Abdel Tawab HERITY 2008 1 -Libre

8/10/2019 Abdel Tawab HERITY 2008 1 -Libre

1/19

CulturalHeritageisthecollectivememoryofHumankind

CulturalHeritageisanonrenewableresource

QualityMan

agementofCulturalHeritageshouldbeorientedto

itspreservation,inthecontextofsustainabledevelopment

www.herity.it

QualityinCulturalHeritage

Management

MaurizioQuagliuoloed.-Dossiern2(2008)

Measuring the value

of material Cultural Heritage

Misurare il valore

del Patrimonio Culturale materiale

SOTTO L'ALTO PATRONATO DEL

PRESIDENTE DELLA REPUBBLICA

ITALIANA

H

ERIT

YConclusions of the Second HERITY International Conference

Rome, December 3-5 2008

REACHED THANKS TO CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ICCROM,

UNESCO-WHC, UN-WTO, HERITY INTERNATIONAL

Conclusions by the First HERITY Conference(December 5-9, 2006) highlighted that "fromthe point of view of culture, no poor Countries existaround the World: every territory has a significant andpriceless Heritage Wealth. This Heritage constitutesthe collective memory of Humanity. As a nonrenewable resource, Cultural Heritage should bemanaged according to Quality principles, ensuring its

preservation in the context of sustainabledevelopment". For this, new systems of classificationand public awareness should be adopted in ordermuseums, monuments, sites, libraries and archives tobe perceived from a global perspective. Lettingpeople to understand value and conservation of theCultural Heritage through communication andservices means to have a powerful allied, the visitor,supporting efforts by specialist in preserving ourcommon heredity. Responsible tourism can stronglyhelp in this process.

For this, value related properties can be definedas follows:

1. Cultural Heritage value is perceived in different waysby residents, tourist and other stakeholders. This wholeof perceptions represents a collective richness and achance for better understanding past experiences whendesigning strategies for the future. In that sense, it lets usto improve quality of life;

2. Not only outstanding value can be reported, it ispossible to highlight also other characteristics whichmake possible to consider common places and humanactivities remains "unique" due to the specific experienceyou may live when visiting them. Anyway, CulturalHeritage value can be perceived only if it is possible tounderstand its message(s) in a clear, complete andefficacious way;

3. Cultural Heritage value can be measured and describedto the public. Plain systems, familiar to persons who liveand travel all over the world, should be adopted whileinvolving people in understanding and preservingCultural Heritage value. As a result, transmitting of itsmeaning(s) should be considered a commonresponsibility;

4. Cultural Heritage value understanding contributes tomutual comprehension among people and cultures aswell as to the success in terms of economic and socialdevelopment, especially through tourism and relatedactivities. This is why it should be supportedimplementing adequate systems of description anddiffusion in developed, developing and least developingcountries, also in period of crisis.


2/19

SOTTO L'ALTO PATRONATO DEL

PRESIDENTE DELLA REPUBBLICA

ITALIANA

Roma, DRI - Fondazione Enotria ONLUS, 2010

Measuring the value

of material Cultural Heritage

Misurare il valore

del Patrimonio Culturale materiale

Preface by the Ministry of Culture Sandro Bondi

Quality in Cultural Heritage Management

results the HERITY International Conferences

Maurizio Quagliuolo ed.

Dossier n 2 (2008)


3/19

PROCEEDINGSatti

Quality in Cultural Heritage ManagementDossier n 2 (2008)

Maurizio Quagliuolo

Gaia Marnetto

Monica ArdemagniGianluigi DAmbrosioMiguel Ruiz Ramirez

Maria Rosaria De Cinti (concept)Veronika Poptsova

Elisa BonamicoNeal Putt

Miguel Ruiz RamrezFranoise Vogel

Futura Grafica 70 srl

Scientific Coordinator

Coordinamento scentifico

Editing Coordinator

Coordinamento redazionale

Text reviewRevisione testi

Graphic

Grafica

TranslationTraduzione

PrintingStampa

Mariela De Salvatore

Jos Manuel Del Ro CarrascoAlberto DeregibusSergio Fiorentino

Patrizio FondiGiuseppe GarauCaterina Gardella

Dino GasperiniAnna Maria Ghiberti

Valter GiulianoMatilde Gonzlez MndezRenaldas Gudauskas

Stephen HarrisonJukka JokilehtoGherardo La Francesca

Milena LeccaWilfried LippLuciano Marchetti

Lucia MarchiMichele MarsonetMaria Grazia Massafra

Antonella NuzzaciLuiz Oosterbeek

Aylin Orbasli

Nota PantzouSuzanna PembrokeCarlo Petagna

Susanne PlattnerMaurizio QuagliuoloGiulia Rodano

Jorge RodriguesTullia Romagnoli CarettoniMaria Immacolata Simeon

Francesco SisinniLuisa Sisti

Kannika SuteerattanaptromHelena Trindade LopesCharlotte van Emstede

Michela Vycpalek

Ayman Abdel Tawab

Maria Chiara AcciariniGianni AlemannoZiad Alrawadieh

Stefano AragonaMarcella BagnascoFrancesco Bandarin

Christian BiggiSandro BondiPiera Buonincontri

Mounir BouchenakiSimona Cadar

Luigi CampanellaRita CapurroAnna Maria Colavitti

Roberto ConfortiTito ContiCristina Coscia

Sarah CourtRocco CurtoCecilia D'Elia

Maria de Azevedo MarcondesGal de Guichen

Texts by - Testi di

Texts were published according to the authors' i ndicationsI testi riflettono il volere degli autori nella forma e nel contenuto

DRINo reproduction allowed at all, by any meanAi sensi delle normative vigenti, fatto espresso divieto di riproduzione o duplicazione anche parziale con qualsiasi mezzo della presentepubblicazione e di quanto in essa riprodotto

ISBN 978-88-903829-1-8


4/19

CONFERENCEconferenza


sotto l'Alto Patronato del Presidente della Repubblica Italiana

UNESCO-WHC, UN-WTO, ICCROM,

International Academy for Quality

Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero degli Affari Esteri,

Ministero dell'Ambiente, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico,Ministero per i Beni e le Attivit Culturali, Ministero dell'Interno,Ministero dellIstruzione, l'Universit e la Ricerca

