Indicators for the Assessment of Historic Landscape Features

Abstract

Although connected to a relevant topic—the management of cultural heritage in the framework of planning and conservation policies—until now this specific category of landscape indicators has not been identified with a convincing set of operational standards at an international level. Cultural features are therefore one of the most interesting aspects for establishing landscape quality indicators, which may prove effective and easy to use. A review of international and Italian case studies is discussed, followed by a proposal of indicators for the protection and assessment of cultural landscape components, based both on a comparison with the proposals in scientific international literature and experience “in the field” in some Italian territorial contexts characterized by a greater presence of historical architecture and valuable cultural heritage.

5.1 Principles and Definitions

As can be seen in the quoted scientific publications, historical-cultural heritage indicators may have many different interpretations, something which is firstly due to the fact that indicators refer to a highly diversified concept of historical landscape. In short, there is a concise interpretation that coincides with the concept of built heritage: indicators concerning mainly buildings, monuments and architectural complexes fall into this category. There is also a more extensive idea that considers heritage also from the point of view of territory, culture and historical stratification, not necessarily focusing on architecture alone (cultural heritage or patrimoine in French-speaking countries); this is the interpretation which seems to be more suitable to the field of landscape analysis. In this case, the overall number of permanent elements and territorial transformations stratified in time can be part of the more extensive concept of cultural landscape , by now well consolidated at an international level (UNESCO 1996; Rössler 2005; Leask and Fyall 2006), which also takes immaterial aspects into consideration.

In the first case, published indicators are mainly used for the direct verification of the state of built heritage, providing a wealth of information which, to be of use for the purpose of landscape analysis, must be correlated with other databases—environmental and perceptive for example—to assess the multidimensionality of the landscape and territory in a satisfactory way. In the second case, less used, integrated sets of indicators on the historical-cultural components are instruments to try and interpret dynamics and related phenomena, introducing, for example, elements of a relational type to describe the historical-territorial heritage from a systemic point of view.

To get our bearings in the extensive publications and applicative case records, it is essential to refer to the scale of study, which can change the logic of the indicators completely, and also establish a notable differentiation of the subjects, almost always public, using or promoting the use of these instruments. The greater the scale in fact, the more the indicators appear to assume the form of policy-oriented indicators which can be compared with economic and social macrocategories; the more the scale is reduced—and the interest of the institutions involved is restricted to a limited territory—the more suitable the indicators are for directly monitoring the physical transformations of the territory (morphologies, state of preservation of the assets and so on).

International proposals, such as those from Pearson (Pearson et al. 2001), normally have a qualitative character which aims to contextualize historical-cultural themes in the framework of economic and social dynamics, for high profile strategic and political decision-making actions, taken mainly by national and international bodies. At the other end of the spectrum however we have extremely technical indicators, intended to detect the morphological transformations of the territory on a local scale, using photointerpretation techniques, for example, or comparing historical and modern cartography, to establish the transformation dynamics of the landscape, the integrity or loss of historical value (Socco 2005): these indicators are obviously mostly used by local bodies operating in a limited area.

It must be said that the theme of indicators, consolidated in scientific publications, is somewhat alien to the traditional studies in the field of the history of architecture and territory. In the strictest sense the subject has not been dealt with using historical methods, as far as this study has been able to ascertain, if not by scholars from other technical-scientific sectors, mainly in environmental or economic assessment. The same applications are in many cases relevant to agro-environmental policies for which the historical-cultural component is marginal. In the field of economic assessment, where historical-cultural aspects are present, what is important is to find indicators to establish “non-market values” which can be associated with a landscape, such as the willingness to spend to use a certain cultural asset, for example (Nijkamp 1989).

