A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development: Enabling Sustainable Growth Through Urban Cultural Heritage (Heritage Studies) [1st ed. 2022] 3031082370, 9783031082375

Citation preview

Heritage Studies

Matthias Ripp

A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development Enabling Sustainable Growth Through Urban Cultural Heritage

Heritage Studies Series Editor Marie-Theres Albert, Internationale Akademie Berlin für innovative Pädagogik, Psychologie und Ökonomie gGmbH (INA), Institut Heritage Studies (IHS), Berlin, Germany Editorial Board Members Verena Aebischer, University Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense, Nanterre Cedex, France Christina Cameron, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada Claire Cave, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Magdalena Droste, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Cottbus, Germany Jennifer Harris, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Ana Pereira Roders, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands Birgitta Ringbeck, Federal Foreign Office of Germany, Berlin, Germany Caroline Y. Robertson-von Trotha, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany Sabine von Schorlemer, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Sachsen, Germany Helaine Silverman, Anthropology Department, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA Jutta Ströter-Bender, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany

The idea to publish this scientific series emerged as a result of the transformation process of heritage from a cultural and natural asset that provides history and identity to a commodity with economic interests. Its contextual framework is provided by the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) and the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme. The research focus of the series is the wide range of applications and constructions of heritage associated with the above-named standard-setting instruments and their corresponding perceptions and paradigms. The reason for this is the fact that despite – or perhaps because of – these standard-setting instruments on the protection of heritage, there is an enormous variety in the understandings of what heritage is, could be or should be. Different interpretations of heritage are evident in diverse structures and perceptions, from material to immaterial, from static to dynamic or even from individual to social or cultural. These interpretations were expressed in paradigms formulated in very different ways, e.g. saying that heritage has an inherent cultural value or ascribing importance for sustainable human development to heritage. Diverse perceptions of heritage are associated with conservation and use concepts as well as with their underlying disciplines, including inter- and transdisciplinary networks. Regionally and internationally, theoretically and practically, individually and institutionally, the epistemological process of understanding heritage still finds itself in its infancy. Insofar the new series Heritage Studies is overdue. The series aims to motivate experienced and young scholars to conduct research systematically in the broad field of Heritage Studies and to make the results of research available to the national and international, theoretically- and practically-­ oriented, disciplinarily and interdisciplinarily established heritage community. The series is structured according to the key UNESCO conventions and programmes for heritage into three sections focusing on: World Heritage, Intangible Cultural Heritage and Memory of the World. Although the conventions and programmes for heritage provide a framework, the series distinguishes itself through its attempt to depart from the UNESCO-related political and institutional context, which dominates the heritage discourse today, and to place the theme of heritage in a scientific context so as to give it a sound and rigorous scientific base. To this end, each of the three main sections addresses four dimensions of the heritage discourse broadly framed as Theory and Methods, Paradigms, History and Documents, and Case Studies.

Matthias Ripp

A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development Enabling Sustainable Growth Through Urban Cultural Heritage

Matthias Ripp Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus–Senftenberg Cottbus, Germany

Heritage Studies ISBN 978-3-031-08237-5    ISBN 978-3-031-08238-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08238-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Summary

In this summary, I provide an overview of the problem at stake, the proposed solution, and the mixed-methods research approach. The starting point of this dissertation was the fact that it is scientifically proven that cultural heritage is a potential resource for urban development. International organisations like UN-Habitat or the European Commission have been recognising this conclusion and published policies and programmes with heritage at the centre of urban development. There are a range of best practice examples and models from specific environments, but they cannot be applied everywhere. The transfer of successful examples from their specific context to another context often fails. The problem at stake is that there is no universal method to use heritage as a resource for urban development. In examining the context of the problem, it soon became clear that a model cannot be universal. The solution to this problem was to develop a metamodel based on successful models from different contexts, which can be applied universally. The metamodel is on a higher level of abstraction than a model and is therefore independent of the specific environments of the models. Mixed-­ methods research was applied to develop the metamodel, which integrated the metamodeling theory of John P. Van Gigch, grounded theory, and design research methodology. The underlying logic was a systemic approach and the understanding of the city and heritage as systems. A sample of case-models, namely the HerO (Heritage as Opportunity), the COMUS (Community-Based Urban Development Project) and the Halland Project, which have proven to be successful, were first analysed by grounded theory to develop a set of abstract elements for the metamodel. The development of the elements of the metamodel based on three successful case-­models from different environments ensures the best possible representation of successful processes. In the second step, Requirements for the metamodel were developed using design research methodology, and the metamodel was built from these abstract elements. A set of scenarios was also developed where the metamodel can be applied. It can be used to design heritage-based urban development processes, to improve ongoing ones, to evaluate them and also for a

v

vi

Summary

range of further purposes, including developing curricula and capacity-building activities on the topic. The metamodel has then been demonstrated using the Case of Regensburg in Germany to evaluate and refine it. The metamodel shows the complexity and relationships of different entities and domains that are relevant in heritage-based urban development processes and is at the same time a practical tool that can be applied universally in any case where heritage is used for urban development.

Preface

Critical voices discussing the European-centred approach of conservation and cultural heritage concepts, and the difficulties in applying policies like the UNESCO World Heritage Program in other parts of the world, have clustered around the field of critical heritage studies (Albert, 2015). The general trend is towards a more holistic understanding, as for example used by William Logan and Sophia Labadi in the foreword of their recent publication Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability: International Frameworks, National and Local Governance (2016): ... within the new field that sees ‘heritage’ as a social and political construct encompassing all those places, artefacts and cultural expressions inherited from the past which, because they are seen to reflect and validate our identity as nations, communities, families and even individuals, are worthy of some form of respect and protection. (Labadi & Logan, 2015, p. xiii)

The social dimension of cultural heritage was always existent; in 2005, it was explicitly recognised in the Faro Convention. This evolving understanding of cultural heritage is not rigid and stable but rather fluid and flexible (see Sect. 3.1). It has changed substantially from the beginning of the preservation movement until today. Together with this new understanding, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals became more relevant on a global level. These two facts, combined with my personal involvement in heritage-based urban development projects in the last 15 years, stimulated my interest to dive deeper into the subject. When I started work on my thesis, the objective emerged to develop a method that could be universally applied. The process to develop the mixed-methods research methodology and its application proved to be a challenge, albeit one that I truly enjoyed. Regenstauf, Germany

Matthias Ripp

vii

Reading Guide

This short guide to the particular definitions and formatting employed throughout the text is intended to help orient the reader and should serve as a starting point for your reading journey.

Definitions of Terms This text incorporates a number of existing concepts that have complex and sometimes contested meanings and definitions. The following is an alphabetical list of terms that provide a foundation for any reader unfamiliar, and each is accompanied by the specific definition that is applied in this text. Case-Model Going beyond the limitations of an individual case study that describes and eventually analyses a real-world problem and its solution, a case-model is a model that is used to gain knowledge and learn in the context of this research. Solutions that have been used for different real-world problems and are described in a model are hereby used as a resource that incorporates solutions that have already been applied in more than one real-world scenario. Cultural Heritage Cultural heritage is defined by the Council of Europe …as a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify, independently of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions. It includes all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time. (Council of Europe, 2005)

ix

x

Reading Guide

Heritage-Based Urban Development Heritage-based urban development refers to urban development activities that have urban heritage as the starting point. From the very beginning of the urban development process, this approach analyses and values existing and specific urban heritage as a resource rather than an obstacle. Tools for implementing heritage-based urban development can include world heritage management plans (City of Regensburg, 2012; Ripp et al., 2019). Integrated Urban Development Urban development is a summary term for projects and processes that are implementing change in cities to improve the situation for the inhabitants. “Integrated Urban Development” emphasises a holistic approach that considers cross-sectoral design and implementation of the process and its projects. “Integrated Urban Development” recognises that sectoral approaches are not effective or efficient in responding to challenges or utilising new potential in a complex and rapidly changing environment. Therefore, the “integrated approach” encourages communication and collaboration between different sectors of local, regional, and national governments and related policy areas, of regional and urban strategies, public and private actions and generally different players and organisations, including NGOs (Deutscher Städtetag, 2011). Model and Metamodel Model The word “model” is coded with many different meanings depending on the discipline, context, and purpose: Models can perform two fundamentally different representational functions. On the one hand, a model can be a representation of a selected part of the world (the ‘target system’). Depending on the nature of the target, such models are either models of phenomena or models of data. On the other hand, a model can represent a theory in the sense that it interprets the laws and axioms of that theory. These two notions are not mutually exclusive, as scientific models can be representations in both senses at the same time. (...) Many scientific models represent a phenomenon, where “phenomenon” is used as a umbrella term covering all relatively stable and general features of the world that are interesting from a scientific point of view. (Frigg & Hartmann, 2018, p. 741)

Metamodel Unlike typical models, a metamodel is not used to find solutions for a specific problem or situation but rather to select appropriate models and tools that can then be applied for specific situations or challenges. Metamodeling is often used in ecology, information science, and the field of military decisions (Dobrovic, 2001; Van Gigch, 1991). A metamodel can also be used to assess and apply change, adaptation and transformation, and to restructure a system to enhance it (Barile & Saviano, 2015, p. 73). Van Gigch describes that in metamodeling, “… the elaboration of the process by which real world and models are compared is discussed and formulated”

Reading Guide

xi

(Van Gigch, 1991, p. 133). Metamodels can be developed using the content of normal models (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 256), but that content must be represented in more abstract ways (see also Sects. 4.2 and 5.2). Therefore, the abstraction and logic levels of metamodels are higher than in a normal model. Van Gigch (1991) asserts that a metamodel is logically one level above a “normal” model. Van Gigch uses the term “inquiring systems” to describe this relationship and states that these are systems “…devoted to the creation, acquisition, production and dissemination of knowledge” (Van Gigch, 2003, p. 3). Furthermore, on the level of a metamodel, the inquiring system is based on epistemology (see Sect. 6.1). Quality of Life The term quality of life is defined in various ways, depending on the disciplinary and sectoral background. The United Nations defines quality of life as “the notion of human welfare (well-being) measured by social indicators rather than by ‘quantitative’ measures of income and production” (United Nations, 1997). The World Health Organization has a more social and medical understanding: WHO defines Quality of Life as an individual's perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns. It is a broad ranging concept affected in a complex way by the person's physical health, psychological state, personal beliefs, social relationships and their relationship to salient features of their environment. (World Health Organisation, 2020)

Both definitions share the idea that quality of life is more of an individual and personally perceived parameter than one that can be deducted purely by statistical means. Stakeholders “Stakeholder” is a summary term that includes individuals, neighbourhoods, communities, institutions, groups, organisations and parts of general society (based on Mitchel et al., 1997). Freeman and Read (1983, p. 91) define stakeholders as “an individual or group who can affect the achievement of an organisation’s objectives or who is affected by the achievement or an organisation’s objectives”. Tania Ali Soomro goes further and distinguishes between primary stakeholders (direct users  – the local community), secondary stakeholders (indirect users  – incoming traders, consumers, tourists, service providers and other work-related categories) and tertiary stakeholders (influential  – governmental, non-governmental, academia and outside investors) (Soomro, 2015). Sustainable Urban Development Sustainable urban development is associated most frequently with UN’s Sustainable Development Goals:

xii

Reading Guide Sustainable urban development may be defined as a process of synergetic integration and co-evolution among the great subsystems making up a city (economic, social, physical and environmental), which guarantees the local population a non-decreasing level of wellbeing in the long term, without compromising the possibilities of development of surrounding areas and contributing by this towards reducing the harmful effects of development on the biosphere. (Camagni, 1998)

Systemic WORLD VIEW Instead of concentrating on singular entities, a systemic world view considers their interdependencies, changes and connections, and implements a far more complex but at the same time realistic view of phenomena. The interrelationships and complex nature of cultural heritage – community-oriented, dynamic and systemic – call for new types of management systems. These should replace “the usual sector or one-dimensional approaches with new transversal or multidimensional ones, aligning different policy areas and resources (…) taking into account the role of each part in the whole structure” (European Commission, 2010, p. 5; Ripp, 2018). Systemic Approach A systemic approach is based on a systemic view of the world. From this perspective, there are not only linear relations between different entities but also complex relations and interactions that do not always follow a linear logic but may change/ react in a dynamic and complex way. “Systems theory is also multidisciplinary in application, as it is removed from traditional unidisciplinary problem solving approaches. As such it provides an ideal groundwork for the consideration of governance in complex systems” (Whitney et al., 2015, p. 30). Instead of concentrating on singular entities, the systems approach considers their interdependencies, changes and connections, and implements a far more complex but at the same time realistic view of phenomena. The interrelationships and complex nature of the comprehension of cultural heritage today  – community-oriented, dynamic and systemic  – call for new management systems in the responsible bodies and on the responsible levels of administrations, which are replacing “the usual sector or one-­ dimensional approaches with new transversal or multidimensional ones, aligning different policy areas and resources... taking into account the role of each part in the whole structure” (European Commission, 2010, p.  5; Ripp, 2018). A systemic approach is based on the understanding of the real world as being organised in systems and focuses on connections and interdependencies between different elements of the system. Urban Heritage There are many different understandings of urban heritage, which are often focused on monuments and buildings or “tangible heritage”. A simple definition of urban heritage would be cultural heritage in an urban setting. However, the understanding

Reading Guide

xiii

of cultural heritage is shifting currently, and there is no general understanding of what “urban” is. Throughout this dissertation, I will use the term “urban heritage” in the following way: Urban heritage is a system of tangible and intangible heritage, including dimensions of use and functions as well as communities and users. The ultimate purpose of urban heritage is to increase the quality of life of these communities and users. Concerning the definition of urban, I refer to the methodology that was used by the European Commission in their report on the state of European cities, where three categories (urban centre, urban cluster and rural) were introduced, based on urban density, and measured by satellite data rather than numbers of inhabitants, which are difficult to count in countries with low levels of governmental structures. Following this more flexible and on the world level easier-to-apply concept, heritage in dense urban centres and in (the surrounding) urban clusters is the topic of this dissertation (European Commission & UN Habitat, 2016).

Formatting of Metamodel Elements Throughout the book, elements of the metamodel are formatted and represented in specific ways in text and in the additional figures to avoid the integration of too many graphical elements and render the text easier to read. In text, the various elements have been formatted as follows, to make it clear when specific aspects or phases of the metamodel are being discussed, as opposed to more general ideas: domains of the metamodel appear in bold italics (Domain), entity groups of the domains appear in italics (Entity group) and the different phases of the metamodel appear in uppercase (PHASE). Please note that when you encounter this formatting, a specific element of the metamodel is being referenced. It is also worth noting that the terms domain and entity are also frequently used when not referring to the metamodel, and they are only specific parts of the metamodel when the special formatting is used. An awareness of the meaning of this formatting is particularly important from Sect. 6.5 and all of Part II and Part III of the text. The provided Legend (Fig. 1) on the following page can be useful guide to explain how these elements appear in text and in figures.

xiv

Reading Guide

Fig. 1  Legend detailing special formatting of different elements of the metamodel

Reading Guide

xv

References Albert, M.-T. (2015). Perceptions of sustainability in heritage studies. De Gruyter. Barile, S., & Saviano, M. (2015). From the management of cultural heritage to the governance of the cultural heritage system. In G. M. Golinelli (Ed.), Cultural heritage and value creation (pp. 71–103). Springer. Camagni, R. (1998). Sustainable urban development: Definition and reasons for a research programme. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 10(1), 6–27. City of Regensburg. (2012). Stadtratsvorlage Welterbe-Managementplan. https://www.regensburg.de/rathaus/stadtpolitik/regensburger-­sitzungsdienst/textrecherche Council of Europe. (2005). Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-­list/-­/conventions/ rms/0900001680083746 Deutscher Städtetag. (2011). Integrated urban development planning and urban development management  – Strategies and instruments for sustainable urban development. http://www. staedtetag.de/imperia/md/content/dst/internet/fachinformationen/2013/mat_integrierte_ stadtentwicklungsplanung_en_gesamt_korr.pdf Dobrovic, Z. (2001). Strategic planning under uncertainty: Building the metamodel. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 25(1), 11–26. European Commission. (2010). Toledo declaration. Informal ministerial meeting on urban development. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/newsroom/ pdf/201006_toledo_declaration_en.pdf European Commission, & UN Habitat. (2016). The state of European Cities 2016 cities leading the way to a better future. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-­detail/-­/ publication/91971d62-­e9de-­11e6-­ad7c-­01aa75ed71a1/language-­en Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2018). Models in science/The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2018 edition). Retrieved 30 Apr 2020 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ sum2018/entries/models-­science/ Labadi, S., & Logan, W. S. (2015). Urban heritage, development and sustainability: International frameworks, national and local governance. Routledge. Ripp, M. (2018). Heritage as a system and process that belongs to local communities. Reframing the role of local communities and stakeholders. Council of Europe/Faro Convention Workshop, Fontecchio. https://rm.coe.int/ heritage-­as-­a-­system-­and-­process-­that-­belongs-­to-­local-­communities-­mr-­/16807bc255 Ripp, M., Hauer, S., & Cavdar, M. (2019). Heritage-based urban development: The example of Regensburg. In A.  P. Rhoders & F.  Bandarin (Eds.), Reshaping urban conservation (pp. 435–457). Springer. Soomro, A.  T. (2015, March 5–7). Presentation: The revival of the surroundings of Empress Market and adjoining areas of Saddar Bazaar. How to assess built heritage? ICOMOS theory and philosophy international scientific conference, Florence, Italy. United Nations. (1997). “Quality of life” in: Glossary of environment statistics, studies in methods, series F, No. 67. Retrieved 23 Apr 2019 from https://unstats.un.org/unsd/environmentgl/ Van Gigch, J. P. (1991). System design modeling and metamodeling. Plenum Press. Van Gigch, J. P. (2003). Metadecisions: Rehabilitating epistemology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. World Health Organisation. (2020). WHOQOL: Measuring quality of life. World Health Organisation. Retrieved 3 Mar 2020 from https://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/ whoqol-­qualityoflife/en/ Whitney, K., Bradley, J. M., Baugh, D. E., & Chesterman, C. W., Jr. (2015). Systems theory as a foundation for governance of complex systems. International of Journal System of Systems Engineering, 6(1/2), 15–32.

Acknowledgements

Nimm die Stadt, zieh die Menschen von ihr ab und du hast nur noch Steine (Die Höchste Eisenbahn – Erobert & geklaut; 2016)

I can hardly express how grateful I am for the possibility to write this thesis over the past few years. Parallel to my demanding job, it would not have been possible without tremendous support from friends and family. But first I want to thank my PhD advisors Prof Dr Marie-Theres Albert and Prof Dr Christer Gustafsson, who both believed in my proposal and supported me constantly with great intensity throughout this long journey. Of great help was the joint reflection of methods, ideas and approaches that finally led to the thesis that you are holding in hand. Especially helpful was a joint working meeting in Höganäs, Sweden, where I was able to present the first draft of the metamodel and received great feedback and many new ideas how to proceed. Secondly, I want to thank my understanding and supporting wife Nicole and my daughter Mira as well as my son Niklas who had to renounce on many joint hours which I had instead to spend researching and writing or during which my mind was in the sphere of John Peter Van Gigch’s system thinking and not in the presence. I am also grateful to my dear friend and colleague Dennis Rodwell, with whom I have discussed several ideas and concepts which have been relevant for this thesis. I also want to thank my university, the Brandenburg University of Technology, where I was greatly supported during the courses in the PhD programme “Heritage Studies”. I really wished I could have spent more time there in order to exchange ideas with my colleagues in this programme. To everyone who has supported me during the last years and enabled the research and writing of this thesis: A deep Thank you! Let’s make this thesis not the end of something but the beginning of a journey that we travel together. I am dedicating this thesis to my mother Elfi, who left us in 2018 and is leaving a big and sad gap. July 2020

Matthias Ripp

xvii

About the Book

This book proposes a Metamodel for heritage-based urban development, based on urban morphology, governance theory, and the metamodeling concept of John P. Van Gigch. Building on international policies such as the 2011 Recommendation for Historic Urban Landscapes and the results of the 2016 Urban Habitat III Conference, cultural heritage is now regarded as a potential resource for sustainable urban development. While more and more evidence of the potential benefits of cultural heritage for sustainable development has been published, this book is the first to develop and design a Metamodel that can be universally applied in a wide variety of settings. The Metamodel was developed using grounded theory and design research methodology and is based on three successful case-models from European contexts. The book includes three application scenarios that elaborate how the metamodel can be used to design, evaluate, and improve processes where cultural heritage is a starting point for sustainable urban development.

xix

Contents

1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1

Part I Contextual Background: Problem, Theories, Methods, and Research Design 2

 Problem, Hypothesis, and Research Questions ������������������������������������    5 2.1 The Problem��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    5 2.2 Main Hypothesis and Deduction of Key Research Questions����������    9 2.2.1 Research Questions and Research Interest ��������������������������   11 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   12

3

Theoretical Background��������������������������������������������������������������������������   15 3.1 Concepts of Cultural Heritage����������������������������������������������������������   15 3.2 Urban Heritage as Part of the Historic Urban Fabric������������������������   19 3.3 Urban Development Approaches and Trends������������������������������������   20 3.4 Integrating Urban Heritage in Urban Development��������������������������   21 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   23

4

Disciplinary Approach����������������������������������������������������������������������������   27 4.1 Understanding the City as a System: Urban Morphology and Theory of Governance����������������������������������������������������������������   27 4.2 Metamodeling Theory of John P. Van Gigch������������������������������������   29 4.3 Theory of Urban Morphology����������������������������������������������������������   35 4.4 Governance Theory��������������������������������������������������������������������������   38 4.5 Organisational Development and Change Management������������������   42 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   44

5

 Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design��������������������   47 5.1 The Proposed Solution: Development of a Metamodel to Design and Structure Local Heritage-Based Development (HBD) Processes������������������������������������������������������������������������������   47 5.2 Mixed-Methods Research Design����������������������������������������������������   49 xxi

xxii

Contents

5.3 Methodology to Develop the Metamodel ����������������������������������������   51 5.4 Resources Used to Develop the Metamodel and Their Sampling��������������������������������������������������������������������������   53 5.5 The Case-Models (HerO, COMUS, and Halland)����������������������������   53 5.5.1 The HerO Model ������������������������������������������������������������������   54 5.6 Research Phases��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   66 5.7 Research Constraints������������������������������������������������������������������������   68 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   69 6

Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design ������������������������������������������������������������������������   73 6.1 Epistemology������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   73 6.2 The Common Ground: A Systemic View of the World��������������������   74 6.3 Metamodel Characteristics����������������������������������������������������������������   76 6.4 Metamodel Elements������������������������������������������������������������������������   77 6.5 Development of Terminology and Levels and Categories����������������   77 6.5.1 Terminology��������������������������������������������������������������������������   78 6.5.2 Levels and Categories and Their Integration into Metamodel Categories ��������������������������������������������������   81 6.6 Integration of Van Gigch’s Metamodel Theory, Grounded Theory, and Design Research Methodology in the Metamodel Design������������������������������������������������������������������   83 6.7 Metamodel Language Use����������������������������������������������������������������   87 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   91

Part II Application of Research Methods 7

Research Methods������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   95 7.1 Grounded Theory������������������������������������������������������������������������������   96 7.1.1 Raw Data������������������������������������������������������������������������������   98 7.1.2 Example of Abstraction Process Through Grounded Theory������������������������������������������������������������������   99 7.1.3 Open Coding ������������������������������������������������������������������������  102 7.1.4 Axial Coding������������������������������������������������������������������������  103 7.1.5 Selective Coding ������������������������������������������������������������������  104 7.1.6 Tools��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  104 7.1.7 Results of Grounded Theory Process: The Elements of the Metamodel������������������������������������������������������������������  105 7.2 Design Research Methodology ��������������������������������������������������������  106 7.2.1 Implementation of Design Research Methodology��������������  108 7.2.2 Multimethod Research Design and Design Research Methodology ��������������������������������������������������������  109 7.2.3 Areas of Application, Benefits, Risks of Design Research Methodology ��������������������������������������������������������  111 7.2.4 Metamodel Requirements ����������������������������������������������������  113 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  114

Contents

xxiii

Part III Description, Application, and Demonstration of the Metamodel 8

 Description of the Metamodel����������������������������������������������������������������  119 8.1 Elements of the Metamodel – Overview������������������������������������������  119 8.2 Introducing the Five Phases and the Spiral Form of the Metamodel������������������������������������������������������������������������������  125 8.3 Phase I: SCOPING����������������������������������������������������������������������������  132 8.3.1 Description, Inputs, and Outputs of the SCOPING PHASE�����������������������������������������������������  135 8.4 Phase II: ANALYSIS������������������������������������������������������������������������  141 8.4.1 Description, Inputs, and Outputs of the ANALYSIS PHASE����������������������������������������������������  141 8.5 Phase III: DEVELOPMENT������������������������������������������������������������  145 8.5.1 Description, Inputs, and Outputs of the DEVELOPMENT PHASE ����������������������������������������  146 8.6 Phase IV: IMPLEMENTATION ������������������������������������������������������  150 8.6.1 Description, Inputs, and Outputs of the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE������������������������������������  151 8.7 Phase V: EVALUATION������������������������������������������������������������������  152 8.7.1 Description, Inputs, and Outputs of the EVALUATION PHASE����������������������������������������������  153 8.8 Overview of All Phases��������������������������������������������������������������������  155 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  158

9

 Application of the Metamodel����������������������������������������������������������������  163 9.1 Designing Heritage-Based Development Processes ������������������������  163 9.2 Evaluating Heritage-Based Development Processes������������������������  166 9.3 Improving Heritage-Based Development Processes������������������������  169 9.4 Other Scenarios��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  171 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  172

10 Demonstration������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  173 10.1 Demonstration Objective and Case Introduction����������������������������  173 10.2 Purpose and Sampling of Demonstration Case������������������������������  174 10.3 Preconditions and Description of the Case ������������������������������������  176 10.4 Demonstration Using the World Heritage City Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof������������������������������������  181 10.5 Simulating The Five Phases of the Metamodel������������������������������  191 10.6 Overview of Regensburg’s INPUT–OUTPUT for the Five Phases��������������������������������������������������������������������������  192 10.7 Evaluation in Relation to Metamodel Requirements����������������������  196 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  199

xxiv

Contents

11 Condensed Resume����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  201 11.1 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  201 11.2 Main Findings ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  202 11.3 Responding to the Research Questions and the Problem at Stake��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  205 11.4 Critical Reflection ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  206 11.5 Consequences of the Research Results ������������������������������������������  207 11.6 Outlook ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  208 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  209

Abbreviations

COE Council of Europe COMUS Community-Based Urban Development (COE/OWHC) Project DRM Design Research Methodology EC European Commission GT Grounded Theory HBD Heritage-Based Development HERO Heritage as Opportunity (URBACT II Project) HUL Historic Urban Landscape MM Metamodel MM Theory Metamodeling Theory PTF Preliminary Technical File OWHC Organisation of World Heritage Cities THRIVE Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development (based on meTamodel HeRItage deVElopment) UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

xxv

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Economic benefits to local communities – results from UNESCO’s Periodic Reporting Cycle 2013/2014 Table from (Ruoss, 2016, p. 58)��������������������������������������������������������  7 Fig. 2.2 Theory of Change in connection with cultural heritage from the British Council: (Lewis et al., 2018, p. 21/22)������������������  10 Fig. 2.3 Marketing for the sustainable development goals in tbilisi, Georgia. (Source: Matthias Ripp, 2018b)����������������������������������������  11 Fig. 2.4 Suprasystems’ mapping of the cultural heritage government system by Barile and Saviano (2015, p. 97)����������������  12 Fig. 4.1 Professor John P. Van Gigch, photograph by Stephen Sokoloff, IFSR Newsletter 1988 No. 3 (19) August/September���������������������  30 Fig. 4.2 Inputs, outputs, and logic used to solve the fundamental problem at each level of the hierarchy of inquiring systems. (Van Gigch 1991, p. 121)����������������������������������������������������������������  32 Fig. 4.3 Hierarchy of model of knowledge acquisition according to Van Gigch (1991, p. 125)�������������������������������������������������������������  33 Fig. 4.4 Different notions of cultural governance according to different meanings of cultural/culture by Thomas Schmitt (2009, p. 106)���������������������������������������������������������������������  39 Fig. 4.5 Relevant topics for urban heritage at the World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof – For each topic, a different specialized department within the local administration is responsible. (Source: City of Regensburg/ Matthias Ripp)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  40 Fig. 4.6 From silo thinking to integrated planning. (Source: https://ramboll.com/megatrend/liveable-­cities-­lab)����������  41 Fig. 4.7 Common tools of public action: defining features after Salamon (2000, p. 1645)���������������������������������������������������������  43 Fig. 4.8 Concept of knowledge-based urban development by Yigitcanlar (2011, p. 393)�����������������������������������������������������������  43 xxvii

xxviii

List of Figures

Fig. 5.1 The importance of the SCOPING Phase was also emphasized by the Austrian Agency Plansinn during an OWHC-Seminar on Heritage and Community Participation in February 20–22. 2017. Vienna�����������������������������   49 Fig. 5.2 Partner cities of the URBACT II Project HerO – Heritage as opportunity. (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 4)������������������   56 Fig. 5.3 Town Hall in Vilnius. (Source: https://www.flickr.com/ photos/56218409@N03/8300738504)������������������������������������������   57 Fig. 5.4 COMUS project partnership. (Source: Council of Europe, 2015, p. 2)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   59 Fig. 5.5 Urban heritage in Gyumri, Armenia. (Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/56218409@ N03/16571267113/in/photostream/)����������������������������������������������   62 Fig. 5.6 The Halland region in Sweden (GEOATLAS.com® 2004© Graphi-Ogre via http://www.map-­of-­sweden.co. uk/map-­of-­halland.htm)�����������������������������������������������������������������   63 Fig. 5.7 Tjolöholm Castle in the Halland region. (Source: Von User Kemitsv on sv.wikipedia – Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/ index.php?curid=1328672)������������������������������������������������������������   64 Fig. 5.8 Overview of research phases, research actions, methods, epistemologies, and relevant theories��������������������������������������������   68 Fig. 6.1 Relation between different types of coding in grounded theory, used terminology and MM categories. (Types of coding based on (Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1996) as summarized in Mey and Mruck 2011 (p. 41); Metamodel categories based on Van Gigch (1991, p. 371ff))����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   82 Fig. 6.2 The domain-specific language of the Metamodel�������������������������   88 Fig. 6.3 Terms used for elements on different levels of abstractions����������   90 Fig. 7.1 Example of development of Metamodel elements through grounded theory���������������������������������������������������������������  101 Fig. 7.2 Elements of the Metamodel (results of the grounded theory process)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������  106 Fig. 8.1 A linear model for urban planning from the URBACTOnline Toolbox: URBAN LEARNING – Integrative energy planning of urban areas Collective learning for improved governance consists (Urbact, 2019)����������������������������������������������  126 Fig. 8.2 A linear Model for Strategic Planning by Dobrovic (2001, p. 23)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  127 Fig. 8.3 A circular model for HBD as used in the URBCT II Project HerO – Heritage as opportunity (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 25)�����������������������������������������  129

List of Figures

xxix

Fig. 8.4 Example of circular model on Consensus Building Process in Heritage Place Management by Johnston and Myers (2009, p. 38) © 2016 J. Paul Getty Trust (https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/ pdf_publications/pdf/consensus_building_op t.pdf)���������������������  130 Fig. 8.5 (Infinite) Cycle of Adaptive Change by Holling 1986, quoted after (Karakiewicz & Bos, 2016, p. 8)�������������������������������  130 Fig. 8.6 The spiral form of the THRIVE Metamodel with its five Phases��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  132 Fig. 8.7 The connections and integrations of the different phases of the THRIVE|Metamodel by the inputs and outputs�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  133 Fig. 8.8 The participatory process spectrum, from information sharing to agreement seeking from Johnston, C., & Myers, D. (2009, p. 44) for the book Ripp, Matthias: A metamodel for heritage-based urban development – Enabling sustainable growth through urban cultural heritage�����������������������������������������������������  134 Fig. 8.9 The Scoping Phase. Relevant Domains and Entity Groups, Input and Output��������������������������������������������������������������  137 Fig. 8.10 Parameters for stakeholder analysis by Austrian Agency Plansinn (Austrian Agency Plansinn during an OWHC-seminar on heritage and community participation in February 20–22.2017. Vienna)��������������������������������������������������  142 Fig. 8.11 Relevant Domains and Entity Groups, input and output of the ANALYSIS PHASE������������������������������������������������������������  142 Fig. 8.12 Relevant Domains and Entity Groups, Input and Output of the development phase��������������������������������������������������������������  146 Fig. 8.13 Relevant Domains, Entity Groups, input and output of the Implementation phase���������������������������������������������������������  150 Fig. 8.14 Relevant Domains, Entity Groups, Input and Output of the Evaluation Phase�����������������������������������������������������������������  155 Fig. 8.15 overview of all five phases of the THRIVE metamodel����������������  157 Fig. 10.1 City view of Regensburg with river Danube, the cathedral and the historic salt barn as well as the stone bridge to the right. (Source: Matthias Ripp)���������������������������������������������  177 Fig. 10.2 World Heritage Core and Buffer Zone of World Heritage Site Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof. (Source: Stadt Regensburg)�����������������������������������������������������������  178 Fig. 10.3 Stakeholders involved in the Development of the Management plan in Regensburg. (Source: City of Regensburg)��������������������������������������������������������  182 Fig. 10.4 Experiences from the Civic Participation process in Regensburg. (Source: City of Regensburg)�������������������������������  195

xxx

List of Figures

Fig. 11.1 Mixed-methods research design and integration of different research methodologies in the research project����������  203 Fig. 11.2 Elements of the Metamodel�����������������������������������������������������������  204 Fig. 11.3 The spiral shape and five phases of the Metamodel����������������������  204

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Three different system levels������������������������������������������������������������  31 Table 5.1 Key data of HerO partner cities��������������������������������������������������������  54 Table 5.2 Key figures on COMUS partnership cities���������������������������������������  60 Table 5.3 Key data from the Halland model (Central Intelligence Agency, 2019; Gustafsson & Rosvall, 2008)�����������������������������������  65 Table 5.4 The LAN (County Labour Market Board was the largest financing partner of the Halland Model) (Gustafsson, 2019)�����������  65 Table 6.1 Terms used for elements on different levels of abstractions�������������  79 Table 6.2 Terms used for processes on different levels of abstractions�����������  80 Table 6.3 Terms used for principles on different levels of abstractions�����������  80 Table 6.4 Integration of DRM and Van Gigch metamodeling theory��������������  83 Table 6.5 Mixed-methods research design and how it corresponds to the use of raw data, grounded theory, Van Gigch’s metamodeling theory and design research methodology (types of coding based on (Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1996) as summarized in Mey and Mruck 2011 (p. 41); metamodel categories based on Van Gigch (1991, p. 371ff) design research methodology phases based on Peffers et al., Niedderer, Weber, Gregory, Haukksson and Johanesson, Kelly and Easterday. (Easterday et al., 2018, p. 6ff; Gregory, 2011; Hauksson, 2013, p.19f; Kelly, 2013; Niedderer, 2009; Peffers et al., 2007, p.55ff; Schneider et al., 2017; Weber, 2010))����������������������������������������������  86 Table 6.6 Integration of Van Gigch’s metamodeling theory and the role of selected research methods (grounded theory and design research methodology)��������������������   87

xxxi

xxxii

List of Tables

Table 7.1 sampled and selected raw data that was examined through grounded theory process�����������������������������������������������������������������   98 Table 7.2 Scope of raw text that was analysed by grounded theory process���������������������������������������������������������������������������������   99 Table 10.1 Demonstration and Evaluation phase in DRM�������������������������������  174

Chapter 1

Introduction

The starting point of this dissertation was the fact that it is scientifically proven that cultural heritage is a potential resource for urban development. International organisations like UN-Habitat or the European Commission have been recognizing this conclusion and published policies and programmes with heritage at the centre of urban development. There are a range of best practice examples and models from specific environments, but they cannot be applied everywhere. The transfer of successful examples from their specific context to another context often fails. The problem at stake is that there is no universal method to use heritage for urban development. While examining the context of the problem, it soon became clear that a model cannot be universal. The solution to this problem was to develop a metamodel based on successful models from different contexts, which can be applied universally. The development of the elements of the Metamodel based on three successful case-­ models from different environments ensures the best possible representation of successful processes. Requirements for the Metamodel were developed using design research methodology, and the Metamodel was built from these abstract elements. A set of scenarios was also developed where the Metamodel can be applied. It can be used to design heritage-based urban development Processes, to improve ongoing ones, to evaluate them, and also for a range of further purposes, including to develop curricula and Capacity Building activities. The use of the Metamodel is then demonstrated using the Case of Regensburg in Germany to evaluate and refine it. The Metamodel shows the complexity and relationships of different Entities and Domains that are relevant in heritage-based urban development processes and is at the same time a practical tool that can be applied universally in any case where heritage is used for urban development. The text is structured in three parts. In the first part, “Contextual Background: Problem, Theories, Methods, and Research Design”, the problem at stake is explained, and a mixed-methods research methodology is developed based on selected theories. The proposed result is a Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Ripp, A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development, Heritage Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08238-2_1

1

2

1 Introduction

Development that is applicable universally in any environment. In the second part, “Application of Research Methods”, the selected research methodologies of grounded theory and design research methodology are applied. In the final part, “Description, Demonstration, and Application of the Metamodel”, the Metamodel is described, and how it can be applied is explained. For the reader who is interested mostly in the practical application of the Metamodel, it is possible to start reading with the final part, from Chap. 9. A list of abbreviations and a reading guide containing a list of expanded definitions of complex terms and an explanation of special formatting used throughout this text can be found in the sections preceding this introduction. These resources serve as a useful starting point.