Regione Lazio, Provincia di Roma

La conference was held

La conferenza si svolta

In partnership with

In cooperazione con

With the participation of

Con la partecipazione di

Under the auspices of

Sotto l'egida di

With the support ofCon il sostegno di

Maurizio Quagliuolo

Gaia Marnetto

Giorgia Barucca

Miguel Ruiz Ramrez

Gianluigi DAmbrosio

Ufficio Stampa HERITY

Fondazione Enotria ONLUS

Monica Jerussi, Marcella Greco

Scientific coordinator

Coordinamento scientifico

Scientific secretariatSegreteria scientifica

Organizing secretariatSegreteria organizzativa

Pubblications and servicesPubblicazioni e servizi

Documentation

Documentazione

Communication

Communicazione

Diffusion

Promozione

Simultaneous translation

Traduzione Simultanea

Comitato donoreCard. Francesco MarchisanoSen. Tullia Romagnoli Carettoni

Mons. Gianfranco RavasiArch. Francesco BandarinDr. Mounir Bouchenaki

Dr. Eugenio YunisDott. Giuseppe Proietti

Pref. Mario MorconeMin. Pl. Gherardo La FrancescaProf. Louis Godart

Dott. Umberto BroccoliOn. Piero Marrazzo (e. o.)On. Gianni Alemanno (e. o.)On. Nicola Zingaretti (e. o.)

Comitato promotoreDott. Gal de Guichen (e. o.)Prof. Luiz Oosterbeek (e. o.)

Dott. Tito Conti (e. o.)Gen. Roberto Conforti (e. o.)Dott. Sergio Fiorentino (e. o.)Prof. Adriano La Regina (e. o.)Prof. Antonio Paolucci (e. o.)Dott. Luciano Marchetti

Dott.ssa Marcella BagnascoDott. Sandro Loreti

Pres. Alberto ContriArch. Michele AchilliAss. Giulia Rodano (e. o.)Ass. Umberto Croppi (e. o.)Ass. Cecilia D'Elia (e. o.)

Steering committeeDott. Enzo Ciarravano (e. o.)Dott. Michele Misuraca (e. o.)

Dott.ssa Renata Piccininni (e. o.)Dott.ssa Giuliana Pietroboni (e. o.)

Commissione scientifica

Sen. Tullia Romagnoli CarettoniDr. Jukka Jokilehto

Dr. Colette Di Matteo

Si ringraziano l'INASA e il suo personale, l'ANGT e la sua Presidente, il Brigante, la Fondazione Pfizer, l'Istituto C. Colombo, il suo Capo di istituto e tutti i docenti estudenti, il dottor Francesco Natale, la dottoressa Claudia Cerchiai, la signora Marina Bindo, la dottoressa Monica Moriconi, il dottor Enrico Sitta, la dottoressa PatriziaTanzi, la dottoressa Augusta Proietti, il dottor Riccardo Capone che hanno sostenuto l'iniziativa e contribuito alla sua riuscita.


5/19

Quality in Cultural Heritage ManagementDossier n 2 (2008)77

BUILDING THE VALUE OF THE CULTURAL ASSETS: THE HERITAGE

Costruzione del valore del Patrimonio Culturale: l'Heritage

1.0. Introduction

The Operational Guidelines, OGs, of 2005 have undergone severalamendments concerning the evaluation of the integrity and

authenticity of the cultural properties nominated for the World

Heritage Site, WHS, status. In addition to meeting the conditions of

authenticity, properties nominated for a cultural WHS status have to

satisfy the conditions of integrity, as well. Until 2005, fulfilling the

conditions of integrity has been limited to natural properties. The

conditions of integrity represent a measure of the wholeness and

intactness of the nominated cultural properties. The OGs of 2005

have also adopted other attributes of authenticity, such as "spirit and

feeling" (UNESCO 2005).

Historic towns encounter a myriad of challenges threatening their

wholeness and intactness. Cities' expansion, associated withpopulation growth and immigration from rural areas, is one of such

challenges. Such urban expansion has added more loads on the cities'

dilapidated infrastructure leading to the widening of inner city roads,

which in turn resulted in the demolition of entire historic districts.

Controlling the quality of new development inside historic towns

seems to be indispensable to face such challenges (Yang and Phars

2005) and to protect and enhance the integrity and authenticity of

historic towns.

Although they represent an over-represented pattern of cultural

heritage, historic towns are still listed on the Tentative Lists of many

States Parties. "Mdina (Citt Vecchia)", in Malta; and "Historic

quarters and monuments of Rosetta/Rachid", in Egypt, are examples

of such properties (UNESCO 2004). All such properties will have tofulfill the conditions of integrity, as well as meeting the test of

authenticity while considering their nominations for the WHS status.

Rosetta faces many challenges that are expected to cast their shadows

on the evaluation of the properties' integrity and authenticity. The

very few remaining Antiquities, which represent the key element

expressing the property's value, represent the main challenge. The

prevalence of unsympathetic new developments that detract from

the authentic spirit of the property is another challenge.

2.0. Introductory Studies

2.1. Definitions and notions

The origin of the word "authentic" is the Greek "authentiks", while

the word "authentic" might mean "original", "real", "unique" and"genuine" (Jokilehto 1995). Authenticity can be defined as: "[a]

measure of the degree to which the values of a heritage property may

be understood to be truthfully, genuinely and credibly, expressed by

the attributes carrying the values" (Stovel 2007, p23). On the other

hand, integrity can be defined as:

"a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or

cultural heritage and its attributes" (UNESCO 2005, p22).

The notion of authenticity seems to enjoy a variable nature. The

perception of authenticity varies among the various relevant

professions; such as archaeology, architecture and urban design.

While archaeologists are interested in detailed restoration and

Italiano

diventato pi impegnativo proporre patrimoniculturali per la loro iscrizione nella lista del

Patrimonio mondiale a causa dellapplicazione degliemendamenti delle direttive operative del 2005,riguardanti le condizioni di integrit e autenticit. I

centri storici, un modello ben rappresentato delPatrimonio Culturale, affrontano migliaia di sfide

che minacciano la loro integrit ed autenticit. Unesempio di tali patrimoni Rosetta. Larticolo

esamina le influenze che lo stretto controllo dinuovo sviluppo ha sullintegrit e autenticit dei

centri storici come mezzo per preservare/aumentareil loro valore.

Franais

Proposer linscription de biens culturels sur la listedu patrimoine mondial est une dmarche plus

complexe depuis lapplication des amendements de

2005 auxOrientations

, pour ce qui est desconditions dintgrit et dauthenticit. Les centreshistoriques, modle bien reprsent par le

Patrimoine Culturel, affrontent des milliers de dfisqui en menacent lintgrit et lauthenticit. Rosette

est un bon exemple de ce type de patrimoine.Larticle tudie linfluence que le contrle serr du

nouveau dveloppement exerce sur lintgrit etlauthenticit des centres historiques comme moyen

de prserver ou augmenter leur valeur.