The indicator is however an applicative instrument, with an implicit planning function—although it is possible to conceive also indicators purely “of acknowledgment” (Vallega 2008)—sometimes at the risk of some form of deterministic reductionism which is not always compatible with the interpretative aims of historians studying the territory. Nevertheless, historians have long since created instruments to describe historical-territorial phenomena, both in basic studies and in relation to tools for planning on different scales. Furthermore, indicators monitor a reality which often has not been accurately described beforehand: currently, heritage indicators are mostly used by those involved in the management of sites or the monitoring of plans and projects, and not by those providing the basic historical-landscape and historical-territorial information. Also in the UNESCO proposals for establishing management plans for the areas in the World Heritage List , indicators are proposed (with reference to DPSIR methods) for in itinere monitoring. Nevertheless, it is clear that the use of state indicators which cannot be compared with coherent fact-finding campaigns, before actions are taken, can represent an element of weakness not only in historical-cultural heritage landscape monitoring systems: “Obtaining a record of the landscape character should hence be considered the necessary prerequisite for identifying state or quality indicators for landscape, and for identifying the most relevant pressure indicators that affect this state” (Wascher 2005).

In short, the indicator requires the precise preliminary characterization of the landscape, to verify the variability and the quality of the phenomena “intercepted” and measured. One problem to bear in mind is therefore the possibility of implementing suitable preliminary fact-finding in the construction of indicators: there is still much work to be done in this sense. What does appear clear though, is that we must go beyond quantitative schematization—often disarming for “professional historians”—which attempts to interpret historical-cultural phenomena in relation to landscape using elementary numeric indexes and sometimes banal cartographic output distorted by the logic of software applications.

Finally, also historical studies on territory (and the culture of conservation) should claim new fields of action and, especially in order to be useful for the purpose of assessment, must once and for all go beyond a static view, overcoming the traditional goal of inventorying the listed cultural assets , to approach historical dynamics as a continuous and ever changing process, which determines the transformations of the territory in time, thus getting aware of the logics of change, and the evolution of the landscape. A landscape which is always contemporary landscape, and could not be otherwise (Roggero and Volpiano 2007).

5.2 A Critical Review of Historical-Cultural Heritage Indicators

The theme of historical-cultural heritage indicators became topical in the late 1990s, as in the case of the United Nations documents on sustainability. The document drawn up by the Global Urban Observatory of the United Nations, Monitoring human settlements with urban indicators (UNCHS 1997) indicates that “The purpose of the Urban Indicators Programme is to build national and local capacity to collect and use policy-oriented indicators as part of a strategy for the development of sustainable human settlements . Human settlements may be defined in the simplest terms as places where human activities take place. It is, however, in our urban areas—our cities—that we face the main challenge for the future. Increasingly, the world’s problems are urban problems. How we anticipate, recognize, measure and interpret urban problems and how we respond to them in policy will determine the overall sustainability of human development”.

In this context there are some references to heritage indicators: the indicator “land use in km²” requires the percentage of conservation areas , and the “conservation area includes all surfaces which are protected for environmental or agricultural purposes or which are classified as protected historical zones, monuments or heritage areas”. In the section of the same UNCHS document on Sustainable human settlement development in an urbanizing world there is reference to actions and the relevant indicators for the preservation and enhancement of historical-cultural heritage , as shown in the Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Conservation and rehabilitation of the historical and cultural heritage. (Source: UNCHS 1997)

The list of indicators proposed includes the indicator monument list “Number of buildings in city on heritage or monument list”; this, with the green space indicator, is used to obtain the indicator of urban enhancement .

In the 1990s the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developed a set of indicators associated with the DPSIR model. The document makes a brief reference to landscape, mentioning also the historical-cultural aspects ¹. The set of European Common Indicators (EC 2003) also refers to heritage in the indicator Sustainable land use ² ; restoration of urban areas, renovation and conversion of derelict buildings, protected areas.

While the documents of the United Nations and other international organizations refer quite marginally to heritage, some national bodies have developed cultural heritage indicators in a broader sense. These include the Australian Michael Pearson, who drew up a set of cultural heritage indicators in the 1990s, used in many annual government reports on the state of the environment (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Catalogue of indicators concerning the historical-cultural heritage of landscape

Other experiments based on the indicators of the DPSIR method go along the same lines, such as those in New Zealand (Table 5.3). In this case, Heritage Indicators are used for the management of the territory with other sets of indicators (Amenity Indicators, Incompatible Activity Indicators, Natural Environment Indicators, Natural Hazard Indicators).

