8/12/2019 1926090

1/10

GUEST EDITORIAL

World Heritage citiesmanagement

Ana Pereira RodersEindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, and

Ron van OersUNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, France

Abstract

Purpose This article aims to introduce the special issue of the journal Facilitieson World Heritagecities management, together with the respective articles.

Design/methodology/approach This introduction addresses the topic of world Heritage citiesmanagement and its relevance to science and society. In so doing, it indirectly points to the emergingfield of cultural heritage management within facilities management.

Findings Even though the management of cultural heritage assets is nothing new for facilitiesmanagers, cultural heritage management as a field of research can be considered at a younger stage ofdevelopment than other related studies, such as the discipline of architectural conservation, whichoriginated in the nineteenth century with the advent of modernity. The application of managementpractices to immovable cultural heritage assets emerged as recently as the 1990s. At a time in whichthe role of culture and heritage in processes of sustainable development is gaining more ground, thisspecial issue can be seen as the first of more contributions to come, which aim to enhance theconservation and management of cultural heritage assets for the benefit of present and futuregenerations.

Originality/value This paper aims to make a contribution to the growing field of cultural heritage

management and is of use to facilities managers, scholars and consultants who have responsibilitiesbut limited knowledge in this field.

KeywordsHeritage, Sustainable development, Urban areas, Culture

Paper typeResearch paper

IntroductionInternationally acknowledged for its broad and multidisciplinary view on facilitiesmanagement, the journal Facilities was a pioneer in recognizing the need to payparticular attention to the management of facilities that are legally designated ascultural heritage. This special designation is attributed to facilities whose culturalsignificance has led governments to distinguish them from other facilities, in order toarrange for and manage their protection. Some facilities may be considered ofoutstanding value at the local level, others at national level. However, only 911 sites(704 cultural, 180 natural and 27 mixed) have so far been designated by theinternational community as properties of outstanding universal value (hereinafterOUV), appearing on the UNESCO World Heritage listing.

Whether local, national or international, governments share the responsibility forthe protection of these facilities for present and future generations. Thus, it seems onlyfitting that due attention is paid to their proper management. Where in former timesthis task was centered on the conservation of these facilities, primarily as individual

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

F29,7/8

276

Facilities

Vol. 29 No. 7/8, 2011

pp. 276-285

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0263-2772

DOI 10.1108/02632771111130898

8/12/2019 1926090

2/10

buildings or structures, nowadays it entails complex processes of management to dealwith change of uses, changes in the surroundings, a widening circle of stakeholdersand competing demands as regards environmental, economic, social and culturalrequirements. As such, management practices have been progressing towards a more

holistic approach, where the cultural significance (i.e. range of values attributed tothese facilities, from existence to use values and from socio-economic to environmentaland cultural values) is taken into account, whenever changes need to be applied tothese or other surrounding facilities (Pereira Roders, 2007).

As key resource, cultural heritage has become a driver for development, whichwhen properly managed can enhance the livability of their surrounding areas andsustain productivity in a changing global environment. However, governments need tohave clear strategies and effective methods for planning, designing, executing andmanaging these facilities in order to optimize their production and consumptionpotential, while preserving and where possible enhancing their cultural significance.

Unfortunately, there is still a gap between the practice and theory of culturalheritage management. In practice there is a significant delay in shifting to a moreholistic approach, where planning and management is concerned, most certainly bylocal governments. In theory, there is a lack of research to identify and designinnovative approaches, and to document and disseminate best practices for themanagement cultural heritage facilities whether in various parts of the world, orwithin the same geo-cultural regions.

Dr Ana Pereira Roders and Dr Ron van Oers have dedicated this issue to themanagement of very particular facilities, namely World Heritage cities. As this is arather complex notion, further elaboration on this notion follows below.

The main aim was to offer a broader range of authors next to scholars alsofacilities managers, other professionals, researchers and students the opportunity tosubmit articles on their experiences embracing the challenging field of cultural heritage

management. The objective has been to provide the international scientific communityand the stakeholders concerned with a few examples of management practices beingimplemented in these facilities presented from different angles.

Authors from all regions and nationalities were invited to present a particularWorld Heritage city as case study and address, where possible:

. the relationship between its international, national and local designation;

. the progress or obstacles when comparing management approaches pre- andpost-designation;

. the variety of stakeholders involved in the propertys management (e.g.governmental institutions, NGOs, owners associations, citizen advocacy groups,etc);

.

the management tools employed (e.g. specific legislation, master plans, impactassessments, software programmes, others) to identify, monitor and evaluatechanges, in the physical environment as well as the social perception, i.e. theassigned values with their indicators, priorities and weights; and

. the sustainability of current management practices and ways to improve them.

