Content uploaded by Loes Veldpaus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Loes Veldpaus on Sep 22, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
cyan magenta yellow black
/ Department of the Built Environment
/ Department of the Built Environment
Loes Veldpaus
207
HISTORIC URBAN LANDSCAPES
Urban planning and heritage management have of ten been positioned
as opposing powers in the management of historic urban landscapes.
To reconcile them, the trend is to recommend a holistic, integrated and
multidisciplinary management of resources, by means of a new approach in
heritage management: the landscape approach. In this context, landscape
is defined as an inclusive and comprehensive platform that cannot be
understood or managed except through an approach that embraces all its
components. The landscape approach is not about allowing (or disallowing)
transformation in itself, but about establishing and guiding the nature of
the transformation. It addresses the future quality of the urban landscape
and the relationships forming it. It positions heritage as an active change
agent in the process of urban management. However, implementation in
urban management proves to be a great challenge.
The lack of systematic methods for comparative policy research in the field
of cultural heritage hinders an understanding of policy transfer on a scale
that goes beyond the case study, which then interferes with the feedback
loop back into the supranational policies. The main aim of this thesis is to
raise understanding of the integration of urban and heritage planning in
multilevel governance, and in par ticular to explore ways to best reveal the
relations between supranational and subnational policy. A method of cross-
referencing heritage taxonomy is developed and tested. It has successfully
been tested with governance stakeholders in Amsterdam. While further
research is needed to refine and optimize the taxonomy and its application,
it already promises to have applications beyond its initial aims.
BOUWSTENEN
Proefschrift
matte laminate
book size 170 x 245 mm
Loes Veldpaus
loesveldpaus@gmail.com
De promotie zal
plaatsvinden in zaal 5
van het Auditorium
van de
Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven
Aansluitend aan deze
plechtigheid zal een
receptie plaatsvinden
in het Gaslab
waarvoor u van harte bent
uitgenodigd
Uitnodiging
tot het bijwonen
van de openbare verdediging
van mijn proefschrift
HISTORIC URBAN LANDSCAPES
Framing the integration of
urban and heritage planning
in multilevel governance
op maandag
28 september om 16.00 uur
bouwstenen
HISTORIC URBAN LANDSCAPES
Framing the integration of urban and heritage planning in
multilevel governance
historic urban landscapes 207
Spine width
choice of paper duplex printed on:
90 grams HVO WIT # pages : 100 x 5.95 = spine width in mm
90 grams BIOTOP # pages : 100 x 6.40 = spine width in mm
90 grams G-PRINT silk # pages : 100 x 4.70 = spine width in mm
HISTORIC URBAN LANDSCAPES
Framing the integration of urban and heritage planning in
multilevel governance
PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische
Universiteit Eindhoven, op gezag van de rector
magnificus, prof.dr.ir. F.P.T. Baaijens voor een commissie
aangewezen door het College voor Promoties in het
openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 28 september 2015
om 16.00 uur
door
Loes Veldpaus
geboren te Weert
To family
Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotoren en de samenstelling van de
promotiecommissie is als volgt
voorzitter: prof.ir. E.S.M. Nelissen
1e promotor: prof.dr. B.J.F. Colenbrander
copromotor(en): dr. A.R. Gomes Mendes M. Pereira Roders
leden: prof.ir. F. Bandarin (University IUAV of Venice)
prof.dr.ir. J. Janssen (WUR)
dr. R.F. Mason (University of Pennsylvania)
prof.dr. R.D. Pickard (Northumbria University)
prof.dr.ir. P.J.V. Van Wesemael
dr. R. Van Oers (Tongji University) †
To family
Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotoren en de samenstelling van de
promotiecommissie is als volgt
voorzitter: prof.ir. E.S.M. Nelissen
1e promotor: prof.dr. B.J.F. Colenbrander
copromotor(en): dr. A.R. Gomes Mendes M. Pereira Roders
leden: prof.ir. F. Bandarin (University IUAV of Venice)
prof.dr.ir. J. Janssen (WUR)
dr. R.F. Mason (University of Pennsylvania)
prof.dr. R.D. Pickard (Northumbria University)
prof.dr.ir. P.J.V. Van Wesemael
dr. R. Van Oers (Tongji University) †
HISTORIC URBAN LANDSCAPES FRAMING THE INTEGR ATION OF URBAN AND HERITAGE
PLANNING IN MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE | by L. (Loes) Veldpaus
A catalogue record is available from the Eindhoven University of Technology Library
PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
Publisher Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
ISBN 978-90-386-3916-1
Bouwstenen No. 207
NUR code 755 - Sociaal ruimtelijke wetenschappen
Copyright © 2015 by Loes Veldpaus
Design Loes Veldpaus
Cover Photo Edinburgh’s New Town © Loes Veldpaus
English editing Taalcentrum-VU
Printed by Dereumaux via Printservice Eindhoven University of Technology
HISTORIC URBAN LANDSCAPES FRAMING THE INTEGR ATION OF URBAN AND HERITAGE
PLANNING IN MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE | by L. (Loes) Veldpaus
A catalogue record is available from the Eindhoven University of Technology Library
PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
Publisher Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
ISBN 978-90-386-3916-1
Bouwstenen No. 207
NUR code 755 - Sociaal ruimtelijke wetenschappen
Copyright © 2015 by Loes Veldpaus
Design Loes Veldpaus
Cover Photo Edinburgh’s New Town © Loes Veldpaus
English editing Taalcentrum-VU
Printed by Dereumaux via Printservice Eindhoven University of Technology
6
List of figures
Figure 01 a–b: The successive interventions in Edinburgh’s Old Town. 41
Figure 02: Amsterdam Herengracht in winter. 44
Figure 03: Percentage of object versus urban-related terms in international cultural heritage
policy documents. 46
Figure 04: Percentage of trend-related terms in international cultural heritage policy
documents. 46
Figure 05: Comparative analysis of theoretical frameworks to analyse supranational heritage
policy. 61
Figure 06: Selected set of supra national policy guidelines analysed for taxonomy. 61
Figure 07: Analysis of selected charters and conventions since the 1964 Venice Charter. 65
Figure 08: Taxonomy of attributes (WHAT) tangible above and intangible below. 73
Figure 09: Taxonomy stakeholders (WHO). 74
Figure 10 Taxonomy values (WHY) adapted from (Tarrafa and Pereira Roders, 2012). 74
Figure 11: Process steps (HOW) . 75
Figure 12: The Policy Analysis Tool, which cross-references the process steps of the how, with
the taxonomy of what, why, and who. 84
Figure 13: Range of answers. 84
Figure 14: Sampling grid participants Workshop; (x) = number of participants per group,
workshop 1 & 2. 84
Figure 15: Results per category taken over all steps as a percentage of the total number of
answers given in that matrix. 84
Figure 16: Results per category per step for the WHAT TANGIBLE matrix. 89
Figure 17: Results per category per step for the WHAT INTANGIBLE matrix. 89
Figure 18: Results per category per step for the WHY matrix. 92
Figure 19: Results per category per step for the WHO matrix. 93
Figure 20: Results per stakeholder group, taken over all steps of the WHO matrix. 93
Figure 21: ‘Quickscan’, results per person (n=10) per definition, per step (1–5) for the WHAT
TANGIBLE matrix. 96
Figure 22: Cross-relating taxonomy matrix. 109
Figure 23: Revealing and relating attributes and values. 108
List of acronyms
BMA Bureau of Monuments and Archaeology
Burra Charter Charter for Places of Cultural Significance
BWE Bureau Wereld Erfgoed / Bureau of World Heritage
CoE Council of Europe
DRO Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening / Planning Department
EH English Heritage / Historic England
Faro Convention The Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural
Heritage for Society
HUL Historic Urban Landscape Recommendation
HUL approach Historic urban landscape approach
ICOMOS The International Council on Monuments and Sites
IHC Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage
IUCN The International Union for Conservation of Nature
Large-N Large number
OWHC Organisation of World Heritage Cities
RCE Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed / Cultural Heritage
Agency of the Netherlands
UNEP The United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization
UNESCO WHC UNESCO World Heritage Centre
UNHABITAT The United Nations Human Settlements Programme
Valletta Principles The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and
Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas
Venice Charter International Charter for the Conservation and
Restoration of Monuments and Sites
Washington Charter Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and
Urban Areas
WHC Convention concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage
7
List of figures
Figure 01 a–b: The successive interventions in Edinburgh’s Old Town. 41
Figure 02: Amsterdam Herengracht in winter. 44
Figure 03: Percentage of object versus urban-related terms in international cultural heritage
policy documents. 46
Figure 04: Percentage of trend-related terms in international cultural heritage policy
documents. 46
Figure 05: Comparative analysis of theoretical frameworks to analyse supranational heritage
policy. 61
Figure 06: Selected set of supra national policy guidelines analysed for taxonomy. 61
Figure 07: Analysis of selected charters and conventions since the 1964 Venice Charter. 65
Figure 08: Taxonomy of attributes (WHAT) tangible above and intangible below. 73
Figure 09: Taxonomy stakeholders (WHO). 74
Figure 10 Taxonomy values (WHY) adapted from (Tarrafa and Pereira Roders, 2012). 74
Figure 11: Process steps (HOW) . 75
Figure 12: The Policy Analysis Tool, which cross-references the process steps of the how, with
the taxonomy of what, why, and who. 84
Figure 13: Range of answers. 84
Figure 14: Sampling grid participants Workshop; (x) = number of participants per group,
workshop 1 & 2. 84
Figure 15: Results per category taken over all steps as a percentage of the total number of
answers given in that matrix. 84
Figure 16: Results per category per step for the WHAT TANGIBLE matrix. 89
Figure 17: Results per category per step for the WHAT INTANGIBLE matrix. 89
Figure 18: Results per category per step for the WHY matrix. 92
Figure 19: Results per category per step for the WHO matrix. 93
Figure 20: Results per stakeholder group, taken over all steps of the WHO matrix. 93
Figure 21: ‘Quickscan’, results per person (n=10) per definition, per step (1–5) for the WHAT
TANGIBLE matrix. 96
Figure 22: Cross-relating taxonomy matrix. 109
Figure 23: Revealing and relating attributes and values. 108
List of acronyms
BMA Bureau of Monuments and Archaeology
Burra Charter Charter for Places of Cultural Significance