Part I

Contextual Background: Problem, Theories, Methods, and Research Design

Chapter 2

Problem, Hypothesis, and Research Questions

The main problem that this work aims to address is that there is no universal method to use urban heritage as a resource for development. This chapter sets out the foundations of this research: the identified problem, hypothesis, and research questions. Setting the context of the established problem, Sect. 2.1 explores the potential benefits of urban heritage and introduces the scope of the research while also justifying its necessity. Then, in Sect. 2.2, based on the key research problem, the main hypothesis and a solution to address the problem are elaborated, along with the research questions that guide this work. The role of the preparational phase in projects for heritage-based urban developments is explained, and how the proposed metamodel can be used in this project phase and for other purposes is further elaborated.

2.1 The Problem Problem statement: There is no general theoretical and practical guidance on how to scope and design successful urban heritage-based development projects that stimulate urban development and the enhancement of the quality of life of communities. It is widely accepted that urban heritage can be a powerful resource for urban development. In Europe, there is a long history of urban regeneration based on the preservation of listed buildings (Miles & Paddison, 2005). In Germany, since the 1970s, urban renewal, referred to as “Städtebauliche Denkmalpflege”, has been a successful strategy with many benefits, combining the seemingly contradictory objectives of urban development and preservation (Sulzer, 2007). Urban heritage was brought to the attention of a wider audience in Europe through intense media interest during and after the 1975 European Architectural Heritage Year, an initiative of the Council of Europe. Numerous instruments, funding programs, institutions, curricula, etc., have been developed around preservation and conservation © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Ripp, A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development, Heritage Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08238-2_2

5

6

2  Problem, Hypothesis, and Research Questions

(Ripp & Rodwell, 2015). Regeneration has been a successful tool in different parts of the world. In the United States, the president of Heritage Strategies International, Donovan Rypkema, elaborated the “Main Street approach”, a model that regenerates main streets using a structured, integrated stakeholder-based approach and is a highly successful approach for urban regeneration based on preservation: No model of economic development has been more consistently effective than the “Main Street approach” of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. […] Since 1981 some 850 communities in 34 states have pursued downtown revitalisation utilising the Main Street principles. The concept is simple – economic development through historic preservation. (Rypkema, 2005, p. 18)

The “Halland Model”, an approach that utilizes integrated conservation, has been economically successful in Sweden and several east-European and Baltic states, achieving objectives such as regional sustainable development and the strengthening of democracy and cultural identity (Gustafsson, 2009). A recent meta-study carried out by the University of Krakow and partners, published in the European Commission-funded Project “Heritage Counts for Europe”, emphasizes the role of cultural heritage in enhancing the appeal of cities and regions in Europe, stimulating private investment, skills training, and (start-up) business (Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe, 2015, p. 19). There are various benefits ranging from “soft effects” such as the creation of narratives for better city marketing, sources of innovation, and possibilities for lifelong learning, to “harder effects” such as good returns on investment, tax revenues, the creation of jobs, etc. (Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe, 2015). These positive economic effects have been recorded, for example, by Ruoss (2016), and might even be underestimated. Rypkema asserts that historic preservation creates a higher number of jobs than the same amount of new construction (Rypkema, 2005, p. 15) and that it has “significant and ongoing economic impact beyond the project”. In a report for the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, the World Bank, which has used urban rehabilitation and preservation projects for development, concluded that cultural heritage has the potential to become the backbone of the development strategy for the whole region, helping battle unemployment and poverty (World Bank, 2001, p. 1). Several international organisations (Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe, 2015; European Commission, 2014, 2015; UNESCO, 2016; World Bank, 2001) that are active in the field of cultural heritage have developed a common understanding that heritage can be a powerful resource for urban development, for example, with the adoption of the New Urban Agenda following the UNESCO Report “CULTURE: URBAN FUTURE”, which was launched at the UN-Habitat III Conference 2016 in Quito. This policy document reinforces the Urban Agenda for the European Union that was put into action in the “Pact of Amsterdam” (European Commission, 2016) and recently amended with a 13th pillar of culture and cultural heritage. Both documents share ideas to stimulate the involvement of citizens and the engagement of stakeholders. The common narrative is that the role of cities and urban areas (please

2.1  The Problem

7

see definition of urban under Urban Heritage in the Reading Guide, p. XVII) is becoming more important. A considerable amount of built and intangible heritage is situated in urban settings and is strongly connected to its urban environment on many different levels. As a result, related policies and governance practices should be adapted to better meet the needs of those urban areas (Bos, 2015). Aside from new policies, policy recommendations, and reports published by international organisations, theories have also been developed that define culture as a resource similar to a natural resource and adapt strategies for sustainable development accordingly, for example, as described by the Australian economist David Throsby or in the SCENE Model. The SCENE Model is a quantitative model that uses indicators to analyse sustainable development processes and shows a systemic understanding of different elements and processes. It is based on the concept of social, environmental, and economic capital. It was intended to be used for scientific purposes and for policy makers. These concepts based on culture as a resource have recently gained popularity (Grosskurth & Rotmans, 2005; Throsby, 2001, 2013). Other models such as the “Halland Model” (Gustafsson, 2009) focus on the communication aspect of integrated conservation. The term “Trading Zone” was introduced by Gustafsson to describe the sphere where different needs and interests, mainly of the investors and the preservation officers, are debated and “traded” so that a mutual benefit for all participants can be realized. The British Council have also published a conceptual model for change and cultural heritage, as can be seen in Fig. 2.1. However, this model is focused on processes and does not give a detailed enough representation of the issues at stake or the relevant persons and groups. Therefore, this model is not sufficient for designing heritage-based urban development projects. Urban areas and cities (see definition of urban heritage in the Reading Guide on page xviii) around the globe are far from homogenous. They differ significantly in their structures, social and material conditions, growth- or non-growth environment, urban density and governance structures (Sandholz, 2017). For this very reason, there is no singular model for using built heritage for urban development but many

Fig. 2.1  Economic benefits to local communities – results from UNESCO’s Periodic Reporting Cycle 2013/2014 Table from (Ruoss, 2016, p. 58)

8

2  Problem, Hypothesis, and Research Questions

different ones. Some of these models have been more successful than others. Examples of successful models include the following: the “management plan approach” that was developed in the framework of the URBACT II city network HerO (Heritage as opportunity) (City of Regensburg et al., 2011); the “Main Street Approach” in the US; and the methodology used in the COMUS Project by the Council of Europe/European Commission. These three approaches from different regions of the world share some of the same principles: providing stakeholders with a strong voice, following an integrated approach, and adopting the good integration of heritage-based development (HBD) processes into local decision-making processes. Nonetheless, a successful method for structuring HBD processes to meet local and specified requirements remains to be defined, which leads us to the central problem this work seeks to address: Problem: There is no general theoretical and practical guidance on how to scope and design successful heritage-based development projects that stimulate urban development and the enhancement of the quality of life of communities.

While many examples of the use of urban heritage for urban development have been analysed and published, and the potential has clearly been demonstrated (Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe, 2015; Kostakis et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2016), there is no model or universal blueprint for how this can be achieved at a local level. Local successful solutions are deeply embedded in the specific structure and environment of individual cities. Some models from particular settings, like the HerO or Halland Model (see Sect. 5.5), work in their specific environments but cannot be transferred to other situations that are culturally, economically, or structurally different. Aside from case studies, strategies for using cultural heritage for urban development have been developed (Ripp & Stein, 2018). However, there is no universally applicable general theoretical or practical guidance on how to scope and design successful HBD projects. The question of how to unlock the potential benefits of urban heritage for urban development remains largely open. Urban heritage is understood more as a system (Ripp, 2018a) that is fluid and consists of a broad variety of elements and factors. To utilize urban heritage as a resource for urban development in a way that considers this complexity, a tool is needed that can address this complexity and is flexible enough to be used in cities embedded in different environments. This tool must also be universal and flexible. Consequently, the contribution and innovation of this research is the development of a tool, more specifically a “Metamodel”, that can be used to scope and design successful HBD projects in any environment. Incorporating a combination of different scientific methodologies and a multimethod research approach, existing and successful models for HBD are used to develop an abstract Metamodel that can then be employed to scope and design successful HBD development projects in any environment.

2.2  Main Hypothesis and Deduction of Key Research Questions

9

2.2 Main Hypothesis and Deduction of Key Research Questions Heritage-based urban development is a complex process that encompasses both theoretical and practical issues. The background of this current research project was captured succinctly by the sociologist Tim Winter, who also suggested that different epistemologies and research methodologies need to be combined to derive useful practical and theoretical knowledge: Nonetheless, there is a real need for a more substantive engagement between those working in critical heritage theory and those writing about the practices and challenges of heritage conservation. There is much potential for points of contact extending far beyond themes of visitor or site ‘management’, which constitutes much of the cross-disciplinary dialogue today. (2013, p. 540f)

The changing understanding of urban heritage requires approaches that integrate users (stakeholders and specifically local communities), objectives (from the preservation of buildings to the improvement of the quality of life), and different processes and models for HBD. From a general perspective, we need new development approaches (UN Habitat, 2014) to improve local communities’ quality of life (Griggs et al., 2013) and achieve more ambitious objectives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (see Fig. 2.2). HBD is one development approach that has the potential to meet many of these objectives (World Bank, 2001) (Fig. 2.3). HBD processes have been shifting from linear actions such as renovating single monuments to broader, more systemic approaches that consider stakeholders, functions, and assets (Dostal & Hampl, 2007). Sergio Barile and Marialuisa Saviano analysed the situation in Italy and used a systemic-governance approach to describe cultural heritage management and identify key methodological points and elements, concluding that the core of the governance system they have examined is the decision-­ making system and the operational roles. They also identify “static-­ structural” and “dynamic-systemic” elements. As a background and to develop the elements of the Metamodel, these findings are important to understand and construct the Model, and especially to differentiate between what Van Gigch (see also Sect. 4.2) calls the “Domain” and separate dynamic and controllable elements like HBD processes (Barile & Saviano, 2015, p. 75; Van Gigch, 1991) (Fig. 2.4). From this broadened understanding of urban heritage, and considering the research problem, my hypothesis is as follows: I hypothesize that a metamodel can improve the preparation, design, quality, and results of local HBD processes and provide a better representation of heritage-based urban development as a system compared to existing approaches.

This hypothesis is explored using the proposed Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development and the research questions outlined in the following section.

Fig. 2.2  Theory of Change in connection with cultural heritage from the British Council: (Lewis et al., 2018, p. 21/22)

10 2  Problem, Hypothesis, and Research Questions

2.2  Main Hypothesis and Deduction of Key Research Questions

11

Fig. 2.3  Marketing for the sustainable development goals in tbilisi, Georgia. (Source: Matthias Ripp, 2018b)

2.2.1 Research Questions and Research Interest Scientific discussion and practical application often remain disconnected in heritage. Heritage practitioners are rarely integrated into the academic discourse, or their integration is limited to narrow subjects and topics, and this lack of practical experience in academia can lead to a solely theoretical understanding of phenomena. The following problem is addressed by this research: There is no general theoretical and practical guidance on how to scope and design successful heritage-based

12

2  Problem, Hypothesis, and Research Questions

Fig. 2.4  Suprasystems’ mapping of the cultural heritage government system by Barile and Saviano (2015, p. 97)

development projects that stimulate urban development and the enhancement of the quality of life of communities. Based on this, the following research questions guide this research: • How can an abstract Metamodel for HBD processes be described that can be applied in a broad variety of cases? • What are the relevant factors, actors, phases, and processes at stake, and how can they be integrated into the design of successful local HBD processes? • How can this abstract Metamodel be used to structure, evaluate, and improve local HBD processes? The objective of this research is to contribute on a theoretical level to an improved understanding of HBD processes. On an applied level, the Metamodel that was developed through this research can enhance the quality and success of HBD processes, especially through the improvement of the scoping of such processes.

References Barile, S., & Saviano, M. (2015). From the management of cultural heritage to the governance of the cultural heritage system. In G. M. Golinelli (Ed.), Cultural heritage and value creation (pp. 71–103). Springer. Bos, L. (2015). Towards an EU urban agenda. Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Netherlands. Retrieved 02 Jan 2020 from https://agendastad.nl/wp-­content/uploads/2015/02/ ROM-­special-­EAS-­ENG.pdf City of Regensburg, Ripp, M., & Scheffler, N. (2011). HerO – Heritage as opportunity. The road to success: Integrated management of historic towns – Guidebook. https://www.regensburg.de/ fm/464/HerO%20Guidebook%20EN.pdf Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe. (2015). Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe. Full report. http://www.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2015/06/ CHCfE_FULL-­REPORT_v2.pdf

References

13

Dostal, P., & Hampl, M. (2007). Systemic geographical approach, methodological plurality, uncertainties and risks. In P. Dostal & J. Langhammer (Eds.), Modeling natural environment and society (pp. 29–44). European Commission. (2014). Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Socla Commitee and the Commitee of the Regions. Council Document 12150/14. https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vjlot9swvzyt European Commission. (2015). Getting cultural heritage to work for Europe. Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on Cultural Heritage. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-­detail/-­/ publication/b01a0d0a-­2a4f-­4de0-­88f7-­85bf2dc6e004 European Commission. (2016). Urban agenda for the EU “Pact of Amsterdam”. Agreed at the informal meeting of EU Ministers responsible for urban matters on 30 May 2016  in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. http://urbanagendaforthe.eu/wp-­content/uploads/2016/05/Pact-­ of-­Amsterdam_v7_WEB.pdf Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M.  C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N., & Noble, I. (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495(7441), 305–307. Grosskurth, J., & Rotmans, J. (2005). The scene model: Getting a grip on sustainable development in policy making. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, 135–151. Gustafsson, C. (2009). The Halland Model. A Trading zone for building conservation in concert with labour market policy and the construction industry, aiming at regional sustainable development. Kostakis, I., Lolos, S., & Doulgeraki, C. (2020). Cultural heritage led growth: Regional evidence from Greece (1998–2016). Lewis, R., Arthurs, K., & British Council. (2018). Cultural heritage for inclusive growth. https:// www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/bc_chig_report_final.pdf Miles, S., & Paddison, R. (2005). Introduction: The rise and rise of culture-led urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 42(5–6), 833–839. Ripp, M. (2018a). Heritage as a system and process that belongs to local communities. Reframing the role of local communities and stakeholders. Council of Europe/Faro Convention Workshop, Fontecchio. https://rm.coe.int/ heritage-­as-­a-­system-­and-­process-­that-­belongs-­to-­local-­communities-­mr-­/16807bc255 Ripp, M. (2018b). Baukulturelles Erbe – Ressource für nachhaltige städtische Entwicklung. In: PLANERIN – Sharing Heritage, (2), 19–23. Ripp, M., & Rodwell, D. (2015). The geography of urban heritage. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 6(3), 240–276. Ripp, M., & Stein, P. (2018). Applying the Faro convention principles to deliver heritage-based urban development: The COMUS-project. Community-­ led urban strategies in historic towns. Council of Europe. http://rm.coe.int/ applying-­the-­faro-­convention-­principles-­to-­deliver-­heritage-­based-­urba/168078827f Ruoss, E. (2016). Opportunities to leverage World Heritage Sites for local development in the Alps. Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research and Management, 8(1), 53–61. Rypkema, D.  D. (2005). The economics of historic preservation: A community leader’s guide (S. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United, Ed., 2nd ed.). Sandholz, S. (2017). Urban centres in Asia and Latin America. Heritage and identities in changing urban landscapes. Springer. Sulzer, J. (2007). Revitalisierender Städtebau. Werte (Schriftenreihe Stadtentwicklung und Denkmalpflege Bd. 5). Verlag der Wissenschaften. Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge University Press. Throsby, D. (2013). Assessment of value in heritage regulation. In I. Rizzo & A. Mignosa (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of cultural heritage (pp. 456–469). Edward Elgar Publishing. UN Habitat. (2014). The state of African cities 2014. Re-imagining sustainable urban transitions. https://unhabitat.org/state-­of-­african-­cities-­2014-­re-­imagining-­sustainable-­urban-­transitions

14

2  Problem, Hypothesis, and Research Questions

Unesco. (2016). Culture: Urban future; global report on culture for sustainable urban development. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245999 Van Gigch, J. P. (1991). System design modeling and metamodeling. Plenum Press. Winter, T. (2013). Clarifying the critical in critical heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(6), 532–545. World Bank. (2001). Cultural heritage and development: A framework for action in the Middle East and North Africa. World Bank. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy02/2001026833.html

Chapter 3

Theoretical Background

Starting from concepts of cultural heritage and urban development and their relevance, this chapter outlines the scientific background of this research. How concepts of cultural heritage have changed over time is discussed in Sect. 3.1, before considering how cultural and urban heritage are linked and their relevance to this research work in Sect. 3.2. Section 3.3 examines the trends in urban development and the relevance of these trends for cultural heritage and this research work. In Sect. 3.4, the chapter concludes by discussing the relationship between urban heritage and development and the potential benefits that might be achieved through their integration.

3.1 Concepts of Cultural Heritage This section analyses how concepts of cultural heritage have evolved over time, focusing on seminal developments throughout the last century, and outlines the relevance of this evolution for the research at hand. To develop a deeper understanding of urban heritage, it first helps to clarify the meaning of “cultural heritage”. In the international discourse, heritage has developed from issues connected to the material side of (designated) buildings towards the use, interpretation, significance and functions of heritage (Albert, 2015). This was not always the case: The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) adopted the Venice Charter and its founding doctrinal text in 1965, and references to “setting” and “some socially useful purpose” (ICOMOS, 1964) within this text foreshadow this shift in direction. Expanding this position, Article 5(a) of the 1972 UNESCO Convention expressed the aspiration “to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes” (Unesco, 1972). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Ripp, A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development, Heritage Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08238-2_3

15

16

3  Theoretical Background

UNESCO (United Nations’ Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the most prominent international organisation working in the field of cultural heritage, defines cultural heritage in the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1972 (article 1) under three different categories: • Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; • Groups of Buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; • Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view (Unesco, 1972).

UNESCO’s “sectoral” definition concentrates on different elements of cultural heritage but does not specifically address urban heritage, which is the most common form of cultural heritage that most people encounter on a daily basis. Later, several other international conventions broadened the understanding of cultural heritage: 1975, the Resolution of Bruges: Principles Governing the Rehabilitation of Historic Towns, adopted by ICOMOS, included references to the human scale, beauty, and social function (ICOMOS, 1975). 1976, the Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas (Nairobi Charter) UNESCO addressed community identity and promoted the integration of historic areas harmoniously into the life of contemporary society (as) a basic factor in town planning and land development (Unesco, 1976). 1987, ICOMOS declared in the Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter) the integration of urban conservation into policies for socio-economic development and the participation of residents (ICOMOS, 1987). The adoption of the “Faro Convention” in 2005 was another milestone in the shift towards a different understanding of cultural heritage was the adoption of. Officially titled the “Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society”, the document stated in Article 1, c (Aims of the Conventions), that “the conservation of cultural heritage and its sustainable use have human development and quality of life as their goal”. Consequently, the understanding of cultural heritage has become wider, and a different definition is used (see also definition of urban heritage in the Reading Guide). “Traditionally, planners viewed historic areas as a collection of monuments and buildings to be preserved as relics of the past, whose value was considered to be totally separate from their day-today use and city context” (Siravo, 2014, p. 161). This understanding stems from a materialistic approach to heritage that is based on the physical appearance of monuments, material conditions, and a traditional interpretation of heritage and preservation as a mainly material science. This “authorized heritage discourse” (Smith, 2006) is still

3.1  Concepts of Cultural Heritage

17

dominating the scientific discussion in Europe. It focuses, for example, on the best possible preservation methods, developed and measured primarily using methodologies from natural sciences (analyses of mortar, laser scans, and chemical analysis). However, during the last few decades, through the analysis of policy documents, there has been a noticeable shift in the public debate from this traditional understanding towards more social aspects of heritage. The enhancing and expanding of the whole sector of heritage conservation, including the establishment of governmental bodies, new laws, the establishment of new scientific institutions, and academic curricula, was heavily influenced by the huge success of the 1975 European Architectural Heritage Year. This was a moment in time when (after the Charter of Venice (ICOMOS, 1964)) the surroundings and the role of heritage were clearly recognized. The text of the 1975 European Charter of the Architectural Heritage was drafted as a direct result, focusing on the built, tangible heritage and calling for “integrated conservation”. At the same time, it included references to other dimensions and the role for the society: ... The past as embodied in the architectural heritage provides the sort of environment indispensable to a balanced and complete life. […] The architectural heritage is a capital of irreplaceable spiritual, cultural, social and economic value. […] The structure of historic centres and sites is conducive to a harmonious social balance. […] The architectural heritage has an important part to play in education. … (Council of Europe, 1975)

In this policy document, we can already see the beginning of a different understanding of heritage: The acknowledged interaction and role of built heritage structures in “social balance”, “education”, and a “balanced and complete life” indicates an increasing interest in how heritage processes contribute to and interact with these social phenomena. The introduction of the term “social balance” marked the beginning of a change from a solely material understanding of cultural heritage to a more functional or social one. In 1982, the UNESCO Definition of cultural heritage considerably broadened: The cultural heritage may be defined as the entire corpus of material signs [sic] – either artistic or symbolic – handed on by the past to each culture and, therefore, to the whole of humankind. As a constituent part of the affirmation and enrichment of cultural identities, as a legacy belonging to all humankind, the cultural heritage gives each particular place its recognizable features and is the storehouse of human experience. The preservation and the presentation of the cultural heritage are therefore a corner-stone of any cultural policy (Unesco, 1982).

Harold Kalman, a heritage specialist and architectural historian, also sees that the understanding of heritage has changed and identifies an emerging trend: “A view shared by many current writers on heritage theory is that our understanding of heritage conservation, including values and best practices, is socially constructed and not absolute” (Kalman, 2014, p. 52). Therefore, cultural heritage in the third millennium is popular, diversified, and complex. The use and function of heritage for

18

3  Theoretical Background

society is gaining interest, resulting in substantial consequences for the whole field of urban heritage. With an increased focus on use and function, different epistemologies, methods, and disciplines have started to examine the subject. UNESCO’s recent activities have also focused on other types of heritage, including movable heritage (paintings, sculptures, coins, manuscripts), intangible heritage, and underwater heritage (Unesco, 2017). Several conventions were ratified by different State parties during the last decades, dealing with different types of heritage and adding different categories. Although the limitations and low impact of international charters on conservation for local policies have been clearly described (Kulikauskas, 2007), they remain useful for following the shifts in heritage understanding. Throughout this research, I use three types of sources: scientific literature (to formulate the key concepts and expand on theories to develop the Metamodel); policy documents (to analyse what strategies and regulations are derived from these theories and integrate those that are relevant into the Metamodel); practical experience (either from my own work experience or from colleagues, to bridge the gap between international conventions and local actions). Simone Sandholz (2017, p. 3) asserts that the heritage discourse has been modified along two lines: a change in content and scale, referring to the focus shift from individual buildings to ensembles and the historic urban landscape; and an increase in the importance of international actors and role models. The shift towards a more complex idea of heritage stimulates systemic approaches, which are more suited to higher levels of complexity and multilevel stakeholder approaches (Ferilli et  al., 2011). This systemic understanding and the increased complexity of urban heritage can be appropriately represented in a metamodel that comprises abstract representations of the specific relevant Entities. The increased awareness of international policies certainly has implications on local heritage-related actions, if not always the desired ones (Kulikauskas, 2007). Sandholz also emphasized the European-centred approach of most policy documents. Her conclusion that “Locally suitable inner-city conservation and regeneration in developing or emerging countries makes demands going beyond European concepts” (Sandholz, 2017, p. 4) goes further than the findings of the “The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps – an Action Plan for the Future” report by ICOMOS (Jokilehto et  al., 2005), where pure numbers of inscribed sites demonstrated the imbalance of the World Heritage list, which is only one particular international heritage program. The European Year of Cultural Heritage in 2018, including its program and activities, demonstrated some growth in the general understanding of cultural heritage. This initiative was essentially based on the 1975 Year of Architectural Heritage, but the concept of cultural heritage was much broader, as can be seen by the diversity of events and actions that were funded and implemented across Europe.

3.2  Urban Heritage as Part of the Historic Urban Fabric

19

3.2 Urban Heritage as Part of the Historic Urban Fabric This section highlights the specificity of urban heritage in relation to cultural heritage in general and in relation to the research topic. Urban heritage (see definition of urban heritage in the Reading Guide), as defined for use in this research work, is a substantial part of the historic urban fabric. UNESCO described cultural heritage in an urban setting in a document produced in collaboration with other international institutions for the recent Habitat III conference in Quito on “Housing and Sustainable Urban Development”: Urban heritage represents a social, cultural and economic asset and resource reflecting the dynamic historical layering of values that have been developed, interpreted and transmitted by successive generations and an accumulation of traditions and experiences recognized as such in their diversity. Urban heritage comprises urban elements (Urban Morphology and built form, open and green spaces, urban infrastructure), architectural elements (monuments, buildings) and intangible elements. Urban heritage conservation or urban conservation relates to urban planning processes aimed at preserving cultural values, assets and resources through conserving the integrity and authenticity of urban heritage, while safeguarding intangible cultural assets through a participatory approach (United Nations, 2015, pp. 1–2).

Parallel to the shift in the understanding of cultural heritage (see Sect. 3.1), urban heritage is now recognized in a more systemic way, which is not disconnected from its surrounding elements of the system but in constant interaction with them. According to some authors, urban heritage is constructed or “produced” heritage (Sandholz, 2017). According to Gerhard Vinken, urban heritage is not necessarily a “grown” asset but rather the product of urban planning and preservation and is also affected by insufficient cooperation and coordination between them (Vinken, 2010). A systemic and complex understanding that encompasses much more than “buildings” seems to be appropriate to analyse urban heritage and examine and enhance HBD processes within the framework of this research. Cities are the focus of many disciplines (Sandholz, 2017, p. 9) with both technical and social backgrounds. The inter- and meta-disciplinary interest in urban heritage also reflects the heterogeneity and complexity of this specific urban subsystem. This systemic understanding of urban heritage requires tools and methods that can respond to this complexity, and I developed the THRIVE Metamodel through this research in response to this need (THRIVE is an acronym created as a short form from some of the letters in MeTamodel of HeRItage-Based Urban DeVElopment, and embodies the Metamodel’s goal of helping communities to thrive through heritage-based urban development).

20

3  Theoretical Background

3.3 Urban Development Approaches and Trends The phenomenon of urban development is analysed in this section. Recent trends in urban development and their relevance for cultural heritage are also examined. The common narrative that is used in communication about any urban issue is that 66% of all mankind will live in cities by 2050 (United Nations Development Programme & Malik, 2014), which emphasizes the importance of the field of urban and historical geography. Urban development has been the focus of these disciplines since their establishment. Urban development occurs for different reasons, many of which are rooted outside of the urban system, such as the general economic development of a nation, disasters, and the demographic developments of certain regions. In this context, as long as cities have existed, people have attempted to stimulate, steer, and facilitate urban development, and contemporary methods for this range from rather simple strategies like the building of new infrastructure to refined “integrated growth strategies” like “Smart Cities Strategies”, “Stimulation of Creative Industries”, etc. Additionally, there are indications that urban development strategies and models that were prepared in more developed countries in the middle of the twentieth century have not been as successful as anticipated in emerging or less-­ developed countries. Among the reasons for this are the higher volatility of cities in such an environment, including stronger dynamics of urban growth, population shifts, economic limitations, or changes in the environment caused by climate change (UN Habitat, 2014). Many contemporary policy documents, local strategies, and scientific articles are centred on “integrated approaches” for urban development, in contrast to earlier strategies, many of which were connected to the “Rebuilding of Europe” after the two World Wars. The term has been used increasingly by international institutions like the European Commission (2011; European Commission/German Presidency, 2007). In Germany, for example, the term has been promoted by the Association of German Cities (Deutscher Städtetag). The “integrated approach” aims to integrate different sectors of local, regional and national government and related policy areas, of regional and urban strategies, public and private actions and generally different players and organisations, including NGOs (Deutscher Städtetag, 2011). The underlying logic of “Integrated Urban Development” is that in a complex and rapidly changing environment, sectoral approaches are not as effective and efficient in responding either to challenges or in making use of new potential. Urban heritage has a great potential as one of the major integrating factors of these processes (City of Regensburg et al., 2011; Council of Europe, 2016; Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe, 2015; Della Torre, 2016).

3.4  Integrating Urban Heritage in Urban Development

21

3.4 Integrating Urban Heritage in Urban Development Examples of how urban heritage can be integrated and used for urban development are presented in this section, and the relevance of these examples for this research work is explored. As the understanding of cultural heritage has changed from a singular perception of something valuable to protect to a more holistic view, more and more strategies have been developed and applied for the use of urban cultural heritage in local development. The following are some of the most significant strategies that have been applied in this context: • The HerMan Project focused on management aspects at the intersection of heritage preservation and urban development and implemented a broad understanding of cultural heritage (City of Regensburg et al., 2014). • The SUSTCULT Project aimed to attract financial resources and stimulate sustainable development through the improvement of urban heritage management (Sustcult, 2012). • The SUIT Project dealt with (built) cultural heritage as a resource, the perception and recognition of it by communities, and its role in sustainable development (Hassler et al., 2002). • The HerO Project used management plans as a tool for urban development (City of Regensburg et al., 2011). • The COMUS Project focused on community-based urban development in countries in transition (Council of Europe, 2016). • The Halland Model Project implemented a heritage-based capacity-building approach to enhance the regional labour market (Gustafsson, 2009). The latter three projects serve as the foundation for this research work (see Sect. 5.5). The change in perception and greater acknowledgement of the role that cultural heritage has in local communities and social and economic aspects opened up new possibilities to integrate urban heritage into urban development. A more holistic understanding of urban heritage also makes it more compatible with integrated urban planning policies, which are increasingly popular. International organisations such as UNESCO (2016) and the European Commission have emphasized the need for an integrated approach and are now using the term “heritage development” (European Commission, 2014). Based on national and international examples, heritage has been increasingly interpreted as a resource for integrated urban development. Graham et al. (2000, p. 154) refer to the example of the Netherlands, where, as early as 1992, a national policy document prepared by the Ministry of Economic Affairs emphasized the potential of Dutch cultural heritage to benefit the national and local economy, especially employment in the cultural sector. Urban heritage is a cross-cutting topic that can be described as an urban subsystem in itself. It includes tangible, intangible aspects, the community, and processes (Gustafsson, 2009; Munoz Vinas, 2005). Local communities are generally proud and often emotionally attached to their heritage. They care about it – at least to a certain degree (Council of Europe, 2016).

22

3  Theoretical Background

Therefore, urban heritage is often a good entry point for integrated urban development strategies. There have been several case studies on specific projects and models that demonstrate this point: for example, Angkor in Cambodia and Saidia in Lebanon. In Angkor, a team from the National Authority in charge of the protection and sustainable development of the Angkor Wat heritage Site noted a shift from the management of physical heritage assets to issues of sustainable development surrounding the site (Peou et  al., 2016). In the case of Saidia in Lebanon, Al-hagla emphasized how different aspects of sustainable development can be addressed in an approach that includes aspects of conservation, interpretation, and development (Al-hagla, 2010). Calls for a more holistic approach must also be seen in the context of the wider preservation movement. Though preservation initially focused on protecting individual iconic buildings, this remit has substantially broadened since the beginning of the preservation movement at the end of the nineteenth century (Munoz Vinas, 2005). First, the focus widened to include complete ensembles (urban and rural) rather than individual buildings. This is also reflected in the development of the UNESCO World Heritage list as analysed by ICOMOS in the “Filling the Gaps Report” (ICOMOS, 2004). In central Europe, these ensembles were used as the starting point for urban renewal activities. This process already started after the end of World War 2, when urban regeneration was implemented through an …approach to development-based rebuilding. Property-led urban renewal and large-scale urban redevelopment were utilized as basic methods through public and social housing programs in downtown and industrially de-centralized areas within the city center to capture a share of regional development and international competition… (Gülersoy & Gürler, 2011, p. 14).

Loes Veldpaus from the School of architecture and planning in Newcastle asserts that Le Corbusier’s “Plan Voisin” for Paris from 1925 was “… the moment when urban development and urban heritage theory really took separate paths, with one mainly concerned with the general need for expansion due to population growth and hygiene, while the other emphasised the listing of monuments” (Veldpaus et  al., 2013, p.  7). After World War 2, urban renewal activities gained momentum and intensity. In Germany, the “Arbeitsgemeinschaft historische Städte” was founded in 1973 and served as a platform for successful experiences that later led to the design of new national and federal funding schemes (Menzel, 2017). Even today, urban heritage and urban development are often perceived as something that is completely incompatible with each other, “… its components regarded as mutually exclusive, …” (Turner, 2013, p. 77). In the twenty-first century, this shifting trend from the preservation of individual monuments to ensembles reached another peak with the ratification of UNESCO’s “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL)” (Unesco, 2011). Urban morphology played a major role in the development of this document. The HUL Recommendation integrates different perspectives from different scientific disciplines. It is also clear that this policy document focuses more on social and intangible aspects, processes, and a generally holistic interpretation of urban

References

23

heritage (Turner, 2015). As international policy documents are often based more on theoretical approaches than urban practice, this broader understanding of the historic urban fabric has many implications for HBD approaches. These implications are also demonstrated in practical examples, including the findings of the HerO and the COMUS Projects (City of Regensburg et al., 2011; Ripp & Stein, 2018): • The scoping of processes has to be much wider if urban heritage is to be understood as the complete historic urban landscape (UNESCO, 2011) rather than an individual building or a (small) group of buildings. • The area of interest is much larger, and the analysis of the existing situation has to consider many more elements, including a greater number and variety of stakeholders. • There is a wider variety of topics that can emerge during the process, including housing, transport, leisure, environmental, and social issues. • The time scope for a historic urban landscape might differ from that of one listed building or an ensemble of listed buildings/sites. • Ownership of the physical fabric is much more diverse, and the local communities usually consist of diverse rather than homogeneous and easy to reach social groups. • For participatory processes, communication and participatory engagement with local communities (Arnstein, 1969) require more energy than would be needed for the preservation of a single building. • The wider the area (geographically and thematically), the more topics “in-­ between” the buildings will come up. It can be the demographic situation, use of buildings and public places, including temporary use by “part-time citizens”, such as people only working in the city, going to school, and shopping, and what we usually understand as tourists. Together with the fuller consideration of the benefits of social issues, issues of use, and urban functions in the context of urban heritage, there are also some negative consequences: The expertise and experts needed to scope such processes are very different, which is closely connected with the broader variety of relevant stakeholders. A holistic understanding of the city in question (through methods of urban morphology, a combination of different methods, interdisciplinary teams, and others) can serve as a starting point. In the end, the objective of HBD development processes is always to improve the quality of life for the citizens. The facilitators of such processes need to be experts with broad backgrounds and excellent analytical, moderation, and communication skills (Scheffler et al., 2009).

References Albert, M.-T. (2015). Perceptions of sustainability in heritage studies. De Gruyter. Al-hagla, K. S. (2010). Sustainable urban development in historical areas using the tourist trail approach: A case study of the Cultural Heritage and Urban Development (CHUD) project in Saida, Lebanon. Cities, 27(4), 234–248.