Table 5.3 An example of historical-cultural indicators : heritage assessment in New Zealand. (Source: www.mpdc.gov.nz)

English Heritage (Heritage Counts 2005, 2008) proposes a precise structure for indicators used to monitor heritage policies, although the same organisation indicates several problematic aspects, in particular those relevant to obtaining coherent and complete databases. Heritage Counts identifies the indicators on the basis of the policies and relevant goals and lines of action for preserving heritage, with specific reference to landscape in which the same body invests significant resources (in the case of the Historic Landscape Characterization programme for example). The indicators are divided into three categories-objective: knowledge, protection and sharing, use (Table 5.4).

Table 5.4 Set of cultural heritage. indicators proposed by English Heritage (2008) in the Heritage Counts programme

Some European projects and, some specific publications in Italy (Colombo and Malcevschi 1999; Malcevschi and Poli 2008; Vallega 2008) have attempted to compare landscape indicators offering a general overview, although never with a focus on heritage components. Below we propose a summary table on this extremely diversified panorama, to provide an initial instrument for general orientation. In the table, the unit of measure used and the source of the information are shown for the type of indicator proposed. The single instruments have been grouped together into characterization , transformation and enhancement indicators, an approach which will be considered in greater detail below; in some cases, the instrument in question may belong to more than one of the three groups, depending on the concrete use of the same.

5.3 Proposal for Historical-Cultural Heritage Indicators

The complexity of the historical dimension of landscape makes accurate and precise description with single indicators problematic. It would appear to be essential to work on structured instruments, the result of the composition of different indicators, which can partly be obtained from scientific publications, and partly have to be adapted to specific territorial situations. Historical-cultural indicators, in fact, are necessarily strictly linked to the different European cultural identities : we are not analyzing landscape but landscapes. This is clear for the Italian case study, where the variety and age-old stratifications of contexts suggest the need for constant verification in relation to the specific local conditions of the territory. A first set of indicators it seems logical to propose to operators interacting with the territorial transformations are therefore those we can call “characterization indicators”, in other words instruments used to outline the historical-cultural characteristics of a certain territory. A second possible classification is “transformation indicators”, this is instruments used to monitor the transformation of landscape both in relation to territorial dynamics in the broader sense, and in relation to specific projects or plans, for which we wish to verify the effect and compatibility in time, as is the case with the environmental impact assessment. Finally, historical-cultural components can also be monitored from a more extensive point of view taking into consideration the social perception of populations, participation, the effectiveness of programmes and public policies for use and allocation of resources. Numerous indicators used at an international level refer to these aspects, which in general we can call “indicators of enhancement ”. The following diagram shows some possible applications (Fig. 5.1).

Fig. 5.1

An outline of indicators relevant to the historical-cultural components of landscape in types of application, divided according to “CTE” (characterization , transformation , enhancement )

This block diagram, obtained from a comparison with standards that have become progressively consolidated in recent years at an international level, may provide an outline to begin the process of operational rationalization for the many partial instruments used until today at a local level. Besides the set of specific indicators for single territorial situations, which must necessarily develop analytically in the field, and which have to be differentiated from place to place, the need for more general instruments to provide answers that can be implemented in decision-making processes is all the more evident. For example, in the case of state indicators, which can be associated with characterization , and which constitute the basis of every historical-landscape study, we could consider the development of macroindicators to highlight the:

• 1. exceptionality /significance of the historical-cultural characteristics of the landscape

• 2. typicality of the historical-cultural characteristics of the landscape

• 3. fragility/criticality of the historical-cultural characteristics of the landscape

Obtained through expert analysis, these indicators can be used in general for many concrete experiments, to establish priorities and strategies. Obviously they are not indicators that create a hierarchal structure, as, on the basis of the cases and situations, it may be preferable to favour protection or enhancement of an exceptional landscape, a territory which is particularly at risk, or a particularly significant or characteristic situation, crucial for the identity of the place.