BWE Bureau Wereld Erfgoed / Bureau of World Heritage
CoE Council of Europe
DRO Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening / Planning Department
EH English Heritage / Historic England
Faro Convention The Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural
Heritage for Society
HUL Historic Urban Landscape Recommendation
HUL approach Historic urban landscape approach
ICOMOS The International Council on Monuments and Sites
IHC Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage
IUCN The International Union for Conservation of Nature
Large-N Large number
OWHC Organisation of World Heritage Cities
RCE Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed / Cultural Heritage
Agency of the Netherlands
UNEP The United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization
UNESCO WHC UNESCO World Heritage Centre
UNHABITAT The United Nations Human Settlements Programme
Valletta Principles The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and
Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas
Venice Charter International Charter for the Conservation and
Restoration of Monuments and Sites
Washington Charter Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and
Urban Areas
WHC Convention concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage
8
Contents
List of acronyms 6
List of Figures 7
PREFACE 13
PROLOGUE 17
INTEGRATING URBAN AND HERITAGE PLANNING 19
Heritage management in an urban age – an outline 19
An urban age for heritage management 20
The landscape approach 21
The historic urban landscape approach 22
Heritage policy – multilevel governance 24
Research aims 25
Problem statement 26
Research questions 27
Research setting 28
Research approach and roadmap 29
Scientific and societal relevance 30
CHAPTER 35
URBAN HERITAGE: PUT TING THE PAST INTO THE FUTURE 37
Towards a landscape approach 37
A short history of urban heritage theor y 38
John Ruskin (1819–1900) 38
Camillo Sitte (1843–1903) 39
Patrick Geddes (1854–1932) 39
Gustavo Giovannoni (1873–1947) 42
Integrating heritage, planning and development 43
Changing terms, changing concepts 45
Object versus urban 47
Trends 48
A landscape approach 48
The historic urban landscape approach 50
Putting the past into the future 51
CHAPTER 53
ANALYSING POLICY, BUILDING TAXONOMY 55
Changing principles on and approaches to heritage 55
Taxonomy 56
Methodological approach 58
A comparative analysis from Venice to Valletta 62
What is heritage and why is it important? 62
How is the heritage management process organized? 66
Who is, or should be, involved in heritage management? 68
Conclusion and discussion 70
Figure 24: Results of the example part of an attribute and value analysis done on the Durham
Castle and Cathedral description (Figure 25). 109
Figure 25: Example part of an attribute and value analysis done on the Durham Castle and
Cathedral description (UNESCO WHC, 2015c). 110
Figure 26: Taxonomy development scheme 112
Figure 27: Horizontal and vertical tracing of taxonomy. In black the possible relations; in blue
the research in Amsterdam as presented in Chapter 3; in green the testing of taxonomy among
academic disciplines. 114
Figure 28: Summary matrix, comparing definitions as used in the policy analysis tool to the
definitions given by academic heritage experts (N=12). 120
Figure 29: Process steps in HUL Action Plan (UNESCO, 2015) versus the process steps found in
supranational policies between 1964 and 2011. 130
Figure 30: SWOT analysis historic urban landscape recommendation (UNESCO, 2011) 134
Figure 31 a–b: Results per step taken over all matrices as % of the total amount of answers
given in relation to that step – specified for City and District participants, and as indicated by
the sampling grid. 186
Figure 32 a–b: Results in Figure 31 a and b further detailed, for YA and YH answers. 187
Figure 33 a –b: Results per step taken over all matrices as % of the total amount of answers
given in relation to that step – specified for participants from Urban Departments and Heritage
Departments as indicated by the sampling grid. 188
Figure 34 a–b: Results in Figure 33 a and b further detailed, for YA and YH answers. 189
9
Contents
List of acronyms 6
List of Figures 7
PREFACE 13
PROLOGUE 17
INTEGRATING URBAN AND HERITAGE PLANNING 19
Heritage management in an urban age – an outline 19
An urban age for heritage management 20
The landscape approach 21
The historic urban landscape approach 22
Heritage policy – multilevel governance 24
Research aims 25
Problem statement 26
Research questions 27
Research setting 28
Research approach and roadmap 29
Scientific and societal relevance 30
CHAPTER 35
URBAN HERITAGE: PUT TING THE PAST INTO THE FUTURE 37
Towards a landscape approach 37
A short history of urban heritage theor y 38
John Ruskin (1819–1900) 38
Camillo Sitte (1843–1903) 39
Patrick Geddes (1854–1932) 39
Gustavo Giovannoni (1873–1947) 42
Integrating heritage, planning and development 43
Changing terms, changing concepts 45
Object versus urban 47
Trends 48
A landscape approach 48
The historic urban landscape approach 50
Putting the past into the future 51
CHAPTER 53
ANALYSING POLICY, BUILDING TAXONOMY 55
Changing principles on and approaches to heritage 55
Taxonomy 56
Methodological approach 58
A comparative analysis from Venice to Valletta 62
What is heritage and why is it important? 62
How is the heritage management process organized? 66
Who is, or should be, involved in heritage management? 68
Conclusion and discussion 70
Figure 24: Results of the example part of an attribute and value analysis done on the Durham
Castle and Cathedral description (Figure 25). 109
Figure 25: Example part of an attribute and value analysis done on the Durham Castle and
Cathedral description (UNESCO WHC, 2015c). 110
Figure 26: Taxonomy development scheme 112
Figure 27: Horizontal and vertical tracing of taxonomy. In black the possible relations; in blue
the research in Amsterdam as presented in Chapter 3; in green the testing of taxonomy among
academic disciplines. 114
Figure 28: Summary matrix, comparing definitions as used in the policy analysis tool to the
definitions given by academic heritage experts (N=12). 120
Figure 29: Process steps in HUL Action Plan (UNESCO, 2015) versus the process steps found in
supranational policies between 1964 and 2011. 130
Figure 30: SWOT analysis historic urban landscape recommendation (UNESCO, 2011) 134
Figure 31 a–b: Results per step taken over all matrices as % of the total amount of answers
given in relation to that step – specified for City and District participants, and as indicated by
the sampling grid. 186
Figure 32 a–b: Results in Figure 31 a and b further detailed, for YA and YH answers. 187
Figure 33 a –b: Results per step taken over all matrices as % of the total amount of answers
given in relation to that step – specified for participants from Urban Departments and Heritage
Departments as indicated by the sampling grid. 188
Figure 34 a–b: Results in Figure 33 a and b further detailed, for YA and YH answers. 189
10
EPILOGUE 141
REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 143
Reflections on the research 143
Research statement 144
Research relevance 145
Research Limitations 145
Overview of the research questions 146
Research recommendations: a future agenda 148
REFERENCES 153
APPENDICES 173
Appendix A 173
Appendix B 175
Appendix C 178
Appendix D 184
Appendix E 186
SUMMARY 191
NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING 193
CURRICULUM VITAE LOES VELDPAUS 195
CHAPTER 77
A TAXONOMYBASED POLICY ANALYSIS TOOL 79
Introduction 79
Multilevel governance 79
The policy analysis tool 80
Workshops: a method for analysing policy 82
Series of three workshops: setup 82
The process in Amsterdam 86
HOW: trends on the process steps 86
Taxonomy categories in Amsterdam 88
WHAT: Tangible attributes 88
WHAT: Intangible attributes 90
WHY: Values 91
WHO: Actors 92
Quick scan 95
Conclusion 95
Workshops 95
Taxonomy 97
Amsterdam 98
A taxonomy-based framework as a method 98
Discussion 99
CHAPTER 103
TAXONOMY: EXPLORING AND IMPROVING 105
Introduction 105
Taxonomy related 106
Taxonomy applied 107
Taxonomy developed 112
Taxonomy improved 115
Method 115
Academic definitions 115
Taxonomy discussed 118
CHAPTER 123
WHAT’S NEW IN HERITAGE PLANNING? 125
The landscape approach: a future for heritage planning? 125
Landscape: the new discourse in heritage management 126
Contributions of the landscape approach 127
Attributes and values 127
Process and actors 129
The historic urban landscape approach: a critical review 132
A historic urban landscape of integration 133
A historic urban landscape of attributes and values 135
A historic urban landscape management process 136
A historic urban landscape of and its actors 138
Is the future in the landscape? 138
11
EPILOGUE 141
REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 143
Reflections on the research 143
Research statement 144
Research relevance 145
Research Limitations 145
Overview of the research questions 146
Research recommendations: a future agenda 148
REFERENCES 153
APPENDICES 173
Appendix A 173
Appendix B 175
Appendix C 178
Appendix D 184
Appendix E 186
SUMMARY 191
NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING 193
CURRICULUM VITAE LOES VELDPAUS 195
CHAPTER 77
A TAXONOMYBASED POLICY ANALYSIS TOOL 79
Introduction 79
Multilevel governance 79
The policy analysis tool 80
Workshops: a method for analysing policy 82
Series of three workshops: setup 82
The process in Amsterdam 86
HOW: trends on the process steps 86
Taxonomy categories in Amsterdam 88
WHAT: Tangible attributes 88
WHAT: Intangible attributes 90
WHY: Values 91
WHO: Actors 92
Quick scan 95
Conclusion 95
Workshops 95
Taxonomy 97
Amsterdam 98
A taxonomy-based framework as a method 98
Discussion 99
CHAPTER 103
TAXONOMY: EXPLORING AND IMPROVING 105
Introduction 105
Taxonomy related 106
Taxonomy applied 107
Taxonomy developed 112
Taxonomy improved 115
Method 115
Academic definitions 115
Taxonomy discussed 118
CHAPTER 123
WHAT’S NEW IN HERITAGE PLANNING? 125
The landscape approach: a future for heritage planning? 125
Landscape: the new discourse in heritage management 126
Contributions of the landscape approach 127
Attributes and values 127
Process and actors 129
The historic urban landscape approach: a critical review 132
A historic urban landscape of integration 133
A historic urban landscape of attributes and values 135
A historic urban landscape management process 136
A historic urban landscape of and its actors 138
Is the future in the landscape? 138
12
Preface
It is done! T his is it, my PhD thesis. I t contains the result o f my research under taken at the chair
of Architectural History and Theor y, at the Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven
University of Technology. In it, I explore the concept of ‘historic urban landscapes’, in theory
and policy. The research was realised within the framework of the Programme: OUV, WH
CITIES & SUSTAINABILITY led by dr. Ana Pereira Roders and dr. Ron van Oers.