"Integrity and/or Authenticity": the Potential

Challenges Facing the Nomination of HistoricTowns for Inscription

on the World Heritage List

Ayman Abdel TawabTanta University of Alexandria


6/19


complete authenticity, urban designers are interested in conserving

the spirit of the past even if the details of their designs have neverexisted (Ouf 2001). The notion of authenticity might vary from one

culture to the other; and has changed over time (Lowenthal 1995).

The development in conservation practices has reflected varying

perceptions of authenticity. There have been two contradicting

approaches to conservation that reflect different perceptions of

authenticity, which are the "scrape" and the "anti-scrape" approaches

(Earl 1997). The "scrape" approach has been associated with

architects, such as Viollet-le-Duc, whose philosophy of restoration

can be described as: "to restore a building is to re-establish it in a

state of completion which may never have existed at any given

moment in the past" (Ibid, p38). On the other hand, the "anti-scrape"

approach has been associated with architects, such as William Morris.The "anti-scrape" movement called for the protection of historic

buildings against the restoration, which resulted in the deformation

of the built heritage (Ibid). The "anti-scrape" principles seem to

express a mature perception of authenticity that respects all the

significant historic layers of accretions. The notion of authenticity

also varies according to the pattern of the property, such as the case

of modern heritage (Heynen 2006), and might differ in some special

cases, such as the post-conflict reconstructed historic sites. The

reconstruction of the Stari Most in Mostar and the Freedom Tower in

New York represent the varying notions of authenticity in such a

special case (Thomson 2008).

2.2. The evaluation of integrity and authenticity

Some conservation charters and documents are concerned with theevaluation of authenticity and integrity, such as the "Venice Charter",

adopted in 1964 (ICOMOS ___); the "Nara Document on

Authenticity", adopted in 1994 (UNESCO 1994); and the "Riga

Charter on Authenticity and Historical Reconstruction in Relation to

Cultural Heritage". The Riga Charter clarifies the few cases where

reconstruction might be accepted. These cases include the loss of

cultural heritage through disasters, provided that a detailed historical

documentation of the lost cultural heritage is available (English

Heritage 2001). Nevertheless, the Charter does not seem to be

concerned with the reconstruction of the sense of historic cities,

which is a practice need not the literal reconstruction of lost

buildings.The World Heritage Committee has detailed a methodology to

evaluate the integrity and authenticity of the nominated cultural

properties through the Operational Guidelines. The methodology has

evolved along with the development of the various versions of the

OGs. Before adopting the OGs of 2005, nominated cultural properties

had to meet the test of authenticity in design, material, workmanship

or setting; while fulfilling the conditions of integrity was limited to

natural properties to achieve the WHS status. After adopting the OGs

of 2005, nominated cultural properties had to meet the conditions of

authenticity and satisfy the conditions of integrity as well. The

attributes of authenticity have also been updated to involve form and




Challenges Facingthe Nominationof Historic Townsfor Inscription on

the World Heritage List

Ayman Abdel Tawab

Espaol

El proponer patrimonios culturales para suinscrpcin en la lista del Patrimonio mundial se ha

vuelto ms empeativo debido a la aplicacin delos emendamientos de las di rectrices operativas de2005 con respecto a la integridad y autenticidad.

Los centros histricos, un modelo bien representadodel patrimonio cultural, encuentra millares de

desafos que amenazan su integridad yautenticidad. Un ejemplo de tales patrimonios es

Rosetta. El presente contributo examina lasinfluencias que el estrecho control de nuevos

desarrollos ejerce sobre la integridad y autenticidadde los centros histricos como medio para

preservar/aumentar su valor.Portugus

Nomear propriedades culturais para serem inscritasna Lista de Patrimnio Mundial tornou-se maisdifcil com a impementao das alteraes das

Directrizes Operacionais de 2005, relativamente scondies de integridade e autenticidade. As

cidades histricas, um padro de patrimnio culturalbem representado, esto perante uma mirade de

desafios que ameaam a sua autenticidade eintegridade. Como exemplo, aponte-se Roseta. Esteartigo discute as influncias do controlo estrito do

novo desenvolvimento na integridade eautenticidade das cidades histricas como um meio

de preservar/aumentar o seu valor.


7/19




design, material and substance, use and function; traditions,

techniques and management system; location and setting; language,and other form of intangible heritage; and spirit and feeling; and

other internal and external factors (UNESCO 2005)1.

The amendments undertaken to the previous methodology seem to

be attributed to the arguments on the representativity, credibility and

balance of the World Heritage List (Bertilsson and Von Droste 1995),

which led to the adoption of the Global Strategy. To address the

challenges of the Global Strategy, the World Heritage Committee has

held many expert meetings. The most relevant meeting has been that

held in Amsterdam in 1998. The participants to the meeting have

noted that the dichotomy between culture and nature, represented

by the two separate sets of criteria for each, has been the reason why

many cultures have been under-represented on the World HeritageList. Therefore, the participants have recommended the combination

of the cultural and natural criteria into one list of 10 criteria. They

have also recommended the combination of the notions of

authenticity and integrity, and the application of the conditions of

integrity for both natural and cultural properties (UNESCO 1998).

According to the methodology, adopted by the OGs of 2005,

nominated cultural properties are evaluated to meet the conditions of

authenticity if their relevant attributes of authenticity truthfully

reflect their value. When preparing nomination documents, States

Parties should first determine which are the most relevant attributes

of authenticity. Then they have to develop a statement of

authenticity that evaluates the extent to which each attribute

expresses the value of the property. On the other hand, integrity isconsidered as a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the

nominated property. Therefore, the methodology focuses on

evaluating the limit to which the nominated property maintains all

the elements that reflect its outstanding value, and on evaluating the

adequacy of the size of such elements. The methodology also

evaluates the quality of these elements and how far they are

damaged by factors such as uncontrolled new urban development, or

neglect. Each State Party has to develop a statement of integrity

attesting the integrity of the nominated property (UNESCO 2005).

