Planning and commitment in cultural heritage projects

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of the study is to generate insights into the planning process for reusing cultural heritage within urban redevelopment projects and identifies barriers to and drivers for stakeholder commitment. Design/methodology/approach – Characteristics of five Dutch urban redevelopment projects with built cultural heritage are studied in terms of the context, interaction and commitment. The findings are confronted with insights from urban planning literature. Findings – The study shows that although there is a strong belief in the added value of reusing cultural heritage, dealing with uncertainty over costs and benefits associated with heritage transformation is a major barrier. There is no standard planning strategy to deal with these issues. Further, we could not identify a direct link between the planning strategy used and the commitment of key stakeholders. Nevertheless, it seems that a shared framework and a shared belief in the heritage's added value are vital. Research limitations/implications – The study has an explorative character meaning that further analysis is needed to gain a greater understanding on how planning strategies affect stakeholder commitment in cultural heritage projects. As only cases in the Netherlands are studied, institutional differences are not considered. Practical implications – This study can help practitioners to develop planning strategies by offering insight into a number of barriers and dilemmas that need to be overcome in the planning process. Originality/value – This study explains why the presence of cultural heritage creates difficulties in adapting available planning tools and in developing new sustainable strategic planning approaches.

Challenges to urban cultural heritage conservation and management in the historic centre of Sulaimaniyah, Kurdistan-Iraq

“…Governments play a clear role in the maintenance of environmental and cultural heritage assets (Paszucha, 1995; Roders and van Oers, 2011). For instance, Baarveld et al (2013, p. 164) have noted that “the preservation of cultural-historical values has usually been financed by governments, often as an incentive for urban redevelopment projects”. However, this historical and traditional role of the government is changing as government budgets are shrinking and there is less money available.…”

“…The research findings in terms of policy implications highlight the importance of governmental commitment and responsibility towards urban cultural heritage conservation. Financing urban cultural heritage conservation in terms of maintenance of environmental and cultural heritage assets, relies on the role of national government (Paszucha, 1995; Roders and van Oers, 2011; Baarveld et al , 2013). The lack of commitment showed by the Kurdistan government towards urban cultural heritage conservation in the case of the historic city centre of Sulaimaniyah has led to a rise in conflicts between stakeholders.…”

“…These issues notwithstanding, interest in urban heritage conservation continues to grow across the world as many sites and communities seek to be designated as a Word Heritage Site (WHS). Many stakeholders despite their differing vested interests, do acknowledge that preserving the built cultural heritage in urban areas adds value to these places (Baarveld et al, 2013).…”

Communities, Heritage and Planning: Towards a Co-Evolutionary Heritage Approach

“…Planning practice accordingly shifted towards more strategic approaches in managing the environment. Following this so called communicative rationale approach, the environment is not shaped solely by the planner, but in the interactions of many stakeholders; a plan emerges from the context and the interpretations of multiple and heterogeneous actors (Baarveld et al, 2013). Under this new approach planning practice still aims towards reaching a consensus over plans and towards an optimally agreed upon solution.…”

Wedding cultural heritage and sustainable development: three years after

“…The debate around the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape is growing (UNESCO, 2011), triggered by the editors (Van Oers andPereira Roders, 2012, 2013) and the special issue on Heritage and Planning, assembling a diversity of explorations on how "open planning" happens in practice (Lusiani and Zan, 2013). Papers enlightened the commitment, roles, relationships between stakeholders in urban redevelopments, mostly targeting formerly industrial areas throughout Europe, in The Netherlands (Baarveld et al, 2013), in Norway (Swensen and Stenbro, 2013;Thorkildsen and Ekman, 2013) and in Poland (Kosmala and Sebastyanski, 2013). Instead, Heras et al (2013) shifted the attention to World Heritage and their urban contexts, proposing a value-based monitoring system to support heritage conservation planning.…”