Any city – or urban settlement– to me is a historic urban landscape. It is a document of
history, created and recreated by many. It is also living lab, to experiment and explore in.
Cities never cease to amaze, intrigue, excite, and stimulate me to understand their genesis,
their creators, and their workings. Cities make me want to explore new territories.
My love for the urban and its history, led me to explore many historic urban landscapes.
My fascination for this concept emerged during my graduation project on post war heritage
(2006 - 2007). I slowly became aware of the growing body of theories and ideas being
developed around it. During this project I also learned how enthusiastic I am about doing
research, how I can push the boundaries of my own mind, and travel into new fields without
moving my feet. I guess it was somewhere around that time, that a wish to continue with
research and doing a PhD emerged. In 2011 that wish became reality, and now, four years
later, this step in my academic journey is complete.
In my research I trace the evolution of heritage as a concept, and how it developed in
internat ional policy over the p ast 50 years. This al lowed me to travel in to the realms of variou s
other disciplines, such as cultural policy research, impact assessment, urban geography,
landscape studies, sustainability studies to name a few. I also got to explore many new
territories in reality, by travelling to new cities for all the fieldwork trips, conferences,
workshops, and meetings I had the privilege to attend. Traveling to a new city to meet old
and new friends, to present and discuss ideas, is still one of my favourite aspects of being
an academic. I had the best of times with a glass of wine at a kitchen table, or beer at a pub,
somewhere in Hildesheim, Calgar y, Porto, Helsinki, Philadelphia, Durham, Oslo, Edinburgh,
Montreal, Bonn, and many other cities, enjoying the perks of the academic life.
Although I like wandering the streets of a new city alone, sharing the experience is as
valuable as it is fun. I would like to thank everyone who has joined me on this trip in some
small or grand way. I would like to highlight a few, as they deser ve a mention for all their
dedication, support, or their sheer presence.
First of all, my super visors: Ana and Bernard. Thank you for always being critical and
constructive in your guidance. Bernard, thank you for believing in me, for your support for
a research that was maybe not the one you imagined, and for encouraging me to pursue
13
Preface
It is done! T his is it, my PhD thesis. I t contains the result o f my research under taken at the chair
of Architectural History and Theor y, at the Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven
University of Technology. In it, I explore the concept of ‘historic urban landscapes’, in theory
and policy. The research was realised within the framework of the Programme: OUV, WH
CITIES & SUSTAINABILITY led by dr. Ana Pereira Roders and dr. Ron van Oers.
Any city – or urban settlement– to me is a historic urban landscape. It is a document of
history, created and recreated by many. It is also living lab, to experiment and explore in.
Cities never cease to amaze, intrigue, excite, and stimulate me to understand their genesis,
their creators, and their workings. Cities make me want to explore new territories.
My love for the urban and its history, led me to explore many historic urban landscapes.
My fascination for this concept emerged during my graduation project on post war heritage
(2006 - 2007). I slowly became aware of the growing body of theories and ideas being
developed around it. During this project I also learned how enthusiastic I am about doing
research, how I can push the boundaries of my own mind, and travel into new fields without
moving my feet. I guess it was somewhere around that time, that a wish to continue with
research and doing a PhD emerged. In 2011 that wish became reality, and now, four years
later, this step in my academic journey is complete.
In my research I trace the evolution of heritage as a concept, and how it developed in
internat ional policy over the p ast 50 years. This al lowed me to travel in to the realms of variou s
other disciplines, such as cultural policy research, impact assessment, urban geography,
landscape studies, sustainability studies to name a few. I also got to explore many new
territories in reality, by travelling to new cities for all the fieldwork trips, conferences,
workshops, and meetings I had the privilege to attend. Traveling to a new city to meet old
and new friends, to present and discuss ideas, is still one of my favourite aspects of being
an academic. I had the best of times with a glass of wine at a kitchen table, or beer at a pub,
somewhere in Hildesheim, Calgar y, Porto, Helsinki, Philadelphia, Durham, Oslo, Edinburgh,
Montreal, Bonn, and many other cities, enjoying the perks of the academic life.
Although I like wandering the streets of a new city alone, sharing the experience is as
valuable as it is fun. I would like to thank everyone who has joined me on this trip in some
small or grand way. I would like to highlight a few, as they deser ve a mention for all their
dedication, support, or their sheer presence.
First of all, my super visors: Ana and Bernard. Thank you for always being critical and
constructive in your guidance. Bernard, thank you for believing in me, for your support for
a research that was maybe not the one you imagined, and for encouraging me to pursue
14
than I ever thought possible. I learned. A lot. I have to admit, I have often wondered what I
was doing during this research, and wasn’t always sure I was on the right track, or on any
track at all. But, it all fell into place, and I can now proudly present you the results.
New territories await!
Loes
research in the first place. Your razor sharp mind is precious, even if we don’t always agree.
I am genuinely grateful for all the opportunities you gave me. Ana, for this PhD you are the
best thing that happened to me. We explored the world of HUL together. You share everything
you know with me. I would do it all again, no doubt. I will be forever grateful for your presence
in my life, for all doors you open, the new perspectives you provide, and for your never-
ending stream of ideas. I am honoured to be your first PhD student. But most importantly, I
have made a friend for life.
I am also very thankful for the comments and support of the doctoral committee members.
Francesco, Joks, Randy, Rob, and Pieter, I do hope we get to work together again in the future!
TU/e has been my home for 15 years. I studied and worked there for almost half my life. For
me, this book marks the end of an era. Thank you all, especially those at ‘floor 7’ and ‘floor
8’, for all the food for thought you gave me – including the beers and the bitterballen.
Thank you Naomi, for always being there. Marieke, Paloma, Bart, Lisanne, Noor, Hüsnü, and
all the other PhD students, it was really good getting to do this together for a while, keep
me posted, soon it will be you up there. Maaike, if I can do it, you can too. Veronique, you
made me realise how important role models are, I value our conversations a lot, in and out
of the water. Sukanya, it was short but sweet, lets write papers together, and keep sending
postcards. Kees, it has been a while, but I truly enjoyed our endeavours into the world of
internationalisation. My wonderful next-door neighbours Jacob, Masi and Maar ten – you
made the balcony rock. The many students I had the pleasure of teaching, especially those in
the graduation studios, it was great learning from you all. Sarah, Mary, thank you for having
me in Durham, it was perfect.
It is a wonderful feeling to know you are loved. My love back to all my friends that support
me, always – you know who you are.
The trust, support, and love of my family, and especially my parents, are more important to
me than anything. Mum, dad, it is the best thing in the world to know you are always there. I
dedicate this book to you.
As Jacob (yes, the neighbour) taught me when I was still a student following his lectures, by
knowing more you also know better how much you don’t know. It is so true, and doing a PhD
for me was a humbling exper ience. Maybe life in general is. There is still so much to discover.
In memory of one of the great minds behind of the Historic Urban Landscape approach, Ron
van Oers, who passed away so unexpectedly in April 2015, I will continue to explore new
territories, and pursue my dreams.
An analytical mind does not let you wander without purpose. Over the past years, I observed,
explored, and discovered more ways to see, to analyse, criticise, assess, study, and question
15
than I ever thought possible. I learned. A lot. I have to admit, I have often wondered what I
was doing during this research, and wasn’t always sure I was on the right track, or on any
track at all. But, it all fell into place, and I can now proudly present you the results.
New territories await!
Loes
research in the first place. Your razor sharp mind is precious, even if we don’t always agree.
I am genuinely grateful for all the opportunities you gave me. Ana, for this PhD you are the
best thing that happened to me. We explored the world of HUL together. You share everything
you know with me. I would do it all again, no doubt. I will be forever grateful for your presence
in my life, for all doors you open, the new perspectives you provide, and for your never-
ending stream of ideas. I am honoured to be your first PhD student. But most importantly, I
have made a friend for life.
I am also very thankful for the comments and support of the doctoral committee members.
Francesco, Joks, Randy, Rob, and Pieter, I do hope we get to work together again in the future!
TU/e has been my home for 15 years. I studied and worked there for almost half my life. For
me, this book marks the end of an era. Thank you all, especially those at ‘floor 7’ and ‘floor
8’, for all the food for thought you gave me – including the beers and the bitterballen.
Thank you Naomi, for always being there. Marieke, Paloma, Bart, Lisanne, Noor, Hüsnü, and
all the other PhD students, it was really good getting to do this together for a while, keep
me posted, soon it will be you up there. Maaike, if I can do it, you can too. Veronique, you
made me realise how important role models are, I value our conversations a lot, in and out
of the water. Sukanya, it was short but sweet, lets write papers together, and keep sending
postcards. Kees, it has been a while, but I truly enjoyed our endeavours into the world of
internationalisation. My wonderful next-door neighbours Jacob, Masi and Maar ten – you
made the balcony rock. The many students I had the pleasure of teaching, especially those in
the graduation studios, it was great learning from you all. Sarah, Mary, thank you for having
me in Durham, it was perfect.
It is a wonderful feeling to know you are loved. My love back to all my friends that support
me, always – you know who you are.
The trust, support, and love of my family, and especially my parents, are more important to
me than anything. Mum, dad, it is the best thing in the world to know you are always there. I
dedicate this book to you.
As Jacob (yes, the neighbour) taught me when I was still a student following his lectures, by
knowing more you also know better how much you don’t know. It is so true, and doing a PhD
for me was a humbling exper ience. Maybe life in general is. There is still so much to discover.
In memory of one of the great minds behind of the Historic Urban Landscape approach, Ron
van Oers, who passed away so unexpectedly in April 2015, I will continue to explore new
territories, and pursue my dreams.