24

3  Theoretical Background

Arnstein, S.  R. (1969). Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. City of Regensburg, Ripp, M., & Scheffler, N. (2011). HerO – Heritage as opportunity. The road to success: Integrated management of historic towns – Guidebook. https://www.regensburg.de/ fm/464/HerO%20Guidebook%20EN.pdf City of Regensburg, Ripp, M., & Hellmann, T. (2014). Moving from conservation to management. The HerMan Project. Outputs and results. Retrieved 2 Mar 2019 from http://www.herman-­ project.eu/files/publisher/downloads_public/Outputs/HerMan_Finale_Brochure_english_for_ web1.pdf Council of Europe. (1975). European Charter of the architectural heritage. Retrieved 3 Mar 2020 from https://www.icomos.org/en/charters-­and-­texts/179-­articles-­en-­francais/ressources/ charters-­and-­standards/170-­european-­charter-­of-­the-­architectural-­heritage Council of Europe. (2016). COMMUNITY-LED URBAN STRATEGIES IN HISTORIC TOWNS (COMUS) Communities at the heart of heritage governance. https://rm.coe.int/ comus-­communities-­at-­the-­heart-­of-­heritage-­governance-­principles-­for-­h/1680728eb4 Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe. (2015). Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe. Full report. http://www.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2015/06/ CHCfE_FULL-­REPORT_v2.pdf Della Torre, S. (2016). Heritage impact. In K. V. Balen & A. Vandesande (Eds.), Heritage counts (Vol. 2, pp. 23–30). Garant Uitgevers N V. Deutscher Städtetag. (2011). Integrated urban development planning and urban development management  – Strategies and instruments for sustainable urban development. http://www. staedtetag.de/imperia/md/content/dst/internet/fachinformationen/2013/mat_integrierte_ stadtentwicklungsplanung_en_gesamt_korr.pdf European Commission. (2011). Cities of tomorrow challenges, visions, ways forward (978-92-79-21307-6). https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/citiesoftomorrow/citiesoftomorrow_final.pdf European Commission. (2014). Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Socla Commitee and the Commitee of the Regions. Council Document 12150/14. https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vjlot9swvzyt European Commission/German Presidency. (2007). Leipzig charter on sustainable European Cities. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/themes/urban/leipzig_charter.pdf Ferilli, G., Gustafsson, C., & Sacco, P. (2011). System-wide cultural district and the Halland Model: Policy design for regional development. University of Gotheburg. Graham, B. J., Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2000). A geography of heritage: Power, culture, and economy. Arnold. Gülersoy, N. Z., & Gürler, E. (2011). Conceptual challenges on urban transformation. ITU AZ, 8(1), 10–24. Gustafsson, C. (2009). The Halland Model. A Trading zone for building conservation in concert with labour market policy and the construction industry, aiming at regional sustainable development. Hassler, U., Algreen-Ussing, G., & Kohler, N. (2002). Cultural heritage and sustainable development in SUIT. SUIT Position Paper, 3(9), 1–5. http://www.lema.ulg.ac.be/research/suit/download/SUIT5.2c_PPaper.pdf Icomos. (1964). International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (The Venice Charter). https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf Icomos. (1975). The resolutions of bruges: Principles governing the rehabilitation of historic towns. https://www.icomos.org/publications/93towns7k.pdf Icomos. (1987). Charter for the conservation of historic towns and urban areas (Washington 1987). https://www.icomos.org/charters/charters.pdf

References

25

Icomos. (2004). The World Heritage List: Filling the gaps – An action plan for the future. https:// www.icomos.org/world_heritage/whlgaps-­eng.pdf Jokilehto, J., Cleere, H., Denyer, S., & Petzet, M. (2005). The World Heritage List: Filling the gaps: An action plan for the future. ICOMOS. Kalman, H. (2014). Heritage planning: Principles and process. Routledge. Kulikauskas, P. (2007). International charters on conservation: The lost c(l)auses. City & Time, 3/3(5), 61–68. Menzel, W. (2017). Arbeitsgemeinschaft historische Städte Bamberg Görlitz Lübeck Meißen Regensburg Stralsund. Retrieved 1 Feb 2017 from http://www.ag-­historische-­staedte.de Munoz Vinas, S. (2005). Contemporary theory of conservation. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Peou, H., Natarajan, I., Tianhua, H., & Philippe, D. (2016). From conservation to sustainable development – A case study of Angkor World Heritage Site, Cambodia. Journal of Environmental Science & Engineering, A(5), 141–155. Ripp, M., & Stein, P. (2018). Applying the Faro convention principles to deliver heritage-based urban development: The COMUS-project. Community-­ led urban strategies in historic towns. Council of Europe. http://rm.coe.int/ applying-­the-­faro-­convention-­principles-­to-­deliver-­heritage-­based-­urba/168078827f Sandholz, S. (2017). Urban centres in Asia and Latin America. Heritage and identities in changing urban landscapes. Springer. Scheffler, N., Ripp, M., & Bühler, B. (2009). Cultural heritage integrated management plans. URBACT Project HerO Heritage as opportunity. Thematic Report, 2. https://urbact.eu/ file/7613/download?token=A21X3uyE Siravo, F. (2014). Planning and managing historic urban landscapes. In F. Bandarin & R. Van Oers (Eds.), Reconnecting the City: The historic urban landscape approach and the future of urban heritage (pp. 161–175). Springer. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge. Sustcult. (2012). Concept study on the role of cultural heritage as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. https://mapa.valpo.net/sites/default/files/repositorio-­documentos/studyontheroleofculturalheritageasasustainabledevelopmentpillar.pdf Turner, M. (2013). UNESCO recommendation on the historic urban landscape. In M. T. Albert, R. Bernecker, & B. Rudolff (Eds.), Understanding heritage: Perspectives in heritage studies (pp. 77–87). Turner, M. (2015). Social sustainability of the historic urban landscape. In M.-T.  Albert (Ed.), Perceptions of sustainability in heritage studies (pp.  99–111). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. UN Habitat. (2014). The state of African cities 2014. Re-imagining sustainable urban transitions. https://unhabitat.org/state-­of-­african-­cities-­2014-­re-­imagining-­sustainable-­urban-­transitions Unesco. (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ Unesco. (1976). Recommendation concerning the safeguarding and contemporary role of historic areas. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-­URL_ID=13133&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_ SECTION=201.html Unesco. (1982). Mexico City declaration on cultural policies. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000052505 Unesco. (2011). Recommendation on historic urban landscape. https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/ activities/documents/activity-­638-­98.pdf Unesco. (2016). Culture: Urban future; global report on culture for sustainable urban development. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245999 Unesco. (2017). Illicit trafficking of cultural property. Retrieved 30 Jan 2017 from http:// www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-­t rafficking-­o f-­c ultural-­p roperty/ unesco-­d atabase-­o f-­n ational-­c ultural-­h eritage-­l aws/frequently-­a sked-­q uestions/ definition-­of-­the-­cultural-­heritage/

26

3  Theoretical Background

United Nations. (2015). Habitat III Issue Paper. 4 Urban culture and heritage. https://unhabitat. org/issue-­papers-­and-­policy-­units United Nations Development Programme, & Malik, K. (2014). Human development report 2014: Sustaining human progress-reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience (PDF). UN. Veldpaus, L., Roders, A. P., & Colenbrander, B. J. F. (2013). Urban heritage: Putting the past into the future. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 4(1), 3–18. Vinken, G. (2010). Zone Heimat: Altstadt im modernen Städtebau. Dt. Kunstverl.

Chapter 4

Disciplinary Approach

This chapter examines the scientific theories that form the background of the research approach and explains how the proposed research design integrates these theories. This chapter first explores some theories that encourage understanding the city as a system in Sect. 4.1 before specifically examining metamodeling theory (Sect. 4.2), the theory of urban morphology (Sect. 4.3), governance theory (Sect. 4.4), and concepts from organisational development and change management (Sect. 4.5). The purpose of this chapter is to provide the reader with a grounding in the disciplinary approach to the research problem before the proposed solution is presented in Chap. 5.

4.1 Understanding the City as a System: Urban Morphology and Theory of Governance Theories that advocate a systemic understanding of cities and their relevance to the overall research topic are discussed in this section, particularly considering their connection with the seminal work of John P. Van Gigch. The process of constructing the Metamodel required theoretical foundations on which to build. Understanding the city as a system is an integral aspect of these foundations, as defined by Van Gigch in Applied General Systems Theory: “Finally a system can be made up of concepts, objects, and subjects, as in a man-machine system comprising all three kinds of elements” (Van Gigch, 1978, p. 2) (For more information on metamodeling theory by John P.  Van Gigch, see also Sect. 4.2, p.  23). While organisations are systems with clear boundaries, for cities, those boundaries are less distinct (Tripon & Dodu, 2005); cities are complex systems of different Entities that form the components of the system. These Entities can be subjects, objects, processes, other fluid and changing developments such as urban transformation, organisations, and subsystems. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Ripp, A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development, Heritage Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08238-2_4

27

28

4  Disciplinary Approach

Some authors (Goh et al., 2016; Karakiewicz & Bos, 2016; Pott, 2007; Rijkens-­ Klomp et al., 2003) have applied systems theory to cities or their related Entities. Goh has emphasized that through this transfer, it is possible to focus also on the interactions between individuals and their consequences for the urban fabric (Goh et al., 2016). In the words of Fusco Girard, “A city, as a dynamic complex system, is characterized by: interdependences (between human-made, natural, and social capital); circular processes (which stimulate Creativity) and synergies (which increase the resilience capacity)” (Fusco Girard, 2013, p. 4330). The sectoral dimension, sometimes referred to as the “Silo-Problem” (Boxelaar et al., 2006), is evident on all levels of governments (European Commission, 2011) and can be a great obstacle to integrated development activities; as has been noted by Siravo, who claimed that this “per force piecemeal approach” (Siravo, 2014, p.  161) is the main reason for poor results in conservation/regeneration projects. Using reverse logic, he emphasizes that good cooperation between different sectors and their integration within the context of intangible or tangible heritage projects are preconditions for the success of these projects. Authors who have written on governance and heritage have referred to systems theory as the underlying basic theory (Whitney et al., 2015). Systems theory has also been used as the foundation of big data analysis for a better understanding of the urban morphology of a city (Goh et al., 2016). Recently, Karakiewicz combined urban elements and processes with systems theory to obtain a deeper understanding of the city and improve urban planning, which coincides with the basic idea of this dissertation and the development of the Metamodel (Karakiewicz & Bos, 2016). Systems Theory is a heterogeneous and broad scientific field. Whitney et  al. stated that there is no generally agreed definition of systems theory at this point in time and referred to a set of axioms that are taken from various literature on systems theory and may be used to define how a system must operate (Whitney et al., 2015, p.  17). Systems theory started to develop after WWI when different disciplines began to work on solutions to complex challenges in cooperation, rather than individually or only within their own disciplinary field (Whitney et al., 2015, p. 18). After WWII, von Bertalanffy stressed that systems theory has the potential to integrate physical and social sciences (Whitney et al., 2015, p. 18). I take advantage of that potential in the development of the Metamodel, as successful HBD processes require the integration of physical and intangible heritage and their related disciplines and stakeholders. Following the shift in the understanding of cultural and, more specifically, urban heritage, theories are needed that have strong potential for this integrative power. This is another reason why more sectoral-based theories like the theory of conservation are not suitable for this purpose (Munoz Vinas, 2005), and systems theory is more appropriate. This was also affirmed by Whitney, who demonstrated that systems theory could provide a deep understanding of “real world systems” while enhancing their interpretation and analysis capabilities and forecasting their development. Furthermore, systems theory is useful for developing a holistic overview of the situation and for finding solutions (Whitney et al., 2015, p. 30). Therefore, I mainly use three scientific theories for the design of the Metamodel, all of which are based on a systemic approach or related to systems theory:

4.2 Metamodeling Theory of John P. Van Gigch

29

1. Urban morphology is a theoretical approach that combines the tools and methods of different disciplines such as architecture, history, geography, and planning, taking the current urban form as the starting point for the analysis (Kropf, 2014). Urban morphology usually analyses past processes but is also useful for understanding current changes and transformations in the historic urban fabric. This approach can also help to understand the domain of urban heritage, which is made of objects, subjects, and interrelations. On the one hand, this concentration on the past is a benefit because urban morphology is one of the very few approaches that explore interconnections, systemic relations, and the interplay between different trends, political decisions, popular values at a certain time, and economic circumstances in relation to historic urban development. On the other hand, urban morphology has limitations in the context of the present research because it has produced relatively little research that considers future developments or tries to influence or manage them (Conzen, 2004). Therefore, a theoretical foundation is needed to understand and analyse the current and future processes that are the result of the interplay between resources, power, decision making, and other factors. 2. The theory of governance can be used to analyse how decision-making processes are shaped in a neo-liberal world that values the concept of democratization and is determined by the effects of globalization (Chhotray & Stoker, 2009). Theories of governance can help to understand how heritage-based development processes can be stimulated while also incorporating participatory approaches. The role of communities, stakeholder engagement, and communication are of special relevance here. 3. The third theory that this research builds on is the Metamodeling Theory of John P. Van Gigch.

4.2 Metamodeling Theory of John P. Van Gigch This section introduces the Metamodeling Theory of systems of scientist John P.  Van Gigch. First, Van Gigch’s background and influences are explored before discussing the details of his metamodeling theory. As metamodeling theory is foundational for this research work, an understanding of it is vital for comprehension of the later sections of this text (Fig. 4.1). John P.  Van Gigch was born in 1930  in Argentina and studied engineering at Canadian universities. He obtained degrees from the University of Toronto, McGill University, and the University of Western Ontario (Parra-Luna, 2009, p. 361); during his early career, he worked in the engineering industry, which he described in his own words: This was a ‘hands on’ experience typical of the maker, the doer. I enjoyed the physical experience of turning abstract specifications into tangible new products rolling off the assembly line. This stage of my life demanded the inquiring system of the scientist/engineer who creates artefacts by implementing a conceptual design into a concrete reality. (Van Gigch, 1996, p. 483)

30

4  Disciplinary Approach

Fig. 4.1  Professor John P. Van Gigch, photograph by Stephen Sokoloff, IFSR Newsletter 1988 No. 3 (19) August/September

While working in the field of engineering Van Gigch was also influenced by his training in liberal arts and recognized the tension between “hard” sciences such as mathematics and “soft” sciences such as art. The led him towards systems science: “Acceptance of this dichotomy has led to the emergence of systems science and explains, in no small part, the changes which my way of thinking has undergone over time” (Van Gigch, 1996, p. 484). In 1956, Van Gigch received a scholarship to study business administration. During this period, he developed a growing interest in other disciplines, such as psychology, communications, social science, and beyond. He completed his PhD in 1968 on “… changes suffered by workers as they try to adapt to new technology …”. (Van Gigch, 1996, p.  484). From the understanding that systems fail, Van Gigch then concluded that to fully understand why a system fails, it is not sufficient to simply examine it from a perspective focused on models. He understood that the level of inquiry (epistemology) needs to be more abstract and, therefore, introduced the level of metamodeling: I recommend that the level of abstraction of the inquiry be raised to include the study of the epistemology of the System Design, from a Metamodeling perspective. To study the epistemology of a design means to inquire into the logic and foundations of the reasoning process which lead to the way the system that designs is itself designed. (Van Gigch, 1996, p. 484)

Van Gigch’s interest in metamodeling theory was stimulated by his broad background and motivation to understand why systems fail. His metamodeling theory (Van Gigch, 1991) is based on the understanding that three system levels exist (Table 4.1). Van Gigch researched and published extensively in the field of systems theory and metamodeling. Worldcat (World Cat Identities, 2020) lists 40 works in 156 publications in four different languages (English, Spanish, Italian, and Russian) from 1974 to 2006. Two of his major publications are Applied General Systems Theory (Van Gigch, 1978) and System Design Modeling and Metamodeling (Van Gigch, 1991). Van Gigch worked from 1970 as a Professor in Systems Management at California State University. He died in 2006 in Sebastopol, California. Based on Van Gigch’s work, metamodeling theory is used in this PhD (see also Chap. 6) to develop a Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development (HBD), considering all corresponding processes, phases, preconditions, and Entities. This

4.2 Metamodeling Theory of John P. Van Gigch

31

Table 4.1  Three different system levels Level Real world (level of reality) Modeling Metamodeling

Content Implementation of a system takes place Engineers and scientists determine the specification and design details of a system The design of the system that designs the system is questioned

Based on Van Gigch (1996, p. 485)

theory can be used to determine the appropriate design for modeling systems from a choice of different systems. The output of a metamodel is the “Selection of Design for Modeling Systems”. The inputs for this process are the “Methods of Reasoning and Methodologies” (Van Gigch, 1991). Metamodels can be used for complex systems. A Metamodel for HBD can be used to select appropriate models and tools to structure a specific HBD for a local environment. Supplementing Van Gigch’s theory, the construction of the Metamodel also uses the theory of urban morphology to understand the factors, processes, and communities that have shaped the current urban form and describe the domain (Van Gigch, 1991). According to Van Gigch (1991) a metamodel is logically one level above a “normal” model. Van Gigch also uses the term “Inquiring Systems” to describe this connection. He understands these as systems “… devoted to the creation, acquisition, production and dissemination of knowledge” (Van Gigch, 2003, p.  3). The inquiring system on the level of the metamodel is based on epistemology (Fig. 4.2). Though metamodels and models are related, they are distinctly different tools. Models are used to select one design from a list of alternative designs for artefacts, which could be, for example, objects such as buildings or even “things” from our daily life such as cars or computers. They are one level above what Van Gigch calls “Real-World Solutions”. Models use abstraction and simplification as principles to describe something: “In order to approximate an optimum, we simplify the real-­ world situation and formalize a model which can be solved” (Van Gigch, 1991, p.  120). Van Gigch classifies seven different types of models, depending on the objective and the type of knowledge that is to be created through the Model (Fig. 4.3). He also differentiates between analogue and symbolic models; analogue models can be used directly, and symbolic models are used when direct use would harm the input of too many resources (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 137). For example, an architectural Model of a building can be used in an analogue city Model to test how it integrates or stands out in the urban environment. In symbolic models, “… the properties of the original system are represented in a symbolic form” (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 138). Generally, models can be used to analyse situations, challenges, and systems and to find appropriate solutions. The abstraction and logic levels of metamodels are higher than in a normal model (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 256). The content of a metamodel is derived in an abstract form from all potential models. A metamodel cannot be directly used to find solutions for a specific problem or situation, but it can be used to select appropriate

32

4  Disciplinary Approach INQUIRING SYSTEMS LEVEL 5

ETHICS & AESTHETICS

Input: Ethics/Aesthetics. Alternative St of Values, Quantifiers and Worldviews.

Problem : To Identify Worldview & Select Values and Evaluative System

Output: Identifiers of Worldviews, Values, Quantifiers and Evaluative System

LOGIC : ETHICS AND AESTHETICS EPISTEMOLOGY

Problem : Identify Output: Sources of Knowledge, Sources of Knowledge, Guarantee Methods of and Validity of Reasoning and Methods of Reasoning Methodologies and Methodologies

LEVEL 4

Input: Philosophy of Science. Selected Worldviews, Values and Quantifiers

LOGIC: EPISTEMOLOGY

Input: Methods of Reasoning and Methodologies

Problem : Selection of One Design of the Modeling System From List of Alternative Designs

Output: Selection of Design for Modeling System

LEVEL 3

METAMODELING

SCIENTIFIC LOGIC MODELING

Problem : Selcetion of One Design From List of Alternative Artefact Designs

Output: Selection of One Artefact Design

LEVEL 2

Input: Selected Design for Modeling System

SCIENTIFIC LOGIC REAL WORLD

Problem : Production of Selected Artefact Design

Output: Artefacts From Production Proces

LEVEL 1

Input: Selected Design for Artefact

ECONOMIC LOGIC

Fig. 4.2  Inputs, outputs, and logic used to solve the fundamental problem at each level of the hierarchy of inquiring systems. (Van Gigch 1991, p. 121)

models and tools that can then be applied for specific situations or challenges. Metamodeling is often used in ecology, information science, and the field of military decisions (Dobrovic, 2001; Van Gigch, 1991). Dobrovic used a metamodel

4.2 Metamodeling Theory of John P. Van Gigch

INCREASE IN COMPLEXITY AND MEANING

METAINQUIRY Emphasis on Metadesign

33

Epistemological Model (Paradigm)

KNOWLEDGE CREATION Emphasis on Creavity

Innovave Model

PREDICTION Emphasis on Proacve Acon

Predicve Model

EXPERIMENT Emphasis on Measurement SUPPOSITION Emphasis on Assumpons

Experiment Model Hypothecal Model (Theory)

EXPLANATION Emphasis on Causality

Exploratory Model

DESCRIPTION Emphasis on Representaon

Descripve Model

Fig. 4.3  Hierarchy of model of knowledge acquisition according to Van Gigch (1991, p. 125)

approach to enhance the design of strategic planning processes in environments with different levels of uncertainty, developed in the military field (Dobrovic, 2001). A metamodel can also be used to assess and apply change, adaptation, and transformation and to restructure a system to enhance it (Barile & Saviano, 2015, p. 73). In the domain of metamodeling, “…the elaboration of the process by which real world and models are compared is discussed and formulated” (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 133). Metamodels are characterized by the following: • Defining other hierarchies • Determination of the epistemology of the inquiring system at each level of recursion • Defining the problem to be solved at each level or recursion • Identifying rationalities and meta-rationalities • Distinction between data, information, and intelligence • System malfunctions and failures • Other metamodeling failures. (Elements taken from Figure 9.1. in (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 226) The input for a metamodel is the selected design for the modeling system, and the output is the selection of one artefact design. In a situation where different models are available, a metamodel can therefore be used to choose an appropriate one. The Metamodel that has been developed through this research can be used to structure a local process for heritage-based urban development. Part of this process is the selection of stakeholders. For the selection of stakeholders, there are different models, including selection by the local government, open public call, and stakeholder

34

4  Disciplinary Approach

analysis. A metamodel provides a structured and more abstract description of the process and allows the user to decide which of the models is appropriate for the urban entity in a particular location. Each metamodel consists of three categories of elements: • Control levels of logic (hierarchical relationships between system levels of control  =  determining how the different system levels are related and influence each other) • Domains: area or scope over which a system exercises control • Rationalities and organisational levels; these might differ at each level. (Based on Van Gigch, 1991, p. 370) Van Gigch‘s metamodel theory is based on a systems approach, described in his earlier works. For example, in Applied General Systems Theory from the 1970s (Van Gigch, 1978), he suggests that a holistic vision should be adopted to understand the whole spectrum of a problem and not only parts of it. A notion that also has the potential to be further elaborated for use in urban heritage. He identifies Systems Theory as the appropriate way to implement this (Van Gigch, 1978, p. 2). He emphasizes the importance of differentiating between “Systems Improvement” and “System Design” and elaborates that there is a danger of applying a limited view based more on introspection with a “Systems Improvement” approach. Therefore, potential causes of problems that are outside the system might not be identified (Van Gigch, 1978, p.  5). Contrarily, in “System Design” thinking, a broader approach is implemented, also considering factors outside of the system and metasystem. Van Gigch elaborated his concept further in “General Systems Theory of Planning”. In this theory, he emphasizes that the design of social systems must consider the interplay between humans and that this occurs in “…open systems of high interdependence and organised complexity, where cybernetic effects are of paramount consequence” (Van Gigch, 1978, p. 537f). In connection with decision-making processes (planning processes can be viewed as such), he defines different phases: Phase 1: Policy Planning and Pre-Planning

1. Problem Definition 2. Understanding the world views of clients and planners 3. Goals Setting 4. Search for and generations of alternatives

Phase 2: Evaluation 5. Identification of Outputs, Attributes, Criteria, Measurements Scales and Models 6. Evaluation of Alternatives 7. Process of Choice Phase 3: Action-Implementation Phase

8. Implementation. (Van Gigch, 1978, p. 105)

4.3 Theory of Urban Morphology

35

What he describes as “Policy Planning” and “Pre-Planning” can be compared with what I call the SCOPING PHASE of development processes, as I have elaborated previously (a detailed description of the SCOPING PHASE is provided in Sect. 8.3). With The “System Design” approach, in which everything related to the system is considered, it can be better understood why it is helpful to have a systemic understanding through a metamodel for the entire HBD process, even before starting the very first steps (SCOPING PHASE) of such processes. While Van Gigch did focus on artefacts in some of his work, he applied his metamodel approach to describe social systems. If we understand the city as a system and urban heritage as a subsystem, metamodeling is a validated and well-­ described approach that can be transferred to this domain. Therefore, I have used Van Gigch’s metamodel theory as the foundation of my work to design and elaborate the THRIVE (Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development) processes. I use elements, phases, and Entities following the ideas of Van Gigch to build the Metamodel. Unlike Van Gigch, however, I do not use the Metamodel to describe artefacts but HBD processes. Because the Metamodel describes a planning process, other theories are essential to define the historic environment (heritage assets, existing urban systems) and the system in which decisions are shaped.

4.3 Theory of Urban Morphology This section elaborates how urban morphology contributes to a systemic understanding of cities and urban heritage, taking examples of approaches from specific countries, and then discusses the transferability of this theory into a Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development. Cities are complex systems made of a multitude of different Entities that interact with and are influenced by external parameters and developments. Urban morphology can be a starting point to understanding how the current urban form has developed over time as a result of different processes, citizens, and other development: “Urban morphologists focus on the tangible results of social and economic forces: they study the outcomes of ideas and intentions as they take shape on the ground and mould our cities” (Moudon, 1997, p. 3). If urban heritage is also understood as a resource for urban development (see Sect. 2.1), the theory of urban morphology can be applied to obtain a holistic understanding of the main factors and influences that have shaped urban settlements. This information is usually the background to evaluating and activating the potential of urban heritage (Council of Europe, 2016; Scheffler et al., 2009). Most research by urban morphologists has focused on the analysis of the existing urban form (Gauthiez, 2004; Moudon, 1997). Conzen has argued that urban morphology could contribute more to urban planning and, in particular, to “the identification of morphological regions, (ii) a geographical priority grading of town areas for conservation and renewal, and (iii) determination of functional land- and building-uses suitable for conservation and renewal areas” (Conzen, 2004, p. 58). His suggestions are starting points for how urban morphology can contribute to active

36

4  Disciplinary Approach

urban planning activities for the future. Unfortunately, explicit and substantial work that connects urban morphology more closely with urban development tools and future scenarios is still rare (Goh et al., 2016). One of the most notable strengths of urban morphology is that it represents an interdisciplinary approach that bridges the “sectoral” or single-discipline approach that is (still) a common research practice in urban issues. This broad approach, taking into account methodologies and tools from different disciplines, is capable of providing a richer and more useful analysis of the existing situation (Kropf, 2014). It can reveal processes, interdependencies, cause-effect symptoms, and patterns that might have gone unnoticed otherwise. Without urban morphology, different scientific disciplines such as urban planning, architecture, ethnology, preservation science, and economics could potentially remain closed within their own fields of research, producing views or narratives that are dominated by the view of one single profession or discipline (European Commission, 2011). Gauthiez traced the beginnings of urban morphology, and especially that of the “German school”, back to the end of the nineteenth century (Gauthiez, 2004). First, town plans were studied, and this analysis was later combined with written sources. Other researchers such as Keyser have divided cities “… into morphologically homogeneous parts, which he calls “Stadtteile”, defined by the massing of constructions, the property patterns, the streets and the open public spaces” (Gauthiez, 2004, p.  74). Schlüter later introduces the term “zones”, basically to separate the town centre and the outer parts. In France, other authors started to note the differences between “founded” and “created” towns (Gauthiez, 2004). After the Second World War, the theory of urban morphology was developed further, and three schools of urban morphology were formed: Italy: Beranrd Gauthiez, who has published on the history of urban morphology, states that Saverio Muratori introduced a more typological approach that examined the development of the urban form based on different architectural types and their location in the urban space: “…, for Muratori types were a tool for the historical analysis of urban fabrics” (Gauthiez, 2004, p. 76). Caniggia developed the concept further and “… proposes a diachronic modeling of the formation of the town according to the evolution of the types and urban fabrics that these types generate” (Gauthiez, 2004, p.  77). Other Italian urban morphologists such as Guidoni emphasized archival research. England: Conzen, a town planner, elaborated a “… theoretical system for the interpretation of urban forms” that was based on “plan units”, which are “… unitary areas in respect of their ground plan that are distinct from neighboring areas” (Gauthiez, 2004, p.  77). He focused on the aggregation of specific historical forms that were caused by historical developments and derived definitions or recognizable morphological periods from the analysis of this specific form (Conzen, 2004, p. 51). Gauthiez sees a clear connection between Conzen’s “Plan Unit” and the concepts of “Anlage” by Kretschmar and “Stadtteil” used by Schlüter (Gauthiez, 2004, p. 78). In the 1960s, Conzen’s “burgage cycle” introduced a model of how a plot of land is successively filled with buildings.

4.3 Theory of Urban Morphology

37

France and Switzerland: In France, a “school” of typomorphology formed, that later also produced studies that were “quantifying urban changes” (Gauthiez, 2004, p. 79). Gauthiez understands that research on the physical urban form is based on different motivations. During the whole history of the development of urban morphology, it has never been a single-discipline approach; architects, geographers, urban planners, historians of art, and other fields have always been involved. This multi-­ disciplinarity enabled the discipline to stimulate innovation through a combination of different methodologies to obtain a better and more holistic understanding of the urban form that has the potential to be used to enhance urban planning processes. Transferability of Theory of Urban Morphology into a Metamodel for Heritage-­ Based Urban Development. The entry point for urban analysis is the urban form and how it has developed over time. However, urban morphology is far from being only object related. It examines how objects are arranged within the city as a starting point for urban analysis (Conzen, 2004). A typological approach, as used in urban morphology, can help to develop model solutions in the field of urban regeneration (Council of Europe, 2016; Ripp, 2013). Designing and implementing a process of heritage-based urban development, as in the HerO Project (City of Regensburg et al., 2011), not only purposefully changes the urban form but also enhances the quality of life for its inhabitants and “users”. Successful processes of heritage-based urban development have many things in common with urban morphology. They are interdisciplinary and start with a holistic understanding of the existing situation and the urban form, but mainly analyse and focus on the human factor. Therefore, urban heritage is a tool but not the objective in itself. While the understanding of urban heritage is changing from an object-­ based approach towards a constructivist understanding (Munoz Vinas, 2005; Smith, 2006), this research examines how built heritage can serve as a tool for other objectives, most importantly for the improvement of quality of life of local communities (Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe, 2015). Change in the historic environment was always normal and will be part of any development process. Urban morphology also focuses on processes and interactions, use, and urban functions. All these are relevant categories of the urban heritage domain (Van Gigch, 1991) that can improve the success of HBD processes. To know and understand these categories is more than relevant and can be achieved to a certain degree through urban morphology approaches. Compared to other theoretical approaches, including art history, history, and architectural history, the strength of urban morphology lies in its understanding of the city in a dynamic way. Stojanovic goes even further and emphasizes that dynamism is the most important quality of the urban fabric. Dynamism or change results in new structures (urban form), and also the urban form has an impact on certain dynamics. He states that all changes (to the urban form) are based on specific causes and developments, whether

38

4  Disciplinary Approach

we are aware of them or not (Stojanovic, 2015, p. 39). In summary, there are four main reasons why the theory of urban morphology can be used for this research: • It is one of few theoretical approaches that enable a complex understanding of the city using a systemic approach. • The discipline of urban morphology is made of interdisciplinary research groups and methodologies and, therefore, combines different methodologies and focuses on interconnections and processes (including those driven by communities), and not only on objects (Moudon, 1997). • An in-depth understanding of how the form of a city has developed is an excellent foundation to develop and select urban interventions, and strategic plans do develop cities based on urban heritage. • In developing the Metamodel, urban morphology helps to describe and explore the domain, which is the area or scope over which a system exercises control (Van Gigch, 1991), in this case, urban heritage.

4.4 Governance Theory This section introduces and explores the contribution of governance Theory to a systemic understanding of cities and discusses the transferability of this theory into a Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development. Urban development is the product of a combination of public and private actions, activities, processes, etc. To describe and analyse this co-existence or interaction between public authorities and the private sector, including local- and non-local communities, NGOs, etc., and especially how decisions are taken, I use the theory of governance. In the 1990s, it became apparent that interactions that only count on the efficiency of public interventions are not always successful (Bevir, 2013; Chhotray & Stoker, 2009). A better understanding of the “Governing Bodies” and those who are “governed”, and especially what happens between these two in both directions, is needed to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of planning decisions and interventions, and to increase sustainability and resilience by taking the right decisions at the right time with enough support by local communities and local governments. Chhotray and Stoker observe that governance theories became more popular in recent years due to the increased influence of globalization and a more widely agreed and honoured value of democratization (Chhotray & Stoker, 2009). The term governance has been used with many different meanings and with many different connotations. Thomas M. Schmitt defines governance as follows: At the most general level, governance involves the establishment and operation of social institutions – in other words, sets of rules, decision-making procedures, and programmatic activities that serve to define social practices and to guide the interactions of those participating in these practices. (Schmitt, 2009, p. 104)

Chhotray and Stoker embrace an understanding of governance that focuses on the notion of availability of freedom and action for all bodies, but only through a defined

4.4 Governance Theory

39

system by those in power (government) (Chhotray & Stoker, 2009, p. 3). Schmitt transferred the concept of governance to the field of culture and developed the concept of cultural governance and identified elements of these (Fig. 4.4). In the framework of the UN-Habitat III Conference, which was held in Quito in 2016, the United Nations, with its specialized agency UNESCO, defined governance as: … the enabling environment that requires adequate legal frameworks, efficient political, managerial and administrative processes to enable the local government response to the needs of citizens. It can be defined as the many ways that institutions and individuals organize the day-to-day management of a city, and the processes used for effectively realizing the short-term and long-term agenda of a city’s development. Urban governance is the software that enables the urban hardware to function. Effective urban governance is characterized as democratic and inclusive; long-term and integrated; multi-scale and multilevel; territorial; proficient and conscious of the digital age. (United Nations, 2015)

To get a better understanding of governance and integrate it into the development of the Metamodel, the five different dimensions of governance described by Thomas E. Schmitt are beneficial: • The sectoral dimension (focusing on specific thematic areas, like environmental issues and culture) • The structural dimension (aiming at institutional frameworks and policies) • The processual dimension (decision making, negotiation, and control) • The dimension of scale (interaction of actors from different scales) • The normative dimension (normative assessment of processes and outcomes). (Schmitt, 2009, p. 104–105 modified and shortened by the author) These dimensions are all relevant for the development of the Metamodel and help to structure the control levels of logic, the domain, and the rationalities, and

Fig. 4.4  Different notions of cultural governance according to different meanings of cultural/ culture by Thomas Schmitt (2009, p. 106)

40

4  Disciplinary Approach

organisational levels (Van Gigch, 1991). Among other applications, THRIVE can enhance the integration between different sectors during HBD processes (Fig. 4.5). Governance can be divided into three spheres: public, private, and civil society. The number of elements that can be found in these three groups usually increases relative to the size of the city. The interactions, needs, objectives, and opinions become more diverse and complex with greater numbers of elements and, consequently, scoping urban development processes becomes more difficult. This does not mean that difficulties are limited to large cities; for example, in a small community, two small contradicting groups are enough to stimulate year-long blockades for certain topics. In this context, the processes of interaction like communication and participation are the most interesting. They can be categorized as formal and informal, bottom-up, top-down, or mixed. For the development of the Metamodel, all the relevant Entities are considered, and different tools for participation, communication, and decision making are also examined (Fig. 4.6). Mark Bevir’s “Systems Governance Approach” can potentially provide a better understanding of the “Governance of Urban Heritage” (Ripp & Rodwell, 2016): … a shift from hierarchies and markets to networks and partnerships, at least within the public sector; the interpenetration of state and civil society and of national and international domains; a change in the administrative role of the state from interventions and control to steering and coordination; a related change in state activities from laws and commands to negotiation and diplomacy; the incorporation of non-state actors into the policy process; an emphasis on local self-governance; greater levels of public involvement in decision mak-

Fig. 4.5  Relevant topics for urban heritage at the World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof – For each topic, a different specialized department within the local administration is responsible. (Source: City of Regensburg/Matthias Ripp)

4.4 Governance Theory

41

Fig. 4.6  From silo thinking to integrated planning. (Source: https://ramboll.com/megatrend/ liveable-­cities-­lab) ing; and a reliance on more reflexive and responsive models of public policy. Systems governance seems to be committed to ideals of dialogue, participation, consensus, empowerment and social inclusion. (Bevir, 2013, p. 167/168)

In recent years, there has been frequent debate about what local authorities can do to stimulate and implement regimes of good governance (Bardhan & Mookherjee, 2000). There seems to be some agreement on the basic principles of good governance (European Commission, 2011; UNESCO, 2016). These principles, which have been transferred by Shipley to the field of cultural heritage, are integrated into the development of the Metamodel and can be used by those applying the Metamodel to assess the local situation and the preconditions for a successful implementation of HBD processes (Shipley & Kovacs, 2008). As in urban morphology and metamodeling theory, some authors have emphasized how systems theory can help to analyse the governance of complex systems (Whitney et al., 2015). Transferability of Governance Theory into a Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development. Theories of governance are about decision-making processes. A designed and carefully scoped HBD can be seen as a meta-decision-making process that is made up of numerous smaller decision-making processes. Decisions are taken, for example, on the selection, prioritization, valorisation, and use of urban heritage in a structured and moderated way. Governance theory is used to design elements of the Metamodel, especially what Van Gigch calls control levels of logic (hierarchical relationships between system levels of control) and rationalities and organisational levels (based on Van Gigch, 1991, p. 370). Both are essential parts of the Metamodel and can be derived from past projects, models, and the theory of governance.

