Cultural Heritage, Sustainability, Conservation, and Social Welfare. A Management Plan for the Historic Municipal Buildings of Seville (Andalusia, Spain)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yhen20 The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yhen20 Cultural Heritage, Sustainability, Conservation, and Social Welfare. A Management Plan for the Historic Municipal Buildings of Seville (Andalusia, Spain) Francisco M. Hidalgo-Sánchez, María F. Carrascal-Pérez, Julia Rey-Pérez, Carlos Plaza & Emilio J. Mascort-Albea To cite this article: Francisco M. Hidalgo-Sánchez, María F. Carrascal-Pérez, Julia Rey- Pérez, Carlos Plaza & Emilio J. Mascort-Albea (2022) Cultural Heritage, Sustainability, Conservation, and Social Welfare. A Management Plan for the Historic Municipal Buildings of Seville (Andalusia, Spain), The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 13:4, 426-458, DOI: 10.1080/17567505.2022.2146332 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2022.2146332 Published online: 28 Nov 2022. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 278 View related articles View Crossmark data Cultural Heritage, Sustainability, Conservation, and Social Welfare. A Management Plan for the Historic Municipal Buildings of Seville (Andalusia, Spain) Francisco M. Hidalgo-Sánchez a , María F. Carrascal-Pérez b , Julia Rey-Pérez b , Carlos Plaza b and Emilio J. Mascort-Albea c a Departamento de Construcciones Arquitectónicas II. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería de Edificación. Instituto Universitario de Arquitectura y Ciencias de la Construcción. Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain; b Departamento de Historia, Teoría y Composición Arquitectónicas. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Instituto Universitario de Arquitectura y Ciencias de la Construcción, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain; c Departamento de Estructuras de la Edificación e Ingeniería del Terreno. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Instituto Universitario de Arquitectura y Ciencias de la Construcción. Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain ABSTRACT Significant international forums and programmes, particularly the 2016 United Nations Conference Habitat III and the Horizon Europe, emphasise the need to address heritage management planning in cities from a comprehensive and inclusive perspective in balance with environmental issues. Accordingly, this research develops crosscutting, alternative, and sustainable strategies for the design of a management process for municipal heritage assets in historical cities, which have been implemented in the city of Seville (the Management Plan for Heritage Municipal Buildings of Seville). This plan, finally approved in 2022, involves 130 symbolic buildings of which one third are either under-utilised or abandoned. The research focuses on the design of the developed methodology and presents the resulting 9 management programmes with 30 action lines created for the organisation of these heritage sites into a comprehensive system. Seville’s municipal built heritage plan implies the involvement of academics and researchers from a wide range of disciplines, public agents, and local actors who can guarantee a sustainable process and integrated governance in the future. In conclusion, the research shows an innovative design process for cultural heritage management based on the premise that such buildings are resources for contemporary local development and for a better quality of life. KEYWORDS UNESCO; adaptive reuse; digitisation; landscape; creativity; urban heritage Introduction Heritage management planning reveals itself as a relevant tool in the context of historical cities since it enables innovative proposals that tackle the complexity of the 21 st century. Furthermore, within a context of global crisis, accentuated by the current climate emergency and the recent pandemic caused by COVID-19, there is an undeniable need to advance CONTACT Julia Rey-Pérez [email protected] This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article. THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 2022, VOL. 13, NO. 4, 426–458 https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2022.2146332 © 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group towards the effective resolution of the profound problems experienced by heritage realities in urban and metropolitan environments with strong historical roots. 1 From an international perspective, this concept originated in the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 2 and among today’s requirements for the inscription of a World Heritage Site, the design of an appropriate management plan remains essential. 3 The designation ‘management plan’ currently has widely diverse interpretations since it encompasses different types of documents related to the preservation of the complex reality that constitutes cultural heritage. In this respect, terms such as ‘master plan’, ‘director plan’, ‘conservation plan’, and ‘strategic plan’ are used interchangeably in a range of European locations to refer to similar methodologies that link heritage management with the analysis, awareness, and action regarding an urban reality. As a notable example, the outstanding case of the Project AtlaS.WH – Heritage in the Atlantic Area: Sustainability of the Urban World Heritage Sites serves as a platform for the development of future plans. This project involves the historical cities of Florence, Porto, Bordeaux, Edinburgh, and Santiago de Compostela, with the common objective of building a network of urban World Heritage Sites (WHS) to design strategic sustainable plans based on integrated and participatory management. 4 Other international cases are more focused on reusability and the productive dimension of heritage. Chapter 7 of the New London Plan supports ‘London’s culture and creative industries’. 5 This is a plan through which it is intended to promote hand-crafted activities, as well as creative industries connected to historical heritage and underused areas of opportunity. In the Spanish context, the translation of the UNESCO Convention by the Ministry of Culture originally adopted the term ‘management plan’. Nevertheless, the terminology of ‘master plan’ or ‘director plan’ has also been coined for this type of document. Since then, the management plans that have spread across Spain have usually been associated with interventions, restoration, or maintenance projects and not include the necessary aspects related to the management of heritage buildings in a wider point of view. 6 Consequently, this research has been launched from the aforementioned circumstances and from a commitment to innovation and sustainability, and presents the fundamentals for the Management Plan for Heritage Municipal Buildings of Seville (Plan Director del Patrimonio Histórico Municipal de Sevilla, PD-PHiM). Seville is located in southern Spain, with a population of approximately 700,000 inhabitants and an urban area 7 of around 140 km 2 . With an extensive historical city centre that hosts a monumental complex designated as a World Heritage Site, 8 the case of Seville resembles numerous touristic heritage cities whose metropolitan areas are also home to close to one million inhabitants. In this context, Seville City Council owns an extremely diverse set of architectural assets characterised by their abundance, dispersion, typological diversity, different state of conservation and heterogeneous conditions of use, including underused and obsolete assets. Hitherto, the technical needs of the most severely damaged cases have constituted the main priority, but without comprehensive strategies and under patrimonial planning based on short-term needs. The objective of creating a resilient built heritage system led Seville City Council to promote, in 2020, an innovative design for a management plan focused on its municipal historical built heritage. In this regard, no