An analytical mind does not let you wander without purpose. Over the past years, I observed,
explored, and discovered more ways to see, to analyse, criticise, assess, study, and question
16
Prologue
17
Prologue
18
Integrating urban and
heritage planning
The following t wo papers for med the basis for this intro duction:
Veldpaus L and Pereira Roders A (forthcoming ) What’s new in heritage planning?
Reviewing the contributions of the Historic Urban Landscape approach in
heritage management. In: Dobricic S and Martini V (eds), Creative Cities: Which
(Historic) Urban Landscape?
Veldpaus L and Pereira Roders A (2015) The landscape approach : a future for
sustainable management of ur ban resources? Culture(s) in Sustainable Futures,
Helsinki, Finland: University of Jyväskylä and European research net work COST
Action Investigating Cultural Sustainability
This thesis is based on a collection of previously published and presented papers and articles.
As such, each chapter has its own section dedicated to an introduction and the methodology.
This chapter introduces the context of the research, by presenting the main topics, the
problem statement, the significance and approach of the research, and a short roadmap of the
organisation of the thesis.
Heritage management in an urban age – an
outline
Urban development and the protection of heritage are often positioned as opposing powers in
the management of cities, while one can just as well argue that they are two sides of the same
coin (Araoz, 2013; Pereira Roders and Van Oers, 2014; Van Oers and Pereira Roders, 2014).
Heritage gets accused of being one of the ‘usual suspects’ of local grass-roots opposition
to urban development, while development pressures are perceived as threatening, for
endangering the continuation of cultural heritage resources (Bandarin and Van Oers, 2012;
Fairclough et al., 2008; Gett y Conservation Institute, 2010). This precarious and ever-changing
balance between conservation and development has kept academics and professionals in the
heritage field busy since the beginning (Araoz, 2013). It has been recognized in both theory
and supranational policies. To close this gap, the integration of heritage management and
urban development has been recommended in both theory and policy.
In this context, a new approach to heritage management has been developed in supranational
policy over recent decades: the landscape approach. When it comes to the urban context,
this landscape approach is promoted by the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic
Urban Landscape. It provides the principles as well as guidance on implementing a landscape
approach in local urban management. The integration of urban and heritage planning on
19
Integrating urban and
heritage planning
The following t wo papers for med the basis for this intro duction:
Veldpaus L and Pereira Roders A (forthcoming ) What’s new in heritage planning?
Reviewing the contributions of the Historic Urban Landscape approach in
heritage management. In: Dobricic S and Martini V (eds), Creative Cities: Which
(Historic) Urban Landscape?
Veldpaus L and Pereira Roders A (2015) The landscape approach : a future for
sustainable management of ur ban resources? Culture(s) in Sustainable Futures,
Helsinki, Finland: University of Jyväskylä and European research net work COST
Action Investigating Cultural Sustainability
This thesis is based on a collection of previously published and presented papers and articles.
As such, each chapter has its own section dedicated to an introduction and the methodology.
This chapter introduces the context of the research, by presenting the main topics, the
problem statement, the significance and approach of the research, and a short roadmap of the
organisation of the thesis.
Heritage management in an urban age – an
outline
Urban development and the protection of heritage are often positioned as opposing powers in
the management of cities, while one can just as well argue that they are two sides of the same
coin (Araoz, 2013; Pereira Roders and Van Oers, 2014; Van Oers and Pereira Roders, 2014).
Heritage gets accused of being one of the ‘usual suspects’ of local grass-roots opposition
to urban development, while development pressures are perceived as threatening, for
endangering the continuation of cultural heritage resources (Bandarin and Van Oers, 2012;
Fairclough et al., 2008; Gett y Conservation Institute, 2010). This precarious and ever-changing
balance between conservation and development has kept academics and professionals in the
heritage field busy since the beginning (Araoz, 2013). It has been recognized in both theory
and supranational policies. To close this gap, the integration of heritage management and
urban development has been recommended in both theory and policy.
In this context, a new approach to heritage management has been developed in supranational
policy over recent decades: the landscape approach. When it comes to the urban context,
this landscape approach is promoted by the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic
Urban Landscape. It provides the principles as well as guidance on implementing a landscape
approach in local urban management. The integration of urban and heritage planning on
20
urban area (Florida, 2014; Lazrak et al., 2013; Van Duijn and Rouwendal, 2012) and thus likely
stimulates sustainable growth. This implies a cycle that can be both virtuous and vicious,
but will always entail the creation or reuse of urban resources while others disappear or are
destroyed. This process will likely be accompanied by accumulating development pressures
and needs for t ransformation, par ticularly in areas t hat constitute a high le vel of cultural value.
Heritage management in the urban context regularly focuses on conserving the fabric of the
past for future generations (Pendlebur y et al., 2009). While this might often still be the case,
a definite change in thinking can be observed. During the second half of the 20th centur y, the
approach slowly shifted from conserving historic fabric to managing resourceful urban areas.
In this perspective, first of all ‘fabric’ has been replaced by ‘resource’. Second, change is no
longer used as a binary concept with (0) no for protected resources and (1) yes for all other
resources. The level of change is gradual and related to the, also gradual level of value. Third,
the focus was on a ‘site’, while it is now on the processes that create a site. Therefore, the
focus is now the integral management of urban resources and their values, generally called
the ‘landscape approach’ (Bandarin and Van Oers, 2015; Brown et al., 2005; Fairclough et
al., 2008; Pickard, 1996; Vecco, 2010; Whitehand and Gu, 2010). The landscape approach
as a new approach in environmental management has been the framework for more recent
supranational urban policies. The approach is holistic, and aims for the integration of urban
heritage management with larger socioeconomic development frameworks. This integration
refers to both the vertical integration of heritage and non-heritage sectors, and the horizontal
integration of the various levels of policy involved.
The landscape approach
The landscape approach was developed by and within several adjoining disciplines, such as
rural, cultural, urban and natural landscape management (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2012;
Brown, 2015; Brown et al., 2005; CoE, 2000; Goetcheus and Mitchell, 2014; Moylan et al.,
2009; Taylor and Lennon, 2011) and territorial governance (Rega, 2014; Thuessen and Nielsen,
2014). ‘Landscape’ can be a slipper y notion (Phillips, 2015), and as such landscape, and a
subsequent ‘landscape approach’, needs to be further defined. Landscape is a crucial concept
for many acade mic and professional disc iplines (Turner, 200 6). The developmen t of a landscape
approach is s trongly entan gled with theor y on landscape a s a concept, as it develo ps in cultural
geography and urban studies. Landscape in this case refers to how humans aect geographic
space as well as to real places (Nassauer, 2012). This notion of landscape is universal,
dynamic, hierarchical and holistic; it cannot be understood or managed except through an
integrated, multidisciplinary approach that embraces all its components (Taylor et al., 2014;
Brown et al. 2005). The landscape approach is therefore not about transformation in itself, but
a subnational level proves to be a great challenge (Bandarin and Van Oers, 2012; Getty
Conservation Institute, 2010). This has its roots in the separation of the disciplines as well
as the complexity of the multilevel governance setting. The main aim of this thesis is to raise
understanding of the integration of urban and heritage planning in multilevel governance,
and in particular, reveal the relations between supranational and subnational policy. In doing
so, the research facilitates the analysis of how concepts of heritage transfer into subnational
policy. Such knowledge is intended to contribute to the discussion on the historic urban
landscape approach and its global implementation.
As the title of this thesis – Historic urban landscapes framing the integration of urban and
heritage planning in multilevel governance – indicates, the presented research is about
heritage policy and planning in an urban context. This chapter f urther introduces the context of
the research, and presents the problem statement and the significance of the research. First,
those topics of heritage in an urban age, heritage management and multilevel governance are
introduced. Then the methods and the approach are addressed. F inally, a short roadmap of the
organization of the thesis is provided.
An urban age for heritage management
Cities hav e gained a centra l place in cultural, e conomic, environme ntal and social polic ymaking
and there is wide and transdisciplinary interest in regional and urban cultures (Soja, 2003;
2011). This age has therefore already been coined the urban age. Since the second half of the
19th century, large parts of the world have seen rapid urbanization, urban growth and urban
renewal. This urban and urbanizing environment is expected to become more important for
humankind in the decades ahead. In the 1980s, cities became a lens into the larger economic
and political shifts of the emergent new global era, which increased the urge to rebuild entire
urban centres and prepare them to become platforms for the current urban centur y (Sassen,
2011). During th is process, cities bec ame strategic a nd their management increa singly complex
in nature. There is growing interest in the increasingly urban condition of the planet, if only
for the increasing interest in labelling cities as smart, sustainable or resilient (De Jong et al.,
2015).
However, the urban can no longer be understood (if it ever was) as a bounded, enclosed site
of social relations (Brenner and Schmid, 2014; De Meyer et al., 1999). Urbanization processes
are not bounded by municipal or even national boundaries: they take place simultaneously on
various levels and at multiple locations, and are thus to be managed accordingly. The urban
‘condition’ is now understood as a historic dynamic process, in which larger urban areas
magnify the oppor tunity for social and cultural interaction (Bettencourt, 2013; Or tman et al.,
2014). At t he same time, the presence of culture and he ritage increas es the attrac tiveness of an
21
urban area (Florida, 2014; Lazrak et al., 2013; Van Duijn and Rouwendal, 2012) and thus likely
stimulates sustainable growth. This implies a cycle that can be both virtuous and vicious,
but will always entail the creation or reuse of urban resources while others disappear or are
destroyed. This process will likely be accompanied by accumulating development pressures
and needs for t ransformation, par ticularly in areas t hat constitute a high le vel of cultural value.
Heritage management in the urban context regularly focuses on conserving the fabric of the
past for future generations (Pendlebur y et al., 2009). While this might often still be the case,
a definite change in thinking can be observed. During the second half of the 20th centur y, the
approach slowly shifted from conserving historic fabric to managing resourceful urban areas.