2.3. The relevant patterns of World Heritage Sites and the

evaluation of integrity and authenticity

The pattern of the nominated property is expected to influence theevaluation of its authenticity and integrity. The World Heritage

Convention classifies the various patterns of cultural heritage into

three categories; which are "monuments", "groups of buildings" and

"sites". "Groups of buildings" and "sites" are the most relevant

categories to historic towns. "Groups of buildings" involve groups of

separate or connected buildings, while the "sites" category is

concerned with what the Convention called the "works of man or the

combined works of nature and man", as well as archaeological sites

(UNESCO 1972, p 2). It is obvious that the "sites" category is involved

with cultural landscapes and archaeological sites (Mujica 1995),

while the "groups of buildings" category is involved with historic

towns (Bertilsson and Von Droste 1995).

"Integrity and/or Authenticity":The Potential

Challenges Facing the Nomination of HistoricTowns for Inscription onthe World Heritage List

Ayman Abdel Tawab

1. See the other versions of the Operational Guidelines of 1977, 1978, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988,1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, and 1999, which are published in the fol lowing website:http://whc.unesco.org/en/resources/.


8/19


The OGs of 2005 classify "groups of buildings" into three

subcategories; which are "towns which are no longer inhabited","historic towns which are still inhabited", and "new towns of the

twentieth century". Historic towns should be nominated because of

their outstanding universal value associated with their architectural

interest rather than the role they used to play in the past. The spatial

urban pattern, structure, materials, and the functions of some

buildings should reflect the civilization that the nominated historic

town represents. Inhabited historic towns are classified into four

subcategories; which are "towns which are typical of a specific period

or culture", "towns that have evolved along characteristic lines and

have preserved spatial arrangements and structures typical of the

successive stages in their history", "historic centres", and "sectors,

areas or isolated units" (UNESCO 2005, p74). Historic centres shouldcontain a large number of the historic buildings that represent the

towns exceptional interest so that they can be inscribed. Nominated

sectors or isolated units should be incorporated within the retained

historic urban fabric of the town they represent (UNESCO 2005).

While evaluating the authenticity and integrity of historic towns that

represent a particular historic period, the reference should be that

specific historic condition. In the case of historic towns that

continued to evolve the evaluation of authenticity and integrity

should refer to the dynamics of the historic development of the

property and the different historic stages. The evaluation of

authenticity of historic towns that retain sectors of the old town

should be limited to these surviving areas, while the evaluation of

integrity has to consider the relationship within the whole. Theevaluation of integrity in the case of historic towns, as a whole,

should focus mainly on the condition and quality of the property as

achieved through time rather than the wholeness of the property

(Jokilehto 2002).

3.0. Old and New Towns of Edinburgh

3.1. Introduction to the property

"Old and New Towns of Edinburgh" is one of the British inscribed

cultural WHSs. The property has a total area of about four and a half

square kilometers, and contains about 4500 buildings. The Royal

Mile is the main street in the Old Town. Edinburgh Castle dominates

the western end of the Royal Mile, while the Holyrood Abbey and

the Palace of Holyroodhouse represent the key landmark at theeastern end of the street. The mountain of Arthur's Seat represents a

key natural element that shapes the views out of the property. The

Old Town retains many significant historic buildings, such as the City

Chambers and fragments of its historic walls (Edinburgh World

Heritage 2005). To the north, the Old Town is bounded by Princes

Street and Princes Street Gardens, which separate the Old Town and

the New Town (the City of Edinburgh Council 2005a). The New

Town has been developed through seven major phases that began in

1767 and ended in 1890 (Edinburgh World Heritage 2005). The New

Town is characterized by its fine gardens, geometrical plan, and

plethora of fine examples of neo-Classical architecture. The Water of



"Integrity and/or Authenticity": The Potential


Ayman Abdel Tawab


9/19




Leith and Calton Hill might be the most significant natural features

in the New Town.The property has been listed on the British Tentative List of 1985

(UNESCO 1986) and has been inscribed in 1995 under criteria (ii)

and (iv) (Edinburgh World Heritage 2005). The site's outstanding

universal value is attributed to elements; such as the topography of

the property, the many outstanding examples of historic buildings

and gardens the property retains, and its association with

internationally recognized figures such as Alexander Graham Bell.

The property has been evaluated to meet the test of authenticity in

all the attributes of authenticity; which are design, material,

workmanship and setting (Edinburgh World Heritage 2005).

3.2. The key factors that have contributed towards the

authenticity and integrity of the propertyThere are two factors that have contributed towards the high level of

authenticity the property enjoys. The first is the community's early

and active reaction against the comprehensive remodeling plans

targeting the urban environment in the property. Sir Patrick

Abercombie's plan for central Edinburgh, submitted in 1949, is one

of such plans. The plan called for radical changes in the city centre

and in Princess Street, and recommended the demolition of St James

Square and the installation of a new street network. Based on

Abercombie's plan, Buchannan developed another plan in the 1970s,

which recommended substantial road changes. In an active reaction

against these proposals, a conference on the conservation of

Georgian Edinburgh has been held in 1970. The conference led to the

abandonment of the previous plans (the City of Edinburgh Council2005b). The other factor is the strict and sensitive control of new

development introduced inside the property.

Various tools have been adopted to control the new development

introduced inside the property (Table 1).

Table 1. The various tools adopted to control the quality of the newurban development introduced inside "Old and New Towns ofEdinburgh".Data source: Edinburgh World Heritage 2004, Edinburgh World Heritage2005, the City of Edinburgh Council 1997, GAP Search, PASTMAP Map Page, Sitelink Site Details V2.



Ayman Abdel Tawab

The adopted tools The designated properties and the date of designation

Statutory

Conservation Area New Town Conservation Area (1975), Old Town Conservation Area (1977),West EndConservation Area (1977), South Side Conservation Area (1975), Marchmont and MeadowsConservation Area (1986), Dean Conservation Area (1975),Coltbridge and Wester CoatesConservation Area (1986)

Listed Building There are 3488 Listed Buildings representing 76 % of the total number of buildings(4587 buildings) inside the property

Scheduled Monument

Edinburgh Castle (1993); Edinburgh, Palace of Holyroodhouse (1981); Holyrood Abbey, Palace

Gardens and Park (1994); Edinburgh,Abbey Strand (1981); Edinburgh Town Wall, Flodden Wall,Johnston Terrace to Grassmarket (1970); Edinburgh Town Wall, Flodden Wall and Telfer Wall,Heriot Place (1970); Edinburgh Town Wall, Flodden Wall, Drummond Street to Pleasance (1970)