A synthesis could be obtained for monitoring the transformations of historical-territorial structures of value for landscape, with a set of indexes relevant to the:

• 1. preservation of the assets

• 2. preservation of the “landscape systems” of historical value

The first concern the material consistency of the assets; the second concern the many systems of relations (functional, symbolic, perceptive) between historical assets, modified by territorial processes in time, which “create landscape”.

Finally, for the third aspect—indicators of enhancement —we can consider compound indexes used to verify the:

• 1. promotion of actions for the knowledge of historical-cultural heritage

• 2. economic enhancement of historical-cultural heritage

• 3. social participation; use and accessibility of historical-cultural heritage

Therefore, these compound indexes can consist of sets of indicators based as far as possible on previously published measurement methods, but associated each time with the specific historical-cultural characteristics of the places. In other words concretely associated with the quality of the cultural heritage and identity of the territory (Table 5.5).

Let’s take a closer look at the system proposed with a case study on Piemonte (see Box 5.1), where the characterization of the historical-territorial structures (Volpiano 2008) was part of the studies of the Polytechnic of Turin for the new Regional Landscape Plan. Goal of the research was to highlight the typifying characteristics and the correlation systems with the local context and with the other systems of assets, using parameters of judgment “exceptionality , significance , rank” etc., which we can easily imagine being used for monitoring with indicators. This study refers to regional systems, but the same categories can be found and qualified on a local scale.

In the concrete experience of Piemonte, one among the new generation of Italian regional landscape plans, the scale of measurement was expressed through the qualitative judgment of experts and the characterization indicators were structured as shown in Fig. 5.2.

Fig. 5.2

Structure of characterization indicators “C” in the new Piemonte landscape plan

Note the proposal to classify landscape assessment indicators in two categories: those relevant to the presence of major historical territorial structures and systems (in Piemonte, for example, the contexts of holiday resorts and loisir places of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the area of the lakes at the foothills of the Alps, or the territorial and landscape system of the state residences in the area of Turin, the ancient capital of the house of Savoy) and those relevant to historical-territorial processes, in other words relevant to the driving forces that established the historical structure of the territory (again in Piemonte, for example, the processes of medieval fortification or urban sprawl in the late twentieth century (Roggero and Volpiano 2007).

The first phase in a process of characterization of the historical landscape, aiming at the construction of indicators, can therefore consist in establishing the presence or absence of the historical processes which have determined in time the characters of landscape. Then, the second step will be to identify the indicators of historical-territorial structures and systems, in other words the concrete historical permanence from the point of view of territorial and landscape assets.

Transformation indicators can vice versa be an instrument used to monitor the evolution of heritage preservation over time, and more (Fig. 5.3). For example, with respect to a given territory, the “asset preservation” index can envisage the following indicators:

Fig. 5.3

Structure of transformation indicators “T”

• 1. Protected areas and elements (in Italy, in accordance with the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code).

• 2. The relationship between elements acknowledged and protected by local planning instruments and elements protected by regional planning (this can be useful to assess the local preservation policies compared to the general regional frame).

• 3. Assets existing at the present time in relation to the historical situation (with reference to cartography and other sources).

• 4. The state of preservation of the built heritage with reference to characterizing elements (see presentation of the indicator in this text for more details).

It is more interesting, but also more complex, to define the state of the systems of relations between objects and place actually pursuant to landscape. Everyone agrees, in fact, that the landscape is more than just that single castle, group of farmhouses, or traditional cultivation system, it is the sum of all these characteristics in a specific context, and the relations—practical, perceptive, symbolic—between the same elements. In the new Piemonte Regional Plan, an attempt was made in this direction to identify the “system unit” (not to define “the farmstead” for example, but the area, in its established historically relationship, occupied by the manor, the chapel, annexed buildings, cottages, paths and roads…): an approach which lets us say something more on the state of the landscape in the places, the integrity of the same, possible regulations and actions to take, as well as simple considerations on the state of preservation of the buildings.

The third category of indicators, of enhancement , can be used to monitor policies on a regional and local scale; in the first case we propose three, relevant to economic development, the cultural promotion of heritage and use of the same, but the logic can be developed further (Fig. 5.4).