42

4  Disciplinary Approach

In connection with the UNESCO World Heritage Program, Thomas E. Schmitt asserts that there are separate areas where decisions are taken with different grades of accessibility to the public. He differentiates between “Front/display windows” where information is made public, “Internal Arenas” like the annual sessions of the World Heritage Committee and “Backrooms” which are not open to the public, and the preparation of reports by such as UNESCO and the advisory bodies (Schmitt, 2009, p. 106/107). This concept is integrated into the present work to describe and differentiate the different domains of communication and decision making, also in  local HBD development processes. Lester Salamon (2000) suggested specific tools that are relevant in his work on “New Governance”.

4.5 Organisational Development and Change Management Potentially transferable elements from the fields of organisational development and change management are briefly introduced in this section, the rationale for excluding certain theories and methods is also explained. For the development of the Metamodel, the “spiral of change management” and other elements from the Theory U model, developed by Otto Scharmer (Scharmer & Lüpke, 2009), are incorporated. Theories of organisational development and their strategies of change and improvement are analysed and described by Van Gigch following a “Systems Improvement” approach that is limited in efficiency and effectiveness (Van Gigch, 1978, p. 3). I do not want to enter the field of sociology and science of organisations or psychology of organisations; it seems apparent that cities are not organisations but rather composed of different Entities, some of which are organisations. Essentially, some tools that were developed under the notion of “change management” and/or “organisational development” have the potential to be transferred to the field or urban development, even if only to better understand the decision-­ making processes. Therefore, the difference between organisations (clear boundaries, common objectives, planned behaviour) and cities needs to be considered. Tripon compares “organisational development” with innovation (Tripon & Dodu, 2005, p. 11), which is an inherent element of cities. Under the title “Change Management”, more practical-based methodologies have been described to accompany and steer transformations mostly in private companies or organisations. Some elements like phases of change, step-by-step models, and other tools have already been used in urban planning processes, such as special moderation methods and methods for prioritization (Scheffler et al., 2009). These approaches and the related experiences were a valuable source for building the Metamodel because they examine structured planning processes with an emphasis on communication and are intended to produce concrete results. Another reason why the experiences and tools that are usually used in a corporate setting can enrich the THRIVE Metamodel is that they are process-oriented, explicitly dealing with potential obstacles, and are adaptive and feedback-oriented. All these qualities are also desired in HBD processes.

4.5 Organisational Development and Change Management

43

In general, theories, methods, and tools with a linear thinking approach that restrict complexity and simplify situations and challenges are less suitable for this potential transfer than those that are flexible, systemic, and can be used for complex situations. There are other developed concepts of urban development that aim to represent such complex situations, for example, the concept of knowledge-based urban development that is connected with sustainability and organisational capacity. Figure 4.7 suggests which general factors and domains are considered relevant in this concept. Heritage is present in the “Environment” aspects but not at the core and beginning of the process (Fig. 4.8).

Tool Direct Government Social Regulaon Economic Regulaon Contracng Grant

Producvity/Acvity Good or Service Prohibion Fair prices Good or Service Good or service

Vehicle Direct provision Rule Entry and rate conrols Contract and cash payment Grant award/cash payment

Delivery System Public agency Public agency/regulatee Regulatory comission Business, nonprofit organisaon Lower level of government/ nonprofit

Direct Loan Loan guarantee Insurance Tax expenditure Fess, charges Liability law Government cooperaons Quasi public ageny

Cash Cash Protecon Cash, incenves Financial penalty Social protecon Good or service

Loan Loan Insurane policy Tax Tax Tort law Direct procison/loan

Public agency Commercial bank Public agency Tax system Tax system Court system

Vouchers

Good or service

Consumer subsidy

Public agency/consumer

Fig. 4.7  Common tools of public action: defining features after Salamon (2000, p. 1645)

Fig. 4.8  Concept of knowledge-based urban development by Yigitcanlar (2011, p. 393)

44

4  Disciplinary Approach

References Bardhan, P. K., & Mookherjee, D. (2000). Capture and governance at local and national levels. American Economic Review, 90(2), 135–139. Barile, S., & Saviano, M. (2015). From the management of cultural heritage to the governance of the cultural heritage system. In G. M. Golinelli (Ed.), Cultural heritage and value creation (pp. 71–103). Springer. Bevir, M. (2013). A theory of governance. Global, Area, and International Archive. Boxelaar, L., Paine, M., & Beilin, R. (2006). Community engagement and public administration: Of silos, overlays and technologies of government. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(1), 113–126. Chhotray, V., & Stoker, G. (2009). Governance theory and practice. A cross-disciplinary approach. Springer. City of Regensburg, Ripp, M., & Scheffler, N. (2011). HerO – Heritage as opportunity. The road to success: Integrated management of historic towns – Guidebook. https://www.regensburg.de/ fm/464/HerO%20Guidebook%20EN.pdf Conzen, M. R. G. (2004). Thinking about urban form papers on urban morphology 1932–1998. Peter Lang. Council of Europe. (2016). COMMUNITY-LED URBAN STRATEGIES IN HISTORIC TOWNS (COMUS) Communities at the heart of heritage governance. https://rm.coe.int/ comus-­communities-­at-­the-­heart-­of-­heritage-­governance-­principles-­for-­h/1680728eb4 Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe. (2015). Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe. Full report. http://www.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2015/06/ CHCfE_FULL-­REPORT_v2.pdf Dobrovic, Z. (2001). Strategic planning under uncertainty: Building the metamodel. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 25(1), 11–26. European Commission. (2011). Cities of tomorrow challenges, visions, ways forward (978-92-79-21307-6). https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/citiesoftomorrow/citiesoftomorrow_final.pdf Fusco Girard, L. (2013). Toward a smart sustainable development of port cities/areas: The role of the “Historic Urban Landscape” approach. Sustainability, 5(10), 4329–4348. Gauthiez, B. (2004). The history of urban morphology. Urban Morphology, 8(2), 71–89. Goh, S., Choi, M. Y., Lee, K., & Kim, K.-M. (2016). How complexity emerges in urban systems: Theory of urban morphology. Physical Review E, 93(5), 05239. Karakiewicz, J., & Bos, C. (2016). Ever smarter, cities that learn: The application of complex adaptive systems theory to urban development. SMART FUTURE CITIES, Melbourne. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313090284_EVER_SMARTER_CITIES_THAT_ LEARN_the_application_of_complex_adaptive_systems_theory_to_urban_development Kropf, K. (2014). Consolidating urban morphology as an independent and auxiliary discipline. Urban Morphology, 18(1), 70–72. Moudon, A.  V. (1997). Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphology, 1(1), 3–10. Munoz Vinas, S. (2005). Contemporary theory of conservation. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Parra-Luna, F. (2009). Systems science and cybernetics. The long road to world sociosystemicity. In F. Parra-Luna (Ed.), Encyclopedia of life support systems. EOLSS Publishers Co Ltd. Pott, A. (2007). Sprachliche Kommunikation durch Raum  – das Angebot der Systemtheorie. Geographische Zeitschrift, 95(1/2), 56–71. Rijkens-Klomp, N., Lindt, M. V. D., Asselt, M. B. V., & Rotmans, J. (2003). Integrative policymaking for the improvement of the quality of urban life. In L.  F. Girard (Ed.), The human sustainable city. Challenges and perspectives form the habitat agenda (pp. 141–164). Ripp, M. (2013). List of cities that were inspired by the management plan-approach developed in the HerO Project. City of Regensburg.

References

45

Ripp, M., & Rodwell, D. (2016). The governance of urban heritage. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 7(1), 81–108. Salamon, L.  M. (2000). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28(5), 1609–1674. Scharmer, C.  O., & Lüpke, G.  V. (2009). Aus der entstehenden Zukunft heraus handeln, agieren, führen. Interview mit Otto Scharmer. In G.  V. Lüpke (Ed.), Zukunft ensteht aus Krise (pp. 342–364). Riemann. Scheffler, N., Ripp, M., & Bühler, B. (2009). Cultural heritage integrated management plans. URBACT Project HerO Heritage as opportunity. Thematic Report, 2. https://urbact.eu/ file/7613/download?token=A21X3uyE Schmitt, T. M. (2009). Global cultural governance. Decision-making concerning world heritage between global politics and science. Erdkunde, 63, 103–121. Shipley, R., & Kovacs, J. F. (2008). Good governance principles for the cultural heritage sector: Lessons from international experience. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 8(2), 214–228. Siravo, F. (2014). Planning and managing historic urban landscapes. In F. Bandarin & R. Van Oers (Eds.), Reconnecting the City: The historic urban landscape approach and the future of urban heritage (pp. 161–175). Springer. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge. Stojanovic, V. (2015). Causes and consequences of the cycle of changes in urban morphology: Urban theory and practice. The Creativity Game Theory and Practice of Spatial Planning, 3, 38–43. Tripon, C., & Dodu, M. (2005). Change management and organization development. https://www. academia.edu/download/50900988/OD_Suport_de_curs_masterat.pdf Unesco. (2016). Culture: Urban future; global report on culture for sustainable urban development. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245999 United Nations. (2015). Habitat III Issue Paper. 4 Urban culture and heritage. https://unhabitat. org/issue-­papers-­and-­policy-­units Van Gigch, J. P. (1978). Applied general systems theory. Harper & Row. Van Gigch, J. P. (1991). System design modeling and metamodeling. Plenum Press. Van Gigch, J. P. (1996). A system profile: John P. Van Gigch (1930–). Systems Research, 13(4), 483–488. Van Gigch, J. P. (2003). Metadecisions: Rehabilitating epistemology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Whitney, K., Bradley, J. M., Baugh, D. E., & Chesterman, C. W., Jr. (2015). Systems theory as a foundation for governance of complex systems. International of Journal System of Systems Engineering, 6(1/2), 15–32. World Cat Identities. (2020). Van Gigch, John P. Retrieved 18 Jan 2020 from https://worldcat.org/ identities/lccn-­n86092185/ Yigitcanlar, T. (2011). Knowledge-based urban development redefined: From theory to practice knowledge-based development of cities. In Summit proceedings of the 4th knowledge cities world summit. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/72800/1/KCWS2011_Proceedings.pdf

Chapter 5

Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

This chapter establishes the proposed solution for the research problem and then expands upon how this solution informed the research design and process. First, Sect. 5.1 elaborates how the development of a metamodel can be used in different scenarios as a proposed solution to the presented problem. The chosen research design, mixed-methods, is described in Sect. 5.2. The methodology for developing the Metamodel is explained in Sect. 5.3, followed by the resources in Sect. 5.4, and case-models from which some of these resources are extracted in Sect. 5.5. The different research phases are outlined in Sect. 5.6, including the employed methodologies and how they are integrated. Issues of sampling and how the different research methodologies are related to the Metamodel Theory of Van Gigch are also addressed. The chapter concludes, in Sect. 5.7, by explaining some of the constraints of the mixed-methods research design.

5.1 The Proposed Solution: Development of a Metamodel to Design and Structure Local Heritage-Based Development (HBD) Processes To respond to the problem that there is no general theoretical and practical guidance on how to scope and design successful heritage-based development projects that stimulate urban development and the enhancement of the quality of life of communities, an abstract Metamodel is developed that can be used in different scenarios regardless of the specific environment. While models are strongly determined by their specific environment, metamodels are on a more abstract level and are usable in a more universal way (see definition of “Metamodel” in the Reading Guide). They are also better able to address systemic nature, which is the underlying logic of heritage and development (see Sect. 6.2). A metamodel can be used to obtain a © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Ripp, A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development, Heritage Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08238-2_5

47

48

5  Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

deeper understanding of the relevant factors and processes. With this broadened understanding, the interrelations within the system and challenges can be better addressed. For the planning of HBD processes and especially for the SCOPING PHASE of such processes, a metamodel where the different phases and elements are described can be used to design and structure HBD processes for a specific urban setting with a specific historic urban fabric. For this purpose, a model of one successful HBD process is not appropriate, because each model describes methodologies and tools that are relevant in specific cases with specific preconditions (in developed countries, e.g., with a broad presence of civil society and NGOs, a highly diversified local administration, and with access to financial resources and experts). Therefore, if a specific HBD Model, such as the management plan approach (Scheffler et al., 2009) or the Halland Model (Gustafsson, 2009), is used for the scoping of local HBD processes in a divergent setting, where all parameters and preconditions are different, the Model may soon prove to be too limited and will likely face various limitations – as experienced when trying to transfer the HerO Model to the COMUS Project (Council of Europe, 2016). Pickard identified some weaknesses and limitations of the management plan and the COMUS approach. He asserted that the “Town Reference Plan” as used in the COMUS Project has more potential than the “Integrated Cultural Heritage Management Plan” as used in the management plan approach. Pickard believes the more elaborated methodology of the “Town Reference Plans”, including its examination, inventorisation, and assessment of existing cultural heritage, is more applicable in regions where local structures and resources are weak (Pickard, 2015, p. 167). While the management plan approach used in HerO used a more traditional albeit cross-sectoral and integrated approach, it did place special emphasis on the SCOPING PHASE on the ground using instruments such as peer review. At the beginning of the COMUS Project, there was not enough information, such as maps, heritage inventories, or descriptions of the existing heritage, to start the design of local HBD processes. The first phase of the project gathered the basic information needed to complete the PTFs (Preliminary Technical Files with basic inventories and maps of the local heritage assets). Compiling the PTFs was an important part of the SCOPING PHASE because it is impossible to design the process and choose the right tools, methods, and experts without proper knowledge of the urban heritage at hand. The management plan approach used in HerO aimed to achieve tangible results in a short time (3  years) without trying to improve policies on local and national levels. Retrospectively, both approaches also share other weaknesses, including a certain inflexibility, insufficient attention to existing and desired governance structures, and a lack of capacity building for key actors in the process. Because of these limitations and the limitations of other HBD models, models alone are not an easy solution. One model that is successful for a specific location cannot be easily transferred and used in a different setting. Therefore, the objective of this research is to develop a generic adaptive metamodel that can be used for the scoping and design of local urban heritage development processes in any environment. Ferilli, Gustafsson, and

5.2  Mixed-Methods Research Design

49

1. Initial clarifications informal pp mandatory pp, legal requirements? Who is concerned ?

Situaon (rumours, conflict, escalaon…)?

which decisions taken? room for manoeuvre? resources (me, money, personnel) available? Fig. 5.1  The importance of the SCOPING Phase was also emphasized by the Austrian Agency Plansinn during an OWHC-Seminar on Heritage and Community Participation in February 20–22. 2017. Vienna

Sacco used the application and assessment of the Halland Model in Sweden and several eastern-European and Baltic states to derive a useful set of actions to stimulate development, which they describe on a higher level of abstraction related to different fields of policies (Ferilli et al., 2011). The Metamodel and its related tools integrate this set of actions (Fig. 5.1).

5.2 Mixed-Methods Research Design This section describes the mixed-methods research design used to develop the Metamodel, combining a qualitative empirical methodology together with explorative research, making use of a combination of inductive and deductive methodologies. To design the THRIVE Metamodel (Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development), I implemented a combination of inductive and deductive approaches, using the following resources: • Scientific Literature: to build on theoretical approaches for the development of the Metamodel, understand the key concepts at stake, and develop the elements of the Metamodel, especially the domain (Van Gigch, 1991)

50

5  Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

• Policy documents from different governance levels to analyse strategies and regulations that have been developed for use in urban heritage and sustainable development (acknowledging that the efficiency of such documents is probably limited (Kulikauskas, 2007) • Practical experience, personal and that of colleagues, integrated using grounded theory to bridge the gap between formulated objectives and local implementation that cannot be analysed through policy documents or scientific literature alone. Using the relevant theories (urban morphology, governance, and metamodeling theory) and the observations and examinations of past HBD processes that I was involved in, I propose that the use of a metamodel to professionalize the SCOPING PHASES of HBD can improve the design of local HBD processes. I tested the Metamodel through demonstration and then, after examining the outcomes, adapted and refined it. The underlying epistemology of the chosen theories is basically constructivism, as described by Munoz Vinas in his “New Theory Of Conservation” (Munoz Vinas, 2005). The chosen methodology (Metamodeling) is derived from the General Systems Theory that was developed by Van Gigch and others using a constructivist approach. The methodology used to develop the Metamodel is a combination of grounded theory and design research methodology in a mixed-methods research approach. Based on past projects, and especially the methodology developed for integrated heritage management plans in the framework of the URBACT II Project HerO (Heritage as Opportunity) and the joint Council of Europe/European Commission Project COMUS (Community-Led Urban Strategies in Historic Towns), a metamodel is developed that can be applied in a broad variety of situations to structure and plan HBD processes in an urban setting. Special emphasis is placed on the necessary competencies and skills of the main actors and the SCOPING PHASE. Recommendations are also made concerning the implementation and use and beneficial preconditions and parameters of the Metamodel. Several models and tools served as a reference to understand and define the domain and elements of the Metamodel. The Metamodel is built using the successful elements of the case-models, which are determined using mixed-methods research. To develop the elements of the Metamodel, we must determine what Entities are involved (domain), how decisions have been taken (control levels of logic), and which processes and interactions took place (rationalities and organisational levels) (see Sect. 4.2). Integrating experiences from HBD Models. To develop the Metamodel, three successful models for HBD were analysed: • The management plan approach (HerO Project) • The COMUS Model (Joint Project of EC, COE and OWHC in eastern partnership region) • The Halland Model (applied in Sweden and Eastern European and Baltic states) A strength of the management plan approach that was developed, tested, and implemented in the HerO Project was that time, energy, and resources were devoted to the

5.3  Methodology to Develop the Metamodel

51

scoping of each individual process in each partner city. With tools borrowed from the field of business coaching and organisational development, like peer reviews on specific challenges and cases, many challenges during such complex processes were avoided. The methods used in HerO triggered end projects with a total value of more than EUR 100 million, and the partner cities involved reported that detailed preparation of the process and careful scoping were vital (City of Regensburg, 2011; Pickard, 2015; Scheffler et al., 2009). In the COMUS Project, the SCOPING PHASE was stretched over some years with the preparation of PTF Documents that were necessary to design the HBD processes (Council of Europe, 2011c). However, a generic metamodel for the scoping and design of local heritage-based urban development processes is still missing. The outcome of this research is, therefore, twofold: On the one hand, the outcome is the Metamodel itself, and, on the other hand, it provides concepts and capacity building measures for its implementation.

5.3 Methodology to Develop the Metamodel This section uses a combined approach to analyse existing successful models for heritage-based urban development. These elements then form the basis of the Metamodel. The present research is a combination of qualitative empirical methodologies and explorative research, incorporating inductive and deductive methodologies. This is a direct result of the identified problem and the resulting research questions, which, on the one hand, aim to generate theoretical knowledge on heritage-­based development theories on an abstract level, but rooted in empirical data, and, on the other hand, target a very practical problem: the successful structuring and scoping of HBD processes. On the one hand, the nature of this research is applied, as the results can be used directly in real-life situations, or at least to structure solutions for real-life problems; on the other hand, it is theoretical in nature because the development of the proposed THRIVE Metamodel incorporates theoretical assumptions and knowledge that can be used for further research, comparative studies, and case studies, among other things. The Metamodel will offer many opportunities to further develop research activities, including analysing communication processes for each Metamodel (MM) Phase and analysing how the use of the MM will succeed with the change of different parameters. The MM can also be adapted for development processes that are stimulated by other “resources” such as education and intangible heritage. The proposed approach develops a generic metamodel. Models are simplified sections of the real world that are used as ideal examples, sketches, samples, and archetypes, but also for other purposes (Müller, 2018, p. 2f). Metamodels are logically one step above models and can be used to choose models and tools that are appropriate for a specific task at hand. A metamodel can also be used to assess and apply change, adaptation, and transformation, and to restructure a system to enhance it (Barile & Saviano, 2015, p. 73). In the Oxford English Dictionary, a metamodel is described as a model “… intended to give a full and all-inclusive picture of, e.g.,

52

5  Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

a system or a process by abstracting from more specific individual models it contains within it” (Oxford University, Oxford University Press, 2018 “Metamodel”). This research was completed to produce theoretical and practical guidance on how to scope and design successful HBD processes using a metamodel. In this context, the following quote is useful to contextualise the purview of a metamodel: Metamodeling, (sometimes spelled meta-modelling) in software engineering and systems engineering among other disciplines, is the analysis, construction and development of the frames, rules, constraints, models and theories applicable and useful for modelling a predefined class of problems. (AtlanMod- the Nantes Software Modeling Group, 2019, p. 1)

Through the development of the Metamodel, based on real-world case-models, it is ensured that abstraction of successful HBD processes – visible and usable in the Metamodel – can be used to assess the design of the HBD processes. It can then be used to • • • • •

scope HBD processes on a local and regional level; evaluate HBD processes on a local and regional level; design and draft HBD processes on a local and regional level; analyse HBD processes on a local and regional level; develop capacity building programs and activities with a focus on relevant elements and domains for HBD processes on a local and regional level; • evaluate projects and project proposals that include activities on heritage-based urban development; • evaluate funding proposals that include activities or objectives on heritage-based urban development. On an abstract level, the Metamodel includes the common elements, processes, and principles of successful HBD models, and it is abstract enough to be used in a broad variety of specific cases. It does not integrate particular actors that are only relevant in a specific case but rather abstract representations of these actors that are relevant for a broad variety of cases. The use of grounded theory ensures that the abstract representations are developed with scientific rigour and based on real-world cases. The Metamodel provides clues about the process of HBD and how the identified elements and other factors can be integrated into such processes. Based on a sample of case-models, the Metamodel describes the general phases of HBD processes, which cannot be used as a blueprint but as a reference for the design and evaluation of these processes. For the development of the Metamodel, relevant tools and models that can serve as a reference are identified and described to serve as a reference for the development of local HBD processes (see Chap. 2). A metamodel, in this specific case, can only be successful in the use it was designed for, and according to the requirements it was meant to fulfil, if it is rooted in and based on models for heritage-based urban development that have proved to contribute to the quality of life for local communities.

5.5  The Case-Models (HerO, COMUS, and Halland)

53

5.4 Resources Used to Develop the Metamodel and Their Sampling Three “case-models”, each with a different scope, environment and main objective, were chosen for the development of the Metamodel. The selection criteria were as follows: • The explicit use of built cultural heritage for urban development • The implementation of an integrated approach, bringing together different uses, stakeholders, etc. • Showing a systemic understanding of the field • Not using a traditional preservation-centred narrative, where the safeguarding of cultural heritage is the final objective, but a narrative where cultural heritage (CH) is a tool and instrument to achieve other objectives • Already completed, with an accessible final evaluation of some kind (even if only by subjective means) • Existence of extensive description that has been scientifically analysed to a certain degree • Enough data and text on the case published in the English language • Proven contribution to the quality of life for local communities (successful) • Prevalent narrative on heritage as a driver for urban/regional development • Considerable number of cities involved (>9 cities) The criteria were defined to ensure that the selected case-models can serve as a basis to develop the elements of the Metamodel. If the Metamodel is to be used in a wide context to scope and evaluate HBD processes, it has to be developed from “successful” case-models to ensure a broad base of elements from which the abstract elements can be developed. They provide raw data, in the form of text, that serve as the real-world foundation from which the Metamodel is developed. As HBD has only become an increasingly popular subject of theoretical examination (Labadi & Logan, 2015; Loulanski & Loulanski, 2016; Pickard, 2015; Ruoss, 2016; Vandesande & Van Balen, 2016) and practical implementation in recent years, there are only a few HBD Models that meet the defined selection criteria. There are several more models that use cultural heritage as one of many factors in urban development, but only a few that are explicitly focused on built cultural heritage as the main resource. As a basis for this present research, three case-models have been selected and analysed.

5.5 The Case-Models (HerO, COMUS, and Halland) This section introduces the selected case-models that are later analysed using grounded theory.

54

5  Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

5.5.1 The HerO Model In the URBACT II funded European Project HerO (Heritage as Opportunity) from 2008 to 2011, nine European Heritage Cities developed a methodology for and implemented integrated heritage management plans to balance the needs between preservation and socio-economic development. Partner cities were located around western and central Europe and were of vastly different sizes and economic backgrounds. HerO Project Outline Objectives

Project Management Partnership Duration Funding

“…conjointly develop integrated cultural heritage management systems and implement them in the HerO partner cities. These innovative tools aim to balance and coordinate the different demands and interests on historic urban landscapes to support a sustainable, future-oriented urban development which combines the preservation of the built cultural heritage with the socio-economic development of the old town areas” (City of Regensburg et al., 2009, p. 3). Lead Partner City (Regensburg) together with Lead Expert (Nils Scheffler) Nine cities from western and central Europe, ranging from approx. 5000 inhabitants to almost 1 million inhabitants 2008–2011 710,000 Euro

HerO Partnership and Environment (Table 5.1) Heritage cities throughout Europe share a variety of common challenges and chances. Among the most obvious is the preservation of an often-large stock of historic buildings, the integration of new infrastructure and the adaptation of the historic urban fabric to the needs of the modern inhabitants and visitors. The balance between the safeguarding of heritage Table 5.1  Key data of HerO partner cities Country Austria France Germany Italy Lithuania Malta Poland Romania United Kingdom

GDP (USD) 49.900 43.800 50.400 38.100 32.300 42.000 29.500 24.500 44.100

Partner city Graz Poitiers Regensburg (lead partner) Naples Vilnius Valetta Lublin Sighișoara Liverpool

Inhabitants 286.292 78.918 150.894 968.165 546.382 5.735 341.794 36.336 897.218

Data based on: Central Intelligence Agency (2019), City of Regensburg et  al. (2012), Institut national de la statistique et de etudes economiques (2019), The World Population Review (2019), TheMayor.Eu (2019), section Sighișoara, United Nations Statistics Division (2019)

5.5  The Case-Models (HerO, COMUS, and Halland)

55

and the development of the city must be continuously maintained. Taking heritage as an economic driver, as one multi-faceted topic, it needs to be handled with an integrated and multi-level approach to enhance governance at a local level. In 2008, the URBACT II Project HerO Project was designed as a city network to facilitate the exchange between heritage cities about common challenges and chances. Nine European heritage cities of various sizes were selected to provide a broad range of different historic cities throughout Europe. An ambitious work programme was set up with a series of seminars and two expert workshops on the topics “visual integrity” and “multifunctional historic centres”, with different tasks in between the meetings. Management plans were chosen to serve as tools to structure this process in the partner cities. A clear methodology on how to elaborate a management plan was then agreed on by the city partners. The first step at the local level was that each city developed a “road map” to think about which stakeholders to involve, how to integrate local politicians, make a timeline, and other factors. During the following three years the nine HerO cities worked side by side using the HerO methodology and elaborated Integrated cultural heritage Management Plans together with a local stakeholder working group. The responsible local bodies for EU-funding were integrated in the process from the very beginning to discuss funding opportunities. (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 9)

The common starting point was that all sites, except for the city of Poitiers, had significant urban heritage that was listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site. The cities wanted to achieve the following: • Preserve and safeguard their urban heritage; • Use heritage as a resource for urban development; • To develop a management plan and a management system as requested by the UNESCO World Heritage centre (excluding Poitiers). The participatory approach was the general strategy followed by all cities and became the core of the HerO methodology. This strategy incorporated a cross-­ sectoral approach that is different from area-based urban development but includes a wider range of heritage assets, topics, areas as well as functions. Most activities of the HerO project were centred on the proper planning of management plan processes in each individual setting. Beginning with stakeholder analysis, the HerO Project focused on the analysis of existing objectives and planning policies and processes rather than full implementation. HerO proved to be successful in different ways: Through the integrated approach a broad basis of common objectives to safeguard and sustainably develop Urban Heritage sites was defined, and the identification and motivation for Urban Heritage was extended. Structuring concrete actions that are ready for implementation and discussed with a broad variety of stakeholders, made the result of the process very tangible and real. Through the early integration of the responsible authorities for European, national and regional funding, the chances of getting funding for the defined actions were enhanced. The relationships between the local governments and the managing authorities in charge of European, national and regional funding were improved. The balance between the safeguarding of urban cultural heritage and the sustainable development that fosters economic benefits was improved. (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 9 (changed only from present to past tense))

The HerO Methodology served as inspiration for a large number of (World Heritage) Cities, ranging from Kingston Town in Jamaica to Prague in the Czech Republic,

56

5  Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

and the interest in the methodology is still high even several years after the project concluded (Ripp, 2013) (Fig. 5.2). One weakness of the HerO Project was the limited duration of the project, from 2008 to 2011. Elaborating a new model for developing heritage management plans and implementing some of the actions proved to be difficult within this time. Another weakness was that the partner cities did not devote the same level of energy to implementing the developed actions and interventions of the nine management plans after the HerO Project. The HerO Methodology is also quite complex, and special skills and knowledge are needed to apply it. However, an evaluation showed that projects of a combined worth of around EUR 100 million have been stimulated and triggered between all partner cities (City of Regensburg, 2011) (Fig. 5.3). In the HerO Project, three phases have been used: 1. Preparing the ground: This phase included setting up a local support group (stakeholder group), analysis of the current situation, designing a road map for

Fig. 5.2  Partner cities of the URBACT II Project HerO  – Heritage as opportunity. (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 4)

5.5  The Case-Models (HerO, COMUS, and Halland)

Fig. 5.3  Town Hall N03/8300738504)

in

Vilnius.

(Source:

57

https://www.flickr.com/photos/56218409@

the development of a management plan in each city, and securing political and financial support for the project 2. Developing the management plan: This phase included the involvement of the local support group (stakeholder group) and further stakeholders, development of visions, objectives and actions and the development of processes and structures. 3. Implementing and reviewing integrated cultural heritage management plans: This phase consisted of implementing actions, structures, and procedures, monitoring cultural heritage and implementing and adapting the management plan (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 6ff). While the different phases have been used successfully, their logic remains somewhat unclear. In particular, the first phase, “Preparing the ground”, refers to the preparation of the process (Scoping) and the analysis of the existing situation, which are two different steps that require different skills, knowledge, and persons. The HerO Methodology is centred around management plans for UNESCO World Heritage Cities and is, therefore, not universal in its application. Preconditions such as existing and working (good) governance systems, civil society, and stakeholders that are ready to be engaged are not met everywhere. The narrative of the HerO Project was still widely that of “balancing preservation and development” and has not fully implemented the shift towards heritage-based integration. The restriction to World Heritage Cities in western and central Europe, where preservation structures and resources are already on a high level, limits the use of the HerO Model and restricts its applicability in other settings. While a large number of cities have been inspired by the HerO Methodology, the transferability of the Model as a

58

5  Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

whole is still limited because of the strong foundation of the Model in a specific environment from western and central Europe. This is a strong argument for a universally applicable Metamodel that can fill these gaps. Stakeholder involvement followed the URBACT Methodology and was organised in a structured and explicit way. As a major outcome, a guidebook on the HerO Methodology was produced (City of Regensburg et al., 2011). The COMUS Model In the Council of Europe/European Commission Project COMUS (CommunityLed Urban Strategies in Historic Towns), from 2015 to 2018, nine historic towns in the region of “Eastern Partnership” stimulated urban development based on cultural heritage through the development of “Reference Plans”. The Eastern Partnership aims at building a common area of shared democracy, prosperity, stability and increased cooperation. Additionally, bonds forged through the Eastern Partnership help strengthening state and societal resilience: it makes both the EU and the partners stronger and better able to deal with internal and external challenges. (European Union- External Action, 2019) The participating countries were in a state of transition to a more democratic state of government and governance. Political decisions were still often taken in a top-­down approach. Civil society was still weakly developed. Civil organisations that were engaged in preservation or urban development were very rare. COMUS Project Outline Objectives

Project Management Partnership Duration Funding

The project was part of the second Eastern Partnership Culture Programme and sought to stimulate social and economic development through enhancing cultural heritage in historic towns by: • broadening the concept of heritage as a resource in the context of human rights and democracy; • increasing the capacity of local and national authorities in the management of their heritage resources; • empowering communities and citizens as the main actors in carrying out their heritage-led development processes (Council of Europe, 2015, p. 3). European Union, Council of Europe, Organisation of World Heritage Cities represented by the City of Regensburg, Lead Expert Phillip Stein. Nine historic towns in Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine. January 2015–June 2017 650,000 Euro

This project focused on the identification of cultural heritage and local stakeholders as well as methodologies for integrated urban development in a setting of

5.5  The Case-Models (HerO, COMUS, and Halland)

59

LATVIA

Country participating in the project

LITHUANIA

* Non-member state of the Council of Europe

RUSSIA

3

BELARUS *

POLAND

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

7

ARMENIA 1 Gyumri 2 Goris

GEORGIA 4 Dusheti 5 Chiatura

BELARUS 3 Mstislavl

MOLDOVA 6 Soroca

UKRAINE 7 Lutsk 8 Zhovkva 9 Pryluky

9

8

UKRAINE

KAZAKHSTAN *

6

MOLDOVA

ROMANIA

SERBIA

GEORGIA

BULGARIA “THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA”

4

5 1

ARMENIA

AZERBAIJAN AZER.

GREECE

2

TURKEY IRAN * Page 2 ►Community-led urban strategies in historic towns (COMUS) Map for illustrative purposes

Fig. 5.4  COMUS project partnership. (Source: Council of Europe, 2015, p. 2)

countries in transition with limited experience in participatory governance of the civil society (Council of Europe, 2016). The participating nine cities were based in five countries, as illustrated in Fig. 5.4. COMUS Partnership and Environment (Table 5.2) In the COMUS Project, “enabling” stakeholders to participate in the whole planning process was crucial. With a weaker civil society, substantial energy had to be invested in identifying and motivating potential stakeholders who are interested in the HBD process on the one side and representing parts of the civil society on the other side. One strength of the COMUS Project was that the urban heritage had not been included extensively in any of the previous urban planning concepts. This provided

60

5  Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

Table 5.2  Key figures on COMUS partnership cities Country Armenia

GDP 9.500

Georgia

10.700

Belarus Moldova Ukraine

18.900 5.700 8.700

Partner city Gyumri Goris Dusheti Chiatura Mstislavl Soroca Lutsk Pryluki Zhovka

Inhabitants 146.270 29.954 7.100 17.500 11.700 37.441 207.692 58.890 13.301

Data based on Central Intelligence Agency (2019), Council of Europe (2011a, b) and Ripp and Stein (2018)

scope for innovation and the development of new interventions. This was an advantage compared to the situation, for example, in Germany, where many urban heritage concepts and interventions in cities had already been formulated over the 50-year-long history of urban regeneration. A number of benefits of the COMUS Project have been identified: For Donors and Funding Bodies • Provides a thorough process profiling town context, needs, and potential, as a prerequisite for the targeting of funds and tailoring of interventions; • Supports community involvement through the entire process, which is essential for ensuring relevance and the sustainability of follow up actions; • Involves prioritization and well-documented investment design, based on sound methodology and instruments; • Strengthens the commitment of local and national authorities to intervene on sites; • Facilitates transfer of know-how in preparing investments, which sets the background for smooth implementation. For National and Local Authorities’ Work • Supports the promotion of the principles of heritage and sustainability to local stakeholders, concepts which may otherwise remain abstract national policy objectives; • Creates bridges for interaction and direct work with local communities; Provides tools and context for national policies to trickle down into concrete local projects; • Generates feedback for the improvement of national policies so that they meet local needs and challenges; • Consolidates the capacity of national authorities by exposing them to practices of other countries.

5.5  The Case-Models (HerO, COMUS, and Halland)

61

For Local Authorities • Assists in engaging the community in heritage preservation by providing a method of participation; • Exposes the network to ‘know-how’ and experience of other countries and facilitates exchanges of best practice and lessons learned; • Provides instruments to structure work and approach donors and funding bodies; • Offers support in working with national and international stakeholders; • Provides resources for engaging with qualified national and international experts in the field; • Increases the visibility of local challenges and heritage potential, essential for mobilising resources; • Creates a channel of reference between national heritage legislation and local perceptions and needs (Council of Europe, 2011c, p. 25). A strong benefit of the COMUS Project was that the development of values like democracy, transparency, and good governance was visibly stimulated by the project. The notion that a “bottom-up” and a “top-down” approach, the latter of which was traditionally strong in the COMUS countries, can be applied together in urban development processes, opened the door to a new role for civil society. The exchange with cities in Western Europe, as part of the COMUS Project, triggered the development of new ideas and strategies in HBD. The series of capacity building workshops was particularly appreciated by participants, in which planning officers and other staff involved in urban planning authorities and procedures were trained in communication and participation methods and skills. In most participating towns, it was the first time that strategies and actions to develop their town based on the urban heritage were developed together with the citizens. The COMUS Project also worked with different phases that were different to those used in the HerO Project. In COMUS, they were defined as follows: • Inception Phase: setting up the operational structure based on: achieving heritage enhancement and habitat revitalisation (including urban landscapes and public spaces); addressing social concerns, traffic management, economic and service development, and reduction of urban wastelands. • Planning Phase: producing a strategic framework (understanding, vision, objectives), and defining a list of concrete, concerted actions. • Project Phase: preliminary technical assessment of five interventions with strong potential, feasibility study for two selected priority (iconic, catalyst) projects. • Consolidation Phase: reporting and self-evaluation of processes, plans for continuation, and roll out (Ripp & Stein, 2018, p. 7) (Fig. 5.5). At the beginning of the COMUS Project, setting up the structures within the administrations of the participating towns was challenging; in particular, finding and nominating one person with good English and project management capacities took a long time. A further issue was that some basic data was needed to begin the process, for example, a map that included urban heritage. However, in most participating towns, this basic data did not exist; therefore, the project was only designed to

62

5  Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

Fig. 5.5  Urban heritage in Gyumri, Armenia. (Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/56218409@ N03/16571267113/in/photostream/)

prepare so-called “Town Reference Plans” (Council of Europe, 2016). This starting situation proved to be quite different compared to the HerO Project, where all the cities had standard instruments and resources like an inventory of listed buildings, historical maps, and descriptions or analyses of their urban heritage. The HerO Project also served as an example for the COMUS Project, but the situation on the ground proved to be so different that only small parts of the HerO Model could be used. The outcome of this project further supports the argument that a more universal metamodel can be helpful to develop similar processes in different settings.