Site of Special ScientificInterest

Arthur's Seat Volcano (1986) [the site covers three separate locations, which are:Holyrood Park (1953, 1972), Calton Hill (1958, 1972) and the Castle Rock (1958, 1972)]

Non-statutory Urban Wildlife Site Water of Leith Urban Wildlife Site, Calton Hill and Regent Gardens Urban Wildlife Site,

Holyrood Park and Meadowfield Park Urban wildlife Site

Open Space ofOutstanding Landscape

Quality

Castlehill, Princes Street Gardens, Calton Hill and Regent Gardens, the New Town Gardens, theWater of Leith, the Grounds of Donaldson's School, Holyrood Park

Garden and DesignedLandscape

Dean Cemetery (2001), Palace of Holyroodhouse (1987), the New Town Gardens (2001)


10/19


The Planning Permission and Development Control process represent

the most relevant statutory one. Listing Listed Buildings is anotheradopted statutory tool. 76% of the total number of buildings inside

the property has been listed as Listed Buildings (Edinburgh World

Heritage 2004). The listing date of some of these buildings goes back

to 1969 (PASTMAP Map Page). The listing of buildings allows

extending the local authorities' control over developments affecting

these buildings. Undertaking developments, such as alterations or

extensions, to Listed Buildings requires the application for the Listed

Building Consent (Historic Scotland 1998).

Scheduling Ancient Monuments is the third adopted statutory tool.

Inside the property, there are seven Scheduled Monuments. The

earliest date of scheduling any of these Monuments is 1970

(PASTMAP Map Page). Scheduling Monuments allows the controlof developments affecting them. Undertaking any work to a

Scheduled Monument, such as felling and planting trees, requires the

application for a Scheduled Monument Consent (Historic Scotland

___).

Designating Conservation Areas, CAs, is another adopted statutory

tool. The entire extent of the property is covered by seven CAs

(Edinburgh World Heritage 2004). The designation of the Dean CA,

in 1975 (the City of Edinburgh Council 1997), is the earliest among

the seven CAs. Article 4 Directions have been applied in all these

CAs. The application of Article 4 Directions in the Dean CA, in 1976,

is the earliest among the seven CAs (Ibid). Designating CAs allows

the further control of new development. Undertaking developments,

such as the demolition of unlisted buildings inside designated CAsrequires the application for the Conservation Area Consent (Historic

Scotland 1998). Planning authorities have the right to extend their

control over new development inside designated CAs by the

application of Article 4 Directions. The application of Article 4

Directions implies that the planning permission will be required for

classes of development that would otherwise be considered as

permitted development. The designation of CAs allows the control of

developments affecting trees and the control of advertisement (Ibid).

Designating Sites of Special Scientific Interest, SSSIs, represents the

last adopted statutory tool. Inside the property, only one SSSI, which

covers three locations (the City of Edinburgh Council 1997), has

been designated (Sitelink Site Details V2). The earliest designationdate of these locations goes back to 1958 (Ibid).

There are other non-statutory tools that have been adopted to

control new development inside the property. These non-statutory

tools include the listing of properties on the Inventory of Gardens

and Designed Landscapes in Scotland. Inside Edinburgh WHS, three

of such properties are designated. The designation of the Palace of

Holyroodhouse, in 1987, is the earliest among the three properties

(GAP Search). The other adopted non-statutory tools include the

designation of Urban Wildlife Sites, and the designation as Open



82


Challenges Facingthe Nominationof Historic Townsfor Inscription on

the World Heritage List

Ayman Abdel Tawab


11/19




Space of Outstanding Landscape Quality. In addition to the previous

tools, the Central Edinburgh Local Plan has adopted many policiesinvolved with the control of new development (the City of

Edinburgh Council 1997). The previous preview seems to indicate

that adopting almost all the previous tools has preceded the listing,

on the Tentative List, and the nomination, for the WHS status, of the

property. The previous finding seems to indicate that the application

of these tools has been motivated by the community's choice of the

quality of the urban environment they prefer to live in, their desire

to preserve their heritage, and the subsequent response of the

government.

The strict control of new development practiced inside the property

has allowed the introduction of new developments that contribute

towards its authenticity. The 112 Canongate, designed by the Scottisharchitect Richard Murphy, is an example of such developments. The

architectural style and the design of the building make reference to

the original style of the buildings in the Canongate area and

emphasize the authentic spirit of the area.

4.0. Historic quarters and monuments of Rosetta/Rachid

4.1. Introduction to the property

"Historic quarters and monuments of Rosetta/Rachid" is a cultural

property that has been listed on the Egyptian Tentative List submitted

in 2003 (UNESCO 2004). The site consists of three key elements;

which are the city of Rosetta, "Izbat Burj Rachid", which is a small

village located to the north of Rosetta; and vast palm trees fields

incorporating the two urban areas. The property is encompassed by

the Mediterranean, to the west, and the Nile to the east, and islocated close to the firth of the Nile. "Izbat Burj Rachid" retains much

of the "Mamluk" fort known as "Qaitbay Fort". The fort has been the

place where the French officer Pierre Bouchard unearthed the

Rosetta Stone (Anani 1987). Rosetta retains a large number of

Islamic residences, most of which belong to the Ottoman era, such as

"Arab Killi House" (Ibid). The city retains a large number of historic

mosques, such as "Zaghlul Mosque"; a mill, which is "Abu Shahin

Mill"; an Islamic bath known as "Hammam Azuz"; and one of the

historic gates known as "Abu al-Rish Gate". The city retains most of

its historic street pattern almost intact. The main streets in the city are

"Zaghlul Street" and "Dehliz al-Mulk Street".

The property can be classified as the subsidiary categories of "groupsof buildings", "historic towns", and "historic towns which are still

inhabited". The site owes much of its urban form and character to the

influence of its natural environment; represented by the key

elements of the Nile, the sea and the surrounding sand and dunes, as

well as to the work of man (Historic quarters and monuments of

Rosetta/Rachid UNESCO World Heritage Centre). These influences

seem to indicate the possibility to classify the property as a cultural

landscape. Many aspects emphasize the profound influences of the

Ayman Abdel Tawab




12/19


surrounding natural environment on the form and significance of the

property. The Nile has been the source of the alluvia that precipitatedalong its bank, and which has been used to make the red bricks, of

which all the historic buildings have been built (Ibid). The

surrounding palm trees fields have largely contributed towards the

city's distinctive historic spirit. The possibility to navigate through the

branches of the Nile has profoundly contributed towards the

prosperity and the decline of Rosetta (Lane 2000).