Fig. 5.4

Structure of enhancement indicators “E”

Finally, the proposed indicators can be associated with the DPSIR model, although further controls are required: indicators of historical process can be associated with driving forces; characterization indicators with state indicators; indicators of enhancement with those of response (Tables 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, and 5.13).

Table 5.5 Proposed indicators for the historical-cultural heritage of the landscape

Table 5.6 Exceptionality of the historical-cultural characteristics of the landscape

Table 5.7 Fragility of the historical-cultural characteristics of the landscape

Table 5.8 Significance /typicality of the historical-cultural characteristics of the landscape

Table 5.9 Preservation of the assets

Table 5.10 Preservation of relation systems between assets

Table 5.11 Promotion of actions for further knowledge of historical-cultural heritage

Table 5.12 Economic enhancement of historical-cultural heritage

Table 5.13 Use of historical-cultural heritage ; networking

Box 5.1 Assessment of Historical-Territorial Aspects in the New Piemonte Regional Landscape Plan

In the context of regulatory revision pursuant to the implementation of the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, which today regulates the planning and protection of landscape in Italy, regional government is responsible for the application of legislation. The Piemonte Regional Authority has promoted a plan with a new concept, focused partly on historical-cultural landscape (Fig. 5.5) . The plan identifies historical-cultural systems and structures (HSS), defined by schemes of historically consolidated relations, with a particular landscape value. The list of structures below indicates the categories of assets the indicators apply to historical-cultural systems and structures of the Piemonte landscape:

Fig. 5.5

One of the most characteristic landscapes of Piemonte: hills in the region called Monferrato. (Photo by David Vicario)

• 1. road system and associated infrastructures;

• 2. historical settlement structure in centres with a significant morphological identity ;

• 3. systems of historical value for rural territory;

• 4. systems/places associated with manufacturing and industrial production;

• 5. religious centres of territorial value;

• 6. fortification systems;

• 7. territorial contexts associated with historic holiday resorts.

Figure 5.6 shows the cartographic layout of an HSS, the “Historical settlement structure”. A summary table corresponds to each HSS with the most significant elements for the purpose of landscape planning, of value also as indicators for characterization and monitoring (Fig. 5.7). A synthesis matrix, for all HSS, provides the evaluation framework for each indicator (Fig. 5.8).

Fig. 5.6

Systems and structures of historical-territorial importance: historical settlement structure.

The historical-territorial systems of landscape value can be identified using the cartography produced by GIS software. This is one of the tables showing the historical-cultural aspects of the landscape. It is focused on the settlement and historical urban components: settlements and old town centres constitute a fundamental texture for the characterization of contemporary landscape.

Key (in order): Turin. Capital and major cities, dioceses, historically consolidated administrative centres (such as capitals of provinces of ancien régime). Centres of commerce and administrative centres of regional importance, centres defined as “cities” in ancien régime and until after the unification of Italy (1861), centres of functional and relevant specialization. Centres with a strong morphological identity ; centres of acknowledged functional complexity; specialised centres of sub-regional importance; abandoned centres known through archaeological survey. Archaeological sites and Roman foundations. Isolated military structures that show relocations and residential abandonments, resulting from incastellamento. Isolated religious structures that show relocations and residential abandonments, resulting from the organisation of the parishes. Villenove (Middle Age new Settlements). Ricetti (collective fortifications). Settlements with religious structures that characterize identity and morphology. Settlements with seignorial and/or military structures that characterize significantly identity and morphology. Settlements characterised mainly by refoundation or relevant urban transformations in modern age. Works commissioned by the Pope. Territorial design in the age of absolutism. Contemporary road system. Main hydrographical system

Fig. 5.7

Historical-cultural structures and systems (HSS): significant characteristics for the quality of landscape, which may work as a starting point for establishing assessment indicators, are provided for every class of historical territorial system (symbols and letters refer to the Fig. 5.8)

Fig. 5.8

Synthesis matrix of landscape value indicators, applied to the Piemonte territory (extract of the synthesis)