The submission of articles to the special issue came from all corners of the world andalthough many merited attention and publication, it apparently proved a challenge for

World Heritagecities

management

277

8/12/2019 1926090

3/10

the authors to address all the above-mentioned considerations in a comprehensivemanner. It was evidence to the guest editors that the practice and theory of culturalheritage management still shows a significant gap all the more reason to justify thisspecial edition.

Preference has been given to those articles, which gave ample information andinsights on the impact of the management practices being implemented in the chosenWorld Heritage cities, instead of theoretical reflections, research propositions oracademic surveys. In other words, the onus was put on the view from the playing fieldof the practitioner more than the scholar, also because the experiences of this keystakeholder group are not often presented in academic journals; at least not as much asthose of scholars. While obviously this has repercussions as regards the scientificcontent and value of the individual papers, the editors hope that this view will initiatefurther scholarly reflections and fine-tune academic research at least it will do sowith regard to the guest editors own research into the subject (Pereira Roders and VanOers, 2009).

World Heritage citiesUnder the World Heritage Conventions article 1 three types of immovable culturalheritage are distinguished, being monuments, groups of buildings, and sites (UNESCO,2008). While recently debates have flared up over the inappropriateness of thisclassification when considering the nature and value of historic cities (Van Oers, 2006),for the time being the Operational Guidelines to the Implementation of the WorldHeritage Convention, in paragraph 14 of Annex 3, recognize three categories ofhistoric towns and town centers. Those are respectively:

(1) towns no longer inhabited, meaning urban archaeological sites such as Palmyrain Syria, Angkor in Cambodia, or Tikal in Guatemala;

(2) inhabited historic towns, such as Djenne in Mali, Macau in China, or Baku in

Azerbaijan; and(3) new towns of the twentieth century, such as Brasilia in Brazil, Le Havre in

France, or Tel Aviv in Israel.

The reason for this rather odd distinction of typologies in the Conventions OperationalGuidelines is historical, as it was included right after inscription of Brasilia (Brazil) onthe World Heritage List, in 1987, as part of discussions in the framework of themanagement of this new type of property, the first of its kind related to the modern era.

As such there is no officially recognized category of World Heritage cities underthe World Heritage Convention, and neither UNESCO, nor the International Council onMonuments and Sites (ICOMOS), nor the Organization of World Heritage Cities(OWHC) has put forward any comprehensive definition.

When taking a closer look at the inscribed properties commonly labeled as WorldHeritage cities, we find that some are actually historic towns or even villages; thaturban archeological sites are seldom considered; that there are World Heritageproperties which include various urban settlements or parts of them; that there areWorld Heritage properties which include a network of assets within several urbansettlements; and that there are urban settlements which include one or more WorldHeritage properties. It turns out that the notion World Heritage city is much broader innature and harbors a plethora of typologies, from cultural landscapes with cities in

F29,7/8

278

8/12/2019 1926090

4/10

8/12/2019 1926090

5/10

property was inscribed, in particular its OUV, requires a continuous effort that inprinciple never ceases.

A statement of outstanding universal value (SOUV) encapsulates why the propertyis considered to be of OUV, how it satisfies the relevant criteria, the conditions of

integrity and (for cultural properties) authenticity, and how it meets the requirementsfor protection and management in order to sustain OUV in the long-term (UNESCO,2010).

The SOUV is arrived at through:

. an identification of the meanings of the site (taking into account conflictingperceptions also), establishing the sites integrity (social-functional,historical-structural, visual-aesthetic) and authenticity (artistic, historical,socio-cultural);

. the preparation of a thematic study for the identification of comparable sites inrelevant cultural regions;

. the preparation of a comparative study for the identification of the relative value

based on comparison with similar sites;. a description of the category of property (monument, group of buildings, site;

single or serial) and its significance (the principal theme/story of the nominatedproperty); and last but not least

. a selection of one or more of the ten World Heritage criteria.

World Heritage cities and their management challengesWorld Heritage cities vary in nature as in their conditions. Some are in a good state ofconservation, such as Cusco in Peru, Safranbolu in Turkey or Cracow in Poland; othersare threatened by processes of urbanization and urban development, with alteration ordisfigurement of their urban fabric or environmental setting, such as Damascus in

Syria, Riga in Latvia, or Timbuktu in Mali. Again others are suffering from decay andneglect and require major conservation interventions, such as Zabid in Yemen, Coroand La Vela in Venezuela, or Ilha de Mocambique in Mozambique.