5.5  The Case-Models (HerO, COMUS, and Halland)

63

The Halland Model Starting in Sweden and then expanding to countries in the Baltic region and eastern Europe, the objective of the Halland Model from 1993–2003 was to stimulate sustainable development through preservation projects, including the training of construction workers in traditional building techniques. By this means, cultural heritage was used as a stimulator for job creation, training, and a multitude of consequences that are in the framework of growth and sustainable development (Gustafsson, 2009) (Fig. 5.6).

Fig. 5.6  The Halland region in Sweden (GEOATLAS.com® 2004© Graphi-Ogre via http://www. map-­of-­sweden.co.uk/map-­of-­halland.htm)

64

5  Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

Halland Project Outline Objectives

Project Management Partnership Duration Funding

“The motto of the Halland Model was to: save the jobs; save the craftsmanship; save the buildings. After a while a fourth motto was added: to find activities or businesses for improved premises, contributing to regional sustainable development” (Gustafsson & Polesie, 2013, p. 102). Regional authorities, national authorities, regional museum Approx. 100 building conservation projects in the Halland Region (Sweden) 1993–2003 EUR 55 million (Gustafsson, 2016)

Halland Partnership and Environment (Fig. 5.7 and Table 5.3): Financial Partners in the Halland Model (Table 5.4): Unlike the previously discussed models, the Halland Model Project aimed to influence the regional labour market while at the same time restoring heritage buildings. While the interventions, such as capacity building activities for craftspeople, were implemented with the use of individual heritage buildings, the project had a major impact on the level of regional development (Gustafsson & Polesie, 2013). In

Fig. 5.7  Tjolöholm Castle in the Halland region. (Source: Von User Kemitsv on sv.wikipedia – Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1328672)

5.5  The Case-Models (HerO, COMUS, and Halland)

65

Table 5.3  Key data from the Halland model (Central Intelligence Agency, 2019; Gustafsson & Rosvall, 2008) Country Sweden

GDP SEK 51,200

Partner city Approx. 100 conservation projects

Inhabitants 10 Million

Table 5.4  The LAN (County Labour Market Board was the largest financing partner of the Halland Model) (Gustafsson, 2019) Sector LAN Estate owners Historic environment sector Other funding

Amount (SEK) 265,000,000 50,000,000 37,128,000 1,300,000

further contrast to the HerO and COMUS projects, there was a focus on labour market policies and interventions on the regional and national level, while the interventions at the local level focused on the decision makers, mostly mayors, who were involved from an early stage. Individual heritage buildings were used throughout the project for training activities while being renovated at the same time. Later in the Halland Model Project, an objective to find adaptive re-uses or businesses for the conserved buildings was added. This was an important contribution to regional sustainable development. The innovation in the Halland Model Project was that two different sectors, the sector for preservation and the sector for labour market policies, were brought together to create a program that benefits both sectors. The sectors were not previously in direct communication or conducting any joint projects. The key to the success of this project, which ran for a decade, was creating a platform, referred to as a “Trading Zone” by Christer Gustafsson, where the two sectors could communicate and “trade” what one could give and the other wanted to achieve. The positive outcomes of the project were not limited to the renovated buildings and the new uses that were found for them but also included a newly trained labour force. The Halland Model Project … was economic since it provided an obvious return on the investment, which moreover contributed to regional growth. Concerning social aspects, the conservation project increased regional cohesion, developed cross-sectoral networks and a multi-problem-­ oriented approach, strengthened local identity, and created jobs. Finally, the project was sustainable from environmental aspects since the conservation hands used environmentallyfriendly materials, and were used on existing resources, instead of demolishing the buildings. (Gustafsson & Polesie, 2013, p. 117)

There have been attempts to export the Halland Model to different countries, such as Poland. In the end, the momentum that was created in the Halland Region could not be transferred with the same force to other settings. The specific environment, the involved persons, the economic conditions, and policies were specific to Sweden, and the success of the Halland Model was strongly related to this environment. Nevertheless, some principles and factors of the Halland Model, such as the “Trading Zone” and the capacity building activities, have been very successfully

66

5  Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

transferred to new settings. That this Model cannot be transferred easily to another setting again supports the argument to develop a metamodel that can be used to structure HBD processes in any environment. Although each of the case-models has a different setting, different objectives, and different resources, the basic idea behind each was quite similar: using built cultural heritage in urban development to benefit the local communities. The common point of all three case-models is the use of heritage for sustainable development. While the methods of the COMUS and HerO Projects were based on a strategic plan, the Halland Model worked through individual restoration projects but with joint principles. All three projects demonstrate a shift in the understanding and integration of heritage, from an obstacle to a resource for sustainable development processes (Ripp & Rodwell, 2015). All three case-models also take a holistic approach, where different Entities of “heritage systems” were combined and addressed. In the case of the Halland Model, the sectors of preservation and labour markets were combined. The Hero Model combined a wide variety of relevant Entities and processes connected to the system of urban heritage. In the COMUS Project, the stakeholders and civil society were involved in a holistic approach, together with the urban heritage, to develop ideas for how to use heritage for urban development. The methods of all three case-models have several innovations. In the HerO Project, the whole process of how to develop a management plan was defined and tested. The COMUS Project conceived the use of Preliminary Technical Files as an instrument to scope the HBD processes and also developed Town Reference Plans. The Halland Model devised the concept of a “Trading Zone” and used it as a platform for the two sectors to develop joint projects, and unemployed professionals from the field of building and construction were also trained in historic renovation skills while renovating heritage buildings.

5.6 Research Phases The four distinct phases in which the research is structured are highlighted in this section. The research actions involved in each phase are also described, including guidance concerning the relevant sections for each action within the rest of the text. The research design is a combination of inductive and deductive methodologies. First, existing data is examined using a qualitative and empirical approach to generate elements for the Metamodel, which is then designed taking an explorative approach. The research project consisted of four phases: Phase I: Preparational Phase

1. Explicate Problem 2. Define Research Questions 3. Select Theories 4. Select Methodologies

5.6  Research Phases

67

Research actions 1–3 are addressed in Chaps. 2 and 6 (Chap. 2. Problem, Hypothesis, and Research Questions  – Chap. 6. Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design). The present chapter describes research action 4, the selection of methodologies. Phase II: Generation of MM Elements

5. Collection of Data and Sampling of Data (Case-Models) Parallel to Research Phase I, data on heritage-based development models were collected through a literature review. The case-models for the development of the Metamodel were selected by the application of specific criteria. 6. Inductive generation of elements, which form the basis of the Metamodel, through Grounded Theory Process (Coding) In this phase of the research project, grounded theory (see Sect. 7.1) is used to identify the elements of the Metamodel. These elements are then clustered using axial coding according to the categories outlined by Van Gigch (control levels of logic, domains, and rationalities and organisational levels, see 4.2, pp. 31–32) (1991, p. 370). This qualitative empirical phase aims to develop the theoretical elements of the Metamodel. These elements are symbolic representations but based on existing experiences and the interpretation of the case-models. These findings then feed the process of design research methodology to develop the Metamodel and provide the following: 1. An increase in knowledge 2. The solution to a problem, namely a tool to develop, scope, and evaluate HBD processes and 3. Theoretical findings and reflections on the demonstration of the developed metamodel. Phase III: Metamodel Design 7. Define Objectives of solution, Outline Artefact, and Define Requirements (through design research methodology) In this phase, the objectives of the solution are first explicated, based on the research problem and research questions. Requirements for the Metamodel are defined, and a general outline of the Metamodel is developed. 8. Design and Develop Artefact Based on the requirements and the general outline, the Metamodel is built from the elements identified in Research Phase II. DRM is used in this explorative part of the research, where the focus is on the design of an artefact (Metamodel) that should solve the described problem. 9. Deductive Testing of the Metamodel through Demonstration of a real-­world example. Through demonstration of the Metamodel in a real-world case, feedback and evaluation are used to further enhance and refine the Metamodel.

68

5  Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

10. Adaptation/Refinement of Metamodel According to the results of the demonstration and feedback/evaluation, the Metamodel is adapted accordingly. Phase IV: Implementation of Metamodel and Theoretical Assumptions 11. Potential use and implementation of MM The potential use of the MM and suggestions on how to implement it are formulated as a final problem-solving aspect of the research project. 12. Generation of general theoretical assumptions (Gray, 2013, p. 36; Gregory, 2011, p. 36; Levers, 2013). After the demonstration of the Metamodel, the theoretical knowledge generated in the first phase through GT and the knowledge gained through the Metamodel design is synthesized to develop general theoretical assumptions concerning heritage-based development processes (Fig. 5.8).

5.7 Research Constraints The constraints of the mixed-methods approach are elaborated briefly in this section. The final result, the Metamodel, is on a high level of abstraction, so no direct application of it is possible. As a consequence, the Metamodel can only be tested through a demonstration in relation to one of the application scenarios. Metamodeling and metamodels have not been used extensively in the field of cultural heritage;

Fig. 5.8  Overview of research phases, research actions, methods, epistemologies, and relevant theories

References

69

therefore, the development of the mixed-methods research and its implications relied on peer review by the few experts with experience of such processes and from a related scientific background, rather than on the limited existing literature. Case-­ Models (see Sects. 5.4 and 5.5) were used instead of single case studies, which incorporate only a very limited range of experiences from a specific setting. A further limitation is that the development of the Metamodel is dependent on elements from existing models (case-models), meaning that elements cannot be purposely created for a particular metamodel. Though the high level of abstraction is primarily a strength of the Metamodel, it can also be a weakness; users must have a deep level of understanding and openness to transfer and apply a metamodel with such a high level of abstraction to other situations. The Metamodel is built based on theories that are all related to systems theory or a systemic approach. Without a systemic understanding of the urban area, the application of the Metamodel is difficult, if not impossible. Because of the high level of abstraction and systemic nature of the Metamodel, it is also vulnerable to sectoral or individual discipline driven criticism.

References AtlanMod- the Nantes Software Modeling Group. (2019). Fundamentals of metamodeling and DSLs. Retrieved 17 Dec 2018 from http://web.emn.fr/x-­info/atlanmod/index. php?title=Fundamentals_of_Metamodeling_and_DSLs Barile, S., & Saviano, M. (2015). From the management of cultural heritage to the governance of the cultural heritage system. In G. M. Golinelli (Ed.), Cultural heritage and value creation (pp. 71–103). Springer. Central Intelligence Agency. (2019). The world factbook. Retrieved 22 Mar 2020 from https:// www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-­world-­factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html City of Regensburg. (2011). HerO- Heritage as opportunity Flagship Projects April 2011. https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/309309126_HerO_Heritage_as_opportunity_List_of_ Flagship_Projects City of Regensburg, Ripp, M., & Bühler, B. (2009). HerO – Heritage as opportunity. Retrieved 01 Dec 2019 from https://www.regensburg.de/fm/464/welterbe-­hero-­brochure-­en.pdf City of Regensburg, Ripp, M., & Scheffler, N. (2011). HerO – Heritage as opportunity. The road to success: Integrated management of historic towns – Guidebook. https://www.regensburg.de/ fm/464/HerO%20Guidebook%20EN.pdf City of Regensburg, Mühlmann, R., & Ripp, M. (2012). Management plan UNESCO World Heritage Site “Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof”. https://www.regensburg.de/fm/464/ STADT_RGBG_MANAGEMENTPLAN_WELTERBE_GB_screen.pdf Council of Europe. (2011a). COMUS Project/Preliminary Technical File Chiatura. https://rm.coe. int/chiatura-­georgia-­comus-­preliminary-­technical-­files-­ptf-­/16807145cd Council of Europe. (2011b). COMUS Project/Preliminary Technical File Dusheti. https://rm.coe. int/dusheti-­georgia-­comus-­preliminary-­technical-­files-­ptf-­/16807145cc Council of Europe. (2011c). Town Reference Plan for Mcislau (Appendix: Preliminary Technical File (PTF)). https://rm.coe.int/mstislav-­belarus-­comus-­preliminary-­technical-­files-­ptf-­english-­ version/1680715ad9

70

5  Proposed Solution and Mixed-Methods Research Design

Council of Europe. (2015). Community-led urban strategies in historic towns (COMUS). https:// rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentI d=09000016804932fb Council of Europe. (2016). COMMUNITY-LED URBAN STRATEGIES IN HISTORIC TOWNS (COMUS) Communities at the heart of heritage governance. https://rm.coe.int/ comus-­communities-­at-­the-­heart-­of-­heritage-­governance-­principles-­for-­h/1680728eb4 European Union- External Action. (2019). Eastern partnership. Retrieved 2 May 2019 from https://eeas.europa.eu/diplomatic-­network/eastern-­partnership_en Ferilli, G., Gustafsson, C., & Sacco, P. (2011). System-wide cultural district and the Halland Model: Policy design for regional development. University of Gotheburg. Gray, D. (2013). Doing research in the real world. Sage. Gregory, R. W. (2011). Design science research and the grounded theory method: Characteristics, differences, and complementary uses. In Theory-guided modeling and empiricism in information systems research (pp. 111–127). Springer. Gustafsson, C. (2009). The Halland Model. A Trading zone for building conservation in concert with labour market policy and the construction industry, aiming at regional sustainable development. Gustafsson, C. (2016). The Halland Model – A trading zone. http://www.changes-­project.eu/wp-­ content/uploads/2016/01/2016_05_26_Monza_Gustafsson.pdf Gustafsson, C. (2019). Key data on the Halland Model. Gustafsson, C., & Polesie, T. (2013). Return on investments. Some measurable results of the conservation of the Rossared Manor House. BDC Bollettino del Dipartimento di Conservazione dei Beni Architettonici ed Ambientali dell’Università degli Studi di Napoli, 13(1), 101–118. Gustafsson, C., & Rosvall, J. (2008). The Halland model and the Gotheburg model: A quest toward integrated sustainable conservation. City & Time, 4(1), 15–30. Institut national de la statistique et de etudes economiques. (2019). Institut national de la statistique et de etudes economiques: Statistics and Studies. https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques?d ebut=0&theme=1 Kulikauskas, P. (2007). International charters on conservation: The lost c(l)auses. City & Time, 3/3(5), 61–68. Labadi, S., & Logan, W. S. (2015). Urban heritage, development and sustainability: International frameworks, national and local governance. Routledge. Levers, M.-J.  D. (2013). Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. SAGE Open, 3(4), 2158244013517243. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013517243 Loulanski, V., & Loulanski, T. (2016). Interdisciplinary integration of heritage studies and sustainable development. In Tourism and culture in the age of innovation (pp. 3–22). Springer. Müller, R. (2018). Modellgeschichte ist Kulturgeschichte. Retrieved 1 Dec 2019 from http://www. muellerscience.com/MODELL/Begriffsgeschichte/ModellgeschichteistKulturgeschichte(Kurz fassung).htm Munoz Vinas, S. (2005). Contemporary theory of conservation. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Oxford University Press. (2018). Metamodel. In Oxford English Dictionary. https:// en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/metamodel Pickard, R. (2015). Management strategies for historic towns in Europe. In S. Labadi & W. Logan (Eds.), Urban heritage, development and sustainability: International frameworks, national and local governance (pp. 151–174). Routledge. Ripp, M. (2013). List of cities that were inspired by the management plan-approach developed in the HerO Project. City of Regensburg. Ripp, M., & Rodwell, D. (2015). The geography of urban heritage. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 6(3), 240–276. Ripp, M., & Stein, P. (2018). Applying the Faro convention principles to deliver heritage-based urban development: The COMUS-project. Community-­ led urban strategies in historic towns. Council of Europe. http://rm.coe.int/ applying-­the-­faro-­convention-­principles-­to-­deliver-­heritage-­based-­urba/168078827f

References

71

Ruoss, E. (2016). Opportunities to leverage World Heritage Sites for local development in the Alps. Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research and Management, 8(1), 53–61. Scheffler, N., Ripp, M., & Bühler, B. (2009). Cultural heritage integrated management plans. URBACT Project HerO Heritage as opportunity. Thematic Report, 2. https://urbact.eu/ file/7613/download?token=A21X3uyE The World Population Review. (2019). The World Population review: Liverpool. Retrieved 1 Dec 2019 from http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-­cities/liverpool-­population/ TheMayor.Eu. (2019). TheMayor.EU: Sighisoara. Retrieved 2 Dec 2019 from https://www.themayor.eu/en/romania/sighisoara United Nations Statistics Devision. (2019). UN data. Retrieved 1 Dec 2019 from http://data. un.org/Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode%3A240 Van Gigch, J. P. (1991). System design modeling and metamodeling. Plenum Press. Vandesande, A., & Van Balen, K. (2016). Towards a sustainable development rationale for heritage management and research (Vol. 2). Garant Uitgevers N V.

Chapter 6

Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design

To build the Metamodel, specific epistemologies were used, and terminology had to be developed that could adequately represent the diverse elements. This chapter first explains the chosen epistemologies and elaborates how they informed different parts of the research design in Sect. 6.1. The common element between the research methods and metamodeling theory, a systemic view of the world, is described in Sect. 6.2. The different characteristics (Sect. 6.3) and elements (Sect. 6.5) of the Metamodel are then introduced before outlining how the terminology was developed and the connections between the terminology and the categories defined by Van Gigch. How Van Gigch’s theory, grounded theory, and design research methodology can be combined and integrated into the Metamodel design is outlined in Sect. 6.6. Finally, in Sect. 6.7, the connections between the terminology and grounded theory are discussed, and how the terminology language is employed in this research is described.

6.1 Epistemology This section expands on the epistemologies of grounded theory (GT) and design research methodology (DRM), interpretivism and positivism, respectively, and how they are integrated with a mixed-methods research approach. An interpretive epistemology was be used to analyse existing models for heritage-based urban development. The key question here was what are the common elements of the HBD models? To answer this question, qualitative research was conducted to analyse exemplary case-models and derive common elements that can develop the more abstract elements in the three categories described by Van Gigch (control levels of logic, domains, and rationalities and organisational levels) (1991, p.  370). This qualitative research was a combination of inductive and deductive research carried out through the grounded theory (GT) approach, and this section introduces © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Ripp, A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development, Heritage Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08238-2_6

73

74

6  Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design

interpretivism, which is the epistemology of this approach. Interpretivism assumes there is no simple linear connection between the real world and ourselves and that we interpret the real world through our own set of values and experiences. This interpretation is dependent upon many factors, which are not fixed but fluid. For example, my personal experience has a significant influence on the interpretation of data (Gray, 2013, p. 22ff). Interpretivism has been described and used as an epistemology for GT Research, for example, by Levers (2013, p. 5), (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) and (Charmaz, 2011, p. 181ff). The steps in Research Phase II are not intended to determine whether the case-models are “good” or “bad” but rather to identify common elements for use in the Metamodel. After these elements have been identified, the Metamodel is developed in Research Phase III based on a positivist epistemology using design research methodology. In Positivism, the researcher assumes that the real world can be “… measured directly through observation” (Gray, 2013, p.  21). To be more precise, the epistemology used here is Post-Positivist, which acknowledges that there is a universal truth about the nature of reality but also that we will never be able to completely understand this reality through the limited means of given methodologies: “… we can only approximate the truth, never explaining it perfectly or completely” (Gray, 2013, p.  23). The “truth” that we are referring to here, related to the Metamodel, is evaluated against the parameters and factors that we defined through the explication of “user requirements” for the Metamodel. The objective was to design the Metamodel to meet these requirements. Several authors have discussed and even suggested combining DRM with other methodologies (Easterday et al., 2018, p. 21; Gregory, 2011, p. 13; Niedderer, 2009, p.  4; Peffers et  al., 2007), for example, combining design research methodology (DRM) and GT if there is no established solution for an existing problem and there is a need to design a new one. Easterday suggests that DRM might not be necessary in cases where solutions exist and goes even further by stating that if methodologies like GT or experimentation are used “outside the context of DR, they may not produce theoretical contributions that are helpful for guiding the design of interventions” (Easterday et al., 2018, p. 21). As there is no existing general theoretical and practical guidance on how to scope and design successful HBD projects, this research needed to produce practical guidance as well as theoretical knowledge.

6.2 The Common Ground: A Systemic View of the World A systemic view of the world is the common element that can be found in the research methods and metamodeling theory. This section elaborates how this systemic view is evident in the different theories and methods that are employed. The connecting element across the different epistemologies is a systemic view or systems approach. While linear thinking is used to “… approximate complexity in our environment”, Bratianu argues that “… linear thinking assumes that for a given transformation process, the output variables are proportional to the Input variables”

6.2 The Common Ground: A Systemic View of the World

75

(Bratianu, 2007, p. 154). Linear thinking is the basis for our everyday life, but also used in research “… when we decompose a complex problem into several smaller problems and find first their solutions. Then we just aggregate these simple solutions to obtain the solution of the initial complex problem” (Bratianu, 2007, p. 155). As Barile and Saviano (2015, p. 73) state: Since the recognition of the limits of the traditional analytical-reductionist approach, there has been a growing adoption of the systems paradigm [in Heritage Management (addition by Matthias Ripp)], a methodology that is useful for interpreting the dynamic aspects of any observed phenomenon. The systems approach provides general interpretation schemes for investigating social organisations and defining the most appropriate governance approach from both a theoretical and a practical perspective.

Arezoo Izadi and her colleagues used Talcot Parson’s Social System’s theory to examine urban regeneration processes emphasizing the systemic nature of urban regeneration and how the different parts of it are interrelated (Izadi et al., 2020). Within the Horizon 2020 Project “Shelter”, the consortium led by Tecnalia (2019, p. 33f) examined urban resilience with a special focus on cultural heritage. In the project, a method for the assessment of systemic resilience for historic areas has been developed that considers the complexity of the urban system and the interconnectedness of its elements and processes. Heritage-based urban development can also be seen as a system, as Van Gigch (1978) notes in his book on Applied general systems theory: “Finally a system can be made up of concepts, objects, and subjects, as in a man-machine system comprising all three kinds of elements.” Basically, what Van Gigch is describing with his metamodeling approach is determined by a systemic view, as indicated by the title of his seminal work “System Design Modeling and Metamodeling” (Van Gigch, 1991). In his research, he applied his metamodeling theory to systems. He used the Metamodeling of political planning systems as one example, and his categories as used in the present research focused on “relationships between system levels of control” and on the “area or scope over which a system exercises control” (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 370). Grounded theory, which was used to develop the entities and domains for the Metamodel, is also strongly connected to a systemic view, even though it is clearly different from Luhmann’s systems theory; as Gibson, Gregory et al. (2005, p. 8) note, “In systems theory systems emerge from the effectuation of an asymmetrical distinction that lies at the heart of indicating in all communication. Whereas we have found that GT is itself ‘effectuated’ and discovered in its own operations.” However, Gibson also sees the common ground between systems theory and GT: “Both perspectives have a sense that the world is organised” (Gibson et al., 2005, p.  7), which can be interpreted as a systemic view of the world. The systemic approach is common to both theories in the sense that they focus on systems of different Entities, procedures, and values rather than on individual elements. The systemic approach is also evident in design research methodology. “Design science addresses the problem of determining and categorizing all regular phenomena of the systems to be designed, and of the design process” (Cross, 1993, p. 20). DRM is often applied to design technical systems, for example, information

76

6  Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design

systems or software code, and was developed and is mainly used to design systems using a systemic approach and understanding of the real world. All three theories, the metamodeling theory of Van Gigch, GT, and DRM, differ in their scope, application, and use cases and especially in how they use, analyse, and design the real world and artefacts. However, they share the same systemic approach to and understanding of the real world and focus on connections and interdependencies between different entities and domains.

6.3 Metamodel Characteristics The higher level of abstraction is not the only way in which a metamodel differs from a normal model. The basic characteristics of a metamodel, which consist of elements that can be divided into three categories, are described in this section. “A metamodel is an explicit specification of an abstraction and uses a specific language to express the abstraction” (Hauksson, 2013, p. 14). Building on the ideas of John Peter Van Gigch that have already been introduced (see also Sect. 4.2), metamodels are characterized by the following: • Defining other hierarchies [than in models (addition by Matthias Ripp)] • Determination of the epistemology of the inquiring system at each level of recursion • Defining the problem to be solved at each level or recursion • Identifying rationalities and meta-rationalities • Distinction between data, information, and intelligence • System malfunctions and failures • Other metamodeling failures. (Elements taken from Figure  9.1  in Van Gigch 1991 (p. 226)) According to Van Gigch, a metamodel consists of elements from three different categories: 1. Control levels of logic, hierarchical relationships between system levels of control 2. Domains, the area or scope over which a system exercises control 3. Rationalities and organisational levels, which can differ at each level, based on Van Gigch 1991 (p. 370) The elements of the three different categories are abstract and, therefore, must be developed before they can be used to form the basis of a metamodel. As metamodels are specifications of an abstraction (Hauksson, 2013, p.  14), the first step is to develop abstractions, and, more specifically, abstract elements or representations, based on existing facts and experiences.

6.5 Development of Terminology and Levels and Categories

77

6.4 Metamodel Elements This section describes the nature of the elements of a metamodel, as they relate to the three respective categories defined by Van Gigch. As the elements that are developed belong to distinct categories, each must be of a different nature: • Elements concerning control levels of logic are relational, as they determine how system levels of control are related. They are developed in Research Phase IV when the Metamodel is built from the elements determined by design research methodology (DRM). • Elements on the level of domains require the highest level of abstraction, as domains are groups of logically connected Entities, or, in other words, meta-­ categories of elements. • Elements that belong to rationalities and organisational levels need to be on a medium level of abstraction, as they have to be specific enough to represent a part of the real world (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 256) that is described with little (but enough) detail to include it in the Metamodel by linking it through control levels of logic. • Developing a language that can express the abstraction is another important component of a metamodel. • Metamodel Requirements that serve as an evaluation basis and monitoring tool in the DRM process phase (compare Sect. 7.2. Design Research Methodology) Real-world data abstract elements were developed in Research Phase II. The elements are on different levels of abstraction; therefore, for each category of element, a different methodology was used. The three phases of the GT process consequently resulted in the development of three different levels of abstraction. The Metamodel elements are integrated into the Metamodel through DRM. The Metamodel is developed based on these abstractions in Research Phase III.

6.5 Development of Terminology and Levels and Categories A specific language and terminology were developed to describe the Metamodel based on its logic and structure. This section explains why and how this has been done before elaborating how the chosen terminology is related to the categories defined by Van Gigch. It should be noted that the following sections in this chapter make extensive use of the aforementioned special formatting of metamodel elements. Please refer to the Reading Guide (ii) Formatting of metamodel Elements and accompanying Legend at the beginning of the text for further guidance.

78

6  Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design

6.5.1 Terminology Metamodels are models on a high level of abstraction. Therefore, the language used in the Metamodel needs to be well-selected, clear, and understandable. In computer science, where Metamodeling is commonly used, a specific language called UML (unified modeling language) is used as a standardized tool so that researchers from different backgrounds can decipher metamodels (Kurtev, 2007). However, this language is not appropriate for a Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development for the following reasons: • UML is mainly used for software engineering. • Metamodels designed with UML are highly technical and may provoke aversion and resistance to the use of these models by professionals from different non-­ technical backgrounds (such as cultural and planning). • UML comes from a technical field with a positivist epistemology, but the Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development requires elements that are developed using grounded theory and an interpretivist epistemology. • Relations and processes in heritage-based urban development are not always linear, true/false, or possible to repeat in a standardized way. • A Metamodel for HBD can be used by experts from the fields of culture, planning, and development. For these reasons, a terminology was developed to represent the phenomenon and Entities for the research problem on an abstract level. This “domain-specific language” is focused on a specific field (domain) (Van Deursen et al., 2000, p. 26f). The general domain here (not to be confused with the term “Domain” as used in the Metamodel) is “heritage-based urban development processes”. The domain-specific language is designed with a “… restricted suite of notations and abstractions” (Van Deursen et al., 2000, p. 27). The domain-specific language for the Metamodel on Heritage-Based Urban was developed in three steps: 1. Analysis: The problem was analysed in the specification of the research question and through grounded-theory analysis of the case-models. 2. Implementation: A library of terms was constructed that can implement the semantic notions 3. Use: The developed domain-specific metamodel language is used and subjected to evaluation and change in Research Phase III (Metamodel Design – Research Action 10 Evaluation/Adaptation) (Van Deursen et al., 2000, p. 28). Glossary of Terms To understand the terminology of the Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development, the used terms are introduced and explained in the following section. This is vital to the understanding and use of the Metamodel.

6.5 Development of Terminology and Levels and Categories

79

Elements The Metamodel is made of different elements that are on different levels of abstraction, mainly using the identified Entity Groups and referring to the corresponding Domains (Table 6.1). Table 6.1  Terms used for elements on different levels of abstractions Term used in the metamodel Entities Entity groups Domains

Source Raw data Open coding/axial coding Selective coding

Use in metamodel None Rationalities and organisational levels Domain

Level of abstraction None Moderate High

Entities The term Entities was selected for the “basic” elements that were identified in the raw data. An entity in the sense the word is used here can be an object, a person, groups of persons, an action, and others. An entity as used here is something that “… exists apart from other things, having its own independent existence” (Oxford University, Oxford University Press, 2018 OUD “Entity”).

Entity Groups The term Entity Groups is used for Entities that can be clustered/combined in one logical group with reference to the topic of the Metamodel here: heritage-­ led urban development. Entity Groups are clusters of Entities that belong to a similar category, class, or group.

Domains The term Domain as used here is, on the one hand, a reference to the Metamodel Theory of Van Gigch, which describes Domains as an area or scope that a system controls (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 370), and on the other hand as a meta-category of Entity Groups. (For examples, see Sect. 7.1.7 Results of Grounded Theory Process: The Elements of the Metamodel, p. 111)

80

6  Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design

Processes/Relationships Processes have also been identified and clustered around abstract terms using grounded theory. These abstracted Processes are referred to as Process groups. Process groups represent a category of Processes that are of similar scope (Table 6.2). Principles Certain Principles have been identified on the levels of strategy and framework (Table 6.3):

Table 6.2  Terms used for processes on different levels of abstractions Term used in metamodel Process Process groups

Source Raw data Open coding/axial

Use in metamodel None Control levels of logic

Level of abstraction None Fair

Table 6.3  Terms used for principles on different levels of abstractions Term used in metamodel Specific principles, e.g., governance Principles

Source Open coding/axial coding Selective coding

Use in metamodel Control of logic Descriptive part on domains

Level of abstraction Fair High

Specific Principles, for example, Governance Principles The term “Specific Principles” is used for the abstract representation of guidelines, general strategies, general ideas, or plans that form the accompanying structure in the Metamodel. Selective principles are not process groups or Entity Groups but a generalized set of rules on how to implement specific process groups in relation to Entity Groups.

Principles The general term Principles refers to all specific Principles as a specific Domain. Principles can be guidelines, policies, or other propositions.

6.5 Development of Terminology and Levels and Categories

81

6.5.2 Levels and Categories and Their Integration into Metamodel Categories As discussed in Sect. 4.2, the overall theoretical foundation for the THRIVE Metamodel (Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development) is based on Van Gigch’s theory (1978, 1991), according to which a metamodel consists of elements from three different categories: 1. Control levels of logic (hierarchical relationships between system levels of control). For this Metamodel: control levels of logic = relationships between different Entity Groups, for example, Actors. Example: Decision Makers analyse Organisational Structures or Affected People develop a Vision. Control levels of logic are developed in the Metamodel on the level of Entity Groups. The level of Domains is more abstract. Relations on the level of the Domains raise more epistemological questions and are not covered in this research. 2. Domains: area or scope over which a system exercises control. In the Metamodel, the system consists of Entity Groups. Example: Domain = Development Narrative. The system, consisting of Challenges/Threats, Opportunities and Benefits, exercises control over this Domain. The Domains identified through the selective coding process are as follows: A B C D E F G H

People Resources Concepts Processes Principles Context Methods Development narrative

3. Rationalities and organisational levels (can differ at each level): These are understood as the different process phases in the Metamodel. Example: Phase I = SCOPING PHASE (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 370ff). As a working draft, the following phases were identified through the grounded theory process: • • • • •

Scoping Analysis Development of Vision, Actions, Prioritization of actions, and Scenario building Implementation of Actions Evaluation/Start of new Spiral

82

6  Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design

Grounded theory and the Metamodel Theory by Van Gigch were combined using multimethod research design (see Sect. 6.2), allowing the Metamodel elements to be deeply rooted in practical experiences from the real world. This research design is in line with Van Gigch’s critical view of models that oversimplify and methods that do not consider the complexity of the context in which they are used. He also suggests that existing complexity should be addressed on a cognitive level but without reducing it (Van Gigch, 2003, p. 174). GT does not simplify the existing raw data that it uses to develop abstract theories or theoretical elements (see Sect. 7.1) but rather combines similar aspects and generates terms that are on a higher level of abstraction that represent the original data. Figure 5.8 illustrates the relationship between the different phases of the grounded theory process (types of coding) and Metamodel Categories and the used terminology (Fig. 6.1). Grounded theory was used to elaborate the theoretical elements of the Metamodel. These elements are symbolic representations based on existing experiences (of the researcher) and the analysis of the case-models. The results of the GT process and the developed elements were the starting point for Research Phase III, where the Metamodel is constructed using design research methodology. At the end of the research project, the findings of GT in combination with and reflection on the demonstration of the Metamodel are also used to draw theoretical conclusions. The combination of GT with design research methodology and the Metamodel Theory is based on a new research design that was necessary because elements were derived from existing data (empirical) to develop a new (explorative) metamodel. Several researchers have previously suggested combining these two methodologies, for example,

Fig. 6.1  Relation between different types of coding in grounded theory, used terminology and MM categories. (Types of coding based on (Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1996) as summarized in Mey and Mruck 2011 (p. 41); Metamodel categories based on Van Gigch (1991, p. 371ff))

6.6 Integration of Van Gigch’s Metamodel Theory, Grounded Theory, and Design…

83

Easterday et al. (2018, p. 21) and Gregory (2011). The present research is a prototype that should be subject to evaluation and further elaboration. This mixed-­methods research design is the first approach to combine different epistemologies and research methodologies. Due to the nature of this work, it is expected that there will be different interpretations by different scientists, readers, and users of the Metamodel.