The proposed criteria under which the property might be nominated

are criteria (ii), (iv) and (v) (Historic quarters and monuments of

Rosetta/Rachid UNESCO World Heritage Centre). Criterion (v) is

detailed as: "[Nominated properties shall] be an outstanding example

of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is

representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction withthe environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the

impact of irreversible change" (UNESCO 2005, p. 19-20). The

previous implications of criterion (v) seem to indicate its relevance to

cultural landscapes.

Rosetta enjoys an outstanding universal value because it represents

an outstanding example of the Ottoman Islamic architecture. On the

national level, Rosetta is the Egyptian city that retains the largest

number of Islamic residences, which enjoy unique design features,

such as the internal treatments. The interior of houses, such as

"Alwan House", has been decorated by using colored ceramic tiles

(Anani 1987). This treatment is unique in Egypt, and represents an

influence of the northern Africa's architecture (Al-Kadi, al-Sadik and

Ismail 1999). The universal value of the property also stems from itsassociation with the French campaign, and the discovery of the

Rosetta Stone (Anani 1987). The attributes of authenticity that

express the property's value include form and design, material and

substance, use and function, techniques, location and setting, and

spirit and feeling. The spirit of the city is attributed to the sudden

transition from the desert surrounding the city to the greenery along

the Nile, and is also associated with the distinctive architectural and

urban qualities of the city's built environment (Lane 2000).

4.2. The key factors that have contributed towards the decline

in the authenticity and integrity of the property

There are two key factors that have contributed towards the decline

in the authenticity and integrity of the property. Building legislationand regulations represent the first factor. The City Council has

adopted street plans aiming at widening the streets in the city by

imposing new building lines over the existing urban fabrics. These

building lines have resulted in widening a section of the "Dehliz al-

Mulk Street" leaving "Abouhom House" projecting inside the street.

According to Rosetta General Plan, the maximum height of the

buildings adjacent to "Abouhom House" has been determined as 16

m (Abu Mousaaid 2008), which is a height that is unsympathetic to

the character of the area. The second factor is the limited control of

the quality of the new development introduced inside the property.

Few tools have been adopted to control the quality of the new

development inside the property. The most relevant tool is the



Ayman Abdel Tawab




13/19




Building Permission process, which is involved with developments;

such as building works, vertical extensions and alterations(Department of the Legislative Affairs 2008). Scheduling Antiquities

is the second adopted statutory tool. Thirty-nine Antiquities have

been scheduled inside the property (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Antiquities scheduled inside Historic quarters andmonuments of Rosetta/Rachid.

Map source: Adapted from: The Egyptian Survey Service 1950.Data source: The Supreme Council of Antiquities ___.

The scheduling as Antiquities allows the further control of

developments affecting these buildings. Undertaking any of a list of

particular developments, such as alterations or demolition, to

Scheduled Antiquities requires the application for the consent of theSupreme Council of Antiquities (Department of the Legislative

Affairs 2002).

The designation as Archaeological Area is another adopted statutory

tool. "Abu Mandour" is the only Archaeological Area designated

inside the property. Article 20 of the Act No. 117, which is concerned

with the management of such areas, prohibits the granting of a

Building Permission inside Archaeological Areas, and prohibits

developments, such as erecting structures inside these areas.

Undertaking other developments, such as planting or felling trees,

requires the consent of the Supreme Council of Antiquities

(Department of the Legislative Affairs 2002). The Nile is also

protected against pollution under the Egyptian Act No. 48 (Ministry

Ayman Abdel Tawab




14/19


of State for Environmental Affairs 2008).

There are other statutory tools involved with the control of thequality of new development, yet none of them has been adopted in

Rosetta. Designating Protected Perimeters around scheduled

Antiquities is one of such tools, regarding that the Supreme Council

of Antiquities has begun the procedures to designate such areas in

Rosetta, yet none of these perimeters has been officially designated

(Abd al-Aziz 2008). The other tools that have not been adopted in

Rosetta include the listing under the Act No. 144 as Buildings

Enjoying a Distinctive Architectural Style (Department of the

Legislative Affairs 2008, Mahmoud 2008), the designation under the

Act No. 106 as what can be called Special Streets and Areas

(Department of the Legislative Affairs 2008, Abu Mousaaid 2008),

and the designation as Natural Reserves (Protectorates). The limitedcontrol of the quality of new development exercised in the property

has led to the introduction of unsympathetic residential

developments, such as the Rosetta International Hotel, which detract

from the authentic spirit of the city. On the other hand, other

developments have tried to reconstruct the authentic image of the

city by making reference to traditional architectural features, such as

the Antiquities Centre.

Conclusions

The previous preview seems to reveal the challenges, concerning the

evaluation of integrity and authenticity that are expected to face the

nomination of Rosetta for the World Heritage Site status. The

prevalence of unsympathetic new developments that detract from the

authentic spirit of the city, and the declining number of the city'sScheduled Antiquities are the key potential challenges. The

comparative analyses, conducted between the two properties, in

Edinburgh and Rosetta, seem to emphasize the contribution of the

early community's reaction against the comprehensive development

proposed for the city centre towards the high level of authenticity

that Edinburgh enjoys. The lack of such an active reaction against

street plans has contributed towards the decline in the authentic spirit

of Rosetta.

The strict control of new development exercised inside Edinburgh has

also contributed towards its authenticity. A variety of tools have been

adopted to control the quality of new development inside the

property. These tools cover almost the entire area of the property, andalmost all the elements of its environment. Most of these tools have

been adopted a long time before the listing, on the Tentative List, and

the inscription of the property. The previous finding seems to indicate

that the motive of adopting these tools in the property has been the

community's choice of the quality of the urban environment they

wish to live in, and their wish to preserve their historic environment.

The previous finding also indicates that securing and sustaining

authenticity and integrity requires a long time, during which a very

strict system of controlling new development should be exercised.

On the other hand, the limited control of new development in

Rosetta has led to the decline in its authentic spirit. Very few tools

have been adopted to control new development in the property.

These tools cover a tiny area of the property, and are involved with





Ayman Abdel Tawab


15/19




few elements of the environment in the property. Other relevant

tools, such as the listing under the Act No. 144, as Buildings Enjoyinga Distinctive Architectural Style, have not been adopted in the

property. The very few tools adopted to control the quality of new

development inside Rosetta seem to be the reason for the decline in

the authenticity and integrity of the property. The previous findings

seem to suggest the need to adopt all the available tools involved

with the control of new development in Rosetta.