The 1972 World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972) has been a major driverbehind the development of effective practices of urban heritage conservation andmanagement. With the growing amount of World Heritage properties located in ornearby urban settlements the World Heritage Committee has invested a considerableamount of time and effort over the past few years in identifying the challenges to theconservation of urban heritage and to develop appropriate policy orientations,management strategies and associated tools.

In the last decade particular concerns were raised by the World Heritage Committeewith regard to the damaging effects of high-rise buildings and modern architectural

design solutions that are considered incompatible with the historic fabric and contextof the World Heritage cities. Often intense and controversial debates surrounded thecases of Vienna in Austria, St Petersburg in the Russian Federation, London andLiverpool in the UK, Macau in China and George Town in Penang, Malaysia, to namebut a few, while the insertion of a new infrastructure element that was in conflict withthe propertys OUV resulted in the delisting of Dresden and the Elbe Valley inGermany in 2009 the second site being delisted, but the first involving a WorldHeritage city, in the nearly 40 year history of the World Heritage Convention. The first

F29,7/8

280

8/12/2019 1926090

6/10

was the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary, a natural site in Oman, which was delisted in 2007due to a 90 percent reduction in the area under protection to facilitate oil prospectingand drilling.

Next to the management challenges posed by urban development and

contemporary architecture, over the last three decades and in tandem with theexplosive growth of tourism, World Heritage cities have become the icons of visitordestinations. As the tourism industry expands, often the social and physical fabric ofthese cities becomes subject to enormous market pressures, leading to physicalalterations or distortions, with incompatible building forms and styles, improperinfrastructures, and an exclusion of the weaker and unorganized parts of the localpopulation. Examples of the disruptive impact of mass tourism are cities like Venice inItaly, Marrakesh in Morocco, and Lijiang in China. By that same token, tourism can bea major economic resource enabling local authorities to contribute to the citysconservation and management, as can be seen in places such as Dubrovnik in Croatia,Quebec in Canada, or Paris in France. The issue of a balanced and harmoniousintegration of tourism development and traditional life remains a major challenge inWorld Heritage cities management.

World Heritage cities and their management practicesTo preserve World Heritage properties and their OUV, the establishment of aneffective management system is required under the World Heritage Convention, as setout in articles 108 to 118 of the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO, 2008). Commonelements of an effective management system should include, but are not limited to, athorough understanding of the property by all stakeholders; a cycle of planning,implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback; the involvement of partners andstakeholders; the allocation of necessary resources; capacity building; and anaccountable, transparent description of how the management system functions, put

down in a commonly agreed management plan.A management plan is intended to guide the day-to-day decision-making process

with regards to management of the World Heritage property, while a conservation plansets out the planning and design of the interventions needed for the conservation of theindividual monuments and the historic fabric of the city. However, as Gustavo Araozhas remarked, management plans are not expected to propose processes for meetingthe socio-economic needs of community development, only for conservation. The socialand economic conditions of the population in and around World Heritage sites are not aprioritary element in the content of nomination dossiers, nor in the monitoring processthat follows inscription (Araoz, 2008). This is an important lacuna that needs to beaddressed in the near future. Further requirements include that a core zone beidentified, with clear guidelines for its conservation and development, and that a buffer

zone be established around the core zone in order to prevent improper development inthe vicinity, which may adversely have impact on the sites integrity.

The management and conservation principles for World Heritage cities areembodied in the main documents pertaining to cultural heritage conservation, such asthe ICOMOS (1964) Venice Charter, the UNESCO (1976) Recommendation concerningthe Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas (Nairobi Recommendation),the ICOMOS (1987) Charter on the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas(Washington Charter) and the 1998 ICCROM revised Management Guidelines for

World Heritagecities

management

281

8/12/2019 1926090

7/10

World Cultural Heritage Sites. While these documents have provided general guidanceand established best practices over the last decades, World Heritage cities areincreasingly threatened by urbanization processes, demolition and renewalprogrammes, modern constructions that do not respect the traditional fabric, and

tall building policies that affect the integrity of the historic urban landscape. In the pastdecade, the World Heritage Committee has discussed several critical cases, some ofwhich were pointed out above, and it has recently requested the development of newtools to better cope with these challenges (UNESCO, 2009).

Following the series of debates on the conservation of the historic urban landscapethat were held at the World Heritage Committee since its 29th session, in Durban in

July 2005, and at the General Assembly of States Parties at its 15th session, atUNESCO in October 2005, which recommended that the General Conference shouldadopt a new Recommendation to complement and update the existing ones of theconservation of Historic Urban Landscape, UNESCOs World Heritage Centre initiateda process aimed at updating the 1976 UNESCO Recommendation concerning theSafeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas. This process, taking up sixyears already, is nearing its completion with the aim of providing the GeneralConference of UNESCO with a Final Draft text for a new UNESCORecommendation onthe Historic Urban Landscape (provisional title) for adoption at its 35th session inOctober 2011.