6.6 Integration of Van Gigch’s Metamodel Theory, Grounded Theory, and Design Research Methodology in the Metamodel Design This section sets out a logical framework for combining the three theories, following Van Gigch’s three categories of elements in metamodels. The Domains and the elements were developed using grounded theory (see Sect. 7.1.7). DRM was used to organise the elements and their respective Domains into a wider framework that shows the hierarchical relationships between system levels of control (control levels of logic) and the “rationalities and organisational levels”. To define the hierarchical relationships between the different levels of control, five general phases of the Metamodel have been designed (see Sect. 6.5.2), and a system defining the different roles and processes for objectives and the relevant Entities, inputs, and outputs has been developed. DRM was also used to determine the rationalities and organisational levels and specifically the use of all defined Entities and Domains in each phase of the Metamodel (e.g., are they an objective and active Entity, or, for example, a resource that is to be used in a passive way). The following chart shows how DRM and metamodeling theory based on Van Gigch were integrated (Table 6.4). Table 6.4  Integration of DRM and Van Gigch metamodeling theory Metamodel Objective within design research parameters Van Gigch methodology Control levels of logic Definition of the different roles and processes for:  Objectives  Relevant entities

Domains Rationalities and organisational levels

Results  Structure of MM

 5 phases  Structure for each phase with definition of:  Inputs    1. Objectives  Outputs    2. Relevant entities    3.Inputs    4. Outputs Developed through grounded theory None Definition of use for all entities and Definition domains in each phase of the  Which entity and which domain Metamodel and selection on which is relevant in each phase organisational level  If entities are objective, input or output (active or passive)

84

6  Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design

The current research integrates GT, metamodeling theory based on Van Gigch, and DRM to develop a Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development (see Sect. 5.2). Figure 5.7 (see Sect. 5.6) shows the research design of the mixed-­methods research and how it corresponds to the use of raw data, GT, and Gigch’s metamodeling theory and DRM. Based on this research design, the different methodologies (see Chap. 7) have been used in different phases of the research. In Research Phase I (Preparational Phase), after the explication of the problem, the Research Questions were designed and appropriate theories selected (see Chap. 3). The connecting element of the selected theories (and the selected methodologies) is a systemic view (see Sect. 7.2). The definition of the different research phases is based on the integration of GT, MM Theory, and DRM. Grounded theory was further used to develop the elements of the MM through DRM. In Research Phase II (Generation of MM-Elements), Data was first gathered through a literature review and then sampled (see Sects. 5.4 and 7.1). The case-­ models were then selected based on a set of criteria. Based on the sampled Data, the grounded theory process was used to inductively generate the elements (see Sect. 7.1). The generated elements formed the basis for the Metamodel. Only the more abstract elements of Entity Groups and Domains were used in the application of DRM to generate the MM, and the most specific elements (called Entities) (see Sects. 6.5 and 6.6) are not represented in the MM. In Research Phase III (Metamodel Design), the objectives of the proposed solution were defined in the Metamodel requirements (see Sect. 7.2.4). These were based on the research problem and the research questions. The design and development of the artefact were based on the elements identified in Research Phase II and the Metamodel requirements. DRM was then applied in this explorative part of the research. Every metamodel has a specific view of the world (Kurtev, 2007). Without analysing the ontological consequences, it is helpful for the “user” of a metamodel to understand this specific view. The THRIVE Metamodel utilizes a systemic view (also known as a systems approach), which can also be found across the different epistemologies and methodologies used. This Systemic Approach does not focus on singular Entities but on the interdependencies, changes, and connections between them. The systemic approach implements a far more complex but at the same time realistic view of phenomena. A systemic view can be found in Van Gigch’s metamodeling theory, GT, and DRM (see Sect. 7.2). Two of the ten Metamodel requirements, which will be explained and discussed later in the text, are clearly linked to Van Gigch’s metamodeling theory (the full list of Metamodel requirements can be found in Sect. 7.2.4; these two requirements have been listed prematurely here because of their pertinence to the current section). Requirement No. 4: The Metamodel shall represent a high level of abstraction to represent different models for HBD. The high level of abstraction required for representing different models for HBD is achieved using Van Gigch’s metamodeling theory. The decision to develop a metamodel (see also Chap. 4 and Sect. 5.1) and not a model was based on Van Gigch, who defines: “The meta model embodies the properties that are abstracted from all models ….” (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 256), and

6.6 Integration of Van Gigch’s Metamodel Theory, Grounded Theory, and Design…

85

continues: “Basically, Metamodeling is modelling at a higher level of logic and of abstraction than modelling proper (….) Metamodeling means that we are modelling the modelling process” (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 258). Requirement No. 2: The Metamodel shall be based on the Metamodel Theory developed by Van Gigch and include all three categories: Domains, control levels of logic, and rationalities and organisational levels. Consequently, the logic of the Metamodel, including the elements and the used methodologies, was integrated with the three Metamodel Categories based on Van Gigch (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 371ff): 1. Control levels of logic (hierarchical relationships between system levels of control) In THRIVE, the control levels of logic are represented by the relationships between different Entity Groups such as Actors. Example: Decision Makers analyse Organisational Structures. The control levels of logic provide information on how the different Entity Groups of the Metamodel interrelate, correlate, and influence each other. The control levels of logic are essential to understand the system of heritage-based urban development that forms the underlying research frame and logic of the Metamodel. There are different possibilities for the control levels of logic. In a system, the different elements are usually connected to each other in some way (Midgley & Lindhult, 2017, p. 12). The control levels of logic are bound to the overarching question of the Metamodel. Consequently, the control levels of logic that are visualized in the THRIVE Metamodel are all connected to HBD. Using a different basic question, the elements could be connected with different control levels of logic, but this is not within the scope of this research. Furthermore, the most relevant control levels of logic are visualized in the Metamodel with reference to the research question (Table 6.5). 2. Domains According to Van Gigch, Domains are the second category to which elements of the Metamodel belong. He defines a Domain as an area or scope over which a system exercises control (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 370). The system in the THRIVE Metamodel consists of different Entity Groups and their relations. Example: Domain = Development Narrative. The system, consisting of Challenges/Threats, Opportunities, and Benefits, exercises control over this Domain. The Domains in the Metamodel are the most abstract categories. Their purpose is not to define specific things, subjects, or objects but to name the highest possible level of abstract categories for MM elements. The Domains are also connected to the underlying research question, and their development was based on the case-models (see Sect. 6.5). A metamodel for a different purpose and a different topic would consist of different Domains.

86

6  Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design

Table 6.5  Mixed-methods research design and how it corresponds to the use of raw data, grounded theory, Van Gigch’s metamodeling theory and design research methodology (types of coding based on (Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1996) as summarized in Mey and Mruck 2011 (p.  41); metamodel categories based on Van Gigch (1991, p. 371ff) design research methodology phases based on Peffers et  al., Niedderer, Weber, Gregory, Haukksson and Johanesson, Kelly and Easterday. (Easterday et  al., 2018, p.  6ff; Gregory, 2011; Hauksson, 2013, p.19f; Kelly, 2013; Niedderer, 2009; Peffers et al., 2007, p.55ff; Schneider et al., 2017; Weber, 2010)) GT (coding) Open coding

Results Entities

MM- category None

Open codes

Axial coding

Entity groups

Rationalities and organisational levels

Axial codes (=entity groups)/ MM-theory

Selective coding

Domains

Domains

Entity groups domains

–

Metamodel All

Source data Raw data (text)

Design research methodology phases 1. Explicate the problem (before the sampling of raw text) 2. Define objectives of solution, outline artefact and define requirements 3. Design and develop artefact (based on and using the entity groups and domains) 4. Demonstration (of the draft Metamodel in a real-world scenario) 5. Evaluation (based on the entity groups and domains as elements of the Metamodel) 3. Design and develop artefact 4. Demonstration 5. Evaluation (all based on the entity groups and domains as elements of the Metamodel) After the development of the Metamodel

3. Rationalities and Organisational Levels According to Van Gigch, the third category is Rationalities and Organisational Levels. In the THRIVE Metamodel, they are represented as the different process phases. Example: Phase I = SCOPING PHASE (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 370ff). Rationalities and organisational levels are defined for the THRIVE Metamodel to describe different phases of the process. The phases can clearly be differentiated and are specific to the research question, the Metamodel requirements and the general purpose of the Metamodel. These are not organisational levels within local administrations that are part of the process but rather the organisational levels (=phases) of the Metamodel itself. Rationalities are understood as what is relevant in each of the phases and what happens in each of the phases (Table 6.6).

6.7 Metamodel Language Use

87

Table 6.6  Integration of Van Gigch’s metamodeling theory and the role of selected research methods (grounded theory and design research methodology) Categories based on Representation in the Van Gigch Metamodel Control levels of logic Relationships between different elements

Domains

Rationalities and organisational levels

Research methods GT: Develop entities of relational nature (e.g., analyse) DRM: Select according to relevance for HBD processes and requirements; visualize Most abstract categories GT: Develop domains based on entity groups for entity groups DRM: Arrange domains to relevant phases of MM Phases of HBD-process GT: Develop entity groups and domains as elements for phases DRM: Define phases define which domains and entity groups are relevant in each phase Define structure and rationalities for each phase

Table based on metamodeling theory of Van Gigch (1991, p.  371ff) and the mixed-methods research design (Sect. 3.3.1. multimethod research design, p. 33)

Example: To understand the full process, the following example is described: The Entity artist community was identified in the sampled raw data (Gustafsson, 2009, p.  200) through open coding (GT process). Together with other identified Entities, it was then grouped together by axial coding (GT process) to the Entity Group Affected People. Together with other Entity Groups, Affected People were categorized to the Domain People through selective coding (GT). The Entity Group Affected People and the Domain People are then used as elements in the Metamodel and represent the category of Domains (Domain). The relationship between them is described and visualized to understand the control levels of logic. They are also used as elements to develop and describe the different phases of the Metamodel to understand the Rationalities and Organisational Levels.

6.7 Metamodel Language Use This section explains how the terminology of the Metamodel connects to the process of grounded theory and how the terminology is used in the Metamodel. The elements are not the only representations that are seen in the final Metamodel. Additional explanations are given in Sect. 8.1 to help understand how the elements interrelate and how they are used. These explanations are used to describe how the different phases of the Metamodel are connected and the input and output for each phase to describe and mark the level of abstraction (Entity Groups or Domains).

88

6  Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design

A domain-specific metalanguage was developed to be used in the Metamodel (Kurtev, 2007). In line with the view of Kurtev, who states that “… the purpose of the Metamodel should be to provide a vocabulary for expressing theories about universals, individuals, and the relations among them” (Kurtev, 2007). In the THRIVE Metamodel, other Entities like values or principles need to be represented by the domain-specific Metamodeling language. Following this line of thought, a special terminology was developed for the Metamodel (see Sects. 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7), and UML (unified modeling language) was not used. The terms used in the Metamodel are themselves symbolic representations for abstract content. The terminology consists of two parts: 1. Terms to describe the elements 2. Terms to give Explanations to describe interrelations The domain-specific language that was developed reflects the different level of abstraction that is present in the Metamodel (see Sect. 6.5). The decision to develop a Domain-Specific Metalanguage is based on the Metamodel Requirements (see Sect. 7.2.4): Requirement No. 3, “The Metamodel shall be easy to understand and clear”, calls for a language that is clear and can be understood by a wide range of “users” of the Metamodel. In practical terms, the language should be understood without having to read too many explanations and definitions. The selected terminology represents a balance between accuracy, readability and simplicity. This is in line with Kurtev, who describes modeling languages as a “… compromise between various factors …” (Kurtev, 2007) (Fig. 6.2).

Fig. 6.2  The domain-specific language of the Metamodel

6.7 Metamodel Language Use

89

Metamodel Requirement No. 5, “The Metamodel shall be able to support the designing and scoping of local HBD processes”, also determines for whom the Metamodel language shall be understandable. Local and regional heritage officers who are employed by governmental bodies, heritage experts who are hired to undertake this task, development officers, preservation officers, and others. The potential “users” of the Metamodel have different backgrounds and are usually not metamodeling experts. Therefore, the language has to be as simple as possible but also as accurate and rigorous as necessary. Cultural variations of language also have to be considered, as the potential use of the Metamodel represents cities in various international settings. At the beginning of the process, the basis of the work was the raw data, which in this case was text from the three selected case-models (see Sects. 6.4 and 6.5). Raw data itself is not present on the Metamodel, but it was used to identify different Entities through open coding. The basic elements that were identified in the raw data are called “Entities”. An Entity in the sense the word is used here can be an object, a person, groups of persons, an action, or other. An “Entity” as used here is something that “… exists apart from other things, having its own independent existence” (Oxford University, Oxford University Press, 2018 OUD “Entity”). An Entity incorporates things and Processes and also Values, Principles, subjects, and people. The most important quality of the term “Entity” is that it can be used to describe different things, Processes, and more. It can be used to differentiate between those. The role of the term “Entity” is to give a name or label to the phenomena and elements that can be differentiated from each other during the Analysis of the raw data. Elements and phenomena that are described with the Terms from the category of Entities are still on a considerable level of concreteness. The logic is descriptive. Examples of found Entities are conserved building (Gustafsson, 2009, p. 198) or construction workers (Gustafsson, 2009, p. 185). The identified Entities grouped together into Entity Groups were in the second step. The methodology used was the process of axial coding in grounded theory (see Sect. 7.1.4). The term “Entity Groups” is used for different Entities that can be clustered/ combined in one logical group with reference to the topic of the Metamodel here: heritage-led urban development. “Entity Groups” are clusters of Entities that belong to a similar category, class, or group. The Entity Groups represent different Entities on a higher level of abstraction. The transformation from Entities to Entity Groups is a crucial point for the development of the Metamodel because the level of abstraction and the potential universal use of the Metamodel cannot be realized using elements that are too specific. The more abstract Entity Groups only represent concrete Entities, and therefore the logic of the Metamodel can be applied in a wide range of settings. While using the Metamodel (see Chap. 9), this process of abstraction needs to be reversed with a special focus on the specific character of the specific place.

90

6  Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design

The following is an example of an entity group: Affected people Some examples of entities in this group are as follows: artist community (Gustafsson, 2009, p. 200) or community (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 31) or young people (Gustafsson, 2009, p. 198)

For the THRIVE Metamodel, an even higher level of abstraction is needed. The term “Domain” is used for the highest level of abstraction that determines the “class” to which the Entity Groups belong to. This is both a reference to Van Gigch, who describes Domains as an area or scope over which a system exercises control (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 370), and is a meta-category of the Entity Groups (see Sects. 6.5 and 6.6) (Fig. 6.3). For example, the domain People Consists of the entity groups Actors Affected people Decision makers (see Sect. 7.1.7)

Fig. 6.3  Terms used for elements on different levels of abstractions

References

91

References Barile, S., & Saviano, M. (2015). From the management of cultural heritage to the governance of the cultural heritage system. In G. M. Golinelli (Ed.), Cultural heritage and value creation (pp. 71–103). Springer. Bratianu, C. (2007). Thinking patterns and knowledge dynamics. In Proceedings of the 8th European conference on knowledge management (Vol. 1, pp. 152–157). Academic Conferences and Publishing International. Charmaz, K. C. (2011). Den Standpunkt verändern: Methoden der konstruktivistischen grounded theory. In G.  Mey & K.  Mruck (Eds.), Grounded theory reader (pp.  181–205). Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. City of Regensburg, Ripp, M., & Scheffler, N. (2011). HerO – Heritage as opportunity. The road to success: Integrated management of historic towns – Guidebook. https://www.regensburg.de/ fm/464/HerO%20Guidebook%20EN.pdf Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage. Cross, N. (1993). A history of design methodology. In M. J. De Vries, N. Cross, & D. P. Grant (Eds.), Design methodology and relationships with science (pp. 15–27). Springer. Easterday, M.  W., Rees Lewis, D.  G., & Gerber, E.  M. (2018). The logic of design research. Learning: Research and Practice, 4(2), 131–160. Gibson, B., Gregory, J., & Robinson, P. (2005). The intersection between systems theory and grounded theory: The emergence of the grounded systems observer. Qualitative Sociology Review, 1(2), 45. Gray, D. (2013). Doing research in the real world. Sage. Gregory, R. W. (2011). Design science research and the grounded theory method: Characteristics, differences, and complementary uses. In Theory-guided modeling and empiricism in information systems research (pp. 111–127). Springer. Gustafsson, C. (2009). The Halland Model. A Trading zone for building conservation in concert with labour market policy and the construction industry, aiming at regional sustainable development. Hauksson, H. (2013). Metamodeling for business model design/Facilitating development and communication of Business Model Canvas (BMC) models with an OMG standards-based metamodel. U.  Department of Computer and Systems Sciences Stockholm. http://kth.diva-­ portal.org/smash/get/diva2:680504/FULLTEXT01.pdf Izadi, A., Mohammadi, M., Nasekhian, S., & Memar, S. (2020). Structural functionalism, social sustainability and the historic environment: A role for theory in urban regeneration. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 11, 1–23. Kelly, A. (2013). When is design research appropriate. In T.  Plomp & N.  Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp.  135–150). SLO Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/14472302/Introductio n_20to_20education_20design_20research.pdf Kurtev, I. (2007). Metamodels: Definitions of structures or ontological commitments. In R. F. Paige & J. Bézivin (Eds.), Workshop on TOWERS of models. Collocated with TOOLS Europe (pp. 53–65). University of York, University of Nantes, and the IST Integrated Project MODELPLEX. Levers, M.-J.  D. (2013). Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. SAGE Open, 3(4), 2158244013517243. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013517243 Mey, G., & Mruck, K. (2011). Grounded-Theory-Methodologie: Entwicklung, Stand, Perspektiven. In G.  Mey & K.  Mruck (Eds.), Grounded theory reader (Vol. 2, pp.  11–48). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Midgley, G., & Lindhult, E. (2017). What is systemic innovation? Research memorandum. University of Hull, Business School. http://www2.hull.ac.uk/hubs/pdf/memorandum%2099.pdf

92

6  Epistemology and Integrating Metamodeling Theory into the Research Design

Niedderer, K. (2009). Understanding methods: Mapping the flow of methods, knowledge and rigour in design research methodology. In Proceedings of third international conference of the International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR 2009), Seoul. http://niedderer.org/IASDR2009_niedderer.pdf Oxford University Press. (2018). Metamodel. In Oxford English Dictionary. https:// en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/metamodel Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. Schneider, D., Oliveira, L. F., & de Souza, J. (2017). Designing, building and evaluating a social news curation environment using the action design research methodology. Cluster Computing, 20(2), 1731–1748. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1996). Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. Psychologie Verlags Union. Tecnalia. (2019). Shelter Horizon 2020 Project; Sustainable historic environments holistic reconstruction through technological enhancement & community-based resilience. D.2.1. HA Resilience structure. https://shelter-­project.com/download-­file/?file=0001%20-­%20D2.1-­HA-­ resilience-­structure.pdf Van Deursen, A., Klint, P., & Visser, J. (2000). Domain-specific languages: An annotated bibliography. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 35(6), 26–36. Van Gigch, J. P. (1978). Applied general systems theory. Harper & Row. Van Gigch, J. P. (1991). System design modeling and metamodeling. Plenum Press. Van Gigch, J. P. (2003). Metadecisions: Rehabilitating epistemology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Weber, S. (2010). Design science research: Paradigm or approach? In AMCIS American conference on information systems 2010 proceedings. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7c31/a4019 ab19db0123c90ba72250bc99d80ace5.pdf

Part II

Application of Research Methods

Chapter 7

Research Methods

Grounded theory has been used as a qualitative empirical method to develop the elements of the Metamodel. Design research methodology was used to develop the Metamodel based on the Metamodel elements. In this chapter, the research methods are described and applied. This chapter is split into two Sects. 7.1 and 7.2, reflecting the methods used. Section 7.1 explains how this theory was employed to develop the Elements of the Metamodel. The basics of the theory are explicated, including the necessary raw data, an example of the abstraction process, and the specific types of coding that are employed, and the results of applying the theory, namely, the Metamodel elements are laid out. The following Sect. 7.2, demonstrates how this methodology can be used to describe a new artefact, in this case, the Metamodel. The section begins by describing how this methodology can be implemented generally and then how it fits within the multimethod research design of this work. The possible areas of application, benefits, and risks of this methodology compared to other methods are touched upon. Finally, the Metamodel requirements that were developed as a result of design research methodology are described. The text and figures within all of Part II make extensive use of special formatting to indicate specific elements of the Metamodel. Please refer to the Reading Guide (ii) Formatting of Metamodel Elements and accompanying Legend at the beginning of the text for further guidance. Preliminary Note The contrasting epistemologies of the different research phases (see Sect. 5.2) were important in the multimethod research design and the use of grounded theory to develop the Metamodel elements. While the epistemology for Research Phase three (Metamodel-Design) of the research process with the use of design research methodology is post-positivist, the epistemology for Research Phase two (Generation of Metamodel elements), where GT process was implemented, is interpretative (see © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Ripp, A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development, Heritage Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08238-2_7

95

96

7  Research Methods

Sect. 6.1). The interpretive nature of the process means there is no a “right” or “wrong” approach to using GT to connect the raw data (text), first with open codes and later with axial codes. The objective was rather to derive the elements of the Metamodel from the wide range of elements of the selected (sampled) case-models. The personal experience and Values of the researcher who implemented this phase of the research influenced this process, at least in the sense of a specific “theoretical sensitivity” as described by Glaser and Strauss (1967), Glaser (1978), and Mey and Mruck (2011, p. 31f). The text was reduced to codes with similar meanings using a step-by-step process, and axial coding was used to obtain a higher level of abstraction. The process is replicable, but the result is probably not because different researchers introduce different experiences, values, and judgements and would probably select different terms as open codes and later axial codes. However, the non-replicability of the results is not relevant in this case because of the higher level of abstraction of the Metamodel. Therefore, the elements of the Metamodel are to a large extent symbolic, as is the complete Metamodel. Ultimately, however, the Metamodel can be used for different “real world” scenarios that are not symbolic but very concrete. (see Chap. 10). After the definition of the research question in the first research phase (preparation phase), the Metamodel elements were developed in the second phase (generation of Metamodel elements) through the GT process. This included the selection and sampling of data. GT was chosen as a widely used and elaborated scientific method for the qualitative analysis of data. One of the main benefits of this methodology is that it can be used to process different types of primary data. GT was used in this research to process various data that described the selected case-models in detail, including a published project report, a guidebook, and a PhD Thesis. Another advantage of GT is that it can be used in an inductive way (Gray, 2013, p. 35); that is, it can develop theories or, in this case, theoretic elements of the Metamodel from raw data from the “real world” (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 3). The third advantage is that GT makes it possible to demonstrate and explicate the concrete and traceable line of thought from the original data to the theory or theoretic element in this case (Strauss, 1987; Urquhart et al., 2010).

7.1 Grounded Theory Grounded theory analyses existing data in different forms and “extracts” relevant Concepts. This section elaborates how this theory was used to develop the elements of the Metamodel from the three Case Studies. This section first introduces the main components of grounded theory, including the raw data, an example of the abstraction process and types of coding. Following this introduction, there is a dedicated subsection discussing each component. As has been previously discussed, metamodeling achieves a higher level of abstraction than that existing in normal models, and it is a complex task that involves several risks, including over-simplification (Van Gigch, 1991, 2003, p.  274). To

7.1  Grounded Theory

97

minimize these risks, the elements of THRIVE (Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development) are not based on pure assumption. The qualitative empirical method of GT ensured scientific rigour and the documentation of comprehensible development of elements that are rooted in the three selected case-models. Through this comprehensive interpretation of existing data from the case-models, the elements of the Metamodel are deeply grounded in experiences from different backgrounds that have been documented in the three case-models. GT was first conceived as a methodology for qualitative empirical analysis in social science based on scientific rigour and for developing theoretical contributions, such as behaviour, reoccurring concepts, or other patterns, to specific research fields. It is a research practice that can explore or develop theory using existing data. In order to realize this method, it was recognized that the following was required: …a shift of scholarly focus from theory testing to theory generation and discovery. The assumption was that there is a lot of experience and data ‘out there’ in the empirical world to be discovered and explored and that researchers needed advice in forms of a research method in order to exploit the existing opportunities to generate new insights from real-­ world observations. With this motivation, the Grounded Theory method came into existence which gave exploratory researchers in the social sciences a tool to discover and generate Grounded Theory through a combination of inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning. (Glaser, 1978; Gregory, 2011, p. 8, based on Glaser, 1978)

The clear chain of evidence that GT produces – from a variety of “raw data” that can have different formats to theoretical findings – is a strength that has contributed to the popularity of this method in a broad variety of disciplines (Daengbuppha et al., 2006; Gregory, 2011; Khandkar, 2009). Application of GT is based on the formulation of a hypothesis, the sampling of data, different methods of coding, memo writing, and the development of theoretical assumptions. The core of the methodology is the “coding” process. Böhm mentions three different kinds of coding: • Open coding: The data, that is from the text, a succession of concepts is developed that may ultimately be used as building blocks for the model. • Axial coding: One category is located at the centre and a network of relationships is developed around it. • Selective coding: The main phenomenon is described as the core category (Böhm, 2004, pp. 271–274). This methodology also has limitations. First, coding is far from easy and requires a certain amount of experience and knowledge of the target field. GT is only effective if the scientist can combine their knowledge with the examination of the data and the generation and clustering of data through codes. However, GT also requires a certain amount of caution because it is not intended to prove a certain theory but rather to let “new” theories grow from “raw data”. For this, a “distance” in the sense of even-handedness between the scientist and existing theories is necessary. Second, the method is time consuming if there is a considerable amount of raw data. Text is usually examined line by line, and the strong data foundation of GT’s theoretical knowledge, which is this method’s main strength, would be impaired if this was done without rigour (Böhm, 2004, p. 271; Glaser, 1978, pp. 81–91; Urquhart et al., 2010, p. 372).

98

7  Research Methods

For the present research, GT was used to develop the elements of the Metamodel from raw data based on three case-models. Open coding was used to identify common findings, which were then clustered and integrated into the system of the three Metamodel-Categories (control levels of logic, Domains, and rationalities and organisational levels) through axial coding. After introducing the main components of grounded theory, the following sections address these components in further detail.

7.1.1 Raw Data This section introduces the raw data that was used in the development of the THRIVE Metamodel. The data was taken from three completed large-scale projects on heritage-based urban development were selected to serve as case-models: The HerO Project, the COMUS Project, and the Halland Model project (City of Regensburg et al., 2011; Council of Europe, 2016; Gustafsson, 2009) (for detailed descriptions of the projects and sampling process, please refer to Sect. 6.5). Three texts, as shown in Table  7.1, that describe and analyse each Case-Model from a retrospective view comprised the raw data that was examined using GT. The HerO Guidebook, published in 2011, was written to serve as a manual for heritage cities that want to apply the HerO methodology and develop an integrated (world) heritage management plan. The publication includes practical experiences from the participating nine European cities that developed and applied this methodology. The COMUS final publication, published in 2017, documents the COMUS-­ Model, and also identified principles for heritage-based urban development that could be implemented elsewhere. In a dissertation published in 2011 (first edition 2009), Gustafsson analysed various scientific papers addressing the Halland Model from slightly different angles to assess its success in the context of the general objectives of regional development. In each of these publications, the authors were extensively involved in the development and application of the methodology they used. The authors not only document but extensively analyse their respective models, including the actors, affected people, process, etc. Therefore, the publications are deeply rooted in “Real World” Table 7.1  sampled and selected raw data that was examined through grounded theory process HerO City of Regensburg; Ripp, M. (2011). HerO – Heritage as opportunity. The Road Case-Model to Success: Integrated Management of Historic Towns- Guidebook, Rotaplan Regensburg. COMUS Council of Europe (2016). COMMUNITY-LED Case-Model URBAN STRATEGIES IN HISTORIC TOWNS (COMUS). Halland Gustafsson, Christer (2009): “The Halland Model.” A Trading Zone In Concert Case-Model with Labour Market Policy and the Construction Industry, Aiming at Regional Sustainable Development, Dissertation. Gothenburg. Studies in Conservation 24. University of Gothenburg.

7.1  Grounded Theory

99

(Van Gigch, 2003) situations and serve as credible and rich sources for the GT process. As GT was used to identify and develop the MM-Elements, it was essential to select raw data that represented a deep understanding of heritage-based urban development, including first-hand experience. The author of the HerO Guidebook, Nils Scheffler, who was the Lead Expert of the HerO Project, and I were involved in almost all project activities. Concerning the COMUS publication, for which I was also a contributing author, the other authors were Philip Stein, the Lead Expert of the COMUS Project, who was involved in most activities and fieldwork; Hakan Demir from the Council of Europe, who steered the whole project, including the administrative work; Marina Neagu who was also involved in several of the projects’ activities; and Nils Scheffler who helped to prepare the final text. The author of the text on the Halland Model was Christer Gustafsson, who was personally involved in the design and implementation of the Halland model from the very beginning and used his experience to write his dissertation on the subject (Table 7.2). The combined raw data consisted of 596 pages of dense English text. A total of 158,149 words were analysed, which consisted of 1,096,881 characters. Consequently, the implementation of GT, and especially the open coding process, was time-consuming.

7.1.2 Example of Abstraction Process Through Grounded Theory An exemplary process is utilized in this section to demonstrate how elements have been developed from raw data through coding. As described at the beginning of this chapter, the developed elements – Domains and Entity Groups – are rooted in the raw data of the case-models and have been developed through grounded theory. The Domain Principles was developed through selective coding (see Sect. 7.1.5) from the Entity Groups Governance Principles, Cooperation Principles, and Participation Principles. Domains represent the highest possible level of abstraction in this process. The Entity Group Cooperation Principles was developed from different Entities that were identified in the raw text through axial coding (see Sect. 7.1.4). The Entity Group Cooperation Principles, for example, contains the Entities build trust, acceptance, and awareness, among others. These Entities were

Table 7.2  Scope of raw text that was analysed by grounded theory process Raw text HerO COMUS Halland Sum Estimated

a

Pages 84 70 442 596

Words 28,672 18,977 110,500a 158,149

Characters 190,581 132,800 773,500a 1,096,881

100

7  Research Methods

developed from the raw text through open coding (see Sect. 7.1.3). The following specific raw data (see Sect. 7.1.1) led to the development of the Entity build trust: • “Build trust between the involved stakeholders” (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 44) • “…flexibility among stake holders, trust for the partners, and transparent methods” (Gustafsson, 2009, p. 221) • “… involved were open to wide solutions, compromises and corporate financing” (Gustafsson, 2009, p. 259) • “… based on the relations between the actors: the construction industry, the labour market and KMVs and their manifest needs, values and resources during a special time of recession” (Gustafsson, 2009, p. 152) The following are some examples of the raw data that led to the development of the Entity awareness: • “It also supports an increase of the stakeholder’s understanding, respect and care for the value, demands and benefits of cultural heritage for sustainable urban development” (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 20) • “… raise the understanding and awareness in respect of the opportunities presented by a cultural heritage-led urban development” (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 40) • “Raising awareness about the opportunities that heritage-led, community-based urban development can provide for the sustainable development of towns” (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 39) Figure 7.1 is an illustrative example of the development of Metamodel elements through grounded theory. This example shows the strength and weakness of the chosen grounded theory methodology. The strength is the rigour that can be seen in the traceable path between the raw data, the Entities, the Entity Groups, and the Domains. The developed elements for the Metamodel are not just based on personal perception but on text taken from material (raw data) related to the case-models. GT was also used to broaden the understanding of which elements are relevant. The weakness of the GT process can be seen in what Midgley describes as the borders of the system: “… there are always boundaries defining what we consider relevant in any situation, and the setting of boundaries is strongly driven by value judgements …” (Midgley & Lindhult, 2017, p. 12). The personal experience and values of the researcher influence this process, at least in the sense of a specific “theoretical sensitivity” as described by Glaser and Strauss (1967), Glaser (1978), and Mey and Mruck (2011, p. 31f), and, consequently, also influence the borders of systems (the Metamodel in this case) based on elements developed through grounded theory. The type of raw data that is used to develop the elements also influences the borders of the system. Therefore, the raw data from the case-models used to develop elements through the process of GT define the borders of the system of the

7.1  Grounded Theory

101

Fig. 7.1  Example of development of Metamodel elements through grounded theory

Metamodel (see Sect. 5.4). Consequently, different case-models would lead to a metamodel with different borders. This inherent limitation needs to be considered whenever users of the Metamodel have a different understanding, based on their experience, of which Entity Groups are relevant for heritage-based development processes. This limitation is particularly important in relation to the Metamodel Requirement No. 1: Completeness: The HBD Metamodel shall be complete in that sense that it must represent all Entities that are relevant in HBD processes and that are described in the Domain (See Sect. 7.2.4). This completeness is limited by the chosen method to develop the elements. The borders or the system (represented through the artefact Metamodel) are limited by the sampling of the raw text and the “theoretical sensitivity” (Mey & Mruck, 2011, p. 31f) of the author that is based on their personal values.

102

7  Research Methods

7.1.3 Open Coding In the first round of data analysis, “open coding” was used to extract Key Concepts (here: the Elements of the Metamodel). In the following section, the opening coding process and its results are described. The examination using the GT process began with reading all the raw data, and, during a second reading, codes were then developed and attached to words, sentences, and sometimes longer passages of text. In this phase of the research, any content that seemed to be relevant to potential Metamodel elements was coded. “Generative questions”, such as what and who is relevant, were used as guidelines to develop the codes (Mey & Mruck, 2011, p. 39f). According to Khandkar (2009, p. 1), open coding includes “… labelling concepts, defining and developing categories based on their properties and dimensions.” During the process of open coding, every single word and every single line of the raw data were examined. A total of 843 were generated through the open coding process. These codes were already generalizing the raw data but still with a relatively low level of abstraction. Example A passage on page 37 of the raw text of the COMUS Project read as follows: The level of success in the reuse of a heritage building also depends on its accessibility and whether it is well connected through roads and other means of transport. Thus, the improvement of the accessibility of the site for the citizens is an important part of the process. (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 37)

Code generated through open coding: accessibility Or: The following was written in the raw text on page 42 of the HerO Project: To receive the political support of the process and contents of the Integrated Cultural Heritage Management Plan, Regensburg’s City Council was informed in-depth about the approach before the process started and also on a regular basis about intermediate results. The final document will be given to the City Council for approval. (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 42)

Code generated through open coding: decision makers The substantial amount of raw data (596 pages) and the inductive approach to work, starting from the raw data rather than a pre-concept of codes, resulted in 843 codes that are grounded in 2366 quotations (words, expressions, sentences, or longer congruent parts of the text). As the number of codes was excessively high, I considered whether there had been an error in the GT application. However, a comparison with previous studies confirmed this to be acceptable and even enriching for the results of the next phase of the process: axial coding.

7.1  Grounded Theory

103

The open coding process also generated many similar codes that were very close or identical in meaning. These similar codes were combined or merged after the open coding phase, but the resulting reduction in terms of the number of overall codes was limited. Eventually, parts of text (especially for the Halland Model) became repetitions or contained paraphrasing of text already coded, and, in these cases, the researcher accelerated the process by concentrating on “new” content. This phenomenon has already been described by Strauss (1987, p.  61) and was therefore accepted to be a normal part of the exercise. During the open coding process, it was necessary to balance between being as objective as possible to let the theoretical elements “emerge” from the raw data while also being “theoretically sensitive” enough to identify the elements. This struggle led to moments of confusion and uncertainty but seems to be a natural part of the methodology (Mey & Mruck, 2011, p. 31f). The main benefit of this rigorous exercise was that the raw data of the three case-models were examined and analysed in a very detailed way, and new findings (elements) were identified that were not previously considered. These have been integrated into the results (Entities, Entity Groups and Domains) of the GT process. Furthermore, the significance of certain elements, for example, Stakeholders, has been demonstrated through the sheer number of codes to which they have been assigned. The open coding process resulted in a list of open codes that could then serve as the basis for the axial coding process to sort and cluster the Entities at hand.

7.1.4 Axial Coding Based on the results of open coding, the second round of data analysis, “axial coding”, was conducted to condense and abstract the extracted key concepts. Axial coding can be used to find connections between the generated codes and relate them (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Mey & Mruck, 2011, pp. 38–42). For the overall objective of developing the THRIVE Metamodel, it was important to further condense the codes, finding meta-terms and meta-categories, to reach a higher level of abstraction. This step was crucial because a metamodel cannot be built on detailed and specific “objects”; it must be built on abstract categories of Entities. Glaser introduced the concept of “coding families” (List after Mey and Mruck (2011, p. 37). According to his concept, the technique of “coding families” was used during the open coding to reach a higher level of abstraction through the combination of codes into Entity Groups. Compared to the process of open coding, axial coding was quite different because the generated open codes rather than raw data (text) formed the base of the process. Example: The axial code “Evaluation” was related to the following open codes: review, monitoring system, monitoring indicators, monitor, evaluate, environmental impact evaluations, continuing evaluation, collection of data, benchmark.

104

7  Research Methods

Axial coding had to be repeated from the start to ensure that all open codes were included because new axial codes were developed later in the process. The open codes by their number of linked original quotations in the raw data, while keeping an open mind to find Entity Groups for all open codes. Axial coding made it possible to conceptualise and reflect on all Entities and, more importantly, Entity Groups that are relevant for heritage-based urban development processes. Starting from the pre-existing subjective perception of which Entity Groups are relevant in these processes, axial coding was used to develop these groups based on the open codes that were generated from the raw data (text). This step demonstrates the added benefit of the grounded theory process and ensures that the developed Entity Groups were rooted in the qualitative data.

7.1.5 Selective Coding For the third round of analysis in the grounded theory process, “selective coding” was performed following the combined coding procedures of Strauss and Glaser as described by Mey and Mruck (2011, p. 41). The axial codes (=Entity Groups) were integrated into a theoretical concept, which categorizes the developed axial codes into eight different Domains. Van Gigch described a Domain as the “area or scope over which a system exercises control” (Van Gigch, 1991, p.  345f), and these Domains represent the highest level of abstraction in this research. Example: Domain = Context The following system of element groups exercises control over the Domain Context: Qualitative Qualities, Quantitative Qualities, Interests/Needs, Values, Meaning, Challenges, Context, Function, and Organisational Structures. The selective coding resulted in an even higher level of abstraction and the design of Domains that are integrated into the Metamodel.

7.1.6 Tools Due to the nature and quantity of the data being processed, a special tool was required for the implementation of grounded theory. The ATLAS TI software package was the tool chosen to support the grounded theory process. It enabled the organisation of a large amount of raw data and assisted with the implementation of the open and axial coding processes in an intuitive way. Through Atlas TI, it was possible to store the raw data and the codes in one software tool and pick up the coding process exactly where it was last stopped. The software was chosen following the recommendation of BTU Cottbus in a course on theories and methodologies. One challenge related to the use of ATLAS TI was that it was time-consuming due

7.1  Grounded Theory

105

to the significant amount of scrolling required to work with the considerable number of codes. The analytical capabilities of the software have also been limited.