In this perspective, first of all ‘fabric’ has been replaced by ‘resource’. Second, change is no
longer used as a binary concept with (0) no for protected resources and (1) yes for all other
resources. The level of change is gradual and related to the, also gradual level of value. Third,
the focus was on a ‘site’, while it is now on the processes that create a site. Therefore, the
focus is now the integral management of urban resources and their values, generally called
the ‘landscape approach’ (Bandarin and Van Oers, 2015; Brown et al., 2005; Fairclough et
al., 2008; Pickard, 1996; Vecco, 2010; Whitehand and Gu, 2010). The landscape approach
as a new approach in environmental management has been the framework for more recent
supranational urban policies. The approach is holistic, and aims for the integration of urban
heritage management with larger socioeconomic development frameworks. This integration
refers to both the vertical integration of heritage and non-heritage sectors, and the horizontal
integration of the various levels of policy involved.
The landscape approach
The landscape approach was developed by and within several adjoining disciplines, such as
rural, cultural, urban and natural landscape management (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2012;
Brown, 2015; Brown et al., 2005; CoE, 2000; Goetcheus and Mitchell, 2014; Moylan et al.,
2009; Taylor and Lennon, 2011) and territorial governance (Rega, 2014; Thuessen and Nielsen,
2014). ‘Landscape’ can be a slipper y notion (Phillips, 2015), and as such landscape, and a
subsequent ‘landscape approach’, needs to be further defined. Landscape is a crucial concept
for many acade mic and professional disc iplines (Turner, 200 6). The developmen t of a landscape
approach is s trongly entan gled with theor y on landscape a s a concept, as it develo ps in cultural
geography and urban studies. Landscape in this case refers to how humans aect geographic
space as well as to real places (Nassauer, 2012). This notion of landscape is universal,
dynamic, hierarchical and holistic; it cannot be understood or managed except through an
integrated, multidisciplinary approach that embraces all its components (Taylor et al., 2014;
Brown et al. 2005). The landscape approach is therefore not about transformation in itself, but
a subnational level proves to be a great challenge (Bandarin and Van Oers, 2012; Getty
Conservation Institute, 2010). This has its roots in the separation of the disciplines as well
as the complexity of the multilevel governance setting. The main aim of this thesis is to raise
understanding of the integration of urban and heritage planning in multilevel governance,
and in particular, reveal the relations between supranational and subnational policy. In doing
so, the research facilitates the analysis of how concepts of heritage transfer into subnational
policy. Such knowledge is intended to contribute to the discussion on the historic urban
landscape approach and its global implementation.
As the title of this thesis – Historic urban landscapes framing the integration of urban and
heritage planning in multilevel governance – indicates, the presented research is about
heritage policy and planning in an urban context. This chapter f urther introduces the context of
the research, and presents the problem statement and the significance of the research. First,
those topics of heritage in an urban age, heritage management and multilevel governance are
introduced. Then the methods and the approach are addressed. F inally, a short roadmap of the
organization of the thesis is provided.
An urban age for heritage management
Cities hav e gained a centra l place in cultural, e conomic, environme ntal and social polic ymaking
and there is wide and transdisciplinary interest in regional and urban cultures (Soja, 2003;
2011). This age has therefore already been coined the urban age. Since the second half of the
19th century, large parts of the world have seen rapid urbanization, urban growth and urban
renewal. This urban and urbanizing environment is expected to become more important for
humankind in the decades ahead. In the 1980s, cities became a lens into the larger economic
and political shifts of the emergent new global era, which increased the urge to rebuild entire
urban centres and prepare them to become platforms for the current urban centur y (Sassen,
2011). During th is process, cities bec ame strategic a nd their management increa singly complex
in nature. There is growing interest in the increasingly urban condition of the planet, if only
for the increasing interest in labelling cities as smart, sustainable or resilient (De Jong et al.,
2015).
However, the urban can no longer be understood (if it ever was) as a bounded, enclosed site
of social relations (Brenner and Schmid, 2014; De Meyer et al., 1999). Urbanization processes
are not bounded by municipal or even national boundaries: they take place simultaneously on
various levels and at multiple locations, and are thus to be managed accordingly. The urban
‘condition’ is now understood as a historic dynamic process, in which larger urban areas
magnify the oppor tunity for social and cultural interaction (Bettencourt, 2013; Or tman et al.,
2014). At t he same time, the presence of culture and he ritage increas es the attrac tiveness of an
22
cared for and interpreted. Conser vation as such is seen as a strategy to achieve a ‘balance
between urban growth and quality of life on a sustainable basis’ (UNESCO, 2011b art.3).
The HUL approach does not focus on a par ticular idea or type of heritage: it aims at quality
of life and a socially just urban world. It builds on the assumption that ‘development without
the conservation of key resources cannot be sustainable, while conservation cannot succeed
without development to sustain its eorts’ (Bandarin and Van Oers, 2015, pp. 318). Heritage
management becomes the management of change, instead of the prevention of change. Rather
than hindering development, heritage can foster development: it can be used as a driver
and source to build sustainable and resilient cities, while fully acknowledging that change
is in the very nature of such resourceful places (Kourtit et al., 2014; Landorf, 2009; Pereira
Roders, 2014). As such, we need to understand historic urban landscapes as layered, dynamic,
cultural constructs of urban resources that echo cultural identity and create cultural value.
Such definition makes the application of strict territorial boundaries or the prevention of
change questionable. What is needed is strategic multi-scalar and thus multilevel planning
and management of the development of urban resources. This is underlined by the rise in
culture- or heritage-led development concepts, the subsequent recommendations to integrate
cultural, heritage and urban policies, and the increased research on multilevel governance
(Turner, 2006).
UNESCO ’s HUL approa ch has been establishe d over the last dec ade. A first version c an be found
in the Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing
the Historic Urban Landscape. This memorandum was the main outcome of a conference in
Vienna in May 2005, where the issue discussed was how contemporar y development could
go hand in hand with the conservation of the heritage values of historic areas. Vienna itself
acted as a case study. The Vienna memorandum sought a more formal instrument to tackle
the problem of contemporary development in historic cities. It asked the General Conference
of UNESCO to ‘adopt a new recommendation to complement and update the existing ones on
the subject of conservation of historic urban landscapes […].’ The UNESCO legal framework on
urban conservation until then consisted of the Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding
of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites (UNESCO, 1962), the Recommendation
concerning the conservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private Works
(UNESCO, 1968), the Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the
Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO, 1972), and the Recommendation concerning the
Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas (UNESCO, 1976). Even the most recent
one was thus over 30 years old. To address the new challenges facing policymaking and
managing urban heritage, in 2006 the World Heritage centre, in cooperation with the UNESCO
Advisor y Bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM), created a working group on historic urban
landscapes. This was the beginning of an extensive discussion on the concept, resulting in the
about guiding the nature of the transformation. It addresses the quality of the resources and
relationships that form a landscape over time (Cortina, 2011; Dalglish, 2012). This goes hand
in hand with a shif t in thinking in culture- and heritage-led studies. The focus of those fields
has traditionally been on materiality, and on aiming to decipher embodied meaning and social
expectations (Latham and McCormack, 2004). More recently, however, the focus has been on
understanding the material and immaterial as resources of a more performative, constitutive
nature. Following actor-network theory, heritage theory is moving towards defining objects
as actors or agents, creators of value, rather than as symbols that represent value (Albena,
2013; Pendlebur y, 2013; Veldpaus and Pereira Roders, 2014a). Heritage is seen as the ever-
present interplay of resources, standards and values, cross-linking past, present and future
societies (Avrami et al., 2000; De la Torre, 2014; Winter, 2012). To manage such interplay in a
more integral and ethical way, heritage is conditionally framed by a conceptual landscape that
incorporates social, economic and environmental factors, through space and time (Agnoletti,
2014; A xelsson et al., 201 2; Stobbelaar and Pedroli, 2011; Taylor et al., 2015). Such a landscape
easily crosses policies, nations, disciplines and scales, and thus also the boundaries that
would traditionally be defined to manage heritage in an urban context.
The historic urban landscape approach
Landscape as a notion was introduced in supranational policy on heritage in 1962 in the
Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of Beaut y and Character of Landscapes and
Sites (UNESCO). ‘Cultural landscape’ has been used in the Operational Guidelines to the World
Heritage Convention (WHC) since 1992 (Rössler, 2006). In 2000 the ‘European Landscape
Convention’ (CoE, 2000) established the concept in supranational policy. The ideas that come
together in a landscape appr oach, however, can be found in many more supranational policies.
Promoting and stimulating the implementation of more integrated approaches in heritage
management has been the aim of many initiatives globally for at least four decades on the
supranational level by, for example, the IUCN, ICOMOS, CoE, OWHC and UNESCO, as well as
by local and national organizations (Brown et al., 2005; CoE, 1975, 1985, 2005; Dumas et al.,
2013; Dupagne and EC, 2004; ICOMOS, 1987, 2005b, 2011; Janssen et al., 2012; Pickard, 2010;
Scheer et al., 2010; UNESCO, 1976, 2003, 2005; Van Oers, 2013; Yang and Pharès, 2004).
HUL builds upon those to provide guidelines on applying a landscape approach in the
urban context. It strives to protect or enhance the quality of the human environment, while
acknowledging this environment is dynamic and needs changes to allow communities to
continue to prosper. As a landscape approach, HUL recommends a holistic and integrated
management that is part of a larger socioeconomic development framework. It has been
developed as an approach that governs how and by and for whom the urban landscape is used,
23
cared for and interpreted. Conser vation as such is seen as a strategy to achieve a ‘balance
between urban growth and quality of life on a sustainable basis’ (UNESCO, 2011b art.3).
The HUL approach does not focus on a par ticular idea or type of heritage: it aims at quality
of life and a socially just urban world. It builds on the assumption that ‘development without
the conservation of key resources cannot be sustainable, while conservation cannot succeed
without development to sustain its eorts’ (Bandarin and Van Oers, 2015, pp. 318). Heritage
management becomes the management of change, instead of the prevention of change. Rather
than hindering development, heritage can foster development: it can be used as a driver
and source to build sustainable and resilient cities, while fully acknowledging that change
is in the very nature of such resourceful places (Kourtit et al., 2014; Landorf, 2009; Pereira
Roders, 2014). As such, we need to understand historic urban landscapes as layered, dynamic,
cultural constructs of urban resources that echo cultural identity and create cultural value.