precedent studies have dealt with the simultaneous management of more than one hundred municipal assets within the framework of specific ownership conditions that are scattered across the contemporary city. In Seville, this study concerns THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 427 a set of assets with high collective importance due to their role as common heritage intimately linked to citizenship. Furthermore, the complex reality of this case under study is specifically approached using a contemporary focus on digitisation, democratisation, socialisation, creative economies, environmental sustainability, network building, and ‘glocal’ projection. No examples has yet been detected for a management plan with this holistic approach for such a large number of municipal heritage assets. This research addresses the theoretical framework, fundamentals and methodology used for a pioneering attempt to design a management plan that integrates cultural heritage agents, promoters, and citizens into the same equation, while advocating for another type of appropriation of such spaces that agilely connects with local needs. A multidisciplinary methodology is presented that considers long-term challenges without neglecting the needs of the present, in an integrated phased programme that faces the execution of the PD-PHiM in a realistic way. This working method, as will be shown, has been created through the unprecedented collaboration between administrations and research centres in Seville. The research has resulted in a set of strategic actions that embody the PD-PHiM aimed at achieving comprehensive management through innovative programmes that address the requirements of municipal heritage from the perspective of sustainability. Given that the main corpus of the PD-PHiM has already been concluded by the work team, the main intention of this article is to show the process followed, the development of cross-cutting, alternative, and sustainable strategies for the design of municipal heritage management plans for historical cities, as illustrated through the richness of the Sevillian case. To this end, the document is structured as follows: a theoretical framework to address the specific problem; the presentation of the fundamentals that contextualise the case study; the sharing of the results, programs and actions, obtained; and its corresponding discussion, which illustrates the contrast between established practices and the innovation of the PD-PHiM. Finally, the main conclusions drawn during the research itself are laid out. Challenges and Theoretical Principles for Heritage Management in the 21 st Century The unsustainable context created by the uncontrolled growth of cities undergone in recent decades 9 has been aggravated with the recent crises, both financial (2008) and covid pandemic (2020), thereby evolving into a critical ecological, social, and urban stage. 10 However, in the face of this global situation, cultural heritage reveals itself, on the one hand, as an option for the improvement of welfare and the quality of life, and, on the other hand, as a resource for urban, economic and social sustainability. 11 Due to these ongoing challenges, this section aims to establish the conceptual principles that support the development of the research. Urban Heritage as a Resource for Sustainability and Social Welfare In the extended system of municipal buildings that constitute the case study, the concept of urban heritage reveals itself in its great complexity and heterogeneity, and shows its social, environmental, cultural, and economic values, which also contribute towards defining the identity of entire neighbourhoods. 12 Beyond traditional perspectives, cultural 428 FRANCISCO M. HIDALGO-SÁNCHEZ ET AL. heritage is additionally perceived as an innovative promoter of urban regeneration and social welfare, by acting as a dynamic platform for local and civic economies. 13 Urban heritage constitutes a sector of activity in its own right, since it is capable of strengthening connections to global and local markets in sustainable ways. 14 Nevertheless, for this to occur, there is first a need for urban conservation that presents a major difficulty: safeguarding issues depend on the provision of a suitable model of urban governance. 15 In this regard, the key to success seems to lie in the constant planning of new uses and purposes, by managing change through adaptive reuse projects, as opposed to the ‘curse’ of permanent heritage designations. 16 Current sustainable approaches consider cultural heritage as another relevant resource that contributes to local progress and community life. In 1999, the Charter of the Vernacular Built Heritage addressed the challenge of protecting the way in which every community creates its own habitat, by involving this holistic vision. 17 The consolidation of the binomial ‘sustainability – urban heritage conservation’ through studies, projects, and actions leads to the consideration of cultural heritage as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. 18 In such a thesis, underused built heritage becomes a scenario of opportunity to respond to contemporary challenges, and provides a suitable realm for the development of complementary sustainable goals. This consolidation occurred when the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were approved by the United Nations (UN) in 2015. Specifically, goal 11 seeks to promote the role of culture in urban development processes related to poverty reduction, gender equality, social justice, disaster risk reduction, and quality of life. This is the first time that, as a major achievement, heritage has been included within such goals. 19 Consequently, UNESCO strongly supported this new paradigm change and launched the publication titled ‘Culture: Urban Future’ at the Habitat III event. This report shows that the preservation of cultural heritage, the safeguarding of cultural practices, and the protection of cultural industries are all implicit in sustainable development. 20 The New Urban Agenda, adopted at this Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (UNCHSD), defined nine levels of change, one of which is to ‘place culture at the heart of sustainable urban development’. Horizon Europe (2021–2024) also focuses its Pillar II on Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness: ‘Culture, Creative and Inclusive Society – Cultural heritage and the Cultural and Creative Industries’. 21 Those planning approaches that isolate cultural heritage from other urban strategies have become obsolete, and this has been made explicit by the international community. Receipt of the New Urban Agenda outlined at Habitat III led in succession to the Urban Agenda for the European Union 22 ; to the Spanish Urban Agenda 23 ; to the Urban Agenda of Andalusia 24 ; to the Andalusian Strategy for Sustainable Development 2030 25 and to the Seville 2030 Strategic Plan. 26 In these strategies, cultural heritage emerges as a major topic, analysis of which revealed the key concepts of an integral heritage management plan, from an eco-social perspective and in accordance with current international premises. Key Concepts for Sustainable Urban Heritage Management Certainly, the review of such documents from the perspective of the UN 2030 SDGs led to the identification of the following key concepts coined to achieve an innovative and THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 429 comprehensive heritage management and which should structure the derived programmes and plans for this purpose. (Table 1). Regarding the fundamentals that should motivate the horizons of a management plan, there is a primary focus on equitable access to (A) Democratisation, (B) Socialisation, Education, and (C) Inclusion values in the context of the heritage culture. As Table 1 shows, these priorities align with SDGs 4, 5, 10, and 11. On one hand, the social ecosystem surrounding built heritage should run on an equal basis at all stages in its related programmes regarding the recruitment of women, by procuring the acknowledgement of female leadership, symbolic representation, and recognition. Furthermore, specific programmes of physical and sensory adaptation should also contemplate the integration of people with disabilities. On the other hand, the defined cultural landscapes should be considered relevant learning spaces, given that they constitute vehicles towards singular didactic experiences. 