7.1.7 Results of Grounded Theory Process: The Elements of the Metamodel The elements of the Metamodel that have been developed by grounded theory are introduced. The three phases of the grounded theory process each led to specific results, which form the different elements of the Metamodel: Open Coding The results of the open coding process were 843 generated codes, which represent the individual Entities that are relevant in a heritage-based development process.

Axial Coding Through the axial coding process, the 843 codes (representing Entities) generated through the open coding process were clustered into 44 Entity Groups.

Selective Coding In the third step, the selective coding process, these Entity Groups were integrated into a theoretical framework and the concept of eight different Domains.

The identified Domains and Entity Groups that are relevant for heritage-based urban development processes are illustrated in Fig. 7.2. With the identified Domains and Entity Groups, the context and actors in a situation can be described as follows (wherein the phrases in parentheses refer to the relevant Domain names): Who (People) is using which Resource (Resource) to reach What (Concepts) and How (Processes) considering general Principles (Principles) and the Context (Context) using Methods (Methods) to Improve (Development Narrative) the situation.

106

7  Research Methods

Fig. 7.2  Elements of the Metamodel (results of the grounded theory process)

7.2 Design Research Methodology Design research methodology can work with specific steps to develop and describe a new artefact, in this case the Metamodel. The six distinct steps of design research methodology and their purposes are then outlined. In the third phase of the research process, the Metamodel was constructed from the elements. This task was very different from the first phase, which focused on the generation of knowledge (elements) through the qualitative examination of existing data. The development of the Metamodel was explorative because it had not yet been developed. DRM’s structured process, including evaluation and feedback, ensured that the Metamodel could meet the requirements that were to be defined. Cross (1993, p. 16f) tracked the beginning of the real design research movement to the 1960s, when it was realized that intuitive and spontaneous methods were not sufficient for the design of complex artefacts. However, even before the 1960s, the idea of a more scientific methodology in design was formulated: an enhanced methodology was especially needed for increasingly complex artefacts. Unlike empirical research, where existing subjects or phenomena are examined and a variety of different scientific methodologies are available, design research projects focus on the creation of something new. During the 1960s, few methodologies were available that granted sufficient scientific rigour (Cross, 1993, pp. 16–18). Design research became popular in the 1960s because it is a scientifically accepted methodology that ensures scientific rigour and is replicable and follows a clear scheme and concept. In the following decade, it lost popularity but experienced a revival since the 1980s. DRM has been described by Niedderer (2009, p. 4) as “creative and interdisciplinary” and has been used in different disciplines like information science, architecture, psychology, and anthropology. DRM can be used where artefacts are created

7.2  Design Research Methodology

107

to better understand and improve the identified problems. Empirical methodologies could not be used for this part of the research because there are no existing phenomena to be analysed: The aim is to design a new artefact (in this case, a Metamodel) to solve a “practical” problem and contribute knowledge to the scientific field of urban heritage, which can be used as a new instrument for heritage-based local and regional development. DRM is used as described by Easterday (2018), Kelly (2013, p.  142f), Peffers (2007, pp.  48–74), Niedderer (2009), and Schneider (Schneider et  al., 2017) as a structured and scientific methodology to design artefacts. Nevertheless, these design research activities are often not conducted in a purely sequential way but more in an iterative way between different activities, as Johannesson and Perjons (2012) have discussed. According to Easterday et  al. (2018), DRM can be understood as a series of structured steps toward the generation of an artefact. The six different steps are based on Peffers et al. (2007), Niedderer (2009), Weber (2010), Gregory (2011), Kelly (2013), Easterday (2018), and Schneider (2017): 1. Explicate the problem In the first step, problems are explicated through investigations and analyses of real-­ world problems. The problem at stake should be clearly elaborated, including its significance, general interest, and possible underlying causes. A general solution to the problem should then be proposed and justified. Ultimately this phase provides the answer to the following question: What is the Problem at stake? 2. Define Objectives of Solution, Outline Artefact and Define Requirements In this phase, the objective of the proposed solution is defined, and the Benefits of the proposed solution are evaluated in comparison to other possible solutions. How the proposed solution will answer the explicated problem should be clear, and, to this end, the requirements for the proposed artefact need to be defined. The most important question that must be answered to determine these requirements is the following: What qualities must the artefact possess to be able to respond to the problem? 3. Design and Develop Artefact The third step is designing and developing an artefact that can solve the explicated problem by fulfilling the requirements that were defined. Artefacts can be constructs, models, methods, or instantiations (each defined broadly) or new properties of technical, social, and/or informational resources. “Conceptually, a design research artefact can be any designed object in which a research contribution is embedded in the design” (Peffers et  al., 2007, p.  55). After the definition of the desired quality and general outline, the artefact has to be designed. For this, the appropriate theoretical knowledge has to be chosen. 4. Demonstration Demonstrating the artefact is the fourth step. The idea is to show the artefact in a scenario that demonstrates or proves that it can solve the explicated problem. The

108

7  Research Methods

demonstration can be completed to solve one or more instances of the problem and purpose, simulations, proofs, and case studies can be applied. Before the artefact can be demonstrated, it is also necessary to know it is used. 5. Evaluation The fifth and final activity is the evaluation of the artefact, which determines how the artefact fulfils the requirements and how it addresses or solves the practical problems that were identified in the first step. This is done by comparing the objectives of the solution to the performance during the demonstration of the artefact. Different techniques and methods can be used for the evaluation, either quantitative or qualitative, through empirical evidence or logical proof. After the evaluation, the artefact can be further adapted according to the results. 6. Communication After the artefact has been developed, demonstrated, and evaluated, the results must be communicated to other researchers and relevant audience, including experts who will potentially apply the artefact. These results should include the quality and substance of the artefact, how it is used, and which problems it can address. The communication of the results requires knowledge of the disciplinary cultures into which the information will be disseminated.

7.2.1 Implementation of Design Research Methodology This Chapter describes how DRM was implemented and the research questions that were formulated to guide this implementation. After the first phase of the research, where existing phaenomena, namely the case-models, have been analysed and the elements of the Metamodel were derived from raw data (in this case, text) in the second phase, in Research Phase 3 (Metamodel Design) (see Sect. 7.2.2), the Metamodel was developed. This creative process was based on the abstract elements that were developed in Research Phase 2 (Generation of Metamodel elements) (see Sect. 7.1) and my personal experience (see also Chap. 5) (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) who was involved in projects where cultural heritage was used for urban development during the last 15 years. Based on the scientifically rigid and proven methodology that was used to develop the Metamodel elements, subsequently, DRM provided the framework to develop the Metamodel by also using a proven and tested method (Blessing & Chakrabarti, 2009; Easterday et al., 2018). The process to actually design the Metamodel first involved the visualization of the Metamodel structure and later the adaptation and refinement of it. After Research Phase two (see Chap. 5) was finished and the elements and Domains of the Metamodel were developed by GT, a creative process started to develop the Metamodel. In the first step, five phases of the Metamodel, which are elaborated later in this chapter, were defined, based on the experiences of the three case-models (City of Regensburg et al., 2011; Council of Europe, 2016; Gustafsson, 2009). In

7.2  Design Research Methodology

109

the second step for each phase of the “input”, the central questions and the “output” were selected. With this core structure of each phase, the relevant Entities and Domains were chosen in a third step and integrated in sketches for each phase. With the Metamodel requirements in mind, the objective was to find a balance of integrating the relevant information without going too much into detail. The fourth step was to adapt the sketches and ensure that the inputs and outputs were logical, matching, and connected to the concept of each phase. A colour and symbol code was developed to enable the user of the Metamodel to clearly differentiate the different levels of abstraction, for example, between Entity Groups and Domains. The first draft of visualizations was prepared that included the five phases, an overview of Domains and Entity Groups, a visualization for each phase, an explanation of the Metamodel language, the integration of the Metamodel-Theory by Van Gigch and GT, an overview of the inputs and outputs for each phase, and an overview of all five phases with all relevant Entity Groups and Domains. The visualizations also integrated feedback from consultation with the PhD advisors The benefits and potential of cultural heritage for urban development have been extensively examined (see Chap. 2). However, there is still no universal methodology for how cultural heritage can be used in specific cases to stimulate urban development and the enhancement of the quality of life of communities. Solutions that have been successful in a specific environment are not necessarily successful in a different environment, which is also true for models. There are significant limitations in the transferability of all three examined case-models (see Chap. 5). The proposed solution to this limitation was the development of a Metamodel that can be used to structure and evaluate local processes for heritage-based urban development, which led to the following three research questions: 1. How can an abstract Metamodel for HBD processes be described that can be applied in a broad variety of cases? 2. What are the relevant factors, actors, phases, and processes at stake, and how can they be integrated in the design of successful local HBD processes? 3. How can this abstract Metamodel be used to structure, evaluate, and improve local HBD processes?

7.2.2 Multimethod Research Design and Design Research Methodology This section details the specific steps of design research methodology and how they relate to the overall research design. Multimethod Research Design To benefit from past experiences and design a new solution, the research was first scientifically grounded using DRM. Based on concrete text and different processes and levels of abstraction, the elements of the Metamodel were developed (see Sect.

110

7  Research Methods

7.1). Mixed-methods research design ensured the integration of GT and DRM (see Sect. 5.2). Research Phase three (Metamodel Design) in this mixed-methods research design focused on the design of the Metamodel (artefact). The implementation of the selected methodology, DRM, was based on six consecutive steps: Application of Design Research Methodology Design research methodology was applied according to six steps that are based on Peffers et  al, Niedderer, Weber, Gregory, Haukksson and Johanesson, Kelly and Easterday (Easterday et al., 2018; Gregory, 2011; Hauksson, 2013, p. 19f; Kelly, 2013; Niedderer, 2009; Peffers et al., 2007, p. 55ff; Schneider et al., 2017; Weber, 2010). In this case, the previously explicated steps were used in the following way: 1. Explicate the problem The problem at stake was explicated through investigations and the analyses of practical problems based on practical experiences and literature review (see Chap. 3). It was formulated and motivated clearly, including significance, general interest and explaining possible underlying causes (see Chaps. 3 and 4). The following problem was identified: There is no general theoretical and practical guidance on how to scope and design successful heritage-based development projects that stimulate urban development and the enhancement of the quality of life of communities. The following solution was proposed solution: The development of a Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development. 2. Define Objectives of solution, Outline Artefact, and Define Requirements The objectives of the proposed solution were defined. The objective of the development of the Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development was to provide a tool that could achieve the following: • • • • •

Scope HBD processes on a local and regional level. Evaluate HBD processes on a local and regional level. Design and draft HBD processes on a local and regional level. Analyse HBD processes on a local and regional level. Develop capacity-building programs and activities with a focus on relevant elements and Domains for HBD processes on a local and regional level. • Evaluate projects and project proposals that include activities on heritage-based urban development. • Evaluate funding proposals that include activities or objectives on heritage-based urban development. The Metamodel can provide a better understanding of the process, systems, and Entities that are relevant for HBD processes and thus provide an applicable tool to approach the explicated problem. The requirements for the artefact to determine its quality and ensure that it can be used in the proposed ways were defined.

7.2  Design Research Methodology

111

3. Design and Develop Artefact The artefact was developed to solve the explicated problem by fulfilling the requirements that were defined (see Sect. 7.2.4). 4. Demonstration After the design of the artefact (Metamodel), it was demonstrated by the integration of a real-world scenario into the Metamodel. The demonstration was used to show that the artefact can solve the explicated problem (see Chap. 10). 5. Evaluation After the demonstration, there was an evaluation to determine how the artefact fulfils the predefined requirements and how it addresses or solves practical problems that were identified in the first step. This was done by comparing the objectives of the solution, including the Metamodel requirements, to the performance during the demonstration of the artefact. After the evaluation, the artefact was further adapted and refined (see Sect. 10.7). 6. Communication After the artefact is developed, demonstrated, and evaluated, the results should be communicated to other researchers and also experts and responsible persons that are dealing with the real-world problems that the artefact addresses. Not only the descriptive text but also the visualizations are essential for this task.

7.2.3 Areas of Application, Benefits, Risks of Design Research Methodology The areas of application, benefits and risks of research design as a methodology are explained in this section. Areas of Application As Kristina Niedderer (2009, p. 4) notes, the very nature of DRM is creativity and inter-disciplinarity, and the incorporation of research methods that originate in disciplines that are different from design as psychology, anthropology, and others. Consequently, design research methodology is used in a variety of disciplines. From engineering and architecture (Cross, 1993, p.  17) to information science (Peffers et  al., 2007), education (Easterday et  al., 2018), or business science (Hauksson, 2013, p. 19). DRM is usually used when something “new” is to be developed for practical use, but, at the same time, scientific knowledge is to be generated. For example, in information technology (IT), DRM is used to create information solutions (e.g., software) to meet specific needs and target specific problems in organisations or business units (Peffers et al., 2007).

112

7  Research Methods

Benefits DRM offers many benefits in the research process when new artefacts are developed. The benefits of DRM are specified by its “… creative and interdisciplinary nature, and its use of discipline-specific research methods from disciplines outside of design such as psychology and anthropology as well as discipline-specific methods genuine to design” (Niedderer, 2009, p. 4). Because of the integration of the development of requirements for the to-be-developed artefact and the testing/demonstration of the artefact with multiple processes of feedback and refinement, DRM is capable of proving if, for example, an artefact is meeting the required expectations or not (Niedderer, 2009). Because of the inherent and strong connection of DRM to real-world problems, for example, through the development of requirements, testing, feedback, and evaluation, the practical applicability of research outcomes is another potential benefit (Peffers et al., 2007, p. 4). With the use of DRM, a design problem can be addressed systematically (Peffers et  al., 2007, p.  5). It ensures scientific rigour by the use of the structured approach, characterized by clear, distinguishable phases (see Sect. 7.2), but some researchers suggest that classical concepts of rigour like validity, reliability, objectivity, and generalization, may be re-interpreted as credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability for qualitative research (Hamberg et al., 1994, p. 178f) (Niedderer, 2009, p. 3). DRM is capable of creating a practical solution to a real-world problem and at the same time increasing theoretical knowledge (Easterday et al., 2018) and emphasizing a clear linkage of a solution to an identified problem (Hauksson, 2013, p.  18) (Hevner et  al., 2004). Other benefits of DRM are that it is research-driven, focused on research questions and includes referenced literature. Therefore, it is a method that includes necessary elements for scientifically reproducible research (Easterday et al., 2018). Risks The reviewed literature on DRM shows little information on the potential risks of the methodology. The risks are therefore developed on a theoretical level from the analysis of the methodology and its steps. Some of the main risks in the implementation of the methodology are execution with a lack of scientific rigour and the omission of certain steps. For example, if there were no requirements for the “to-be-­ developed artefact” to be defined, at a later stage the artefact cannot be evaluated by standards of scientific rigour, as the reference framework would be missing. Omitting the demonstration of the artefact is another potential risk. The artefact is tested and refined in this important phase. Without this phase, there is a lower chance that the artefact will be useful for solving problems in the “real world”, and a greater chance that the produced solutions will not be cost- or time-efficient (Easterday et  al., 2018). The greatest risk is that the developed artefact does not address the problem for which it was to be developed (Peffers et al., 2007, p. 6).

7.2  Design Research Methodology

113

7.2.4 Metamodel Requirements Determining objectives for the solution, outlining the artefact, and defining requirements are important tasks in the second phase of DRM (see Sect. 7.2). In this context, the Metamodel requirements play an important role as a reference and guidance in the development of the artefact and as a tool to evaluate and enhance the artefact once it has been designed. They “frame” the design process of models (and systems) to ensure that the designed artefact will be able to serve the purpose for which it was developed and does not produce more (unnecessary) tasks (Whitney et al., 2015, p. 27f). Considering the problem at stake, the research questions, and the scope of the potential solution, the following requirements have been formulated: 1. Completeness: The HBD Metamodel shall be complete in the sense that it must represent all Entities that are relevant in HBD processes and that are described in the Domain. The limitations here are that the Metamodel cannot include Entities, Entity Groups, or Domains that are not present in the case-models. 2. The HBD Metamodel shall be based on the Metamodel Theory developed by Van Gigch and include all three categories: Domains, control levels of logic, and rationalities and organisational levels. The concept of how Van Gigch’s Metamodel Theory is included is elaborated in Chaps. 5 and 6. 3. The Metamodel shall be easy to understand and clear. This is evaluated in the demonstration phase of the Metamodel and feedback sessions. 4. The Metamodel shall represent a high level of abstraction to represent different models for HBD. The limitations here are that the Metamodel can represent different models for HBD, but specific models will be on a much lower level of abstraction, and therefore some elements of these models will only be represented on a very abstract level (Domains). 5. The Metamodel shall be able to support the designing and scoping of local HBD processes. This requirement shows few limitations, but it might be applicable in some local cases where other Entities are additionally relevant. 6. The Metamodel shall be usable to select appropriate models and tools for local HBD development processes. In the framework of this research, it is not possible to list all potential tools and models that could be useful to design local HBD development processes, but the phases of the Model and the relevant Entities and Domain in each phase will enable the users of the Metamodel to structure the process and then search for applicable tools and models according to each phase.

114

7  Research Methods

7. The Metamodel shall be clear in the differentiation of different phases of HBD processes. Even if, in practice, the different phases are not always followed in a strictly linear way, the differentiation of phases shall ensure a detailed understanding of the whole process and its parts. 8. The HBD Metamodel shall be relevant to the problem definition and Domain and only contain relevant Entities. This requirement is evaluated after the demonstration of the artefact. 9. The HBD Metamodel shall be created in an efficient way using the design research methodology and building on existing knowledge. After the completion of the Metamodel, including the evaluation and refinement, the efficiency of the creation of the Metamodel should be assessed. 10. The relationship between the different Entities in the Metamodel shall be clear and easy to understand. This requirement is evaluated by the demonstration of the artefact and feedback session

References Blessing, L. T. M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a design research methodology. Springer. Böhm, A. (2004). Theoretical coding: Text analysis in grounded theory. In U. Flick, E. V. Kardorff, & I. Steincke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 270–275). Sage. City of Regensburg, Ripp, M., & Scheffler, N. (2011). HerO – Heritage as opportunity. The road to success: Integrated management of historic towns – Guidebook. https://www.regensburg.de/ fm/464/HerO%20Guidebook%20EN.pdf Council of Europe. (2016). COMMUNITY-LED URBAN STRATEGIES IN HISTORIC TOWNS (COMUS) Communities at the heart of heritage governance. https://rm.coe.int/ comus-­communities-­at-­the-­heart-­of-­heritage-­governance-­principles-­for-­h/1680728eb4 Cross, N. (1993). A history of design methodology. In M. J. De Vries, N. Cross, & D. P. Grant (Eds.), Design methodology and relationships with science (pp. 15–27). Springer. Daengbuppha, J., Hemmington, N., & Wilkes, K. (2006). Using grounded theory to model visitor experiences at heritage sites: Methodological and practical issues. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 9(4), 367–388. Easterday, M.  W., Rees Lewis, D.  G., & Gerber, E.  M. (2018). The logic of design research. Learning: Research and Practice, 4(2), 131–160. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine. Gray, D. (2013). Doing research in the real world. Sage. Gregory, R. W. (2011). Design science research and the grounded theory method: Characteristics, differences, and complementary uses. In Theory-guided modeling and empiricism in information systems research (pp. 111–127). Springer. Gustafsson, C. (2009). The Halland Model. A Trading zone for building conservation in concert with labour market policy and the construction industry, aiming at regional sustainable development.

References

115

Hamberg, K., Johansson, E., Lindgren, G., & Westman, G.  J. F.  P. (1994). Scientific rigour in qualitative research  – Examples from a study of women’s health in family practice. Family Practice, 11(2), 176–181. Hauksson, H. (2013). Metamodeling for business model design/Facilitating development and communication of Business Model Canvas (BMC) models with an OMG standards-based metamodel. U.  Department of Computer and Systems Sciences Stockholm. http://kth.diva-­ portal.org/smash/get/diva2:680504/FULLTEXT01.pdf Hevner, A., March, S.  T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. Johannesson, P., & Perjons, E. (2012). A design science primer. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Kelly, A. (2013). When is design research appropriate. In T.  Plomp & N.  Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp.  135–150). SLO Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/14472302/Introductio n_20to_20education_20design_20research.pdf Khandkar, S. H. (2009). Open coding. University of Calgary. Retrieved 23 May 2017 from http:// pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/wiki/uploads/CPSC681/open-­coding.pdf Mey, G., & Mruck, K. (2011). Grounded-Theory-Methodologie: Entwicklung, Stand, Perspektiven. In G.  Mey & K.  Mruck (Eds.), Grounded theory reader (Vol. 2, pp.  11–48). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Midgley, G., & Lindhult, E. (2017). What is systemic innovation? Research memorandum. University of Hull, Business School. http://www2.hull.ac.uk/hubs/pdf/memorandum%2099.pdf Niedderer, K. (2009). Understanding methods: Mapping the flow of methods, knowledge and rigour in design research methodology. In Proceedings of third international conference of the International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR 2009), Seoul. http://niedderer.org/IASDR2009_niedderer.pdf Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. Ripp, M. (2011). Der Regensburger Welterbe-Managementplan. Gestaltung einer Welterbe-­ Strategie gemeinsam mit den Bürgern. In Arbeitskreis Regensburger Herbstsymposion (Ed.), Zum Teufel mit den Baudenkmälern – 200 Jahre Denkmalschutz in Regensburg (pp. 83–86). Peter Morsbach Verlag. Schneider, D., Oliveira, L. F., & de Souza, J. (2017). Designing, building and evaluating a social news curation environment using the action design research methodology. Cluster Computing, 20(2), 1731–1748. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press. Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M.  D. (2010). Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 20(4), 357–381. Van Gigch, J. P. (1991). System design modeling and metamodeling. Plenum Press. Van Gigch, J. P. (2003). Metadecisions: Rehabilitating epistemology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Weber, S. (2010). Design science research: Paradigm or approach? In AMCIS American conference on information systems 2010 proceedings. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7c31/a4019 ab19db0123c90ba72250bc99d80ace5.pdf Whitney, K., Bradley, J. M., Baugh, D. E., & Chesterman, C. W., Jr. (2015). Systems theory as a foundation for governance of complex systems. International of Journal System of Systems Engineering, 6(1/2), 15–32.

Part III

Description, Application, and Demonstration of the Metamodel

Chapter 8

Description of the Metamodel

The following chapter describes the Metamodel, including its different visualizations and five different phases. The chapter first provides an overview of the Metamodel elements in Sect. 8.1. Then, in Sect. 8.2, the five phases of the Metamodel are introduced, along with their conception in the spiral form. The chapter then dedicates a subsection to each of the five phases, with detailed descriptions, including inputs and outputs. Examples are used to illustrate the Domains and Entity Groups, as identified through GT in the previous chapter, and processes at hand. The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the Metamodel can work in detail and what is relevant in each of the five phases. The examples are related to specific cases and only illustrate how the Metamodel can be used; they are not meant to limit other uses of the Metamodel by their specific nature based on a specific case. This chapter further describes how the different phases are connected and linked through inputs and outputs for each phase. Finally, a general overview of the five phases of the Metamodel is provided in summary. The text and figures within all of Part III (this chapter and Chaps. 9, 10, and 11) make extensive use of special formatting to indicate specific elements of the Metamodel. Please refer to the Reading Guide (ii) Formatting of Metamodel Elements and accompanying Legend at the beginning of the text for further guidance.

8.1 Elements of the Metamodel – Overview Following mixed-methods research design (see Sect. 7.2.2), the elements of the Metamodel are not based on external definitions but developed by GT. This section describes the elements and the eight Domains to which they belong to better understand their relevance and role in connection with HBD processes. The elements are the core of the Metamodel, as abstract representations of real-­ life cases based on the case-models (see Sects. 5.3 and 7.1.7). There are two types © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Ripp, A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development, Heritage Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08238-2_8

119

120

8  Description of the Metamodel

of elements used in the Metamodel: Entity Groups (see Sect. 6.5) and Domains (ibid.) to which these Entity Groups belong. Entity Groups are groups of different Entities that can be clustered/combined in one logical group with reference to the topic of the Metamodel (e.g., heritage-based urban development for this research). “Entity Groups” are clusters of Entities that belong to a similar category, class, or group. In this context, Domains are defined as a meta-category of Entity Groups (For a detailed explanation of the terminology, see also Sect. 6.5.1). The Entities themselves, as the lowest level of abstraction, are not used within the Metamodel. They only served as a step along the way to develop the Metamodel elements. Entities are the “basic” elements that were identified in the raw data. The term Entity, as it is used here, can refer to an object, a person, groups of persons, or an action, among other things. The Entities are represented in the Metamodel by Entity Groups and Domains (see Sects. 6.3 and 7.1.7). With the view to HBD processes. The identified Domains (in brackets) can be used to analyse and describe a narrative that includes: Who (People) Resources (Resource) What (Concepts) How (Processes) Principles (Principles) Context (Context) Methods (Methods) Improve (Development Narrative)

is using which to reach and taking into account general and the using to the situation.

The Domains 1. People The Domain People consists of the Entity Groups Actors, Affected People and Decision Makers. Following the Faro Convention (Council of Europe, 2005, p. 3) that asserts that the value of heritage is always connected to its value for People, this Domain is of great importance. Without People, the cultural heritage has no “user”, no one that is affected by it, no one that makes decisions concerning it. There is no cultural heritage without People, because, understood as a system and process that belongs to local communities (Ripp, 2018), the interrelation with human beings is the core of heritage. The three Entity Groups in this Domain: Actors, Affected People, and Decision Makers are significant: Actors take an active role in the management, use, financing, restoration, and marketing, of cultural heritage. The Actors are important multipliers and have a great interest and impact on the process of heritage-based development (Rodwell & van Oers, 2007, p. 3f). Weak Actors or problems among Actors can blockade HBD processes (Ripp & Rodwell, 2018, p. 243f). Affected People is a term that refers to citizens (either permanent or part-time like visitors and shoppers) that are somehow affected by the cultural heritage. This can

8.1 Elements of the Metamodel – Overview

121

be, for example, by the motivation of visitors by the cultural heritage, a limitation of commercial activities through cultural heritage, for example, shop owners, or even industry that is benefiting from cultural heritage to gain new personal. Decision Makers is a term for persons or bodies whose role is to make formal or informal decisions, either on the administrative or political level, e.g., the allocation of funding and staff, selection of which projects are implemented, determination of appropriate timing in connection with the available budget etc. They play a key role in HBD. 2. Resources Resources, developed from the three case-models (see Sects. 5.4 and 5.5), are everything and anything that is necessary, incremental, or useful for HBD processes. For A better understanding, Resources can be subcategorized (this subcategorization will not be used in the Metamodel but is helpful to understand the different natures of resources) as Tangible and Intangible Resources, Resources that are connected to Humans involved in the process, Financial Resources and Administrational Resources. Tangible Resources: Tangible Resources are the physical parts of Built Cultural Heritage like example listed buildings, historic pavements, and the materials that are used in the building, restoration, and maintenance of this built heritage.

Intangible Resources: Intangible Heritage gives a “sense of belonging” to residents, and this is vital to the maintenance of sustainable places (Narayanan, 2016, p. 305). There exist different definitions of Intangible Heritage (Ahmad, 2006; Vecco, 2010), but, in the framework of the research at hand, the term is used in its widest sense to refer to heritage that is not “hardware” in the sense that it is materialized as something that is built, but something that is determined by factors such as use, creation, and language.

Human Resources: Human Resources as an Entity Group to be used in the Metamodel are defined not in the classical sense referring only to the humans as a workforce but rather to the things that humans need to work. Human-connected resources after the Analysis of the case-models (REF Methods) are vital for the process of heritage-based development processes: Knowledge in the sense of knowledge of facts and figures, and experiences. Human Infrastructure refers to the actual existence of a workforce or external experts who are able to fulfil the expected tasks. Skills refer to management skills, moderation skills, and communication skills are that are needed in daily work. Creativity is understood in its widest sense to find solutions for Challenges at hand by cross-thinking and combining different approaches. Innovation is understood as “something new”, which can be ideas, approaches, tools, etc.

Financial Resources: Financial Resources are defined as different kinds of financial means, coming from various sources, both public and private. Public financial resources come from different sources on

122

8  Description of the Metamodel

different levels like local, regional, national, and international. One experience from the three case-models was that Financial Resources are usually not present at the beginning of the process. But a “good” process can be incremental to activate or trigger Financial Resources for specific actions (City of Regensburg, 2011; Gustafsson, 2009).

Administrational Resources: Administrational Resources, namely Policies, are another type of Resource. Policies do exist on different levels of the administration, including local, regional, federal level, national, and international. Depending on different regions and political systems, they are more top-down (Bouchenaki, 2016, p. 47) or developed by the integration of different government levels.

In the Metamodel, the Entity Groups in the Domain Resources represent the Entity Groups that have been developed from the case studies instead. 3. Concepts Concepts is another identified Domain and a category of Entity Groups that include Objectives, Strategies, Effects, and Benefits. In the case of this Domain, the limits of the methodology become visible. As these four Entity Groups have been developed from the case-models, they are relevant for the Metamodel. If the sampling had been different, other Entity Groups in the Domain of Concepts would have emerged through the GT process (see Sect. 5.7). The boundaries of the system (Midgley & Lindhult, 2017, p. 12ff) here are determined by the researcher and the selected case-models (see Sect. 5.5). Objectives as an Entity Group describes aims that are to be achieved. The discussion about Objectives and the agreement about Objectives is a crucial point for the success of HBD processes (City of Regensburg et  al., 2011; Council of Europe, 2016). Questions of power and participation are relevant here. If the Objectives are defined, an important step before defining single actions is to determine a strategy to reach the Objectives. An important point to consider is that different people and governance levels involved often have different objectives. Strategies can be defined in strategic plans like, for example, management plans, development plans, and road maps. Effects must be analysed and measured to manage and evaluate if Strategies are working. Effects can be determined by facts and figures in the form of statistical data and can also be seen in things that are hard to measure, like a changed image of a place, a different perception, and, for example, an enhanced sense of ownership. Effects can be positive or negative, depending on the reference framework they are evaluated against. Positive Effects, which I refer to as Benefits, are usually desired and anticipated. In the case-models, a high number of references were found for Benefits (City of Regensburg et al., 2011; Council of Europe, 2016; Gustafsson, 2009). Benefits exist in various forms, including economic benefits, social benefits, and ecological benefits. In the end, Benefits are beneficial for the citizens. They can be measured, for example, by cost–benefit analysis. 4. Processes The Domain of Processes describes a range of actions and activities that are implemented over a certain period of time and are not limited to a singular action.

8.1 Elements of the Metamodel – Overview

123

Processes play a special role in HBD because they connect and link other Entity Groups. One Entity Group in the Domain of Processes is Analysis. Analysis is usually important at the beginning of HBD processes, and the subject of the Analysis can be, for example, the Stakeholders and the Context. Change, a term often used in an economic environment and together with the development of the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) approach, became more prominent in urban planning (Bandarin & Van Oers, 2012, p. 110f; Unesco, 2010, p. 13f), stands for Change in the sense of change of objectives, change concerning the historic urban fabric and the historic environment, change of processes, change of involved people. Vision Development is a Process that can be implemented after the definitions of general Objectives. A vision includes a broad picture of the situation in the future for the heritage at hand. It is not going into detail (City of Regensburg et al., 2011). After Vision Development, Strategy Development is a Process where the question of how the vision shall be achieved is defined. Strategies are on a level between Visions and specific actions. If one action proves unsuccessful in the end, a different action can be tried to follow the strategy, or a different strategy can be developed to meet the desired Objectives and the Vision. The Process of Definition is important because all development processes start with a common understanding of the situation at hand, where often different perceptions and interpretations exist. The joint Definition of which problems are at stake includes finding a common wording and description of phenomena. If Definitions for important issues at stake are not done conjointly, there is a considerable risk that the involved people will not have the same understanding of the situation later in the process, which might lead to conflicts. Financial planning is important during the whole HBD process. From the Scoping of the HBD process itself, where costs for rooms, moderators, external expertise, and others needs to be calculated until the phase where actions are defined and implemented, and, of course, the actions need to have at least a preliminary financial outline (City of Regensburg et al., 2011). The Implementation of Actions is not only at the “end” of the HBD processes but often in parallel to other phases. Implementation of Actions consists of many sub-­ processes that are a subject for different research projects, but without the Implementation of Actions, HBD processes remain on the conceptual stage and will not develop the desired Benefits. The Evaluation – similar to the Process of Analysis but not the same – consists of judging the results against a predefined set of monitoring parameters. Evaluations are not necessarily based only on quantifiable parameters but can also be based on qualitative factors. There is a special focus on Scoping Processes within this research. Before the actual HBD processes start, Scoping, which is ideally not done by only one person but already a conjoint action, defines the architecture of the process, relevant Stakeholders, the financial frame, the time frame and roles. All described Processes here require different Knowledge and Skills. One process itself is to enable the involved people to implement the Processes.

124

8  Description of the Metamodel

By Capacity Building, which can include actions like training, coaching, and mentoring, the required Knowledge and Skills are brought to those who need it to implement the here-described Processes. 5. Principles In contrast to Processes, Principles are a more fixed framework, which can be used as guidance for decisions. Governance Principles are understood to target decision making processes on all administrational levels. Cooperation Principles shall ensure fair and transparent cooperation between the different involved people and groups and are closely related to Governance Principles. Participation Principles offers guidance on how to involve the communities, either by informing them or including them in the process of decision making (Arnstein, 1969; Göttler & Ripp, 2017). 6. Context Urban heritage, understood as a system (Ripp, 2018), is constantly influenced by the Context. The Context for HBD processes includes the following: Qualitative Qualities like, for example, the atmosphere of a place, the identification of local communities with the urban heritage, the perception of parts of the heritage as “pleasant” or “unpleasant”. Quantitative Qualities include aspects of the context that can be counted or measured, for example, the number of listed buildings, the number of inhabitants, value of properties. The Interests and the Needs of Communities, Stakeholders, and users of the urban heritage are all aspects of the Context that often cannot be seen easily but are important for the process. HBD processes also aim to identify, analyse, and integrate those interests and needs. Cultural heritage in its various forms but also other elements HBD processes have a different Meaning for the different people involved. Especially in the phase where the situation at hand is analysed, it is important to understand not only the obvious and measurable qualities but also the Meaning for different Stakeholders and communities. Challenges come in various forms ranging from Challenges as a starting point for HBD processes, like, for example, a number of unused historic buildings, but also in the form of Challenges throughout the process of HBD.  This can be, for example, the disinterest of a certain but important stakeholder group. Another factor of the Context is the Organisational Structures. These refer both to the organisation of the local city government and also the governance structures in places that include NGOs and other public Entities and how they collaborate and take decisions. Context includes much more than is covered by the Entity Groups that have just been described. Therefore, other factors, for example, the climate of a place and

8.2 Introducing the Five Phases and the Spiral Form of the Metamodel

125

security issues – are summarized in the Entity Group Context. After the rise in the popularity of the HUL Recommendation, Functions of different Entities for different Entities and how they have developed and are changing is an important factor for HBD processes because questions of use, including multifunctional uses of the public realm, are important considerations for decisions. 7. Methods The Domain Methods is not further specified by an Entity Group because it stands for a class of Entities that includes all Methods that are useful for the different phases of the Metamodel (see Sect. 6.5). For example, in the SCOPING PHASE, a Method for stakeholder analysis can be useful. In the EVALUATION PHASE, a benchmark analysis can be helpful. A Method is not anything that has been described by the other Domains. 8. Development Narrative One basis for HBD is the overall objective to improve the quality of life for local communities, which can include the improvement of social, economic, cultural, or natural aspects (see Sect. 4.3). The notion of this “to improve the situation” or “to make something better” is included in the Domain called Development Narrative. To improve something, Challenges or Threats, Opportunities and Benefits, are important to analyse and evaluate the progress. Challenges or Threats can be, for example, a high rate of unemployment, a weak economic situation, or a threat through periodic flooding in a city along a river. Opportunities are understood as potential chances of things on how to improve the situation. For example, in places that are determined by industrial production and a declining economy, it might be an opportunity to develop a strategy to attract different sectors of the economy (such as creative industries and tourism). After the Opportunities are used, and this is in most cases (City of Regensburg et al., 2011) not a short term thing, the desired Benefits might occur. Benefits in connection with social, economic, cultural, and natural aspects can range from better air quality (natural) to a better cultural offer for the local communities and are clearly not limited to economic benefits (Council of Europe, 2016; Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe, 2015; Unesco, 2016).

