents
A research programme on built heritage and active citizenship
1.1 Built environment and urban regeneration
1.2 Urban spaces as common goods?
1.3 The horizontal subsidiarity principle in the European and Italian constitutions
1.4 Is cultural heritage a common good?
1.5 The research project
The international debate on cultural heritage, built environment, and the Commons
2.1 Cultural heritage and sustainable development
2.2 Cultural heritage, civic engagement, and social innovation
2.3 Regeneration, rehabilitation, reuse, and maintenance of the architectural heritage as enhancement strategies
2.4 The Historic Urban Landscape approach for sustainable conservation, valorization and management of cultural heritage
2.5 The Commons. Theoretical highlights
2.6 Towards a definition of the common good: from the Faro Convention to the New Delhi Declaration
2.7 Cultural Heritage managed as common good. Key-issues in the scientific debate
Decision-making of the shared management of the built heritage.
Defining evaluation criteria
3.1 Research method
3.2 Methodological path of regeneration and shared management models
European Award-winning models for regeneration and shared management of cultural heritage and the built environment.
Towards criteria for assessing feasibility and effectiveness
4.1 The principles to choice models for regeneration and shared management of cultural heritage and the built environment
4.2 Analysis and classification criteria
4.2.1 Adoptoi Monumentti, reuse and maintenance of architectural and archaeological heritage
4.2.2 Aqua Augusta, art and culture for an integrated valorization and regeneration of cultural heritage
4.2.3 Artova, regeneration of urban district and heritage production
4.2.4 Bond Heemschut Heritage Association, regeneration of private cultural heritage
4.2.5 Cascinet, a community-driven regeneration towards a sustainable ecosystem
4.2.6 Control Shift, reuse of industrial heritage
4.2.7 Dublin Civic Trust, regeneration of public cultural heritage
4.2.8 ENtopia, regeneration of historical infrastructures
4.2.9 Faventia Sales, a culture-led regeneration for the enhancement of human and social capital
4.2.10 FOQUS, an urban regeneration led by a productive community for a Neapolitan Renaissance
4.2.11 Historic Dragor, conservation of tangible and intangible heritage
4.2.12 My Castle Gateway, conservation of historical urban area
4.2.13 Norwegian coastal Federation, regeneration of historical village
4.2.14 Wooden church of Ursi Village, regeneration of public cultural heritage
4.3 Results of case study analysis
Validating evaluation criteria in the Italian context: feasibility and effectiveness dimensions in the shared management of the built heritage
5.1 The framework of Italian practices
5.2 Italian experiences
5.2.1 Hostel of Ideas
5.2.3 The civic city
5.2.4 Scugnizzo Liberato
5.3 Evaluation elaborations: questions, criteria and dimensions of feasibility and effectiveness in the process