Such definition makes the application of strict territorial boundaries or the prevention of
change questionable. What is needed is strategic multi-scalar and thus multilevel planning
and management of the development of urban resources. This is underlined by the rise in
culture- or heritage-led development concepts, the subsequent recommendations to integrate
cultural, heritage and urban policies, and the increased research on multilevel governance
(Turner, 2006).
UNESCO ’s HUL approa ch has been establishe d over the last dec ade. A first version c an be found
in the Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing
the Historic Urban Landscape. This memorandum was the main outcome of a conference in
Vienna in May 2005, where the issue discussed was how contemporar y development could
go hand in hand with the conservation of the heritage values of historic areas. Vienna itself
acted as a case study. The Vienna memorandum sought a more formal instrument to tackle
the problem of contemporary development in historic cities. It asked the General Conference
of UNESCO to ‘adopt a new recommendation to complement and update the existing ones on
the subject of conservation of historic urban landscapes […].’ The UNESCO legal framework on
urban conservation until then consisted of the Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding
of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites (UNESCO, 1962), the Recommendation
concerning the conservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private Works
(UNESCO, 1968), the Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the
Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO, 1972), and the Recommendation concerning the
Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas (UNESCO, 1976). Even the most recent
one was thus over 30 years old. To address the new challenges facing policymaking and
managing urban heritage, in 2006 the World Heritage centre, in cooperation with the UNESCO
Advisor y Bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM), created a working group on historic urban
landscapes. This was the beginning of an extensive discussion on the concept, resulting in the
about guiding the nature of the transformation. It addresses the quality of the resources and
relationships that form a landscape over time (Cortina, 2011; Dalglish, 2012). This goes hand
in hand with a shif t in thinking in culture- and heritage-led studies. The focus of those fields
has traditionally been on materiality, and on aiming to decipher embodied meaning and social
expectations (Latham and McCormack, 2004). More recently, however, the focus has been on
understanding the material and immaterial as resources of a more performative, constitutive
nature. Following actor-network theory, heritage theory is moving towards defining objects
as actors or agents, creators of value, rather than as symbols that represent value (Albena,
2013; Pendlebur y, 2013; Veldpaus and Pereira Roders, 2014a). Heritage is seen as the ever-
present interplay of resources, standards and values, cross-linking past, present and future
societies (Avrami et al., 2000; De la Torre, 2014; Winter, 2012). To manage such interplay in a
more integral and ethical way, heritage is conditionally framed by a conceptual landscape that
incorporates social, economic and environmental factors, through space and time (Agnoletti,
2014; A xelsson et al., 201 2; Stobbelaar and Pedroli, 2011; Taylor et al., 2015). Such a landscape
easily crosses policies, nations, disciplines and scales, and thus also the boundaries that
would traditionally be defined to manage heritage in an urban context.
The historic urban landscape approach
Landscape as a notion was introduced in supranational policy on heritage in 1962 in the
Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of Beaut y and Character of Landscapes and
Sites (UNESCO). ‘Cultural landscape’ has been used in the Operational Guidelines to the World
Heritage Convention (WHC) since 1992 (Rössler, 2006). In 2000 the ‘European Landscape
Convention’ (CoE, 2000) established the concept in supranational policy. The ideas that come
together in a landscape appr oach, however, can be found in many more supranational policies.
Promoting and stimulating the implementation of more integrated approaches in heritage
management has been the aim of many initiatives globally for at least four decades on the
supranational level by, for example, the IUCN, ICOMOS, CoE, OWHC and UNESCO, as well as
by local and national organizations (Brown et al., 2005; CoE, 1975, 1985, 2005; Dumas et al.,
2013; Dupagne and EC, 2004; ICOMOS, 1987, 2005b, 2011; Janssen et al., 2012; Pickard, 2010;
Scheer et al., 2010; UNESCO, 1976, 2003, 2005; Van Oers, 2013; Yang and Pharès, 2004).
HUL builds upon those to provide guidelines on applying a landscape approach in the
urban context. It strives to protect or enhance the quality of the human environment, while
acknowledging this environment is dynamic and needs changes to allow communities to
continue to prosper. As a landscape approach, HUL recommends a holistic and integrated
management that is part of a larger socioeconomic development framework. It has been
developed as an approach that governs how and by and for whom the urban landscape is used,
24
cycle, although it remains unclear whether and, if so, how such a cycle is to be established.
Only the WHC requires ocial periodic reporting on the application of the World Heritage
Convention, including the state of conservation of the World Heritage properties located in
its territories(UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015c). For the WHC, monitoring reports are
available. However, the policy implementation chapters are not ver y extensive and are mainly
based on self-assessment by the nation states (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2011, 2012,
2013). Those assessments are not suppor ted by a comparative policy analysis.
The eects and impacts of neither the WHC nor the abovementioned recommendations are
inventoried, let alone monitored in a systematic way that allows for a better understanding
of local context as well as comparison on larger scale. Moreover, methods to undertake such
systematic analysis are scarce. Consequently, information on the application of even the WHC,
let alone the recommendations, is not readily or widely available. For the recommendations,
for example HUL, the only feedback is a loop of incidental local experience back into
supranational policy (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2010; WHITRAP, 2015). However, also
here no data or methods have been found that support statements on what their impact is, or
how they contributed to policy changes. This means that while many support or criticize the
WHC and other recommendations, more generalizing evidence-based statements criticizing or
suppor ting the eect iveness or useful ness of supranational g uidelines are yet to be de veloped.
This increasingly complex context of multilevel governance makes the comparison of policy
and impact through time, place (or case) and governance level both more necessary and
more dicult, not in the least because there is an entrenched empiricism that dominates
contemporary urban policy discourse and precludes a better understanding of the bigger
frameworks underpinning our current assumptions (Brenner et al., 2011; Brenner and Schmid,
2014). New methods, such as large number (large-N) comparative research in the field of
multilevel governance, to better understand the vertical nesting of urban policies in the
subnational, national and supranational context could be very useful to, for example, monitor
the implementation of HUL globally and its impact locally (Kübler and Pagano, 2012).
Research aims
The hypothesis of this thesis, and the research programme this doctoral thesis is part of,
is that making policies and practices comparable through the application of a comparative
analysis framework, will deepen understanding, support practice and reveal trends. A
systematic comparison would provide a more methodical understanding of how current
ideals and assumptions in heritage management are embedded in the various policies and
practices, and vice versa. In this thesis, I chose to focus on urban and heritage policies in a
subnational governance context and their relation to supranational policies. I pur posely aimed
Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, which was ocially adopted at the 36th
General Conference of UNESCO in November 2011.
Heritage policy – multilevel governance
Heritage management is often subject to a complex and multilevel governance system.
Since the birth of intergovernmental organizations, such as the UN, UNESCO and the Council
of Europe (CoE), heritage management has been suspended vertically between supra- to
subnational levels of governance. Horizontally, various disciplines of policymaking, involving
urban and environmental policies, as well as social and cultural policies, also cover heritage
management. A substantial body of binding and nonbinding guidelines and policies adopted
locally, nationally and internationally, apply to heritage, or have a direct or indirect impact on
what is happening with heritage (O’Donnell, 2014).
On the international level, UNESCO’s 1972 WHC is probably the most influential convention
(Nafziger and Paterson, 2014). As it evolves, the WHC fosters the development of declarations
and recommendations to supplement the WHC and other conventions in the UNESCO
treaty framework (Nafziger and Paterson, 2014; Vadi, 2014), such as the 2011 UNESCO
Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. States that are party to the WHC accept
the obligations, towards the communit y of states as a whole, to pass on World Heritage sites
in good condition to future generations, by means of their own legal system of policy and
protective measures. So far, 191 (98%) of the 195 countries that are members of UNESCO have
ratified the WHC. Judging by the high ratification rate and existing research on heritage policy
in various global regions – for example on Europe (Pickard, 2001), on Europe and the Americas
(Stubbs and Makaš, 2011) and on Asia (Silva and Chapagain, 2013) – it is safe to assume
that most of the world’s countries have some legal protective measures in place for heritage
management. As such, new conceptualizations of heritage (or other concepts) will have to
be implemented into a wide variety of existing policy contexts. . The definitions of cultural
heritage and the legal consequences of designation, however, vary greatly among legal
systems (Nafziger and Paterson, 2014; Vadi, 2014). It is thus expected that local governments
that want to implement new ideas and concepts of heritage in their local policies, need to find
a fitting way to do so. Ever y subnational policy context requires a tailored approach, which
assesses the existing national and subnational policies on compatibility to better determine
whether to revise them and, if so, how.
This is easier said than done. There is, for example, a substantial lack of research on the
impact and usability of earlier global recommendations on cultural heritage (e.g. UNESCO
1962; 1968; 1976). While they all required reflective reporting, this was never established in
an ocial reporting and evaluation process. Also for HUL, the intention is to set up a review
25
cycle, although it remains unclear whether and, if so, how such a cycle is to be established.
Only the WHC requires ocial periodic reporting on the application of the World Heritage
Convention, including the state of conservation of the World Heritage properties located in
its territories(UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015c). For the WHC, monitoring reports are
available. However, the policy implementation chapters are not ver y extensive and are mainly
based on self-assessment by the nation states (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2011, 2012,
2013). Those assessments are not suppor ted by a comparative policy analysis.
The eects and impacts of neither the WHC nor the abovementioned recommendations are
inventoried, let alone monitored in a systematic way that allows for a better understanding
of local context as well as comparison on larger scale. Moreover, methods to undertake such
systematic analysis are scarce. Consequently, information on the application of even the WHC,
let alone the recommendations, is not readily or widely available. For the recommendations,
for example HUL, the only feedback is a loop of incidental local experience back into
supranational policy (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2010; WHITRAP, 2015). However, also
here no data or methods have been found that support statements on what their impact is, or
how they contributed to policy changes. This means that while many support or criticize the
WHC and other recommendations, more generalizing evidence-based statements criticizing or
suppor ting the eect iveness or useful ness of supranational g uidelines are yet to be de veloped.