ReferencesAbd al-Aziz,Mohammed, (2008), Head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities' Office in the DeltaRegion, Interview with Ayman G. Abdel Tawab, Rosetta, Rosetta Antiquities Centre, June 15.Abu Mousaaid, Isam, (2008), Architect in Rosetta City Council, Interview with Ayman G. Abdel

Tawab, Rosetta, Rosetta City Council, April 14.Al-Kadi, Galila Gamal; al-Sadik, Mohammed Taher and Ismail, Mohammed Hossam, (1999),Rosetta; Emergence, Prosperity and Recession, Cairo, Dar al-Afaq al-Arabia.Anani, Ibrahim Ibrahim, (1987), Rosetta in History; a Study in History, Monuments and Tourism,Alexandria, Moassasat Shabab al-Gamiaa.Bertilsson, Ulf and Von Droste, Berd, (1995), "Authenticity and World Heritage", in: Knut EinarLarsen (ed.), NARA CONFERENCE ON AUTHENTICITY in relation to the World HeritageConvention, Paris, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 1995, p. 3-15.Department of the Legislative Affairs, (2002), The Egyptian Act No. 117 (1983) on SafeguardingAntiquities, Cairo,Ameria Press.Department of the Legislative Affairs, (2008), The Egyptian Act No. 106 (1976) on the Control ofBuilding Works, Cairo,Ameria Press.Earl, John, (1997), Building Conservation Philosophy, Reading, The College of Estate

Management.Edinburgh World Heritage, (2004), Edinburgh World Heritage Site, SITE MONITORING REPORT2003-04, Edinburgh, Edinburgh World Heritage.Edinburgh World Heritage, (2005), The Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage SiteManagement Plan, Edinburgh, Edinburgh World Heritage.English Heritage, (2001), ENGLISH HERITAGE POLICY STATEMENT ON RESTORATION,RECONSTRUCTION, AND SPECULATIVE RECREATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES INCLUDINGRUINS, London, English Heritage. GAP Search [Online], Available:http//www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/gardens_search_results.htm?s=&r=Edinburgh%20and%20the%20Lothians&bool=0 [2008, May 14].Heynen, Hilde, (2006), "Questioning Authenticity", National Identities, NewYork, Routledge, 2006, y. 8, n. 3, p. 287-300.Historic quarters and monuments of Rosetta/Rachid UNESCO World Heritage Centre [Online],Available: http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1831/ [2008, February 06].Historic Scotland, (___), Scheduled Monuments A GUIDE FOR OWNERS, OCCUPIERS ANDMANAGERS, Edinburgh, Historic Scotland.Historic Scotland, (1998), MEMORANDUM OF GUIDANCE on listed buildings and conservationareas, Edinburgh, Historic Scotland.ICOMOS, (___), INTERNATIONAL CHARTERS FOR CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION, Paris,International Council on Monuments and Sites.Jokilehto, Jukka, (1995), "Authenticity: a General Framework for the Concept", in: Knut EinarLarsen (ed.), NARA CONFERENCE ON AUTHENTICITY in relation to the World HeritageConvention, Paris, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 1995, p. 17-34.Jokilehto, Jukka, (2002), "Authenticity, Integrity and the World Heritage Convention", in:UNESCO World Heritage Centre and Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia (IUAV),Partnerships for World Heritage Cities, World Heritage 2002 Shared Legacy, CommonResponsibilities Associated Workshops, Paris, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2002, p. 29-30.Lane, Edward William, (2000), Description of Egypt, Cairo, The American University in Cairo

Press.

Ayman Abdel Tawab




16/19


Lowenthal, David, (1995), "Changing Criteria of Authenticity", in: Knut Einar Larsen (ed.), NARA

CONFERENCE ON AUTHENTICITY in relation to the World Heritage Convention, Paris, UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre, 1995, p. 121-135.Mahmoud, Mohammed Aasim, (2008), Professor of Architecture, Alexandria University, and amember of the Conservation Committee of al-Beheira Governorate,Telephone Conversation withAyman G.Abdel Tawab,April 19.Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, (2008), Governorates Environmental Profile, El-Beheira Governorate, Cairo, Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs.Mujica, Elas, (1995), "Authenticity and Heritage Diversity: Archaeological Sites and CulturalLandscapes in the Andean Countries", in: Knut Einar Larsen (ed.), NARA CONFERENCE ONAUTHENTICITY in relation to the World Heritage Convention, Paris, UNESCO World HeritageCentre, 1995, p. 233-250.Ouf, Ahmed M. Salah, (2001), "Authenticity and the Sense of Place in Urban Design", Journal ofUrban Design, New York, Routledge, 2001, y. 6, n. 1, p. 73-86. PASTMAP Map Page[Online],Available: http://jura.rcahms.gov.uk/PASTMAP/Map [2008, May 21]. Protectorates[Online], Available:http://www.eeaa.gov.eg/English/main/Protectorates.asp [2008, May 12].http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=53,910305,53_910314&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&PA_CODE=91&NEW_WINDOW=false [2008, May 12].Stovel, Herb, (2007), "EFFECTIVE USE OF AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY AS WORLD HERITAGEQUALIFYING CONDITIONS", City & Time, Olinda, Centro de Estudos Avanados da ConservaoIntegrada', 2007, y. 2, n. 3, p. 21-36.The City of Edinburgh Council, (1997), Central EDINBURGH LOCAL PLAN,WRITTEN STATEMENT,Edinburgh, The City of Edinburgh Council.The City of Edinburgh Council, (2005a), OLD TOWN CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTERAPPRAISAL, Edinburgh, The City of Edinburgh Council.The City of Edinburgh Council, (2005b), NEW TOWN CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTERAPPRAISAL, Edinburgh, The City of Edinburgh Council.The Egyptian Survey Service, (1950), City of Rosetta Map, scale 1:5000, Cairo, The Egyptian

Survey Service Press.The Supreme Council of Antiquities, (___), A List of the Antiquities in Rosetta, Rosetta, TheSupreme Council of Antiquities.Thomson, Robert Garland, (2008), "Authenticity and the Post-Conflict Reconstruction of HistoricSites", CRM:The Journal of Heritage Stewardship,Washington,National Park Service, 2008, y. 5,n. 1, p. 64-80.UNESCO, (1972), CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURALAND NATURAL HERITAGE, Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganisation.UNESCO, (1986), Item 4 of the provisional Agenda: Tentative lists of cultural and naturalproperties received since the Ninth Ordinary Session of the Committee, Paris, United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.UNESCO, (1994), Information note: Nara Document on Authenticity. Experts meeting, Paris,United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.UNESCO, (1998), Report of the World Heritage Global Strategy Natural and Cultural HeritageExpert Meeting, Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.UNESCO, (2004), Item 14 of the Provisional Agenda: Tentative Lists of States Parties submittedas of 15 May 2004 in conformity with the Operational Guidelines, Paris, United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.UNESCO, (2005), Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World HeritageConvention, Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.Yang, Minja and Phars, Jehanne, (2002), "Safeguarding and Development of World HeritageCities", in: UNESCO World Heritage Centre and Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia(IUAV), Partnerships for World Heritage Cities, World Heritage 2002 Shared Legacy, CommonResponsibility Associated Workshop, Paris, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2002, p. 10-14.