The Historic Urban Landscape is the urban area understood as a historiclayering of cultural and natural values, extending beyond the notion of historiccentre or ensemble to include the broader urban context and its geographicalsetting. This wider context includes the sites topography, geomorphology andnatural features; its built environment, both historic and contemporary; itsinfrastructures above and below ground; its open spaces and gardens; its land usepatterns and spatial organization; its visual relationships; and all other elements of

the urban structure. It also includes social and cultural practices and values,economic processes, and the intangible dimensions of heritage as related to diversityand identity. The historic urban landscape approach, specifically developed fordynamic, living historic cities but basically applicable to all cultural properties, aimsat preserving the quality of the human environment and enhancing the productivityof urban spaces. It integrates the goals of urban heritage conservation with thegoals of social and economic development. It is rooted in a balanced and sustainablerelationship between the built and natural environment. This approach furtherconsiders cultural creativity as a key asset for human, social and economicdevelopment and provides tools to manage physical and social transformation andto promote harmonious integration of contemporary interventions. When historiccities are viewed as socio-economic assets, all countries of the world are richly

endowed with resources.

The case studiesThe articles included in this special issue have been selected due to their relevance andvaried methodological approaches when surveying the management practices beingimplemented in World Heritage cities and in what way or with what means thesepractices and impact can be understood and dealt with. These five case studies arelocated in three distinct geo-cultural regions of world as recognized by UNESCO:

F29,7/8

282

8/12/2019 1926090

8/10

(1) Asia and the Pacific: China;

(2) Europe and North America: Salamanca in Spain, and Regensburg in Germany;and

(3) Latin America and the Caribbean: Havana in Cuba, and Ouro Preto in Brazil.

The articles on Regensburg (Germany) and Havana (Cuba) have been written byfacilities managers, working in the field and dealing with the implementation ofmanagement practices on a daily basis. The article on Chinas World Heritage waswritten by scholars with a wide ranging experience in the field, applying theoreticalconcepts to the practice of cultural heritage conservation. Instead, students havewritten the articles on Salamanca (Spain) and Ouro Preto (Brazil). Assisted by theirprofessors, they choose to contribute with the results of their MSc theses to the field ofWorld Heritage cities management.

The article on Regensburg (Germany) outlines the strategies, policies and networkof stakeholders used in the integral World Heritage management system specifically

set up by the local and national governments to handle all World Heritage-relatedissues concerning the property Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof (2006),Germany. According to the authors, such management system has proven to workvery successfully, managing to raise public awareness, optimizing resources (time,manpower, etc), as well as facilitating agreements. However, they have signaled a needof support tools to cope with the multidisciplinary nature and complexity of WorldHeritage management, as well as the creation of networks where facilities managerscould learn from each others experiences.

Instead, the article on Havana (Cuba) provides a more historic overview on themanagement strategies implemented at the World Heritage property Old Havana andits fortifications (1982) while focusing at the Plaza Vieja. As in the article ofRegensburg, the author also demonstrates the benefits of an independent management

institution to plan, develop, manage and monitor the World Heritage-designatedhistoric core of the city. In fact, the author reinforces the importance of a long termmanagement strategy and the contribution of debate and public participation to thesuccess of an intervention. Last, it also evidences that the maintenance of residentialfacilities within the historic centre, despite tourism pressures, ensures the continuity oftraditions and lifestyles and contributes to its protection.

The article on the World Heritage sites in China does not focus specifically on onecase study, or exclusively on World Heritage cities; but provides a brief overview of theresults of an academic research undertaken with several case studies. It provides amore economical perspective on the impact of the inscription of sites in China on theWorld Heritage List. The authors emphasize the strong impact of the World Heritagestatus on the surveyed properties and alert for World Heritage cities such as Lijiang,

Tulou and Pingyao which accordingly, require a broader heritage protection system.As in Regensburg and Havana, the participatory management approach isemphasized. Also, the authors verified that local governments, each on their ownway, were struggling to conform to the international standard and to keep the localcharacteristics in everyday practice; for which they recommend specific training andeffective communication.