This increasingly complex context of multilevel governance makes the comparison of policy
and impact through time, place (or case) and governance level both more necessary and
more dicult, not in the least because there is an entrenched empiricism that dominates
contemporary urban policy discourse and precludes a better understanding of the bigger
frameworks underpinning our current assumptions (Brenner et al., 2011; Brenner and Schmid,
2014). New methods, such as large number (large-N) comparative research in the field of
multilevel governance, to better understand the vertical nesting of urban policies in the
subnational, national and supranational context could be very useful to, for example, monitor
the implementation of HUL globally and its impact locally (Kübler and Pagano, 2012).
Research aims
The hypothesis of this thesis, and the research programme this doctoral thesis is part of,
is that making policies and practices comparable through the application of a comparative
analysis framework, will deepen understanding, support practice and reveal trends. A
systematic comparison would provide a more methodical understanding of how current
ideals and assumptions in heritage management are embedded in the various policies and
practices, and vice versa. In this thesis, I chose to focus on urban and heritage policies in a
subnational governance context and their relation to supranational policies. I pur posely aimed
Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, which was ocially adopted at the 36th
General Conference of UNESCO in November 2011.
Heritage policy – multilevel governance
Heritage management is often subject to a complex and multilevel governance system.
Since the birth of intergovernmental organizations, such as the UN, UNESCO and the Council
of Europe (CoE), heritage management has been suspended vertically between supra- to
subnational levels of governance. Horizontally, various disciplines of policymaking, involving
urban and environmental policies, as well as social and cultural policies, also cover heritage
management. A substantial body of binding and nonbinding guidelines and policies adopted
locally, nationally and internationally, apply to heritage, or have a direct or indirect impact on
what is happening with heritage (O’Donnell, 2014).
On the international level, UNESCO’s 1972 WHC is probably the most influential convention
(Nafziger and Paterson, 2014). As it evolves, the WHC fosters the development of declarations
and recommendations to supplement the WHC and other conventions in the UNESCO
treaty framework (Nafziger and Paterson, 2014; Vadi, 2014), such as the 2011 UNESCO
Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. States that are party to the WHC accept
the obligations, towards the communit y of states as a whole, to pass on World Heritage sites
in good condition to future generations, by means of their own legal system of policy and
protective measures. So far, 191 (98%) of the 195 countries that are members of UNESCO have
ratified the WHC. Judging by the high ratification rate and existing research on heritage policy
in various global regions – for example on Europe (Pickard, 2001), on Europe and the Americas
(Stubbs and Makaš, 2011) and on Asia (Silva and Chapagain, 2013) – it is safe to assume
that most of the world’s countries have some legal protective measures in place for heritage
management. As such, new conceptualizations of heritage (or other concepts) will have to
be implemented into a wide variety of existing policy contexts. . The definitions of cultural
heritage and the legal consequences of designation, however, vary greatly among legal
systems (Nafziger and Paterson, 2014; Vadi, 2014). It is thus expected that local governments
that want to implement new ideas and concepts of heritage in their local policies, need to find
a fitting way to do so. Ever y subnational policy context requires a tailored approach, which
assesses the existing national and subnational policies on compatibility to better determine
whether to revise them and, if so, how.
This is easier said than done. There is, for example, a substantial lack of research on the
impact and usability of earlier global recommendations on cultural heritage (e.g. UNESCO
1962; 1968; 1976). While they all required reflective reporting, this was never established in
an ocial reporting and evaluation process. Also for HUL, the intention is to set up a review
26
comparative analysis framework, would then be tested in a range of case studies, by means
of workshops and document analysis, to validate the method and test whether the results
are indeed comparable. Comparability between cities could be tested, as could that between
stakeholders, documents, or document and realit y.
This research had to make a selection of those options. It focuses on the understanding of
concepts and management of heritage as used in subnational context, in comparison to
what supranational policies are recommending in this respect. The results are to support
the understanding of discrepancies, similarities and complementarities between the levels
of governance, and allow a more tailored implementation of landscape approach in urban
resource management, once governments decide to adopt this approach. The task I set
myself was to design a method that could be applied in a policy analysis tool for revealing
and reflecting on the dierences between supra- and subnational levels of governance. This
method also had to have the potential to be applied in other tools, to understand a bigger
picture: to compare cases throughout temporal and spatial dimensions, cultural patterns and
governance levels, to reveal the underlying structures and discover dissonant discourses.
Research questions
I am not the first to theorize that the landscape approach represents a shift in thinking about
heritage. This re search, however, goe s beyond theorizing t his shift and evidence s its presence,
or lack thereof, throughout the various levels of policy involved in heritage management. The
aim was to define a method to prove its existence in and impact on urban and heritage policy
on the global and the local level. The a ssumption is that a method of cross-referencing domain-
dependent taxonomy by means of an assessment tool will support the linking of multiple
individual cases, documents and approaches. This research has taken a step towards such
a comparison, by developing and testing a domain-dependent taxonomy used as a method
to assess how subnational policies compare to supranational policies. A next step would be
to see whether this method could also be used to compare knowledge derived from various
forms of empirical and case-based research to develop a more fundamental understanding of
the heritage discipline. As such, the aim was to develop and test a method that would enable
the comparison between levels of governance. This method had to show potential for large-N
comparative analysis of heritage management practices, policies and processes in general.
The particular aim of this research was to develop a method that could assist in indicating
which dierences between the various levels of governance really exist. The results of such a
method coul d be used as the basis for discussing dissona nce, complementar y or comparabilit y
between governance levels. Subsequently, the range of possible changes this implies for
either of those levels and their possible impacts can be explored. While many researchers see
for research that could have an impact on both practice and theory. My aim is to stimulate and
renew the debates and developments in both the application and the theoretical meaning of
the landscape approach in the urban context.
Problem statement
National and subnational governments are invited to adapt and implement supranational
policies such as HUL, and monitor their impact. On the other hand, the development of
supranational policies depends on local feedback and input. To understand the possible and
actual re lations betwe en the levels of gove rnance, there is a need t o compare them and identif y
and monitor the various feedback loops. Current research on historic urban landscapes,
and their management, is mostly case study-driven. An underlying framework that allows
comparison in time or place is often missing (Pereira Roders, 2014). This reflects the fact that
contemporary urban policy discourse is dominated by empiricism (Brenner and Schmid, 2014).
This empiricism, while revealing very relevant and necessar y knowledge, largely precludes
the wider comparison to reveal regional and global trends. Also, the rethinking of underlying
assumptions and frameworks of heritage management can be complemented by such wider
comparison. The assumed Eurocentric core of heritage management, for example, can be
addressed by means of case studies, but what if we want to reveal and prove that this is a
trend on a more global scale? And how is it possible to begin to have an understanding of
how heritage practice has an impact on contemporary society, when we are unable to go
beyond case studies? All those discussions can be enriched by rethinking the way heritage
management is framed and what its impact is.
This research identifies a gap in research on heritage management when it comes to evaluation
research and monitoring. By focusing on developing a more in-depth understanding of
professional heritage practice and taxonomy to build a common language, this research
aims starts filling this gap. The great variation in cultural diversity within and among
heritage management practices provides a seemingly logical argument for dismissing even
the possibility to compare them on a global level. This research however, explores a method
that has the potential to go beyond case-based research: a method that enables a large-N
comparison of heritage policies and projects to reveal trends and dierences in time, place
and scale. As the developed method could only be tested in one case study, this potential is
only theorized here and is still to be further tested.
The research aims presented above go beyond what is feasible for one PhD project. Ideally,
the taxonomy would be developed based on an analysis of supranational, national and
subnational policies, as well as on ethnographic research in several case studies and
among various stakeholder groups. Subsequently, this taxonomy, and its application in a
27
comparative analysis framework, would then be tested in a range of case studies, by means
of workshops and document analysis, to validate the method and test whether the results
are indeed comparable. Comparability between cities could be tested, as could that between
stakeholders, documents, or document and realit y.
This research had to make a selection of those options. It focuses on the understanding of
concepts and management of heritage as used in subnational context, in comparison to
what supranational policies are recommending in this respect. The results are to support
the understanding of discrepancies, similarities and complementarities between the levels
of governance, and allow a more tailored implementation of landscape approach in urban
resource management, once governments decide to adopt this approach. The task I set
myself was to design a method that could be applied in a policy analysis tool for revealing
and reflecting on the dierences between supra- and subnational levels of governance. This
method also had to have the potential to be applied in other tools, to understand a bigger
picture: to compare cases throughout temporal and spatial dimensions, cultural patterns and
governance levels, to reveal the underlying structures and discover dissonant discourses.
Research questions
I am not the first to theorize that the landscape approach represents a shift in thinking about
heritage. This re search, however, goe s beyond theorizing t his shift and evidence s its presence,
or lack thereof, throughout the various levels of policy involved in heritage management. The
aim was to define a method to prove its existence in and impact on urban and heritage policy
on the global and the local level. The a ssumption is that a method of cross-referencing domain-
dependent taxonomy by means of an assessment tool will support the linking of multiple
individual cases, documents and approaches. This research has taken a step towards such
a comparison, by developing and testing a domain-dependent taxonomy used as a method
to assess how subnational policies compare to supranational policies. A next step would be
to see whether this method could also be used to compare knowledge derived from various
forms of empirical and case-based research to develop a more fundamental understanding of
the heritage discipline. As such, the aim was to develop and test a method that would enable
the comparison between levels of governance. This method had to show potential for large-N
comparative analysis of heritage management practices, policies and processes in general.
The particular aim of this research was to develop a method that could assist in indicating
which dierences between the various levels of governance really exist. The results of such a
method coul d be used as the basis for discussing dissona nce, complementar y or comparabilit y
between governance levels. Subsequently, the range of possible changes this implies for
either of those levels and their possible impacts can be explored. While many researchers see
for research that could have an impact on both practice and theory. My aim is to stimulate and
renew the debates and developments in both the application and the theoretical meaning of
the landscape approach in the urban context.
Problem statement
National and subnational governments are invited to adapt and implement supranational
policies such as HUL, and monitor their impact. On the other hand, the development of
supranational policies depends on local feedback and input. To understand the possible and
actual re lations betwe en the levels of gove rnance, there is a need t o compare them and identif y
and monitor the various feedback loops. Current research on historic urban landscapes,
and their management, is mostly case study-driven. An underlying framework that allows
comparison in time or place is often missing (Pereira Roders, 2014). This reflects the fact that
contemporary urban policy discourse is dominated by empiricism (Brenner and Schmid, 2014).