Ayman Abdel Tawab


17/19

Sandro Bondi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

PrefacePrefazione

BUILDING THE VALUE OF THE CULTURAL ASSETS: THE HERITAGECostruzione del valore del Patrimonio Culturale: l'Heritage

Tullia Romagnoli Carettoni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Introduzione

Jukka Jokilehto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Heritage Values and Valuation

Luiz Oosterbeek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Dominant vs. undermined values? A perspective from the most western seaboard of Europe

Tito Conti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54Il valore visto nella prospettiva della qualit

Cristina Coscia, Michela Vycpalek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Valore/ Valori dei beni culturali: visioni di prospettiva in seno alle teorie dellutilit e delle preferenze del consumatore

Sergio Fiorentino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67The approach by Economists to valuing the invaluable

Wilfried Lipp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69Heritage Values: Preservationists Ideology and Economic Reality

Jorge Rodrigues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73The question of Value in Heritage: Use Value versus Cultural Value

Ayman Abdel Tawab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77"Integrity and/or Authenticity": the Potential Challenges Facing the Nomination of Historic Towns for Inscription on the World Heritage List

Matilde Gonzlez Mndez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Narrative and communication, tools for value generation in Cultural Heritage

Rocco Curto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96

La messa in valore del Patrimonio Culturale: la progettualit strategica

Giancarlo Deplano , Milena Lecca, Anna Maria Colavitti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102Citt storica come patrimonio culturale, valori espressi e valori potenziali

Maurizio Quagliuolo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110Il valore del Patrimonio Culturale dal punto di vista di HERITY

GreetingsSaluti

Gianni Alemanno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Mounir Bouchenaki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Jos Manuel del Ro Carasco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Maria Chiara Accarini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Gherardo La Francesca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Alberto Deregibus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Carla Petagna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Luciano Marchetti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Giulia Rodano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Cecilia DElia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Dino Gasperini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Valter Giuliano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Michele Marsonet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Francesco Sisinni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Roberto Conforti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


CONTENTSindice


18/19


VALUE FROM THE POINT OF RESIDENT PEOPLE: LOCAL MEMORY AND CONFLICTS OF INTERESTIl valore visto dal residente: memoria locale e conflitti di interesse

Case Studies

Casi di Studio

Stephen Harrison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117The Story of Mann An Expression of Local, National and International Value for Heritage Identity

Nota Pantzou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125On Global Value: the case of Butrint

Maria Jos de Azevedo Marcondes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134Cultural heritage in the city of Sao Paulo: An overview of the Valorization of Cultural Heritage in an Historic Perspective

Anna Maria Ghiberti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139Verso una nuova definizione di patrimonio culturale

Lucia Marchi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Biblioteche pubbliche statali in palazzi storici: un valore nel valore

Maria Grazia Massafra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147Arte e tecnica della vetrata Liberty nel Museo della Casina delle Civette

Giuseppe Garau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151Beni Culturali, grandi e piccole realt, valori diversi: quali paragoni possibili?

Simona Cadar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154Historical and Political Values of Heritage: the Metamorphoses of the Past

Caterina Gardella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156Conoscenza e valorizzazione del Patrimonio ligure di rilevanza Culturale e paesaggistica

Luisa Sisti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157Il Museo virtuale delle Collezioni geologiche e storiche dellISPRA

Helena Trindade Lopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159Apries Palace (Kom Tuman/Memphis/Egypt): The archaeological finds from 2001-2008 campaigns

Renaldas Gudauskas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162The Cultural Heritage of Lithuania

Sarah Court, Christian Biggi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165Separated from heritage: local community perceptions of Herculaneums values

Stefano Aragona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170Qualit urbana, desideri degli abitanti/cittadini, progettazione dello spazio

Suzanna Pembroke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175Using GIS to understand social influences on perception of place and cultural heritage resources

Maria I. Simeon, Piera Buonincontri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180Il valore del patrimonio culturale per il residente: aspetti teorici ed evidenze empiriche

Case StudiesCasi di Studio

CONTENTSindice

Kannika Suteerattanapirom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187Archaeology of Ancient Bangkok: Bridging archaeology and the Public

Rita Capurro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188I beni culturali ecclesiastici tra identit religiosa e Heritage


19/19


Case Studies

Casi di Studio

Ziad Alrawadieh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Cultural Heritage Conservation by Using Tourism: Taypet Zaman As a Case Study

Mariela de Salvatore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206Per un Turismo di Qualit

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: HOW TO MATCH VALUE FOR VISITORS AND VALUE FOR RESIDENTSTurismo sostenibile: come creare un compromesso tra il valore del visitatore e il valore del residente

Marcella Bagnasco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Il valore dellidentit

Aylin Orbasli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196Historic towns: are tourist values and local values compatible?

CONTENTSindice

Italiano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232

Franais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233

Espaol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234

Portugus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Gal de Guichen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225

Patrizio Fondi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Francesco Bandarin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228

VALUE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF OTHER STAKEHOLDERS: THE SOCIAL SELECTION OF MEMORYIl valore visto dagli altri stakeholders: selezione della memoria e societ

Charlotte van Emstede . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209Values and Sustainable Conservation The Case of Dockyard Willemsoord, Den Helder, The Netherlands

Luigi Campanella, Susanne Heidi Plattner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212To preserve means taking to better account: Metals

Antonella Nuzzaci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216Quando la valutazione dei processi e dei prodotti didattici diventa cultura di servizio

ConclusionsConclusioni

RemarksInterventi conclusivi

Addendum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236Appendice

Abdel Tawab HERITY 2008 1 -Libre

Documents

Transcript of Abdel Tawab HERITY 2008 1 -Libre