Integrated conservation and sustainability

Heritage is recognized as both engine and catalyst of socio economic development (Graham et al., 2005; WTTC, 2016). In case studies of World heritage cities management, Pereira Roders and van Oers (2011) presented a clear evidence of the importance of having the World Heritage 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 cities and also for their wider geographical setting. Case studies clearly highlight a gap between theory and practice of cultural heritage management (Pereira Roders and van Oers, 2011). A holistic approach to heritage management and development links sustainability and conservation as two complementary processes that aim to achieve wise use of resources, continuity of supply and a minimum of intervention in the fabric of cultural identity. Tendencies in the culture-development discourse have significantly contributed to a shift towards the concept of cultural heritage (Loulanski, 2006a).

The role of heritage conservation in constructing local identity has attracted the attention of Yung and Chan (2013) who highlights the differences in evaluation of historic building conservation between policy makers, professionals and laymen. The cross-sectional survey study by Yung and Chan (2013) carried out amongst laymen and professionals evaluated the choice of five historic buildings amongst a suggested list of 25 and tried to determine whether these historic buildings should be conserved. The study revealed that laymen considered that architectural merit, social significance and historical significance are the determining factors whether a historic building should be conserved. During the same research, Yung and Chan

51

(2013) found out that cultural identity was not considered to be a statistically significant criterion for conservation for laymen respondents, as opposed to professional respondents. In addition, the same research reveals that more than 70% of the laymen and 80% of professionals think that 4 out of 5 demolished buildings should be conserved (Yung and Chan, 2013). However, both the public and professionals prefer to conserve more historic buildings than the government.

The concept of ‘integrated conservation’ was a major theme of the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, generally referred to as the Granada Convention (CoE, 1985). Under this convention, the protection of the architectural heritage moves from an isolationist approach to become an integral part of the individual policies on economic, social and cultural development. It has moved toward defining and implementing sustainable goals for the historic environment and has explicitly recognized the contribution that the cultural built heritage could make to economic and community regeneration. Historic environment must be viewed as a stimulus to high quality new design and development (EC, 2014).

Ironically, the volume and behaviour of tourists are slowly destroying the very things that initially attracted them (Timothy and Boyd, 2003) and this not only undermines the policy direction but also the attempts to address the accelerated deterioration through the works of intervention. In the ‘Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands’ (Ministry for Development of Infrastructure, 1990) it is argued that tourism poses a challenge to the Maltese Islands as whilst it is of major economic importance, it is also a major factor in the environmental degradation of the islands, to a point (by then some said already have passed it) at which the very features attracting tourism are being destroyed.

In the built environment context, refurbishment, rather than demolition and rebuild, is an integral part of conservation (Mansfield, 2008). New use for old buildings is a peculiarly Western concept based primarily on economic requirements and escalating technology. This reinforces the attitude that heritage significance resides in the structure, and as long as the physical form is conserved, its heritage value is

52

assured (Mansfield, 2008). In an increasingly complex cultural heritage arena, it is imperative for conservation practitioners to not only keep abreast of the advances in technologies but also to keep focus on the various ethical challenges that emerge within each project (Mansfield, 2008). Different objectives between the tourism industry and preservation management are frequently cited in literature. Traditional conservation, preservation and use are put ahead of visitor attractions, management and planning (Worboys et al., 2002) whilst others (Dodds and Butler, 2010) argue that the survival of such places is only possible due to the synergy between the tourism industry and the preservation of places.

A Comprehensive Sustainable Framework was also examined by Akkam and Akram (2013) in Baghdad. The conclusions reached demonstrate that to achieve a strategy of immediate sustainable conservation-led regeneration, the government should contribute to such conservation projects and support the formation of an institutional framework. The historic environment is an essential and integral part of successful regeneration strategies because it contributes to investment speculation, sense of place, sustainability, and quality of life. By adopting a conservation-led approach to the regeneration of the historic environment, we have been able to provide a focus for additional investment and new activities, thereby strengthening the economy of our historic areas. It helps improve business confidence, the pride of local communities and the sense of place, which all help to make the historic environment so popular (Historic England, 2015; Giannakopoulou et al. 2016).

Conservation led regeneration helps to create attractive places where people want to live, work, visit, and spend their leisure time, thereby underpinning a market-led return to urban living, and a full realization of the urban potential of our built-up areas, in accordance with sustainability principles in Akkam and Akram (2013). Five principles are recognized to create a framework for managing change in the historic environment:

a) The historic environment is a shared resource

b) Everyone should be able to participate in sustaining the historic environment c) Understanding the heritage value of places is vital

53

d) Significant places should be managed to sustain their values

e) Decisions about change must be reasonable and transparent, and consistent recording and learning from decisions is essential

Their partnering is consistent with all five principles of 21st _{Century socio-economic}

development: globalization, localization, diversity, sustainability, responsibility - and reinforces the five senses of quality communities – sense of place, sense of identity, sense of evolution, sense of ownership or share, and sense of community (Marjanovic, 2014; OECD, 2016a). Furthermore, being compatible with the long- term perspectives of sustainable development, heritage can be recognized as an essential cultural, social, economic and environmental asset contributing to the sustainable functioning of the three inter related systems: nature, society and economy (Loulanski, 2006b).

The State of the Historic Environment (2002) presents on the economic dimension of heritage, discussing its various contributions to sustainable development, environmental regeneration, tourism development, employment generation and others. In this direction, the newest joint-project is Heritage Works (English Heritage, 2013). Said to be the first publication of its kind, it combines the expertise of leading bodies into a new practical guide for developers, owners, practitioners or community groups for creating successful heritage-led regeneration projects. Heritage is considered important for assuring sustainability, since its proper reuse and adaptation can significantly reduce the amount of energy consumed and waste generated during demolitions and new developments.