The Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action: Eight Years Later

Assessing Cultural Heritage Adaptive Reuse Practices: Multi-Scale Challenges and Solutions in Rijeka

“…To identify challenges, the participants' assessment of the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage was framed by the six steps of the HUL approach, hereafter HUL steps (Table 1). The UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape proposed a holistic and integrated approach to heritage conservation and management [21,22]. Thus, the HUL approach considers the wider urban context without being limited to the heritage site, it adopts an interdisciplinary perspective, and it recognizes the complexity and layering of the landscape [74].…”

“…Over time, heritage broadens from the concept of "monument"-object-based, top-down, static, and prescriptive-to "cultural heritage"-process-based, also bottom-up, dynamic, and an expression of values and "social choice" [15][16][17][18][19][20]. Along this evolution, the intangible dimension of heritage gained recognition and the range of categories of heritage expanded [19,21]. For these reasons, "cultural heritage" is preferred here to "built heritage."…”

Global Citizens and World Heritage: Social Inclusion of Online Communities in Heritage Planning

“…For activated scenario, the planning actions can refer to the official reactions towards the events and their further strategies (operational and managerial planning including actions to react, respond, mitigate and manage). Both planning approaches correspond with the main steps in HUL, i.e., "step 2 to help determine what to protect for the future" and "step 4 to integrate the cultural heritage in city development" for baseline scenario, as well as "step 5 to prioritize actions for conservation and development" and "step 6 to develop mechanisms for coordination of the various activities between different actors" for activated scenario (Pereira Roders, 2019). Considering the relationship between the online public and the authorised heritage discourse in both scenarios, social inclusion could be confirmed and further enhanced.…”

“…For most listed UN-ESCO World Heritage properties, there is a thorough statement defining its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), pointing out the unique and exceptional attributes associated with certain values, satisfying one or many of the ten Criteria for Selection (UNESCO, 1972(UNESCO, , 2008IUCN et al, 2010 Ginzarly et al, 2019). Both the values and attributes referenced in Statements of OUV but not broadly expressed by the public, and the ones that are popular in the public yet not listed in global, national, regional, and/or local official documents with cultural significance, are crucial information for heritage planning in the constant process of cultural changes (Pereira Roders, 2019;Rochon, 1998). This relationship can also become a reference for future inscribing and delisting decisions of World Heritage property nominations, by taking more information from the public.…”

“…), and also in nomination level, ranging from international lists such as UNESCO World Heritage List, to national, regional, and local levels, often overlapping in attributes and values with cultural significance. Aside from the official listing, heritage often has overlaying meanings and cultural significance conveyed by local citizens, tourists, and experts (Pereira Roders, 2019;Waterton et al, 2006;Australia ICOMOS, 2013). However, the aim of social inclusion is harder to achieve when only societal representatives (public sectors and experts) decide on heritage planning.…”