27 Consequently, the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities (GNLC) defines a learning city ‘as the one that effectively mobilises its resources in every sector to promote inclusive learning from basic to higher education, revitalises learning in families and communities, and fosters a culture of learning throughout life’. 28 These considerations particularly support the achievement of SDG 4: ‘Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’. Urban heritage would consequently play a relevant role in this planning scenario. Other key concepts for contemporary heritage management related to procedural aspects include (D) Sustainability and Resilience, (E) Balanced Adaptive Programming, and (F) Comprehensive Conservation. These concepts relate to SDG 11, and particularly to target 11.4, which is focused on strengthening efforts to ‘protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage’. Heritage resources enable the continuity of cities, their trascendence, a better self-understanding, and evolution over time. 29 The preservation of the identities of cities for future generations, by maintaining not only the physical testimony of their multi-faceted history and the cultural values they embody but also their accessibility for the whole population. The preservation of such memory combines with the search for resilience and adaptive reuse in the management of these sites, thereby helping communities, governments and developers to reduce Table 1. Key concepts for contemporary comprehensive heritage management. Key concepts for fundamentals, contents, and procedures Related 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustainable Development Agenda, United Nations (UN) (A) Democratisation of heritage culture SDG 11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities SDG 10 – Reduced Inequalities (B) Socialisation and Education SDG 04 – Quality Education SDG 17 – Partnership for the Goals (C) Social Inclusion, gender equality SDG 05 – Gender Equality SDG 10 – Reduced Inequalities (D) Sustainability and resilience SDG 11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities SDG 13 – Climate Action (E) Balanced and adaptive programming SDG 11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities (F) Comprehensive conservation SDG 11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities (G) Creative and civic approaches SDG 11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities SDG 08 – Decent Work and Economic Growth (H) Social welfare SDG 03 – Good Health and Well-being SDG 08 – Decent Work and Economic Growth (I) Internationalisation and glocal networks SDG 17 – Partnership for the Goals SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (J) Digitisation SDG 09 – Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure 430 FRANCISCO M. HIDALGO-SÁNCHEZ ET AL. economic, social and economic costs and procuring a context of urban regeneration, conservation and sustainability. 30 From this perspective, (G) Creative and Civic Approaches also become increasingly interesting. Citizens act as urban innovators by collaborating in the transformation of their urban environments and promoting alternative economies. Complementary cultural and creative industries play an ever-greater role in the regeneration of obsolete heritage urban areas. Sustainable Development Goal 8 assumes that the importance of the creative sector for Europe increases every year, at 6.8 % of European Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 6.5% of European employment, by promoting ‘sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth’, and productive employment. 31 The heritage corpus has a relevant productive role whose management requires special consideration from a civic perspective. 32 Accordingly, Horizon Europe (2021–2024) is aware of this socio-economic potential and focuses one of its main pillars on cultural heritage industries through the New European Bauhaus. 33 Given the financial and health crisis of the new millennium, (H) Social Welfare stands out as a prime key concept. Sustainable Development Goal 3 states that ‘health is a fundamental human right and a key indicator of sustainable development’. Cities also act as caregivers by providing balanced ecosystems for the nurturing of a healthy life. 34 Consequently, urban heritage ecosystems should also assume this approach. (I) Internationalisation and glocal networks constitute another key concept to be incorporated into heritage management plans, since they promote the local area but in an international framework. Sustainable Development Goal 17 states: ‘strengthen the mean of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development’. In this respect, institutions should complement each other with multi-stakeholder partnerships and share efforts in a way that fosters a learning community among network members. Finally, a basic issue such as that of (J) Digitisation appears as a fundamental line for management and integration. The implementation of digital tools to facilitate management and guardianship tasks is highly relevant since it acts as a condenser of the multi-disciplinary lines of action. Sustainable Development Goal 9 specifically refers to the need to: ‘develop quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure’. Consequently, it underlines the need for a tool to streamline documentation, assessment, and decision-making. Nonetheless, all these key concepts referred to in Table 1 must be stitched together in a sufficiently broad methodological strategy to leave their mark on the planning design. Issues, such as comprehensive management and transversality, combined with a proposal for the control of economic, environmental, social, and cultural impacts, comprise a number of the strategies that would make the design of new master plans truly innovative. Once these ten key-concepts have been established, a significant sample of current heritage management practices published in the scientific field since the celebration of HABITAT III has been reviewed, and an analysis of their degree of innovation has been conducted using as indicators the principles formulated for the design of the PD-PHiM (Table 2). It is assumed that those management plans that are able to consider all the concepts would achieve an important level of innovation. However, after the analysis was done, it was noted that none of the recent strategies evaluated in the international panorama addressed THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 431 all of the established indicators, and only one of the cases came close to considering a maximum of 8 key-concepts in their design procedures. Such contextual study made evident the richness and cross-cutting approach of the PD-PhiM. Contextualising the Case Study of the PD-PHiM The PD-PHiM responds to very specific contextual conditions. Nevertheless, the responses to the aforementioned challenges in the case of Seville aspire both to tackle specific local problems and to remain sufficiently innovative to be replicable in other heritage cities of similar circumstances. The Challenge of the Management of Seville’s Municipal Built Heritage The management of a large number of municipal properties is a challenge of great interest for the majority of councils from historical cities. Fundamentally, this is due to Table 2. Management practices studied in relation to the principles established in PD-PHiM. Key concepts for fundamentals, contents, and procedures (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) AFRICA Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara, Tanzania (2017) 35 • • • • Wakkerstroom, South Africa (2021) 36 • • • • AMERICA Cuenca, Ecuador (2017) 37 • • • • • • • Havana, San Juan Viejo, Santo Domingo and Cartagena de Indias (2017) 38 • • • • Camagüey, Cuba (2018) 39 • • • Havana, Cuba (2018) 40 • • • • • Bogotá, Colombia (2018) 41 • • • • Penedo, Brasil (2019) 42 • Cuba (2021) 43 • • ASIA Shuang Wan, China (2017) 44 • • • • Xi’an, China (2019) 45 • • • • • Jaipur, India (2019) 46 • • • Bangkok, Thailand (2020) 47 • • • • • • Doha, Qatar (2021) 48 • • • • Beirut, Libano (2022) 49 • • • • • Guangdong, China (2022) 50 • • • EUROPE Edinburgh, Scotland (2017) 51 • • • • • Cork, Ireland (2017) 52 • • • Bordeaux, France (2017) 53 • • • • • Ivrea, Italy (2017) 54 • • • Venice, Italy (2018) 55 • • • • • Krakow, Poland (2019) 56 • • • Bursa, Turkey (2019) 57 • • • • • • Bologna, Italy (2020) 58 • • • • • Santarém, Portugal (2021) 59 • • • • • • Usolye, Russia (2021) 60 • • OCEANIA Ballarat, Australia (2016) 61 • • • • • • • • (A) Democratisation of heritage culture (B) Socialisation and Education (C) Social Inclusion, gender equality (D) Sustainability and resilience (E) Balanced and adaptive programming (F) Comprehensive conservation (G) Creative and civic approaches (H) Social welfare (I) Internationalisation and glocal networks (J) Digitisation 432 FRANCISCO M. HIDALGO-SÁNCHEZ ET AL. the fact that municipally-owned historical properties constitute a substantial part of the contemporary city, and very few comprehensive management strategies can fully introduce these properties into the city while ensuring their preservation. Due to its size and complexity, the case of the city of Seville can be considered highly representative, and a set of common problems can be detected. One of these common issues is that the properties of the PD-PHiM are assigned to numerous municipal offices (eleven in the case of Seville) which are in charge of their management, with no current policies of coordination. As a general rule, the management of each heritage building depends on the organisation to which the use of the building belongs. This management is usually carried out in the same way as other buildings that are not considered to be of historical heritage, mainly due to the lack of specialised personnel in heritage matters in each of the departments and to a current lack of coordination tools. Furthermore, a series of specific particularities that have conditioned the approaches and the development of the design of the PD-PHiM can be included: ●This is not an urban management plan for a city, but a plan for the heritage of the municipality. It implies that PD-PHiM takes buildings into account that represent the local citizenship, whose use should aspire to be accessible and open. ●Although the project was created as a plan limited to technical conservation, the municipal managers understood the need to look for strategies of a comprehensive nature. ●This plan incorporated a requirement for immediate operability, illustrated by the fact that several of the actions programmed in the PD-PHiM are currently being executed. ●Most of the drafting process took place in the context of the pandemic due to COVID-19. This meant a paradigm shift that implied additional complications: absence of face-to-face meetings, interruption of the technical inspections to the properties, etc. Objectives of the PD-PHiM The general objective of the PD-PHiM was to design general guidelines for a comprehensive management plan to foster the integration of numerous independent municipal heritage assets into a sustainable cultural, social, economic and urban system. It involved promoting the regeneration of areas and districts with a commitment to cultural heritage as a clear agent of social welfare, by adopting the aforementioned key concepts. These aspirations were directly related to the specific objectives: ●Identify the heritage assets that could be included in the PD-PHiM, by compiling and analysing the information available in local organisms. ●Design the comprehensive management of the PHiM through specific programmes and actions that promote interdisciplinarity. ●Generate a framework of inter-institutional cooperation as an essential part of a contemporary strategic management plan with a national and international scope. THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 433 The PD-PHiM Final Document The contribution of the applied research can be assimilated to the contents of the document of the PD-PHiM itself, which consists of three distinct parts. 63 Firstly, a complete report explains the structure of the document, describes the contents of the MPs and Actions, and defines the intervention schedule (Volume I). Secondly, a set of 13 annexes details the implementation protocols for the Actions (Volume II). Finally, a synthesis document condenses the main contents of the previous parts (Volume III). Management Programmes and Actions The contents of the PD-PHiM comprise a complex structure that is based on the creation of 9 MPs that encompass a total of 30 Actions. The MPs constitute strategic lines that together form an integrated management policy for the PHiM system. The Actions are configured as the unit that structures the entire PD-PHiM and organises the intervention schedule. Consequently, the MPs and Actions make up a unitary strategy on the PHiM system: an interrelated set of policies that are based on a holistic conception of heritage management. Table 4 below provides a synthesis of all the contents included in the MPs and their corresponding Actions. Moreover, Figure 4 illustrates in detail the complex relationships between the different thematic areas that make up the contents and the conceptual principles set out in Section 2 of this document. The (I) Institutional Organisation MP only contemplates a.01, which was developed after the analysis of the current situation of municipal management. A coordinated administration is promoted, illustrating the search for a heritage centralisation strategy. The (II) Information, Documentation, and Digitisation MP establishes a georeferenced management strategy that aspires to work as a continuously updated heritage information system in real-time. The SIPHiM creation aims to fulfil the digitisation of the entire management of the PD-PHM through the interactive use of open spatial data hosted in IDE Sevilla by 2D cartographies (a.02) and 3D models (a.03). Finally, a.04 promotes guidelines to foster the correct valorisation of the documentation produced around the selected assets. The (III) Conservation, Restoration, and Maintenance MP promotes the application of protocols for efficient and sustainable material preservation in buildings. New tools have been introduced for the detection of critical situations, such as the ITE-PHiM, a Protocol for Diagnosis and Architectural Conservation for buildings (a.05), and unified methods for the identification of risks related to the unique elements and movable assets contained in buildings (a.06). This plan also proposes the efficient organisation of financial resources through the planning of interventions (a.07), all of which are viewed from the necessary perspective of policies that are committed to environmental sustainability (a.08) and correct maintenance (a.09). The (IV) Research and Institutional Network MPs aim to promote research as the basis for innovation in the PHiM. a.10 functions as the central hub of the MP. This in turn is complemented by Cooperation with Universities and Research Organisations for the Development of the PHiM (a.11). Finally, a.12 encourages the development of the UNESCO Chair on Built Urban Heritage CREhAR (Creative Research and Education in 440 FRANCISCO M. HIDALGO-SÁNCHEZ ET AL. Table 4. Programmes and actions of the PD-PHiM (Letters in brackets refer to key-concepts). Management Programmes Actions Descriptions Keywords (I) Institutional Organisation a.01 PHiM Coordination and Management Coordinated management of all the disciplinary areas and all the architectural and movable assets Interdisciplinarity (J); Network (H) (II) Information, Documentation, and Digitisation a.02 Heritage Information System (2D-SIPHiM) Spatial and cartographic management, in real time, of the information produced by the different Actions Updating (J); Dissemination (J); Accessibility (D, J); Open data (J) a.03 Urban Tridimensional Modelling (3D-SIPHiM) 3D management of the SIPHiM data and dissemination of cultural assets a.04 Centralisation and Digitisation Guardianship and access to the documentation produced by cultural assets of the PHiM (III) Conservation, Restoration, and Maintenance a.05 Protocol for Diagnosis and Architectural Conservation (ITE-PHiM) Specific guidelines for the diagnosis of the conservation state of PHiM buildings, defining priorities, and future tasks Environmental sustainability (D); Safety (F); Quality of life (D, F); Economic feasibility (D) a.06 Diagnosis of Singular Cases and Movable Assets Identification of the elements that need particular attention and establishment of a risk protocol a.07 Architectural Restoration Interventions Nature, priority, scheduling, and economic evaluation of future restoration work a.08 Management of Energy Use and Environmental Control Strategies for increasing well-being and decreasing of the risk of disease transmission a.09 Maintenance Management Protocol Standardisation of current maintenance plans aiming for efficiency and sustainability (IV) Research and Institutional Networks a.10 Promotion of Research on Municipal Heritage Prioritisation of investigative practice as the basis for innovation in the PHiM Network reinforcement (E); Enhancing cooperation between stakeholders (E); Urban heritage as a resource (F); a.11 Cooperation with Universities and Research Organisations Institutional stable network for the continuous development of research and institutional alliances a.12 Research and Cooperation with the UNESCO CREhAR Chair Cooperation with a specialised chair in heritage based at the University of Seville (V) Socialisation a.13 PHiM Education and Outreach Educational programme of dissemination by multiple channels and perspectives Democratisation of culture (B); Inclusion (B); Equity(B); Gender; (B) Accessibility (E); Integration of cultural heritage agents (G)a.14 Digital Platform for Participation and Dissemination of the PHiM Promotion of participation by contributing to a convergence between citizens, technicians, and decision-makers a.15 Visual Identity and Signposting Recognition of the PHiM as an identifiable system within the contemporary city a.16 Physical-Motor, Sensory, and Cognitive Accessibility Confirmation that the PHiM assets are available to all citizens within an inclusive city (Continued) THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 441 Table 4. (Continued). Management Programmes Actions Descriptions Keywords (VI) Use and Functionality a.17 Uses for PHiM Buildings Allocation policies and regimes of uses Creative and civic economies (G); Glocal projection (I) a.18 System of Municipal Museum Spaces Generation of a cultural system of heritage spaces that promotes local identity a.19 Creative Industries in the PHiM Reactivation of cultural activities with the assets of the PHiM as the driving force (VII) Archaeological Research a.20 Archaeology Research Unitary archaeological policy for the PHiM Interdisciplinarity (I); Urban heritage as a resource (A) a.21 Protocol for Archaeological Interventions in the PHiM Strategic guidelines for the archaeological assets within the whole city a.22 Priority lines for Archaeological studies Promotion of Archaeology in historical multi-layered sites (VIII) Funding and Economic Viability a.23 Competitive Projects Continuous concurrence to public funding Sustainable economies (A); Quality of life (C) a.24 PhiM Patronage Private sector participation in investment a.25 Transfer and Reception of PhiM Building Spaces Introduction of the assets in socio-economic dynamics through compatible activities (IX) Heritage Framework a.26 Networks Stable alliances between municipalities New heritage approach (C); Social welfare (H); Environmental sustainability (C)a.27 Figures of Protection Promotion of efficient protection policies in concordance with diverse administrations a.28 PhiM Unified Catalogue Instrument of knowledge for preservation a.29 Plan for the Historical Landscape of Seville Focus on the role of the PHiM as an activating element of the historical urban landscape a.30 Territorial Heritage Integration of the PHiM beyond the city limits 442 FRANCISCO M. HIDALGO-SÁNCHEZ ET AL. heritage Assessment and Regeneration) in the Digital Era, specialised in the relationship between built heritage and the contemporary city. The (V) Socialisation MP fosters the transmission of the cultural values of the PHiM to the public, considering it as the necessary step for a civic appropriation in the protection of citizens’ heritage. The basis for this policy of dissemination is established by a comprehensive educational programme (a.13). The current need to maintain reciprocal communication with the citizenship has led to the creation of a Digital Platform for Participation and Dissemination of the PHiM (a.14) which fosters governance. Finally, a.15 promotes the identification of PD-PHiM values, and a.16 aims to implement guidelines towards making Seville a more inclusive city. The (VI) Use and Functionality MP is based on the premise that the use of buildings determines their role in the contemporary city and guarantees their acceptance as a social asset. For this reason, a.17 illustrates a diagnosis for future regimes of adaptive reuse in the PD-PHiM buildings It particularly contemplates creative reindustrialisation of the city from Figure 4. Management programmes and action lines that comprise the PD-PHiM. THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 443 the culture sector. a.18 proposes the System of Municipal Museum Spaces, which enables a continuous reinterpretation of heritage history, instrumental for the future city. Finally, a.19 develops the study, mapping, and promotion of creative industries and related civic economies in contemporary heritage for the PD-PHiM as a relevant emergent field. The (VII) Archaeological Research MP values the importance of these assets within the city that is considered in itself as a multi-layered site. Accordingly, Archaeology Research (a.20), a Protocol of Intervention (a.21), and the Priority Lines of Research in the Archaeological Study of the PHiM (a.22) have been created. The (VIII) The Funding and Economic Viability MP aims to contribute towards rationalising public expenditure for the PD-PHiM. A continuous strategy over time that coincides with competitive projects of strategic lines of public financing is proposed in a.23. Additionally, the construction of a policy of civic patronage from the citizenship and the socio-productive fabric is considered a necessity (a.24). All these actions are proposed in order to implement the responsibility of citizens in the active guardianship of the PD-PHiM. Finally, a.25 establishes a regulatory framework to promote the Transfer and Reception of PHiM Assets and Spaces, thereby contributing towards the development of activities compatible with conservation and introducing the assets into the socio-economic dynamics of the city. The (IX) Heritage Framework MP reflects the heritage nature of the PD-PHiM, including innovative policies regarding its global definition. Accordingly, a.26 recognises the benefits of belonging to specialised networks in historical heritage composed by municipalities, as a stable framework for cooperation. Within this context, a.27 promotes a more efficient protection policy that must coexist with the competencies of the non-municipal administrations. The need to recognise the assets that make up the PD-PHiM forms the basis of the creation of the PHiM Unified Catalogue (a.28). Additionally, a.29 supports the importance of placing the built heritage in its landscape dimension in line with the last recommendations, 64 expressing innovation through the focus on the role of the municipal historical heritage as an activating element of the historical urban landscape itself. Finally, a.30 recognises that the PHiM transcends the limits of the city, which no longer makes sense without its territorial dimension. Discussion of Results This section analyses the main results obtained in this research, according to these processes that have been carried out by evaluating their relationship with the key concepts raised in the theoretical framework, interpreting the diagnoses made with statistical analyses and considering their future projection in the framework of the design of the PD-PHiM. Basis for Future Monitoring During the design process it was impossible to introduce a control mechanism for the PD- PHiM itself, but the basis for such a control mechanism has been created. Consequently, criteria have been established for the creation of indicators that enable the degree of compliance with the goals established in the key-concepts. This issue can be illustrated from the point of view of democratisation, digitisation, patrimonialisation, glocal networks, conservation and 444 FRANCISCO M. HIDALGO-SÁNCHEZ ET AL. socialisation, as these were considered to be the main categories where the results are most clearly framed. Digitisation and Democratisation of Heritage Culture The progress of the PD-PHiM in terms of digitisation is in line with the fundamentals of design related to SDG 9. Likewise, the consolidation of specific lines for the democratisation of heritage culture has been enabled, thereby promoting the Seville smart city model from the perspective of SDG 11. The design of the 2D-SIPHiM made it possible to put such valuable applications developed in IDE Sevilla at the service of the technicians in charge of the management of municipal heritage. The work carried out within the framework of a.02 allowed to digitise and georeference a significant percentage of the selected assets (Figure 5). With a view to the future in the short term, the development of specific work for the complete georeferencing of all the assets is under consideration within the framework of funding programmes for digital transition. Furthermore, major advances have been achieved through a.03, with the development of 3D-SIPHiM. The semi-automated modelling of digital twins for heritage management through IDE Sevilla has made it possible to obtain a qualitative improvement of 60% in the level of definition of the 3D entities of the PD-PHiM assets. 65 Through this type of result, the creation of models open to the public is achieved, thereby promoting the dissemination of the values of the municipal heritage through digital means (Figure 6). Patrimonialisation, Internationalisation and Glocal Networks The PD-PHiM approach is sensitive to the contemporary conception of cultural heritage. It is positioned as a key element of resilient urban development, where social well-being forms the cornerstone for governmental strategies in line with SDGs 3 and 11. These strategies require the alliance between institutions and companies for the creation of solid collaborative networks that generate a common heritage framework with national and international impact, following the guidelines of SDGs 16 and 17. This vision goes far beyond the traditional conception of architectural heritage as a static object to be preserved and provides a new approach that reveals academic research as one of its main avenues for its conservation. Actions a.10, a.11, and a.12 Figure 5. Work-flow related to the digitisation of asset n.111: Pabellón de la casa real. THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 445 are committed to the promotion of permanent research channels around the PHiM, thereby establishing the lines of priority. Likewise, the PD-PHiM carried out a review of the considerations for all the assets included therein. The creation of a unified catalogue of the PHiM (a.28) took into account innovative factors such as the Recommendation on the Historical Urban Landscape (a.29) and the relationship of belonging to the territory (a.30). 66 These advances would enable a future review of the figures on protection currently held by the selected assets (Figure 7). It can be observed that approximately half of the 130 assets currently included in the PD-PHiM have some type of national, regional, and/or local protection status, the latter being the category in which almost all of the PHiM assets belong. From previous research, a detailed analysis method is proposed in a.27. By considering the new heritage values derived from a contemporary point of view, it allows these levels of protection to be adapted and modified, when necessary, during future stages of development of the PD-PHiM. 67 Comprehensive Conservation and Adaptive Reuse The provision of new uses for built heritage space constitutes an obligatory premise in contemporary communities, as stated in SDG 11. The design of these programmes must be adapted to the characteristics of the particular property and to its potential users. The PD- Figure 6. Digitisation results of asset n.80: Mercado de la Puerta de la Carne. (a) Data consultation through 3D-SIPHiM. Building visualisation in 2D-SIPHiM (b) and 3D-SIPHiM (c). 446 FRANCISCO M. HIDALGO-SÁNCHEZ ET AL. PHiM interprets this task as being inseparable from an intelligent conservation strategy directly aligned with SDG 13, and is thus sensitive to the undeniable climate crisis. Additionally, the active use of buildings is proposed, in pursuit of the well-being and collective growth of citizens. To this end, in line with SDGs 8 and 10, the PHiM is conceived as a generator of employment and opportunities, where the role of creativity is differential. Figure 8a illustrates the current general uses detected by a.27, with the following activities as the most common: cultural (16%), monumental (15%), administrative (17%), and socio-cultural (12%). Accordingly, a.18 and a.19 foster the implementation of uses in currently inactive buildings (15%), thereby decreasing administrative uses. Additionally, the low proportion of assets with uses related to the socio-economic dynamics of production (1%) and museum spaces (6%) is partly offset by the new proposal. The result can be seen in this comparative graph between the current and the proposed cultural uses resulting from the future implementation of the PD-PHiM (Figure 8b). The successful implementation of new uses falls on the manager agents of the PHiM assets, which lack current centralised coordination (Figure 9). Thus, the proposal of future Figure 8. Comparison of current and proposed PD-PHiM uses: general (a) and cultural (b). Figure 7. Number of PHiM assets affected by the various types of heritage protection. THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 447 transfers can be observed. This reality justifies the proposal of the PHiM Coordination Board, proposed in a.01. This wide variety of uses and the complex system of agents related to the PHiM raises the transfer of assets as a viable alternative for the implementation of synergies that can be produced between the public and private sectors. Figure 10 shows that currently only a minority of buildings are continuously or occasionally transferred by the Seville City Council. This fairly obvious niche for possible improvement is promoted by a.25. Socialisation and Inclusion The contributions of the PD-PHiM in pursuit of the socialisation of heritage are committed to education as a vehicle that enables citizens to identify cultural heritage as their own. In line with SDG 4, the proposed educational approach aims to show heritage beyond its material nature through the transmission of its social values. Likewise, aligned with SDGs 5, 10, and 17, the PD-PHiM strives to lay the foundations to partially materialise the Figure 9. Institutional assignment of PD-PHiM assets. Figure 10. Current transfer of use of PHiM assets: continued and occasional. 448 FRANCISCO M. HIDALGO-SÁNCHEZ ET AL. obligation of public authorities to guarantee diversity, participation, and social inclusion, by nurturing a common feeling regarding cultural heritage as a fundamental element of the urban and social fabric. Actions a.13, a.14, a.15, and a.16 are specifically designed to respond to these premises. However, it should be noted that while a.14 lays the foundations to begin to design participatory processes related to the management of the PHiM, the implementation of a direct citizen participation is still pending. Although this aspiration has always been present, the operational requirements and the deadlines established have prevented the introduction of mechanisms for citizen participation that would complement the collective participation achieved. Level of Innovation of the PD-PHiM Based on the results presented, it can be stated that the PD-PHiM provides a management strategy that assumes the principles established by the key-concepts illustrated in section 2, reaching an effective consideration of all of them through the development of a total of thirty complementary and interrelated actions. Consequently, all of this has been complemented by through the effective application to the design of a systemic heritage plan that derive from the established guidelines of a solid theoretical framework and based on the fundamental lines promoted by the international community in terms of heritage, development and sustainability. Conclusions In a post-pandemic context, the strategy for the next few years has been determined by the policies of the Next Generation EU fund, which takes shape in Spain as the Plan for Recovery, Transformation, and Resilience. This directs investment to boost the digital and green components, which are understood as cross-cutting priorities of the challenges that Europe is facing in the immediate future. The PD-PHiM specifically builds a solid basis in these two cross-cutting areas for the smart and sustainable management of the municipal built heritage. This proposal for a management plan overcomes the static perception of conservative approaches regarding heritage in order to defend the relationship between historical and contemporary sites as a vivid ecosystem that contributes towards the betterment of local life. In the context of cities with large historical centres, municipal heritage buildings hold the potential to act as powerful nodes for tactical regeneration and faces the global challenges. Therefore, the design of the PD-PHiM is assumed as a social opportunity, which is able to offer qualified spaces responding to the demands of a diverse society, while it can simultaneously reactivate local employment. The PD-PHiM illustrates its awareness of the effort that certain European cities are making in order to strategically enhance the growth of alternative economies in relation to heritage. The pandemic context has revealed the weakness of a heritage financing system based mainly on tourism. Furthermore, the precarious nature of employability around certain sites has become more evident. The coordination of competencies and the digitisation of integrated management processes is required, while the sustainable approach contemplates a particular sensitivity to the rationalisation of the public system. THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 449 de España, G. Agenda Urbana Española. Madrid: Ministerio de Fomento. Secretaría General Técnica, 2019. Accessed 28 July 2021. https://apps.fomento.gob.es/CVP/handlers/pdfhandler.ashx? idpub=BAW061 de Sevilla, A. “Plan Estratégico Sevilla 2020. Objetivos y Proyectos Estructurantes”. Sevilla: Ayuntamiento de Sevilla, 2011. de Sevilla, A. “Planes y Estrategias Sectoriales: Alineamiento Con La Estrategia SEVILLA 2030.” (2019). de Sevilla, A. “Plan Estratégico de Sevilla 2030. Alianza Para La Reactivación Social y Económica de Sevilla.” Sevilla (2020). https://www.sevilla.org/reactiva/documentacion/nota_proyectos-de- ciudad_fondos-europeos.pdf Domingo, S. F., E. J. Mascort-Albea, B. Del Espino Hidalgo, F. M. Hidalgo-Sánchez, and M. A. Gutiérrez. “Spatial Data for the Design of Critical Cartographies in the Metropolitan Area of Seville (Spain). Tapia, Carlos, Mannisi, Alban.” In Reciprociudad:: Design Diplomacy in Seville, 251–264, 9788412149319. Málaga, España: Recolectores Urbanos, 2021. European Commission. “Horizon Europe. Strategic Plan 2021-2024.” European Comission (2021): doi:10.2777/083753. European Union. “Urban Agenda for the EU.” Pact of Amsterdam (2016). Fouseki, K., and M. Nicolau. “Urban Heritage Dynamics in ‘Heritage-Led Regeneration’: Towards a Sustainable Lifestyles Approach.” The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 9, no. 3–4 October 2 (2018): 229–248. doi:10.1080/17567505.2018.1539554. Garzulino, A., M. Paola Borgarino, and D. Del Curto. “When GIS Joins the Conservation Management Plan of a 20th-Century Architectural Heritage.” Sustainability 13, no. 7 April 1 (2021): 3881. doi:10. 3390/su13073881. Gerencia Urbanismo y Medioambiente de Sevilla -GUMS-, and Fundación para la Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla -FIUS-.“ Plan Director Del Patrimonio Histórico Municipal de Sevilla (PD- PHiM)”. Sevilla, España: Ayuntamiento de Sevilla, 2020. Accessed 16 September 2022. https:// www.urbanismosevilla.org/paginas/plan-director-de-patrimonio-del-patrimonio-historico-muni cipal [Google Scholar] Gianfrate, V., D. Amir, T. Beatrice, B. Saveria O.M, and M. Martina. “Research-Action-Research Towards a Circular Urban System for Multi-Level Regeneration in Historical Cities: The Case of Bologna.” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics 15, no. 1 February 29 (2020): 5–11. doi:10.18280/ijdne.150102. Giuseppe De, L., A. Shirvani Dastgerdi, C. Francini, and G. Liberatore. “Sustainable Cultural Heritage Planning and Management of Overtourism in Art Cities: Lessons from Atlas World Heritage.” Sustainability 12, no. 9 May 11 (2020): 3929. doi:10.3390/su12093929. Gravlee, C. C. “Systemic Racism, Chronic Health Inequities, and COVID-19: A Syndemic in the Making?” American Journal of Human Biology 32, no. 5 (2020): 1–8. doi:10.1002/ajhb.23482. Hernandez, J. C. P. “Cultural Landscapes with a Strong Identity: Havana.” Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 3 (2018): 965–974. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57937-5_99. Hidalgo-Sánchez, F. M., E. José Mascort-Albea, M. Kada, R. Romero-Hernández, J. Canivell, and F. López-Larrinága. “3d GIS Semi-Automatized Modelling Procedure for the Conservation of the PHiM: Heritage Municipal Buildings of Seville (Spain).” ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 15, no. 1 (2022): 1–25. doi:10.1145/3467976. Huang, Y., L. Erwei, and D. Xiao. “Conservation Key Points and Management Strategies of Historic Villages: 10 Cases in the Guangzhou and Foshan Area, Guangdong Province, China.” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 21, no. 4 (July 4, 2022). 1320–1331. doi:10.1080/ 13467581.2021.1941979. Ibtihal, Y. E.-B., R. Raslan, H. Mohsen, and H. Zeayter. “Conservation of Beirut’s Urban Heritage Values through the Historic Urban Landscape Approach.” Urban Planning 7, no. 1 January 25 (2022): 101–115. doi:10.17645/up.v7i1.4762. Ichumbaki, E. B., and B. B. Mapunda. “Challenges to the Retention of the Integrity of World Heritage Sites in Africa: The Case of Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara, Tanzania.” Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 52, no. 4 October 2 (2017): 518–539. doi:10.1080/0067270X. 2017.1396665. ICOMOS. Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage. México D.F: ICOMOS, 1999. 456 FRANCISCO M. HIDALGO-SÁNCHEZ ET AL. Jain, S., and R. Jigyasu. Urban Heritage Conservation and Management in Jaipur, 277–296. Singapore: Springer. 2019. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-8887-2_15 Karim van, K., and B. Boonstra. Co-Evolutionary Heritage Reuse: A European Multiple Case Study Perspective. European Planning Studies, 1–18. 2021. doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.2019684. London Authority, G. The London Plan. The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. London: London City Hall, 2020. Accessed 11 October 2021. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/ files/the_publication_london_plan_2020_-_clean_version_0.pdf Martí, M., Maria, and A. Castillo Mena. “Retos Urbanos y Medioambientales Para Una Mejor Gestión Del Patrimonio Cultural En Cuatro Ciudades Del Caribe: La Habana, San Juan Viejo, Santo Domingo y Cartagena de Indias.” ACE: Architecture, City and Environment 11, no. 33 (February, 2017): 87–116. doi:10.5821/ace.11.33.4784. Mascort-Albea, E. J., J. Ruiz-Jaramillo, F. López Larrínaga, and A. de la Peña Bernal. “Sevilla, Patrimonio Mundial: Guía cultural interactiva para dispositivos móviles.” Revista PH 90, October 10, 2016: 152–168. doi:10.33349/2016.0.3778. Matero, F. “Ethics and Policy in Conservation.” Conservation Perspectives, The GCI Newsletter 15, no. 1 (2000). Matthews, T., and D. Grant-Smith. “Managing Ensemble Scale Heritage Conservation in the Shandon Architectural Conservation Area in Cork, Ireland.” Cities 62 (2017): 152–158. doi:10.1016/j.cities. 2016.10.004. February. Mazzuco, S. “The Civic Economy: An Economy of Resilience.” The Urban Media Lab (2017). Mısırlısoy, D. “Towards Sustainable Adaptive Reuse of Traditional Marketplaces.” Historic Environment: Policy and Practice (2020). doi:10.1080/17567505.2020.1784671. Murphy, A., P. Dahlhaus, and H. Thompson. “Historic Urban Landscapes and Visualising Ballarat: Citizen Participation for Sustainable Urban Planning and Design.” In CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1570, edited by A. Both, M. Duckham, and A. Kealy, 41–46. Melbourne: CEUR-WS, 2016. Accessed 28 July 2021. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1498/7f170d2a2277755e1e79012ec9c9e085240b.pdf Nations, U. “United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20),” 2012. Accessed 29 September 2021. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20 Nations, U. “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1)”. New York: United Nations, 2015. Nouch, M. “Planear o Desenvolvimento Sustentável Em Bairros Históricos Através Da Gestão Do Significado: Proposta de Abordagem Baseada Em Valores Na Mouraria de Santarém.” CIDADES, Comunidades e Territórios 2021, no. Sp21 (2021): 207–223. doi:10.15847/cct.20467. Peerapun, W., S. Sereerat, P. Sanit, and P. Vichienpradit. “Master Planning for Conservation and Development of Krung Rattanakosin 2032.” Nakhara : Journal of Environmental Design and Planning 19, December 31 (2020): 39–58. doi:10.54028/NJ2020193958. Porębska, A., I. Godyń, K. Radzicki, E. Nachlik, and P. Rizzi. “Built Heritage, Sustainable Development, and Natural Hazards: Flood Protection and UNESCO World Heritage Site Protection Strategies in Krakow, Poland.” Sustainability 11, no. 18 September 6 (2019): 4886. doi:10.3390/su11184886. Prats, F., Y. Herrero, and A. Torrego. “Vidania, Carlos.” In La gran encrucijada. Sobre La Crisis Ecosocial y El Cambio de Ciclo Histórico 2 a . Madrid, España: Libros en Acción. 300, 2017. Ramos, S. P. “Desafios Do Planejamento e Desenvolvimento Do Turismo Cultural Em Centros Históricos Tombados: O Caso de Penedo-Alagoas.” Urbe. Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana 11 (2019). doi:10.1590/2175-3369.011.e20180075. Rey-Pérez, J. and P. González Martínez. “Lights and Shadows over the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape: ‘Managing Change’ in Ballarat and Cuenca through a Radical Approach Focused on Values and Authenticity.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 24, no. 1 (2018): 101–116. doi:10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science®], [Google Scholar] Rey-Pérez, J., and M. Siguencia Ávila. “Historic Urban Landscape, an Approach for Sustainable Management in Cuenca (Ecuador).” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 7, no. 3 (2017): 308–327. doi:10.1108/JCHMSD-12-2016-0064. THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 457 Ripp, M., and D. Rodwell. “The Governance of Urban Heritage.” The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 7, no. 1 January 2 (2016): 81–108. doi:10.1080/17567505.2016.1142699. Roders, P., Ana, and R. van Oers. “Editorial: Bridging Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 1, no. 1 May 27 (2011): 5–14. doi:10.1108/20441261111129898. Sethaba, R. M. H., and M. Scholes. “Management Guidelines for the Conservation of Heritage Resources in Wakkerstroom, Mpumalanga.” KOEDOE - African Protected Area Conservation and Science 63, no. 1 (20 January 2021). doi:10.4102/koedoe.v63i1.1647. Sibel, P., A. Çahantimur, G. Atanur, and H. Özge Tümer Yıldız. “A Quest for Sustainability of Cultural Heritage Sites: The Hanlar District of Bursa, Turkey.” Iconarp International J. of Architecture and Planning 7, no. 1 June 28 (2019): 01–29. doi:10.15320/ICONARP.2019.64. Svetlana, M., A. Semina, A. Shamarina, and A. Balandina. “The Digital Model as a Key Tool for Preserving Architectural Heritage in Strategic Master Planning.” Edited by P. Akimov, N. Vatin, A. Tusnin, and A. Doroshenko. E3S Web of Conferences Moscow, Russia. 263 (May 28, 2021): 05014. doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202126305014. UNESCO. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Committee, 1972. Accessed 03 September 2021. https://whc.unesco. org/en/conventiontext/ UNESCO. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Committee, 2008. Accessed 04 September 2021. https://whc.unesco. org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf UNESCO. “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, Including a Glossary of Definitions,” 2011. Accessed 01 November 2021. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=48857&URL_ DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html UNESCO. “Culture Urban Future. Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development.” Edited by Unesco. París: Unesco, 2016. UNESCO, G. N. L. C. Cork Call to Action for Learning Cities. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, 2017. Accessed 30 September 2021. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000260441 United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development -UNCHSD-. “Habitat III. Zero Draft of the New Urban Agenda”. Quito: United Nations, 2016. Accessed 24 July 2021. http:// uploads.habitat3.org/hb3/Revised-Zero-Draft-New-Urban-Agenda-18-June-2016.pdf United Nations Conference on Trade and Development -UNCTAD-. “Creative Economy Report 2013. Special Edition. Widening Local Development Pathways,” 2013. Vegas, F., C. Mileto, and V. Cristini. “Planificar Un Plan: Etapas y Desarrollo Del Plan Director Del Castillo de Monzón-Huesca.” ARCHÉ. Publicación Del Instituto Universitario de Restauración Del Patrimonio de La Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, no. 4–5 (2010): 365–372. https://m.riunet. upv.es/bitstream/handle/10251/31168/2010_04-05_365_372.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Verdini, G., F. Frassoldati, and C. Nolf. “Reframing China’s Heritage Conservation Discourse. Learning by Testing Civic Engagement Tools in a Historic Rural Village.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 23, no. 4 [(April 21, 2017)]. 317–334. doi:10.1080/13527258.2016.1269358. Wang, S., Y. Jiang, X. Yuqian, L. Zhang, L. Xinpeng, and L. Zhu. “Sustainability of Historical Heritage: The Conservation of the Xi’an City Wall.” Sustainability 11, no. 3 January 31 (2019): 740. doi:10. 3390/su11030740. Yero, G., A. María, E. Sariol Hernández, and O. Diosdado Prieto Herrera. “Recuperación Integral de Los Corredores Comerciales Del Centro Histórico de La Ciudad de Camagüey.” Arquitecturas Del Sur 36, no. 53 [(June 30, 2018)]. 22–35. doi:10.22320/07196466.2018.36.053.03. 458 FRANCISCO M. HIDALGO-SÁNCHEZ ET AL.