Historic Urban Landscapes: A framework for addressing a sustainable future

Ref.: 227
Key theme: 03 Visual integrity of historic urban landscapes
Date of reception: 21/11/2008

AUTHORS (*Main author)

LANDORF, Chris * (Australia) - University Of Newcastle .

ABSTRACT

The scope of cultural heritage has broadened significantly since the adoption of the World Heritage Convention by UNESCO in 1972. At the heart of the Convention, and the various charters that have followed, is the `conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations' of the World's significant cultural and natural heritage. Central to this concept is establishing the criteria for `outstanding universal value', and then managing so as to conserve that value. While the World Heritage List consisted of relatively simple and controllable monuments, groups of buildings or sites, the conservation of value based on a rigid interpretation of authenticity attracted few critics. However, authenticity has evolved in practice to accentuate the more quantifiable, and therefore more manageable, tangible and static physical value of a site. This has come at the expense of the less tangible and evolving cultural value (Sullivan 2004). With the World Heritage List broadening to include historic town centres, industrial landscapes and potentially, historic urban landscapes, it is increasingly evident that a continued focus on static tangible value will be in conflict with the sustainable use of a populated site. Recent references to the `significant contribution' that the World Heritage makes to sustainable development further accentuate the need for discussion, particularly in relation to visual integrity and intangible cultural heritage value (UNESCO 2005; UNESCO 2002).

Sustainable development however, is a complex and contested issue. Although there have been several decades of discussion and debate, there is no universally agreed definition (Boyko et al 2006: Sharpley 2000; Williams 2006) and practical implementation strategies remain elusive (Basiago 1999; Blowers 2003; Simpson 2001). Sustainable development also bridges national, organisational and professional boundaries and is therefore, grounded in a complex web of contextualised interpretations and interdependent domains (Williams 2006). Despite this, the concept continues to pervade theoretical discourse and growing consensus can be detected in relation to several key principles. Not the least of these is that there is a strong relationship between the built environment, and community sustainability and social cohesion. While persuasive, such claims are not supported by empirical evidence. There is little agreement on what aspects of the built environment contribute to social sustainability or how social sustainability should be measured.

This paper is concerned with the relationship between the visual integrity of historic urban landscapes and sustainable development, specifically social sustainability at a community level. In adopting a definition of social sustainability, the paper initially considers the relevance of social sustainability to World Heritage. The paper then addresses ways of measuring social sustainability and visual integrity and analyses the relationships between them. Three domains are suggested for social sustainability ­ satisfying basic human needs, social equity and community sustainability (Bramley and Power 2009; Landorf 2009). Two domains are suggested for measuring visual integrity ­ urban fabric and street vitality (Porta and Renne 2005). A framework incorporating objective and subjective community quality of life measures and physical measures of the urban landscape is presented as the basis for identifying, analysing and monitoring visual integrity for social sustainability.

REFERENCES

Basiago, AD (1999) Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. The Environmentalist, 19 (2), 145-161.
Blowers, A (2003) Inequality and community: the missing dimensions of sustainable development. In S Buckingham and K Theobold (eds) Local Environmental Sustainability, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 235-250.
Boyko, CT, Cooper, R, Davey, C and Wootton, AB (2006) Addressing sustainability early in the urban design process. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 17 (6), 689-706.
Bramley, G and Power, S (2009) Urban form and social sustainability: the role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36 (1), 30-48.
Landorf, C (under review) Addressing social inclusion in the assessment of sustainable urban environments. SUE MoT 2nd International Whole Life Urban Sustainability and Assessment Conference, Loughborough.
Porta, S and Renne, JL (2005) Linking urban design to sustainability: formal indicators of social urban sustainability field research in Perth, Western Australia. Urban Design International, 10 (1), 51-64.
Sharpley, R (2000) Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8 (1), 1-19.
Simpson, K (2001) Strategic planning and community involvement as contributors to sustainable tourism development. Current Issues in Tourism, 4 (1), 3-41.
Sullivan, S (2004) Local involvement and traditional practices in the World Heritage system. In E de Merode, R Smeets, and C Westrik (eds) World Heritage Papers 13. Linking Universal and Local Values: Managing a Sustainable Future for World Heritage, Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 49-55.
UNESCO (1972) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO (2002) Budapest Declaration on World Heritage, Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO (2005) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
Williams, P (2006) The governance of sustainable development in Wales. Local Environment, 11 (3), 253-267.