The article on Salamanca reports the state of conservation of the World Heritageproperty Old City of Salamanca (1988), mainly as reflected in the official documents

World Heritagecities

management

283

8/12/2019 1926090

9/10

and respective decisions. It sustains with evidences that there are more propertiesbeing threatened by development than the ones on the List of World Heritage inDanger. Moreover, it exemplifies the dangers a World Heritage property can beexposed to, particularly to the negative impact of new developments, when there are

already evidences that the policies and management practices are considered deficientbefore nomination and the property still gets inscribed on the World Heritage List. Toprevent delays implementing UNESCOs suggestions, as noticed in this case, theauthors argue the implementation of a strict deadline for legal purposes, whichnoncompliance could result in delisting rather than the perpetual inclusion on theDanger List.

Last, with a much more urban planning perspective, the article focuses on themorphological evolution of Ouro Preto Brazil and the respective relation to themanagement strategies being implemented throughout the last centuries, before andafter becoming the World Heritage property Historic town of Ouro Preto (1980). Theauthors also alerted for the fact that the current policies do promote the citys growth,but neglect its impact on the urban and surrounding landscape of Ouro Preto.Furthermore, they sustain that the public policies are still much more singlebuilding-based and are contributing to an environmental damage and the loss of thecitys character.

ConclusionWorld Heritage cities are among the most abundant and diverse manifestations of ourcommon cultural heritage. When considering their sheer abundance, worldwidedistribution and stunning diversity, their properties of outstanding universal value canbe regarded as the apex of humankinds built cultural expressions.

World Heritage properties comprise a key resource for the enhancement of thelivability of their urban areas and for sustaining productivity in a changing globalenvironment. The case studies presented evidence the importance of having the WorldHeritage properties properly managed, their production and consumption potential,which in turn can provide many opportunities for social and economic development,both within the World Heritage city as also for their wider geographical setting.

However, the case studies also made clear that there is still a gap between theoryand practice of cultural heritage management in World Heritage cities. Not only dothese practices differ considerably in various parts of the world, they also vary withinthe same geo-cultural regions. At a time in which the role of culture and heritage inprocesses of sustainable development is gaining more ground, this special issue can beregarded as the first of many fruitful contributions to enhance conservation andmanagement of cultural heritage for the benefit of present and future generations.

References

Araoz, G. (2008), World Heritage, public works, development cooperation and povertyreduction, paper presented at the International Symposium World Heritage and PublicWorks, United Nations University in Tokyo, Tokyo, 29 August.

ICOMOS (1964), Venice Charter, International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration ofMonuments and Sites, available at: www.icomos.org/venice_charter.html (accessed3 February 2011).

F29,7/8

284

8/12/2019 1926090

10/10

ICOMOS (1987),Charter on the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (WashingtonCharter), Paris, available at: www.international.icomos.org/charters/towns_e.htm(accessed 3 February 2011).

Pereira Roders, A.R. (2010), Revealing the World Heritage cities and their varied natures,

Heritage and Sustainable Development, Vol. 1, Greenlines Institute for the SustainableDevelopment, Barcelos, pp. 245-53.

Roders, A.R. (2007), Re-architecture: Lifespan Rehabilitation of Built Heritage, EindhovenUniversity of Technology, Eindhoven.

UNESCO (1972), Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and naturalheritage, UNESCO, Paris, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext (accessed2 February 2011).

UNESCO (1976), Recommendation concerning the safeguarding and contemporary role ofhistoric areas (Nairobi Recommendation), UNESCO, available at: www.icomos.org/unesco/areas76.html (accessed 3 February 2011).

UNESCO (1998) in von Droste, B., Rossler, M. and Titchen, S. (Eds),Linking Nature and Culture,Report of the Global Strategy Natural and Cultural Heritage Expert Meeting in Amsterdam,

UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO (2008), Operational guidelines for the Implementation of the World HeritageConvention, UNESCO, Paris, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf (accessed 2 February 2011).

UNESCO (2009), Decision 33 COM 7.1 (9), Report of Decisions (adopted by the World HeritageCommittee at its 33nd Session), UNESCO, Paris, p. 10, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/33COM (accessed 3 February 2011).

UNESCO (2010), Managing historic cities, in van Oers, R. and Haraguchi, S. (Eds), WorldHeritage Papers, No. 27, UNESCO, Paris, September.

Van Oers, R. (2006), Preventing the goose with the golden eggs from catching bird flu UNESCOs efforts in safeguarding the historic urban landscape, Cities between

Integration and Disintegration: Opportunities and Challenges, ISoCaRP Review 02, Sitges.

Further reading

Feilden, B.M. and Jokilehto, J. (1998), Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites,2nd ed., ICCROM, Rome.

Pereira Roders, A.R. (2009), OUV, WH cities and sustainability: surveying the relationshipbetween outstanding universal value (OUV) assessment practices and the sustainabledevelopment of World Heritage (WH) cities, research program, Working Paper 5,Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.

World Heritagecities

management

285

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints