Keywords

Introduction

Heritage is never merely conserved or protected; it is modified –both enhanced and degraded- by each new generation.

David Lowenthal

Archaeological spaces located in urban contexts have nowadays the potential of becoming tourist attractions and important centers of cultural consumerism. Yet, in addition to an economic impact, these sites also have the potential to foster social cohesion, democratic practices, and emancipatory political projects. This is partly hindered by the standard practice followed by official apparatuses by which these decide what to preserve for future generations, usually not involving local communities into decision-making plans. I would like to argue that these practices should ideally converge with comprehensive management plans focused on preventive conservation attached to the public use of heritage sites. Indeed, as several authors have recently emphasize, the fostering of the social capital should be an explicit aim of any heritage institution, being the cultural heritage a medium, tool, or space for enhancing and developing it (Murzyn-Kupisz and Działek2013). The research we present in this paper aims at exemplifying how, by doing a sort of ethnography of heritage, we open windows to observe (or delineate) spaces of discordance between dominant powers such as archaeological administrations or museums and the local residents, reversing into new strategies to develop in its context (Hamilakis2011). This article focuses in the relation between a specific heritage project in the Gothic Quarter (from now on Barri Gòtic) in Barcelona – Pla Bàrcino (Comissió de Cultura Coneixement Creativitat i Innovació2012) – and the local communities living in this area. Specifically, we will analyze and propose how the relation between institutional heritage interventions and the public could be dialogical and constructive instead of oppositional. Moreover, we argue that by introducing the concept of community values in heritage management and conservation practices, we can open avenues to transform the urban heritage in a sustainable tool for social cohesion, empowerment, and well-being.

In Spain, pressed by a growing economical crisis, the relationship among stakeholders , institutions, sponsors, or specialists has changed during the last years (Querol and Castillo2013). Investments in the cultural field have substantially decreased in the last 5 years or so with its impact in society’s cultural practices. The culture tax increased to the 21% at Spain in 2012 (year of the last publishing of the Cultural Satellite Account of the Culture in Spain wrote by the Subsecretary of Culture) which has been transformed into an impoverishment of the cultural sectors and its consequent loss of cultural capital in society. For Spanish heritage expert M.A. Querol, a characteristic of any cultural asset is that its purpose is social. In other words, their values can be enjoyed by the entire society or is senseless considered as a cultural heritage (Querol2010: 13). In this sense, the role of archaeology as a cultural product is undoubtedly beneficial. Archaeological sites (re)construct the past, and every visitor will construct their own vision of this past resulting in a creative and emotional process; there is a fascination attached to the material past related to the development of heritage tourism and “heritage industry” (Hamilakis and Anagnostopoulos2009; Vizcaíno Estevan2013). However, in our case study located in an urban context, there are some specificities related to the logics of urban development and capitalist growth (Harvey2003). In other words, in urban centers, there is a clear dichotomy between the enhanced archaeological spaces (some of them integrated in public and private buildings) that coexist with usually disturbing excavations in the process of excavation inside an overtouristified space, a situation that generates inhabitant’s discomfort. The Barri Gòtic local community enjoys the fact of being in one of the most commoditized area of the city, for it could be said that they are living in a theme park (Cócola Gant2011,2014). Despite so, in most cases, people living in the area are passive guests of their own heritage.

Context: Barri Gòtic and Pla Bàrcino

This research examines one of the oldest neighbors of Barcelona, the Barri Gòtic, placed in the district of Ciutat Vella, an area with the highest concentration of Roman ruins in Barcelona. Bàrcino (Roman denomination of Barcelona) was a Roman Augustan foundation which dates from the second century B.C. Restaurants and tourist shops are the most common features in this area, remodeled in the nineteenth century in the French Gothic style (Cócola Gant2011,2014).

The area has a mixed social demography, consisting mostly of adult and elderly people with multicultural origins, as is the case in other central neighbors of Barcelona, such as Raval and Poble-Sec. The so-called minority spaces are urban spaces that are architecturally and socially formed by the presence of migrants and, in our case, second- or third-generation foreigners (Turner and Tomer2013: 191). Authors who examine the role of heritage preservation in urban areas with high number of people of different cultural backgrounds have emphasized how in these contexts heritage spaces have a value by themselves and not in connection to a specific ethnic group or historical moment; that is, values are not fixed but continually renegotiated. In the case of Barri Gòtic, we should add tourists as another category of (temporary) residents that coexist with locals and migrants, pointing out that if we are not facing up a “minority space,” but we are in front of an impersonal space with a remarkably touristic identity, a space that has been created to promote consumption (Cócola Gant2012). It is in this context that we will analyze the deployment of the Pla Bàrcino.

Since 2012, the Pla Bàrcino has had four main objectives intended to motivate, promote, facilitate, enhance, and make accessible the Roman heritage. These objectives unfolded in three lines of action related to museological spaces (Fig. 5.1), planned excavations, and research documentation that have resulted in three transversal projects: Smart Bàrcino Footnote 1 (an intelligent map of the Roman city that shows and keeps itineraries), Bàrcino Accessible (an improvement plan for disabled people and new strategies for revitalization and diffusion), and the enhancement of the Archaeological Chart of BarcelonaFootnote 2 (Miró i Alaix2016).

Fig. 5.1
figure 1

Pla Bàrcino spaces in Barri Gòtic. The darker spaces have been opened recently to the public or are included in current remodeling plans ®Ana Pastor

Full size image

It should be noted that Barcelona’s Roman spaces are managed by two agencies: the History Museum of Barcelona (MUHBAFootnote 3) and the Archaeological Service of Barcelona (Servei d’arqueologia de Barcelona), both located in the Barri Gòtic. This bicephalic management can be seen as a possible handicap for the organization and accessibility of archaeological spaces, but on the other hand, it may also add a diversity of perspectives in the process of valuing the archaeological sites. As in other urban contexts, in Barcelona, the archaeological landscape has changed throughout the years with the natural growth of the city, and in some cases, it has disappeared, becoming musealized/isolated spaces or being embedded in other buildings as part of the process of urban development (Fig. 5.2).

Fig. 5.2
figure 2

MUHBA. Plaça del Rei (left up, left down), Pati Llimona (right up) and re-constructed aqueduct at Plaça Nova (right down). Different Roman, medieval and contemporary musealized spaces ®Ana Pastor

Full size image

The Role of Local Communities’ Organizations

In western societies, there exists a willingness to manage heritage assets for transmission to future generations. This phenomena in the urban context is materialized in the daily life where “movement is constrained by physical passageways and barriers as well as by the invisible delimitations that shunt people into distinct locales on the basis of ethnicity, gender, age, and social status” (Smith2014:308). Community-based projects in heritage are becoming more popular due to an augment of funding programs (injection of funds from the EU and UN) and also the increase of result’s visibility, thanks to specialized journals and web pages among other media. This goal to empower societies is usually attached to weak and poor areas or communities where identity could be reinforced through “self-knowledge” and is less frequent in urban areas. Stepping back to management phases, we are more in favor to include community in the cultural good hosting but analyzing in depth the characteristics of societies (environment, positive externalities, cultural capital) for whom these plans are created (Ruiz Martínez and Pastor Pérez2015).

The Associació de Veïns del Barri Gòtic Footnote 4and the Assemblea de Veïns de la Plaça de la Vila de Madrid Footnote 5 are the two local organizations that have collaborated in this research. Personal interviews carried out with the heads of these associations have furnished information and personal perspectives that often conflict with the institutional and more formal political discourses about heritage and cultural policies. The impact of neighborhood associations in urban planning strategies, especially since the early moments of democracy, has been systematically studied in Barcelona (Parés et al.2012; Domingo and Bonet1998), but nobody has paid enough attention to how social movements have specifically impacted heritage management policies (Fig. 5.3).

Fig. 5.3
figure 3

Result of an action led by schoolchildren and teachers from the Angel Baixeras Primary School: The action aimed to reclaim an archaeological space in the Barri Gòtic as a playground. February 2015

Full size image

In this sense, it could be said that for local contexts the will of the neighborhood plays a determinant role to transform their heritage relics into encounter spaces to develop common projects (Prats2012), but in the Gòtic case, this process has been always lead by the public entities and not citizens (Garcés et al.2009). Researchers such us Murzyn-Kupisz and Działek (2013) propose the concept of “community hubs” to describe spaces where trust is built and social networks are created, a concept that we think can be applied also to our case. This research will identify ways to improve our knowledge about how to integrate community perception and use of the urban archaeological heritage structures to point the fact of participative and inclusive processes in the role of conservation.

Risk Management as a Community Tool: An Approach to New Values in Heritage

More than 10 years ago, David Lowenthal, reflected about the conservation of cultural heritage , and the argued that it was essential to breach the walls that divide academia from active life and that a heritage that is disjoined from ongoing life cannot enlist popular support, pointing to the fact that conservation needs everywhere outrun stewardship resources (Lowenthal2000). In this case, we cannot dismiss the approach of experts like Laurajane Smith with her vision about an “authorized heritage discourse” (Smith2006) or Joel Taylor that appeals to an embodiment related with communication and interaction where “heritage cannot be understood by viewing isolated periods” (Taylor2015:75). However, the methodological aspects of how we could approach this existing divide between academia and active life has not been clearly defined. The role of archaeological conservator in heritage management is focused in establishing priorities for their maintenance plans, using a wide number of values/criteria that have been identified, defined, and used in the recent years (Carver1996; Clark2006; Frey2007; Labadi2007; Vafadari et al.2012; De la Torre2013,2014; Fouseki and Sakka2013). In a general sense, cultural values are attached to objects and spaces that communities recognize as their own (as belonging to their history or religion) being intersected with other transversal identities as cuisine, dancing, or music that confirm their historical memory (Niglio2014).

As mentioned earlier, the Barri Gòtic is a multicultural setting that counts with groups at risk of marginalization. Since 2005, the MUHBA has conducted integration activities with local education centers. One is the Patrimonia’m program, which seeks to “improve social cohesion, dissemination of the heritage of the city, promoting the values of citizenship and establishing connections between landmarks and local communities” (Garcés et al.2009: 123). This connection is achieved through educational activities highlighting different life experiences (living history) of the students in the vicinity of the walls. Participants finally became guides for other students and their families disseminating their experiences and knowledge, enhancing their sense of belonging through establishing a close connection between heritage and communities. In the same vein, considering equity as a form of cultural capital, the promotion and inclusion of the community should be understood as social actions (Harrison2010). Likewise when we work improving cultural development activities, we are influencing the community, making a more inclusive society in terms of migration and gender creating positive externalities that may also impact on economic matters. In our point, it is clear that the inclusion of participation strategies in urban dialogues can create new forms of coexistences (Turner and Tomer2013), but for this, we need to develop new inclusive methodologies of implementing and evaluating public participation. Risk management plans have also an economical dimension when treatment’s options are analyzed in order to help money saving; in this sense, these strategies might help to describe economic benefits for stakeholders . In addition to apply these synergies to develop preventive conservation strategies, we have studied new ways to approach to society’s perception and needs regarding heritage.

First Step: Public Indicators

Community participation is also related with participative policies in cultural spaces which mean that the installations and accessibility, among others, will play a determinant role on inhabitant’s heritage perception. Adapting the management indicators proposed by Tresserras (Juan-Tresserras2006) as “public indicators,” we can valorize public cultural sites based on their facilities, interpretative media, accessibility, services offered, and community participation. In this research, these indicators are applied to the archaeological sites included in the Pla Bàrcino. Punctuations go from one to five according to our own chart criteria and were obtained after a systematic study of each cultural space (Table 5.1). With this data, we can create a chart (Fig. 5.4) and a value pie (Fig. 5.5) that will approach us to the perception/value of use/enjoyability that neighbors have of their Roman heritage. If we contrast this information with the one collected in a survey (asking which Roman spaces are the most visited by them) developed in the neighbors associations (Fig. 5.6), we can remark that in both cases, the musealized spaces are the most appreciated by community, with the exception of the Roman walls, that even if their punctuation is not high, it has a significant presence in local people’s lives (from an 8% using indicators we step into a 21% in the survey). Those indicators will help us to define a new group of values which will help us to include community’s needs on management decisions, like we will introduce on next paragraphs.

Table 5.1 Public indicators
Full size table
Fig. 5.4
figure 4

Public indicators chart for Pla Bàrcino spaces ®Ana Pastor

Full size image
Fig. 5.5
figure 5

Evaluation of Bàrcino spaces according to Public Indicators showed on a value pie ®Ana Pastor

Full size image
Fig. 5.6
figure 6

Local community most visited Bàrcino spaces. Data collected by a survey developed by the author ®Ana Pastor

Full size image

Heritage Values : From Contextual Values to Community Values

Why using a renew (Carver1996,2003) concept of Community Values? Community values were conceptualized with the intention of bringing the heritage assets to their owners, that is, citizens and local communities of the territory. We will compare them with some academic values that were usually chosen by experts among some comparative exercises developed during teaching courses (Table 5.2). The goal was to broaden the perception people have of what belongs to them (sense of belonging) attached to Burra Charter’s social values (ICOMOS Australia2013), introducing functionality, accessibility, and inclusiveness like values themselves.

Table 5.2 In this chart (inspired in De la Torre2013), we can observe heritage values evolution
Full size table

The Getty Conservation Institute in Los Angeles has played a reference role since the beginning of the twenty-first century in heritage values studies (Mason and De la Torre1998; Avrami et al.2000; De la Torre2013,2014;). In turn, the literature on heritage values is multifarious and is accompanied of a specific vocabulary that may vary with the author and geographical frame of work (Labadi2007; Clark2009; Oosterbeek2010; Araoz2011; Demas2013); therefore, we decided to create a group of values adapted to our work. Authors like Turner and Tomer use the term stakeholders instead of neighborhood or neighbors in the sense that individuals that share a physical space sometimes don’t have the same needs (Turner and Tomer2013:191). We can also identify these “community values” as “stakeholder’s values” which can be also applied and studied using maps of stakeholders for different purposes (Querol and Castillo2013). Regarding authors such as De la Torre (2013), heritage places are neutral until we apply to them a cultural value, and in the same time, they got the status of heritage. In the case of Barcelona, we should analyze how the benefits associated with this valorization investment in a given space will improve local community’s needs (Ballart1997; Poulios2010).

This kind of efforts of inserting social perception/values into management plans, and in our specific case using value diagrams, is relatively novel in the Hispanic-American archaeological heritage plans . Authors such as Cohen and Fernández (Cohen and Fernández Reguera2013:27) established three categories for assets held in museums in Colombia, works of greater importance (essential and unique universally), objects of medium importance (rare items of regional or local importance), and minor objects (their importance is restricted to a small group of people), categories of values relating to contexts previously narrated by visitors. We have named these values the “contextual values” because there is a build frame of contexts that change. Through these three categories, diagrams were produced by types of objects assembled in groups, introducing public perception in a given space-time inside value pies for risks assessments. In the author’s words:

Another problem that arises from inadequate assessment of museum collections is the transfer of its cultural values into economical value. On many occasions, both types of assessment are not compatible, especially when something is confused with the other -the valuation and-the commercial value – (Cohen and Fernández Reguera2013 p. 12)

Community values integrate this contextual aim in the sense that they are extremely attached to a concrete social context and could be mainly classified into intrinsic (historical, scientific, aesthetic, and uniqueness) and extrinsic (functionality, accessibility, inclusiveness, and symbolicity). In 2013 James O. Young wrote about the cognitive value that can be extrinsic and intrinsic, attached to finds. In his own words, “when a find has an intrinsic value it is valued as a source of knowledge that is valuable for its own sake” (Young2013:28). For the case of extrinsic value he says “Some archaeological finds possess extrinsic value because they promote rational thought and undermine prejudice” (Young2013:28). Based in this cognitive process,Footnote 6 and in the past works we have defined, these new values then could be modified and used in all the variants we could need to each case even if they have been created to be applied into urban archaeological spaces (Table 5.2). Some of the values described are well defined in literature, and we will not describe them in this paper (Clark2009; Drury and McPherson2008; De la Torre2002). We will focus on explaining where we want to arrive when we talk about functionality, accessibility, and inclusiveness.

  • Functionality is viewed here as an indicator of instrumental value associated with the use of consumption, embracing the possibilities that an object or space has to generate a profit from economics or society. This could also encompass the economic aspect of this recovery, and as David Throsby indicates, we can move toward an association of cultural values, with the return thereof (economic value) when you consider the cultural capital (Throsby2001a,b; Murzyn-Kupisz and Działek2013). For determining it, we need to analyze the use of the space and consumerism surveys.

  • Accessibility refers to the ease with which users access to cultural products and how they decode the information that conveys them. To collect and identify this data, we can be guided by the set of public indicators that we have explained before. As much easier is for the community to have access to their heritage and to a greater number of services, higher will be the importance of this asset in accessibility terms. In this context, it is important to evaluate also to the capacity of transmission of the objects or assemblages (if they are well exposed, if the restorations are legible, etc.). In recent studies like the one developed by Iwona Szmelter (Cracovia, Poland) appeared two relevant terms “integrating value” (cultural-historic values) and “social access value” (socioeconomic values) both attached to a reflexive society. The author is recognizing here the importance of developing strategies where integration could not be understood without accessibility (Szmelter2013).

  • Inclusiveness as refered to in the list of values would assess the entire role that the space plays in improving quality of life for the inhabitants thereof. This inclusion can be measured through surveys of residents or through participation statistics of those organizations that have developed cultural activities with inhabitants. This could lead to the development of an index of inclusivity, but aspects must be treated separately to facilitate our work.

Applying these community values we attempt to address the social, economic and cultural dimensions related to a social and economic benefit due to functional and inclusive aspects related to the availability of studied goods. They keep an inherent bequest value associated with the existence value, proposed by Bruno Frey (2007), as its application to conservation, like we will see on our case study is linked to the survival of the same for future generations.

Case Study: The Roman Funeral Way Space of Barcelona

The Risk Management Cycle

Current theoretical frameworks toward preventive conservation of urban archaeological sites will be reviewed here to develop new strategies through a methodology that already exists: the “Risk Management Cycle (ICCROM-CCI-ICN)Footnote 7.” This process has five consecutive steps and two continuous processes (Fig. 5.7). The first step is to contextualize the study followed by the risk assessment that is divided into identification, analysis, treatment, and an evaluation process. Our research focuses on this stage of the cycle that will determine results for the next steps; here is where community values make a difference. During this contextual phase, a statement of significance takes placeFootnote 8 which translates into an assessment of the importance of place, attributing or assessing a number of cultural characteristics. It is a first approach of enhancement and development of heritage in a quantitative way (Avrami et al.2000). In the archaeological field as in other dimensions of heritage, the objects not only have an intrinsic value, but they are associated with each other, turning into a common discourse. The importance of assessing the relationship among the objects themselves and how this relation interacts and affects public sentiments is a factor we should consider in order to improve the overall management of risks. Here, experts might fight against falling into an individual identification of spaces meaning isolating them as cultural heritage sets and missing thus its contextual values associated with the community (forgetting, e.g., their collective identities, in this case the neighborhood, city, or nation). In archaeology, we have to remark the excellent works carried out recently in Petra (Jordan) (Michalski and Pedersoli2009; Vafadari et al.2012).

Fig. 5.7
figure 7

The risk management cycle ®CCI-ICCROM-ICN. Revised by the author

Full size image

Vila de Madrid Square

The importance of analyzing the urban social fabric associated with the context is essential when drawing up the chart values for conservation of heritage. They have commonly been defined and assessed by academic professionals who follow a series of criteria based in the international charts or agreements (archaeologist, conservators, restorers, or heritage managers). These valuations are usually related to the authenticity (Nara’s DocumentFootnote 9 of 1994) and continue to be based in historic, aesthetic, or scientific facts that are not always relevant to the citizens or neighbors, betraying in most cases the dialogue between authorities and neighborhood associations and entities.

The context of study here is the square called Plaça de la Vila de Madrid located in the Gothic quarter of Barcelona (Fig. 5.8). In order to establish its values, we divided it in three spaces which are related to its use by the community: patrimonial set, gardens, and playground (Fig. 5.9).

Fig. 5.8
figure 8

Roman funeral way at Plaça de la Vila de Madrid 2014 ®Ana Pastor

Full size image
Fig. 5.9
figure 9

Space divided in three major sets to accurate values

Full size image

To organize our valuing spaces, we have taken into account all the elements that surround the area, such as perimeter fences or the gateway that has been identified as a separate element of the fence because they connote a different perception being the access to the whole set: heritage set and gardens. We built two different value pies, one using the academic and other the community values (Fig. 5.10).

Fig. 5.10
figure 10

Value pies according to the settled spaces

Full size image

For the case of community values, the nesting of groups through the use of different indicators has varied: the heritage set lose relevance; it would remain an important part of the context, but indicators of accessibility or functionality would give more prominence to the natural area and leisure park because there is a policy of inclusion among the dwellers and the interpretive center. Considering all the analysis, we can deduce that community values downplay what we would call the archaeological heritage itself, giving a greater role to the context surrounding it. But with which criteria have we built this value pies? I have used also different percentages of each type of values according to a research based in participative observation, focus groups, and surveys (Fig. 5.11).

Fig. 5.11
figure 11

Value pies used to establish the context of the risk management plan reflecting academic and community values. Differences between both charts will define risk prevention strategies and treatments ®Ana Pastor

Full size image

In order to know how these different values have a real appliance in conservation plans, four model risks have been chosen in order to analyze their impact using both kind of values and assessing them attending to “set affected” (Fig. 5.12) and “loss to each object” (Fig. 5.13) as is used in the CCI-ICCROM-ICN methodology for collections. The risks selected for this study case were: garbage launching against the tombs (open air space), lack of security at the interpretation center, demonstrations (that usually took place in a major street placed next to the square), and urines in fences (that may cause a problem in visitors to watch the funeral complex and also to the fences itself made in steel and glass).

Fig. 5.12
figure 12

Classification of risks according to the “set affected” (orange color). On the left community values and on the right academic values approach. Blue is the “loss of object” and green “percentage of set affected”

Full size image
Fig. 5.13
figure 13

Classification of risks according to the “loss of object” (blue color). On the left community values and on the right academic values approach. Orange is the “set/collection affected” and green “percentage of set affected”

Full size image

For the first classification, it can be identified that in both cases, “garbage launching” remains as the first risk followed by “urines in fences”; it is possible to see that while the academic values reveal that the “lack of security” must be prioritized in order to conserve the asset (Figs. 5.12 and 5.13), community values indicate that “demonstrations” could be a major risk (influenced by the higher percentage of damage that could affect the garden and moreover the playground). Regarding the second classification here proposed linked to the loss of object, for the community, the risk of “urines in fences” is higher than the risk of “garbage launching.” For the inhabitants, the fences have a very useful function not only as a safeguarding element (Fig. 5.14) but as a place for watching the space from different perspectives and also as a place to meet and socialize. In terms of accessibility or inclusiveness, fences could have a higher value than the tombs themselves. Although the graph shows minimal differences, when we develop an entire comprehensive risk plan (that could include more than 30 risks attached to each set), these differences may become more visible. It has to be considered that we have just chosen here four risks associated with theft and vandalism, which are primarily affecting the whole of today (the graves are not covered but are part of the recreation of what the Romans called sepulchral way so would be meaningless fill this field). Above all, this research sample reveals the power of using new inclusive categories in assessing our value pies. The next step in the risk management cycle would be “treatment,” and our proposal will be directed to involve the community in the task of safeguarding heritage to arrive further (social/community conservation). A higher value of inclusiveness will reduce the magnitude of many of these risks, while the community would be more aware of detecting them as we will shortly introduce on the next section.

Fig. 5.14
figure 14

Cristal fences at the funeral way with public chairs behind ®Ana Pastor

Full size image

Local Communities as a Preventive and Curative Conservation Tool

As Yvonne Marshall suggested, sometimes community archaeology has been confused with a cultural resource management or asset management rather than being regarded as an academic discipline in itself (Marshall2002:213), but for our case, some premises of this discipline will become useful to apply them to the practice of risk management. Supposedly, when the community participates in archaeological campaigns, this activity modifies the values associated with that space and their relationship with the past (Low2003; Simpson2008,2010; Almansa and Belay2011; Pétursdóttir2013). In order to apply our previous results in preventive conservation and risk management, we think that the development of community restoration plans is the key to optimize treatments in these urban spaces in the future. Designing an archaeological community project placed in today’s Bàrcino spaces in excavation process will trigger desired actions linked with preventive conservation. We can discover how community could be involved in the five steps of control that the risks methodology points out for monitoring: the local communities can indirectly avoid, detect, and respond to damage (Fig. 5.15). If we develop also community conservation actions, the community will play also its role directly in the last step: recover.

Fig. 5.15
figure 15

The five stages of control defined for the Risk Management methodology can include local community participation ®Ana Pastor

Full size image

Conclusions

This study outlined a framework to insert comprehensive preventive conservation strategies into heritage management plans applied to archaeological urban spaces. The results of this study reveal differences that occur when a context is discussed including the relationship with the community and how these changes influence future prevention and conservation strategies. The Barri Gòtic is clearly a multilayered area that in the last century has seen how its character was modified in order to improve a claim for visitors and economic interests and where the heritage legal protection is not well defined or homogeneous applied in different levels to specific buildings and not in an associative view understanding the area as a whole (Armitage and Irons2013; Santos2013).

Risk management methodology uses heritage valorization assessments (value pie) in order to detect and attach risk magnitudes to different layers of context, and that is why I have carried on a strength research in heritage values . This methodology was created for its use in collections and is being increasingly used in archaeology with its difficulties attached to sets constantly changing. A perceived gap in the literature in terms of integral plans of preventive conservatio n in the field of archaeology has been one of the impulses for conducting this study, which seeks to provide a starting point to new strategies associated with safeguarding urban archaeological sites and how its management could contribute to both quality of life and conservation (Veldpaus and Pereira Roders2013:13). Our work can be resumed in a multilayered approach graphic (Fig. 5.16).

Fig. 5.16
figure 16

Schema with different layers of approach to heritage sets under study when developing risk management plans ®Ana Pastor based on Michalski and Pedersoli (2009)

Full size image

The sense of visual coherence, conserving the past while maintaining a unified ambience must be taken into account; “layers of history can be maintained by accommodating new development that keeps an area alive and useful while managing to retail its traditional character and appearance” (Shipley and Snyder2013:309). On the following steps, sensorial effects also must be studied and will be useful for conservation policies: the ones derived from the presumption of perdurability against a perceived risk of destruction or, in our case, transformations attached to a national imagination that may confuse the sense of place in community (Hamilakis2013). Including society’s perception and enjoyment of their urban archaeological sites into the decision-making process may help authorities to trace new strategies for increasing social benefits attached to an increasing of this sense of belonging. I encourage professionals to include sociologist, anthropologist, economists, and urbanism experts in their decision-making process, impact evaluation, and monitoring. Needless to say that to give voice to the people that inhabit urban spaces is something that has been done since the mid-twentieth century in some countries (Domingo and Bonet1998) guided by disciplines such as community or public archaeology.

The attempt to measure local community’s heritage use and perception will always be necessary when using community values in conservation plans, so interviews and surveys must be taken into account when applying this methodology (Castillo Mena2010,2015; Pastor Pérez and Ruiz Martínez2016). One of the facts that this research highlights is the need of an inclusion of conservation techniques into community archaeological projects throughout the spaces. The creation of new plans focused on self-sustainability and intelligent investments in the management of public spaces can improve the relationship between governments and citizens. With our research, we seek to open a new avenue of knowledge and work to improve the already existing tools applied in archaeological heritage management and conservation resources. We have tried to embrace the cultural, social, and economic dimension drawing patterns for a new way of valuing the assets through new indicators: the functionality, accessibility, and inclusiveness. This has been applied to a context, the Roman Bàrcino spaces and the Barri Gòtic, but whose data can be extrapolated to more areas in the future.