This empiricism, while revealing very relevant and necessar y knowledge, largely precludes
the wider comparison to reveal regional and global trends. Also, the rethinking of underlying
assumptions and frameworks of heritage management can be complemented by such wider
comparison. The assumed Eurocentric core of heritage management, for example, can be
addressed by means of case studies, but what if we want to reveal and prove that this is a
trend on a more global scale? And how is it possible to begin to have an understanding of
how heritage practice has an impact on contemporary society, when we are unable to go
beyond case studies? All those discussions can be enriched by rethinking the way heritage
management is framed and what its impact is.
This research identifies a gap in research on heritage management when it comes to evaluation
research and monitoring. By focusing on developing a more in-depth understanding of
professional heritage practice and taxonomy to build a common language, this research
aims starts filling this gap. The great variation in cultural diversity within and among
heritage management practices provides a seemingly logical argument for dismissing even
the possibility to compare them on a global level. This research however, explores a method
that has the potential to go beyond case-based research: a method that enables a large-N
comparison of heritage policies and projects to reveal trends and dierences in time, place
and scale. As the developed method could only be tested in one case study, this potential is
only theorized here and is still to be further tested.
The research aims presented above go beyond what is feasible for one PhD project. Ideally,
the taxonomy would be developed based on an analysis of supranational, national and
subnational policies, as well as on ethnographic research in several case studies and
among various stakeholder groups. Subsequently, this taxonomy, and its application in a
28
This research was undertaken in the context of a research programme on sustainable heritage
management, called World Heritage Cities, Outstanding Universal Values and Sustainability.
This is an international research programme that was established in 2009 and is led by
Eindhoven University of Technology (Ana Pereira Roders) in cooperation with UNESCO
World Heritage Centre (Ron van Oers). The research conducted under the umbrella of the
programme is intended to lead to a deeper understanding of the sustainable management
and development of historic urban landscapes. The aim is to use and develop methods that
enable global data recording, comparison and assessment. Such methods – in particular,
methods that provide data in a format that allows for large-N comparisons – are expected
to stimulate the comparison of and thus knowledge exchange on historic urban landscapes,
cultural significance and environmental impact, in both policy and practice. We aim to develop
a deeper understanding of the global urban condition, trends and developments by building
upon, and going beyond, case-based research.
Research approach and roadmap
To reveal the cont ribution of land scape approach, and s pecifically HUL , to current sup ranational
heritage management policy and theory, a literature review and a content analysis of a large
set of supranational heritage management policies were conducted. This history of urban
heritage is presented in Chapter 1 (Urban heritage: putting the past into the future), which
was first published as a paper in The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice (4:1) (Veldpaus,
Pereira Roders, et al., 2013). This chapter addresses research question 1. It presents the
current state of the landscape approach in heritage management and shows how terminology
in supranational policy and reference documents in heritage management evolved over the
past 50 years. As such, it shows the position of the HUL approach in current supranational
heritage management policy and heritage theory.
Chapter 2 (Analysing policy, building taxonomy) addresses research question 2. The chapter
is based on a paper published in Change over Time, 4(2) (Veldpaus and Pereira Roders, 2014a)
and a paper published in the Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Heritage and
Sustainable Development – Heritage 2014 (Veldpaus and Pereira Roders, 2014b). Together,
the two papers show the evolution of the concepts used to define heritage. The evolution
was revealed by means of a systematic document analysis of supranational policy on four
dimensions: what and why (2014a) and, who and how (2014b). The analysis resulted in a
domain-dependent taxonomy, to make large-N comparative research possible. This formed
the basis for a method of cross-referencing domain-dependent taxonomy by means of a policy
analysis tool . The method, applied in the tool, enables the sys tematic identification of herit age
concepts in policy, and thus supports structured comparative analyses. In this research, the
focus was on comparing supranational and subnational governance levels.
a landscape approach as the future for heritage management, there is no way to be sure that it
is an approach that will work in every particular case or setting. When a government considers
it appropriate and chooses to implement it, the question is how this can take place in a manner
that is tailored to the specific context, considering the implications and expected impacts.
This research started with the question:
‘What is the contribution of the landscape approach, and in particular the historic urban
landscape approach, to existing subnational heritage polic y and practices in the management
of urban resources?’
To answer this main question, the following sub-questions were formulated.
»What is the contribution of the (historic urban) landscapes approach to current
supranational heritage management policy and heritage theory?
»How are landscape approaches already used in in heritage management?
»How did the recommendations in the supranational policy and reference documents
in heritage management evolve over the past 50 years?
»How can supranational recommendations on the landscape approach, and in particular
the historic urban landscapes approach, be compared to subnational policy?
»What are the assessment criteria for comparison, and why?
»How can we design a comparative assessment method for a multilevel governance
setting?
»How can we apply, test and validate such an assessment method?
»What is the contribution of the landscape approach, and in particular the historic urban
landscapes approach, to subnational urban and heritage management practices in
Amsterdam?
»In terms of content: results of testing the method in Amsterdam
»In terms of method: reflecting on testing the method in Amsterdam
Research setting
This thesis is based on a collection of previously published and presented papers and articles.
Two papers have been published in international peer-reviewed journals (Veldpaus, Pereira
Roders, et al., 2013; Veldpaus and Pereira Roders, 2014a). A third paper is currently under
review, and a fourth will be published in a book on HUL. The work has also been presented at
conferences and, where possible, published in proceedings. A full list of the publications and
presentations is presented in Appendix A. Due to this, Chapters 1 to 4 have an introduction
and a section on methodology. As such, this introduction covers only some of the main lines
and the general approach, to be specified per paper. Another result of this choice is that in
between the lines, one can also detect the evolution of my thinking, my perspective on the
topic, throughout the chapters.
29
This research was undertaken in the context of a research programme on sustainable heritage
management, called World Heritage Cities, Outstanding Universal Values and Sustainability.
This is an international research programme that was established in 2009 and is led by
Eindhoven University of Technology (Ana Pereira Roders) in cooperation with UNESCO
World Heritage Centre (Ron van Oers). The research conducted under the umbrella of the
programme is intended to lead to a deeper understanding of the sustainable management
and development of historic urban landscapes. The aim is to use and develop methods that
enable global data recording, comparison and assessment. Such methods – in particular,
methods that provide data in a format that allows for large-N comparisons – are expected
to stimulate the comparison of and thus knowledge exchange on historic urban landscapes,
cultural significance and environmental impact, in both policy and practice. We aim to develop
a deeper understanding of the global urban condition, trends and developments by building
upon, and going beyond, case-based research.
Research approach and roadmap
To reveal the cont ribution of land scape approach, and s pecifically HUL , to current sup ranational
heritage management policy and theory, a literature review and a content analysis of a large
set of supranational heritage management policies were conducted. This history of urban
heritage is presented in Chapter 1 (Urban heritage: putting the past into the future), which
was first published as a paper in The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice (4:1) (Veldpaus,
Pereira Roders, et al., 2013). This chapter addresses research question 1. It presents the
current state of the landscape approach in heritage management and shows how terminology
in supranational policy and reference documents in heritage management evolved over the
past 50 years. As such, it shows the position of the HUL approach in current supranational
heritage management policy and heritage theory.
Chapter 2 (Analysing policy, building taxonomy) addresses research question 2. The chapter
is based on a paper published in Change over Time, 4(2) (Veldpaus and Pereira Roders, 2014a)
and a paper published in the Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Heritage and
Sustainable Development – Heritage 2014 (Veldpaus and Pereira Roders, 2014b). Together,
the two papers show the evolution of the concepts used to define heritage. The evolution
was revealed by means of a systematic document analysis of supranational policy on four
dimensions: what and why (2014a) and, who and how (2014b). The analysis resulted in a
domain-dependent taxonomy, to make large-N comparative research possible. This formed
the basis for a method of cross-referencing domain-dependent taxonomy by means of a policy
analysis tool . The method, applied in the tool, enables the systematic ident ification of herit age
concepts in policy, and thus supports structured comparative analyses. In this research, the
focus was on comparing supranational and subnational governance levels.
a landscape approach as the future for heritage management, there is no way to be sure that it
is an approach that will work in every particular case or setting. When a government considers
it appropriate and chooses to implement it, the question is how this can take place in a manner
that is tailored to the specific context, considering the implications and expected impacts.
This research started with the question:
‘What is the contribution of the landscape approach, and in particular the historic urban
landscape approach, to existing subnational heritage polic y and practices in the management
of urban resources?’
To answer this main question, the following sub-questions were formulated.
»What is the contribution of the (historic urban) landscapes approach to current
supranational heritage management policy and heritage theory?
»How are landscape approaches already used in in heritage management?
»How did the recommendations in the supranational policy and reference documents
in heritage management evolve over the past 50 years?
»How can supranational recommendations on the landscape approach, and in particular
the historic urban landscapes approach, be compared to subnational policy?
»What are the assessment criteria for comparison, and why?
»How can we design a comparative assessment method for a multilevel governance
setting?
»How can we apply, test and validate such an assessment method?
»What is the contribution of the landscape approach, and in particular the historic urban
landscapes approach, to subnational urban and heritage management practices in
Amsterdam?
»In terms of content: results of testing the method in Amsterdam
»In terms of method: reflecting on testing the method in Amsterdam
Research setting
This thesis is based on a collection of previously published and presented papers and articles.
Two papers have been published in international peer-reviewed journals (Veldpaus, Pereira
Roders, et al., 2013; Veldpaus and Pereira Roders, 2014a). A third paper is currently under
review, and a fourth will be published in a book on HUL. The work has also been presented at
conferences and, where possible, published in proceedings. A full list of the publications and
presentations is presented in Appendix A. Due to this, Chapters 1 to 4 have an introduction
and a section on methodology. As such, this introduction covers only some of the main lines
and the general approach, to be specified per paper. Another result of this choice is that in
between the lines, one can also detect the evolution of my thinking, my pe</