8.2 Introducing the Five Phases and the Spiral Form of the Metamodel The THRIVE Metamodel (Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development) consists of five phases, which can be conceived in a spiral form. This section explains the underlying logic of the Metamodel and the rationale behind the spiral form. First, the origin of the five-phase structure is explained. Then several potential forms for structuring such phases are introduced, including why these forms are

126

8  Description of the Metamodel

ill-­suited for the Metamodel. The general design of the spiral is explained, including why it is suitable for the Metamodel, and how a sequence of the spiral can be structured using the five phases is demonstrated. The five phases are introduced briefly before being described more fully in the proceeding section (Fig. 8.1). WP4.2 synthesis

Simplified URBAN PLANNING PROCESS

Legal framework and data

Strategy for energy and urban planning

09/06/2017

Organisaction and actors

Planning requirements Preparatory planning phase (exploration, scoping)

First analysis

first assessments, basic data, pre-checks

Policy

Vision and agreements

Feasibility studies

Feasibilty of different themes like mobility

Master planning

Formal planning phase (zoning)

Masterplan, urban design, contracts, agreements

Adaptations

Zoning

Land Use Plan, Zoning plan, Building Regulation Plan: formal steps defined by laqw

Public participation

Feasibilty and master planning phase

Approval by City Council

Design and implementation phase Design

Permits

Final design of buildings and public/green spaces, adaptations, competition

Building permit, Environment permits,... according to law

Operational phase Quality management

Monitoring, Quarter management

Fig. 8.1 A linear model for urban planning from the URBACT-Online Toolbox: URBAN LEARNING – Integrative energy planning of urban areas Collective learning for improved governance consists (Urbact, 2019)

8.2 Introducing the Five Phases and the Spiral Form of the Metamodel

127

The Rationalities and Organisation Levels of the Metamodel (Van Gigch, 1991, p. 370ff) are defined by five different phases. The purpose of the structure that is clustered in five different phases serves the following objectives: 1. To differentiate the process in smaller sub-processes with an understandable timeframe 2. To raise awareness of the importance of especially the first phase (SCOPING) 3. To lay the foundation of the spiral structure in which the phases are embedded, which shows that HBD is neither a singular linear process nor the often-quoted project cycle (See Fig. 8.2 on page 142) but rather a dynamic spiral process that is able to bring the situation to an improved level (raise the quality of life for communities), but is in principle neverending 4. To raise awareness of how the different phases are connected and part of one bigger process 5. To increase the usability of the Metamodel Urban and regional planning or development processes are sometimes described and visualized in a linear sequential two-dimensional form with a beginning and an end. For example, the planning process described by URBACT in its Online Toolbox: URBAN LEARNING  – Integrative energy planning of urban areas Collective learning for improved governance consists of linear phases: The principal phases of an urban planning process are: Preparatory/exploration phase Feasibility/planning phase Formal planning/zoning phase Design and implementation phase Operational phase. (Urbact, 2019)

The problem with this sequential concept is that what is happening sometimes remains unclear before and after the process. One feedback received during the COMUS Project (Ripp, 2017) was that the scope of existing Challenges exceeded S0W0O0T0

Strategic Plan As-Is state

S3W3O3T3

Activity 1

Analysis done

Activity 2

Activity 3

Uncertainty Level Determining

Activity n

Posture Taking

Action Choosing

Fig. 8.2  A linear Model for Strategic Planning by Dobrovic (2001, p. 23)

To-Be state

128

8  Description of the Metamodel

what could be addressed during a limited sequential process on heritage-based urban development as it was implemented in the COMUS Project. This is the case at many urban heritage sites. If the existing Challenges are of systemic nature, addressing the challenge requires a wide holistic scope and a sufficient amount of time. In the words of Tim Brown: “Systemic problems need systemic solutions.” (Brown & Wyatt, 2010, p.  30). The systemic approach to cultural heritage that became more prominent with the introduction of the HUL Recommendation (Turner, 2013; Unesco, 2011) is much more complex than the sole focus on the Material aspects of heritage as described by Laurajane Smith (2006). The focus on material aspects and the referring more traditional (linear) understanding of heritage and the notion to see cultural heritage as a system is to a certain extent dividing today’s cultural heritage sector (Ripp, 2018; Ripp & Roswell, 2015). Systems are by nature complex (Barile & Saviano, 2015, p. 78; Dostal & Hampl, 2007, p. 32), so the limitation of Processes in terms of scope and constrains our ability to understand and change systems. Without Evaluation of the results and a thorough understanding of the starting point, there is a risk that the Processes are not sufficiently integrated and connected to local situations (Ripp & Rodwell, 2018, p. 249). In the case of the management of World Heritage Cities, for example, the management planning process often focuses strongly on the production of a management plan, and there is no guarantee that this improves the situation of the site. In many cases, after the integration of different needs and visions into one document that even includes visions, Strategies, and actions at one specific point in time, the implementation remains weak because the process comes to a halt when the contract of the external expert that was hired for this purpose ends (Ripp & Rodwell, 2018, p. 250ff). In these linear sequential approaches, the beginning of the process is also, in some cases, motivated by external needs but not based on a thorough Scoping and the needs of the local communities (City of Quedlinburg, 2014). Other Concepts of the change process that we can characterize as heritage-based urban development in its widest sense (to improve the quality of life for local communities, see definition of “quality of life” in the Reading Guide) use a closed, circular concept (Fig. 8.3). One of the weaknesses of this concept is, firstly, that the endpoint of the process is the same as the beginning point, implying that nothing has changed, which is surely not the objective of these Processes. Another issue is that the circular model implies that there is a continuous ongoing process. However, as can be seen from many projects on heritage-based development (City of Regensburg et  al., 2011; Council of Europe, 2016; Gustafsson, 2009), this is an unrealistic assumption. Challenges, in all their diverse nature and form, on a local, regional, national, or even global level (Sandholz, 2017, p. 116; Unesco, 2016, p. 208), sometimes occur rather suddenly. The most radical form of immediate Challenges are disasters (United Nations Development Programme & Malik, 2014). If urgent matters arise, urban activities that can address these (sometimes focused on saving lives or improving the health of local communities) become more central. In these cases, but also for other reasons (like lack of funding, lack of motivation, lack of coordination, or lack of political will) (Ripp & Rodwell, 2018, p. 247f), change processes face risks of being stopped, not fully implemented, or not followed up. The circular

8.2 Introducing the Five Phases and the Spiral Form of the Metamodel

129

Fig. 8.3  A circular model for HBD as used in the URBCT II Project HerO – Heritage as opportunity (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 25)

model is, therefore, unrealistic because it implies that the planned and coordinated change process is always happening. Another infinite Change process model was suggested by Holling (see Fig. 8.4), which is now also used in connection with smart cities (Karakiewicz & Bos, 2016) but is rooted originally in ecological dynamics. A more realistic format for describing the heritage-based urban development process is a spiral. The spiral, as seen in Fig. 8.5, can represent a continuous process over time, but, at the same time, it shows that a period of higher activity is followed by a period with lower activity. From a positivist perspective (see Sect. 6.1), this represents a better situation than at the starting point. “Better” refers to the improvement of the quality of life for the local communities (Rypkema, 2005, p. 28f). Spiral (or loop) forms that follow after each other and “advance” the local situation also emphasize that there are phases in between the spirals, where there is no coordinated heritage-based urban development activity, but rather other topics and urban actions or activities. The spiral form demonstrates that a specific action is needed to enter a new “loop”, and it cannot occur without input (as it seems in the Circular form). The loop and the areas between represent sequences in time where more (loop) and less (phase between loops) energy is invested in a structured process of heritage-based urban development. After each loop (time where more energy is invested in a structured process of heritage-based urban development), the situation (quality of life for local communities) should have “improved” compared to the situation before the loop.

130

8  Description of the Metamodel Consensus Building Process

Chart illustrating the steps within the consensus building process, and the order in which process, steps occur.

Assess the Potential for Collaboration

Scope and initiate Gather information Analyze results Share findings

Prepare for “Predictable surprices” Joint monitoring Dispute resolution

Implement, Adapt, and Learn

Design a Collaborative Process

Evaluate and package options Wise trade-offs Shared criteria for fairness Contingent agreements

Evaluate Options and Reach Agreement

Clarity Facts and Issues: Joint Fact Finding

Goals and issues Participants Decision rules Work plan Ground rules

Questions Experts Methods Analysis

Deliberate to Seek Joint Gaints Clarify interests, Values, and identities Develop options

Fig. 8.4  Example of circular model on Consensus Building Process in Heritage Place Management by Johnston and Myers (2009, p. 38) © 2016 J. Paul Getty Trust (https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/consensus_building_opt.pdf)

Conservation

Reorganization

Passive

K

a Capital

r

Ω

Growth

Active Weak

Release Connectedness

Strong

Fig. 8.5  (Infinite) Cycle of Adaptive Change by Holling 1986, quoted after (Karakiewicz & Bos, 2016, p. 8)

8.2 Introducing the Five Phases and the Spiral Form of the Metamodel

131

A sequence of the loop and the time before and after can be structured into five different phases: I. SCOPING II. ANALYSIS III. DEVELOPMENT IV. IMPLEMENTATION V. EVALUATION The division of the process into five different phases follows a linear description but is essentially influenced by systemic thinking. In the Metamodel, the phases can be used to understand and analyse the different phases of HBD processes, but a non-­ linear use of phases is more typical in practical applications. For example, some activities that are important for HBD processes, such as awareness-raising, might already be completed while the process is in its beginning during the SCOPING PHASE. The phases of the Metamodel are not a blueprint that can be transferred to any local situation directly but a tool to understand the Processes, the role of different Entity Groups and Domains in relation to objectives, and the tasks that are relevant in HBD processes. The phases can be used to structure an individual process architecture in the design of local HBD processes without omitting important aspects. The phases cannot be used as an easy, linear, directly applicable roadmap for a specific local situation. The five phases in the form of the spiral process are an abstract concept that needs to be adapted to local needs. In comparison with models for HBD development like the HerO Model (City of Regensburg et al., 2011), the major difference aside from the spiral visualization is that significant attention is focused on the Scoping of the process. As a phase at the beginning of the loop, the preparation of the process, including, for example, the selection of Stakeholders, is one of the most important parts of the process (see Chaps. 2 and 3). Scoping takes place before the actual process is started. If the Metamodel is used, for example, to evaluate projects or proposals on projects for heritage-based urban development processes, the five phases may not be explicitly evident. Then the Metamodel can be used to assess if the elements and processes that are relevant in each phase are existent. In this situation, the phases can be used to understand the general objectives and tasks that are relevant. Considering the spiral form and introduced phases, the following Sects. 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, and 8.7 examine each of the Five Phases of the Metamodel, identifying the issues at stake, discussing the relevant Domains and Entity Groups, as well as the inputs and outputs. These inputs and outputs can by no means be understood as a final and absolute enumeration of elements that are relevant, but rather as a conceptual note to understand the issues at stake and the relevant Resources and outputs (an overview of the phases and their inputs and outputs can be seen in Fig.  8.6). Considering the nature of the THRIVE Metamodel, the objective of these sections is not to describe all relevant Entities in each potential case and discuss specific Challenges or Processes. For a more specific explanation in relation to a real-world scenario, please refer to Chap. 10. The objective of this section is to discuss the five phases in more general terms.

132

8  Description of the Metamodel

Fig. 8.6  The spiral form of the THRIVE Metamodel with its five Phases

8.3 Phase I: SCOPING The first phase of the Metamodel is the SCOPING PHASE. It could actually be described as a pre-phase because the preparation of the actual process is the subject. In the context of HBD projects and this research, the SCOPING PHASE is defined as The pre-phase before starting a Heritage Based Development process, where important parameters are analysed and set, general objectives, duration, main participants and other external factors of the process are defined and tools, methods and roles are chosen.

The SCOPING PHASE includes the definition of roles and developing an in-depth understanding of the heritage assets and urban system, closing the gaps in the Knowledge of the existing situation. A working definition of (broad) the Objectives for the process is developed in this phase, and the Resources that are needed and their allocation is to be assessed at least in a general way. There is also a discussion of the problems and challenges that the cultural heritage can respond to (ranging from global challenges like climate change or the topics addressed in the SDGs to more regional and local issues). The process-architecture is designed in this phase, and relevant Stakeholders who should be integrated into the process, communities that are affected, and the local governance system with special emphasis on communication channels, forms, and platforms are identified and analysed. The spectrum of participation for Stakeholders is wide, following Johnston and Myers (2009) (Fig. 8.7).

8.3 Phase I: SCOPING

133

Fig. 8.7  The connections and integrations of the different phases of the THRIVE|Metamodel by the inputs and outputs

134

8  Description of the Metamodel

A realistic timeframe for the process needs to be defined, and formal and informal decisions that are needed to launch the process must be taken. Skills and Knowledge that are needed throughout the process and key persons to lead and support the process need to be assessed. There may be more elements depending on the specific nature of the historic urban area. Some of the elements may be addressed during later phases of the process in a more detailed way (for example, the understanding of the heritage assets and urban systems). During the SCOPING PHASE, basic decisions for the structure of the development process are taken. In the underlying systemic approach of the Metamodel, the common ground is a systemic view of the real world (see Sect. 6.2) which takes reality and all its complexity into account. HBD processes are complex, and there are many Opportunities for failure throughout the process. A single person, even with a wide range of Knowledge and experience and a cross-disciplinary background, is always limited to their interpretation of the situation. The person who is conducting the Scoping acts as a sort of interpreter (Khazraee, 2011; Shalaginova, 2012) who is always analysing and preparing the process according to their individual interpretation and assessment of the situation. It is essential to include a team in this phase to achieve more realistic Scoping. A variety of interpretations (or systemic world views) on the issues at stake will potentially improve the quality of the Scoping because the Analysis of the situation and the planning is based on a broader understanding of the situation. It is also beneficial to choose a setting for the Scoping that stimulates Creativity. Personal face to face meetings are preferable to written communication because they can help participants understand their different world views and mediate a common understanding (Gustafsson & Rosvall, 2008, p. 19) (Fig. 8.8). Features/ Process Type:

Negotiation Activities

Process Goal/Intent

General Activities

Information Sharing

Inform, learn, educate,identify needs, improve communication, build relationships, explore perspectives

Attend sessions Listen Learn Share stories,ideas Dialogue Ask questions Give comments

Become informed Consider data Explore interests Offer options Build understanding and trust

Consultation

Consult/advise Solicit ideas Engage parties in developing a range of potential solutions

All of the above AND: Identify areas of agreement and disagreement Deliberate Develop greater expertise Advise individually

All of the above AND: Discuss, develop, and consider options Consider criteria for Weighing options Evaluate and narrow options

Agreement Seeking

Make decisions

All of the above AND: Seek agreement on final recommendations/ outcomes

All of the above AND: Decide between the options

Fig. 8.8  The participatory process spectrum, from information sharing to agreement seeking from Johnston, C., & Myers, D. (2009, p. 44) for the book Ripp, Matthias: A metamodel for heritagebased urban development – Enabling sustainable growth through urban cultural heritage

8.3 Phase I: SCOPING

135

8.3.1 Description, Inputs, and Outputs of the SCOPING PHASE All processes have linear elements (see Sect. 6.2) because we can only experience and influence them over time. Therefore, a step-by-step approach does not necessarily mean a linear understanding and approach. A step-by-step approach can also be used to understand and address systems. A systemic approach does not exclude any linear elements or relations that are present within the system. It is normal that a significant number of linear relations are also present. Based on the Analysis of the three case-models (see Sect. 5.5), finding answers to key questions is a starting point for a successful HBD Process. The inputs for the SCOPING PHASE are the evaluated Domains: People, Resources, Concepts, Principles, and Context. “Evaluated” in this case refers to an analytical understanding and Evaluation of the situation concerning these Entities. For example, the following Entity Groups are contained in the Domain People: Actors, Affected People and Decision Makers. If we examine the Entity Group Decision Makers, the city council could be relevant and, for example, a senior staff member in the hierarchy of the local administration. Understanding who exactly is relevant in terms of decision making, for example, to decide to start a Process on HBD or to allocate funds for this Process, is an input for Phase I, the SCOPING PHASE. Experiences from the field of heritage management and HBD projects (Ceku et al., 2012; Ripp, 2013; Ripp et al., 2011) showed that this pre-phase receives little attention, and some process designs are simply copied from other examples (City of Quedlinburg, 2014). Often the whole Scoping exercise is completed by a single person, who rarely has enough experience to fully understand the complexity of the task at hand. Sometimes Stakeholders are chosen to reduce the number of individuals who are critical of the decisions of the local government. Insufficient Scoping can have different negative consequences, including the following: • • • •

Build-up of negative public opinion towards the process Resistance from other parts of local government towards the process Lack of political support from elected representatives or city council members Producing only a “wish list” of projects without being able to secure funding for them • Choosing projects that are actually harming heritage Values (Gaillard & Rodwell, 2015) • Ending up with a process that is focused only on the objective of preservation but omitting development (City of Quedlinburg, 2014) While Scoping is focused on identifying the needs of Affected People and Stakeholders (see Chap. 8), there are also risks. Though some are unlikely,

136

8  Description of the Metamodel

identifying and acknowledging these risks, including the following, illustrates why Scoping is necessary: • • • • • • •

The expulsion of important Stakeholders Insufficient political support for the process or parts of it Lack of support from local communities Lack of funding (public or private) to implement projects Unrealistic time planning or planning of necessary Resources Lack of special Knowledge for specific actions Lack of persons with the needed Skills (e.g., moderation skills) and Knowledge of methodologies (such as citizen participation and mediation)

The World Bank, which has invested substantial funds in heritage projects, has identified several factors in the SCOPING PHASE that can lead to failed projects (here using examples from Yemen): • Project preparation not well thought through (Insufficient Scoping) • Lack of selectivity and prioritization (Insufficient Scoping) • Institutional weakness and limited implementation capabilities (weak governance) • Preparation was inadequately monitored (Insufficient Scoping) The consultant team failed to prepare any sub-project for bidding (Insufficient Scoping) (World Bank, 2001, p.  68ff) (comments in brackets added by Matthias Ripp). A total of 95% of the questions I have received from local or regional governments concerning HBD in the last 10 years, either in urban heritage networks like the Organisation of World Heritage Cities or as part of site management for the World Heritage Regensburg, were related to the SCOPING PHASE for such projects. The SCOPING PHASE is the first and most important part of every process design for HBD. The following points need to be considered to professionalize this phase and enhance the quality of the whole process: • Clear understanding of the overall process with all its phases and all its complexity • Understanding and knowing the Stakeholders • Understanding of Challenges and risks for the process • Understanding of decision-making structures • Understanding and Knowledge of potential supporters • Understanding of the process environment • Understanding of the Skills and Knowledge that is needed for a successful process and how to organise it The proposed solution to address the problems at stake – A Metamodel for Heritage-­ Based Urban Development, can be used universally to design heritage-based development processes and improve by this the process and outcomes (Fig. 8.9). During Phase I, the SCOPING PHASE, an overview of the situation at hand is explored, Challenges, Opportunities, milestones are anticipated, and decisions on the design of the process are prepared. The Analysis of the three case-models has

8.3 Phase I: SCOPING

137

Fig. 8.9  The Scoping Phase. Relevant Domains and Entity Groups, Input and Output

shown that a common strength was the careful preparation of the projects. This included the Analysis of existing needs and, based on that, the precise design of a process. It was also assessed in this phase if HBD is feasible to address the identified needs. The importance of this phase is now reflected in the Metamodel. The exploration of the situation at hand is important to be able to set the right frame for the process. This includes the areal scope, an understanding of the general Objectives to enhance the quality of life, and a basic understanding of relevant topics and potential Stakeholders. The areal scope is not implying that an area-based approach for urban regeneration should be followed (Stadt, 2013), but rather that an

138

8  Description of the Metamodel

understanding of the relevant area, in an integrated and holistic way along the lines of the HUL (Unesco & Whitrap, 2016) Recommendation, is a good starting point to design a process for HBD. As the whole process is influenced by a systemic approach (see Sect. 6.2) (Fistola & Rocca, 2013, p. 522f), this systemic approach is relevant from the very beginning of the process and well reflected in the HUL approach (Turner, 2013; Unesco, 2011). Urban interventions that are only targeted towards a sharp-edged area like in the case of the German system of “Städtebauförderung” (Menzel, 2017), which are also often very much tailored towards the needs of permanent residents, sometimes miss important issues in the whole system, for example, the role of non-permanent users (temporary citizens (Richards & Marques, 2018)) of an area. The systemic approach, therefore, starts with the very first understanding of the relevant area and how it is connected and influenced by other parts, Functions, users, and Values. In the SCOPING PHASE, this understanding is usually only of a preliminary nature and needs to be flexible because in Phase II (ANALYSIS) issues might come up that advocate for a different understanding of the area. This changing understanding must also be considered for the “title” of HBD processes, because the first limitation of systemic thinking only occurs when the title includes only a small urban fragment and does not reflect the complexity of the issues at stake. Actions and interventions that are defined during the HBD process are in many cases linked to a very specific urban place, but a wider view can be helpful to understand the issues at stake, as was implemented in the HerO Project, for example (City of Regensburg et al., 2011). On an abstract level, the objective of HBD is to improve the quality of life for communities. What exactly this improvement is, depends on the local situation and can be dramatically different between developing countries and developed countries, small cities and metropolises, etc. In the SCOPING PHASE, it is necessary to get an initial understanding of the most relevant issues at stake in the specific situation to improve the quality of life for communities. Not limiting this improvement to the local community and also including non-permanent communities is beneficial for a better understanding of the full situation and system. In major cities with many central Functions, the share of this part of the population can be quite large (Richards & Marques, 2018, p. 45ff), and over-tourism has recently become a topic of interest (Seraphin et al., 2018). The first Analysis during the SCOPING PHASE obtains an initial understanding of relevant topics and Stakeholders. The range of topics that can be relevant in specific cases ranges widely from the fulfilment of basic needs (Drakakis-Smith, 2000), over functional Change in the historic building stock (Council of Europe, 2016, p.  34ff), to the development and enhancement of cultural offerings (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 54). The improvement of the quality of life naturally depends on the existing situation in the specific case. According to the situation and the relevant topics, different Entities in the Entity Groups Affected People (Stakeholders) and the Entity Groups Decision Makers are relevant. It is important to get an understanding of the topics and relevant Stakeholders and Decision Makers from the very beginning when the process for HBD is designed. Minimizing the

8.3 Phase I: SCOPING

139

dominance of personal views in the working team is important in the SCOPING PHASE. The key driver (or main actor) in the SCOPING PHASE is ideally also the key driver for the entirety of the rest of the HBD process. This actor is part of the Entity Group Actors. To understand the issues at stake and design a successful process using a systemic approach, the main actor should ideally meet the following criteria: 1. an interdisciplinary background 2. good moderation and presentation skills 3. systemic thinking 4. experience in project management 5. a high level of social sensitivity and intercultural Knowledge 6. Knowledge in methodologies in fields including training and moderation 7. strong leadership capabilities The cross-sectoral and integrated process of HBD is more organised if the main actor is located in a central position in the local administration. This prevents the topics of a specific sector (where the main actor might be located otherwise) from becoming too dominant. In many practical cases, this role is filled by an external expert, which can be limiting in terms of the sustainability of the process (Ripp & Rodwell, 2018, p. 243ff; World Bank, 2001). The Role of Experts: Experts have many Values and Benefits, but some roles need to be filled by persons from the local authorities. The local decision-making body, such as the local city council, must be present at certain stages of the process, for example, during citizen participation activities. If local Decision Makers “hide” behind external experts during these events, their credibility and the trust between them and the Stakeholders and the citizens can suffer. At certain stages, the citizens demand to speak with the people in power and not only with external experts. Community involvement in the decision-making process is essential for the local community to identify with its heritage (Göttler & Ripp, 2017, p. 26f). Experts can be incorporated, for example, to moderate specific meetings, prepare and report on meetings, and help choose and implement methodologies for meetings and citizen participation (City of Regensburg et al., 2011; Council of Europe, 2016). After the SCOPING PHASE, the design of the process should be clear. This includes the following outputs of the SCOPING PHASE: Identification of relevant Stakeholders: Depending on the issues at stake, the relevant Stakeholders have to be identified. Stakeholders can also be categorized to be involved in different stages of the process. Some Stakeholders might be identified as important and integrated into all phases, but others might only be relevant for a specific topic and therefore only be integrated at a certain point during the planning process. There are a range of methodologies that can be used to identify Stakeholders (Bryson, 2004). Assessing the relevance of identified Stakeholders is another important step. A team is better than an individual for conducting Stakeholder identification because the diverse perspectives of team members will lead to a wider variety of identified Stakeholders. Definition of timing and financial frame: During the SCOPING PHASE, a realistic understanding of the timing for the whole process that includes all phases and especially the Evaluation of the results should be developed. The financial needs (cost for external exper-

140

8  Description of the Metamodel

tise, rent for rooms, catering, documentation, citizen engagement interventions, feasibility studies) are also closely connected to the timing of the process (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 37f). Definition of the process architecture: The general outline of the process architecture includes the governance structure of the HBD Process, including different bodies like working groups and steering groups, the roles of each body, and their means of communication (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 23f). Identification of potential supporters: These supporters are not involved in the actual work of the HBD Process. However, they support the creation of a positive image of the HBD, connect external Knowledge and people with the process, and influence the political willingness to support the process. A communication strategy: For example, a strategy should determine the regularity, methods, and media of communication used to inform the Entity Group Affected People about the process and results. How to disseminate the minutes of meetings and how to inform the Entity Group Decision Makers, higher levels of administration, donors, and NGOs should be defined from the very beginning of the SCOPING PHASE. Initial assessments of the need for external support during the process: To determine if parts of or the whole process require external expertise, a realistic self-assessment of the main actor and potential members of the stakeholder group and the Decision Makers is needed (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 24f). For example, it might be necessary to hire an expert to moderate specific meetings, assist with the design of workshops, perform documentation, prepare presentations, or conduct an Analysis of the existing situation for specific issues or buildings. If external expertise is needed, the financial frame and Resources should be set as well as clear regulation of who is in communication with the expert for coordinating the work. Selection of a person as the key driver (actor) of the process: In an ideal case, the key driver of the process should already be an important part of the Scoping team. If this is not the case, the key driver of the process should be selected according to the Skills needed to steer the HBD Process, including moderation and communication skills, project management skills, empathy, conflict management and mediation. Assessment of which staff can be incorporated in the process: This refers not to the stakeholder group but to internal staff Resources that can assist the key driver, for example, with the financial management of the process and communication and documentation work. Practical aspects like meeting locations: The setting (Bødker et al., 1991) plays a crucial role in the success of meetings; therefore, a suitable meeting location should be identified, taking into account factors such as accessibility, availability of technical equipment. The frequency of the meetings: To maintain the HBD-Process dynamic, the frequency of meetings plays a crucial role. This can also be adapted in different phases of the HBD Process. Moderation of meetings: Moderation of the meetings is a key factor for success (Stewart et  al., 2007). In the SCOPING PHASE, who will take this role should be assessed and ­discussed. In some cases, especially if existing conflicts are strong, it might be beneficial to give this role to an external expert to achieve a more “neutral” atmosphere in the meetings. Ideas for integrating the process of HBD into existing decision-making structures: In the SCOPING PHASE, the relevant decision-making structure should be identified, and how the HBD Process is connected and integrated to this structure should be discussed. It might be necessary, for example, to obtain city council approval before the process can even start or to decide about specific urban intervention in a later stage: Further issues to consider in the SCOPING PHASE: potential critics, other urban development processes that are running parallel, relevant events, and timeline of major urban interventions.

8.4 Phase II: ANALYSIS

141

8.4 Phase II: ANALYSIS In the ANALYSIS PHASE, the inputs are the outputs of the SCOPING PHASE. With an idea of the relevant Stakeholders and a timeframe as described before, this phase can begin to work with a wider group of stakeholders. The main objective of the ANALYSIS PHASE is to achieve a common understanding of the issues at stake between all involved Stakeholders and Decision Makers. The issues at stake include the following Domains: Resources, Challenges, Context, Concepts, and Development Narrative. The Domain People is also relevant, as the Main Actors are steering the process of Analysis. The Entity Group Affected People may already be involved in or the subject of the Analysis, for example, in the form of a stakeholder analysis. The expected outcome of the ANALYSIS PHASE is a common understanding of the existing situation, which includes all relevant Domains. All three examined case-models demonstrated the importance of this step (City of Regensburg et al., 2011; Council of Europe, 2016; Gustafsson, 2009). For example, the external expert in the HerO Project put significant emphasis on a thorough examination of existing planning documents and development plans. After the presentation of the results (in this case, the defined Objectives were very coherent), the situation was discussed with the core stakeholder group and adapted. This step was crucial for the group to identify with the process. Stakeholders are heard, they have a say, and this already begins in the Analysis of the situation (Scheffler et al., 2009). The ANALYSIS phase prepares the ground for the whole process by considering a wider perspective of the involved Stakeholders. The analysis may include identified Challenges, strengths, Resources in the form of people and documents, and the first spontaneous ideas to improve the situation (Figs. 8.10 and 8.11).

8.4.1 Description, Inputs, and Outputs of the ANALYSIS PHASE The ANALYSIS PHASE is steered by the key driver, together with an external expert if applicable. The core stakeholder group (defined in the SCOPING PHASE) starts its work in the ANALYSIS PHASE. Desk review: The ANALYSIS PHASE first includes a rigid examination of existing regulations, political decisions, studies, maps, scientific research at hand, and media. During this “desk review”, the available Material are examined to identify • • • • •

the existing Challenges, the existing Resources, the relevant context, relevant existing Concepts, and contradictions in existing documents (for example, between an objective of a political decision and the real-world outcome).

142

8  Description of the Metamodel

6. Participants – target groups interested

cizens interest groups

obstructors individuals

Directly concerned or representaves?

influence on field/ topic?

interest groups, ngo‘s, enterprises

implementors

∑ in total? balance of economic, ecologic and social interests! Fig. 8.10  Parameters for stakeholder analysis by Austrian Agency Plansinn (Austrian Agency Plansinn during an OWHC-seminar on heritage and community participation in February 20–22.2017. Vienna)

Fig. 8.11  Relevant Domains and Entity Groups, input and output of the ANALYSIS PHASE

8.4 Phase II: ANALYSIS

143

This Phase of the ANALYSIS requires rigour, and determining what Resources to use for this phase is important; therefore, senior staff in the public administration can be useful for identifying existing relevant documents. Performing this exercise with rigour benefits the entire HBD process because the Knowledge of these existing Materials and the Analysis can help to build trust and mutual understanding between the Main Actors and the involved Stakeholders and Decision Makers (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 32f). Common understanding: After the desk review, the identified issues need to be discussed with the Stakeholders. At this point, the interpretation of the expert who completed the desk review needs to be verified and expanded, incorporating the collective understanding of the whole stakeholder group. In the HerO Project, it was proven very important to conduct this step co-jointly with the stakeholder group (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 38ff). If important Stakeholders only join the process at a later stage, there is always the risk that the understanding of the issues at stake will not be coherent with the other involved Stakeholders. This is a potential source of conflicts between the different participants in the HBD process. Secure political backing: It is equally important that the relevant Decision Makers have a broad understanding of the HBD Process and its starting point must be clear; therefore, before working on Developing Visions etc. in Phase III, it was helpful to agree on a common understanding of the issues and communicate that common understanding to the Decision Makers (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 30f). The common understanding of the issues at stake can also be used to identify different fields of action (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 51f). For example, this can be achieved by a formal decision of the city council or a report of the issues at stake to the aldermen. The Analysis involves the following Domains: Resources, Context, Concepts, and Development Narrative and the Entity Group Challenges. In terms of Resources, all Entity Groups are relevant: Tangible Built Cultural Heritage Material Intangible Intangible Heritage Human Knowledge, Human Infrastructure, Skills, Creativity, Innovation Financial Financial Resources Administrational Policies

144

8  Description of the Metamodel

(8.1.7 Results of Grounded Theory process: The Elements of the Metamodel) On the one hand, the Analysis of the Resources focuses on their potential to help the process achieve the Objectives; on the other hand, the analysis evaluates where some potentially beneficial Resources are missing. In practical terms, the Evaluation of Resources can be the assessment of the potential of a historic square to be improved to stimulate the local economy and how the community identifies with their cultural heritage (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 34f). The Entity Group Challenges is of special relevance here because visions for improvement (see Sect. 6.1) can be developed from existing (and commonly understood) deficits at a later stage (in Phase III). Unlike area-based urban renewal approaches, in this context, a holistic view and a systemic understanding are also focused on issues that are relevant in a wider area or for the whole city. For example, weak cycling infrastructure can be a challenge if a city is prone to traffic jams (Aldred, 2012; Kasperska, 2015). This has many implications for urban heritage and can be a starting point to improve the quality of life for the local citizens (including health, economic ways of transport, and improved experience of the urban realm). The Domain Context is connected to most other Domains and can be very specific for different locations. Relevant factors from the Context include but are not limited to the economic situation, size of the urban organism, structure of the population, and the relevance of temporary citizens. In the Analysis of the context, it is important to always relate it to the main issues at stake. Existing Concepts are also relevant for the Analysis to understand what existing ideas and decisions exist, and to evaluate whether they need to be updated, changed, or limit the development of visions. The Development Narrative, including the Entity Groups Challenges/Threats, Opportunities, and Benefits, is not only for relevant for understanding the Challenges but also for identifying possibilities and topics in this “early” stage of the process. The following are the inputs for the ANALYSIS PHASE: 1. Identification of relevant Stakeholders 2. Definition of timing and financial frame 3. Definition of the process architecture 4. Identification of potential supporters 5. Communication strategy 6. Initial assessments of external support and what external support is needed during the process 7. Selection of the key driver (actor) of the process 8. Assessment of which staff can be incorporated in the process 9. Practical aspects like meeting locations, the rhythms of the meetings, questions such as who moderates the meetings and by which methodology, and ideas for integrating the process of HBD integrated into existing decision-making structures The output of the ANALYSIS PHASE is a common understanding of the issues at stake that include the following Domains: Resources, Challenges, Context, Concepts,

8.5 Phase III: DEVELOPMENT

145

and Development Narrative. This common understanding should be documented in a way that it can be used throughout the other phases of the HBD process. Of the Actors in the ANALYSIS PHASE, those who steer and drive the process are the Main Actors. The Stakeholders (in the form of a core stakeholder group) and the Decision Makers are involved in approving the common understanding of the issues at stake. A range of methods can be used during the ANALYSIS PHASE. They include the Analysis and comparison of documents like city council decisions or existing Policies and interviews with senior persons in the local administration to learn about existing regulations and decisions. In the discussion of the issues with the stakeholder group, moderation techniques are beneficial, especially those that nurture a common spirit within the group (Bell et al., 2012) in this early stage of the HBD Process where the group of core Stakeholders has just been formed (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Methods should facilitate a structured discussion so that each participant has an equal share of speaking time, and methods for presentation should present the findings of the desk research in a structured and focused way. The objective of the ANALYSIS PHASE is not only focused on the output of a common understanding of the issues at stake but also on establishing good cooperation within and between the stakeholder group and Main Actors. Existing conflicts between different Stakeholders might already emerge in the first meeting, so focusing on what is needed to “form the group” (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) is a good investment for the subsequent phases of the HBD Process.

8.5 Phase III: DEVELOPMENT Phase III: DEVELOPMENT starts with the common understanding of the existing situation, as determined in the ANALYSIS.  In the DEVELOPMENT PHASE, Creativity and ideas are the focus so that Objectives, Strategies, scenarios, and ideas for concrete actions can be developed. Most of the Domains and Entity Groups are involved in this “main” phase of the HBD Process. The following Domains are relevant in this phase: People, Resources, Context, Processes, Methods, and Development Narrative. The expected outcomes are related to the Entity Groups Vision, Strategy, and Planning, and the Domain Concepts represents the outputs of the DEVELOPMENT PHASE. In the development phase, the chosen methodologies have a significant influence on the working atmosphere and the potential to enhance trust and the quality of the outcomes (Scheffler et  al., 2009). Taking into account the dynamic of the group, lines of conflict, different personalities, and cultural backgrounds, as well as the setting of the meetings and many other factors, calls for a careful design of this phase and a skilled moderator to select the appropriate methods and navigate disagreements and conflicts that might arise and are normal for any work in groups (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) (Fig. 8.12).

146

8  Description of the Metamodel

Fig. 8.12  Relevant Domains and Entity Groups, Input and Output of the development phase

8.5.1 Description, Inputs, and Outputs of the DEVELOPMENT PHASE The DEVELOPMENT PHASE is where visions and actions are conjointly developed in a creative process. The DEVELOPMENT PHASE is steered and coordinated by the Main Actors and, most importantly, the key driver. In this phase of the process, the selection of appropriate methods is key to the successful definition of the vision and actions (City of Regensburg et  al., 2011, p.  43f). At least for this phase, if not for the whole process, It can be beneficial to engage external experts to select and implement moderation techniques and useful methodologies to foster and stimulate the Creativity of the group. The DEVELOPMENT PHASE consists of two sub-phases. First, the stakeholder group develops a vision for HBD of the site and conceptualise Strategies and actions based on that vision (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 44f). Second, Strategies and actions are acknowledged or adapted by the Decision Makers, for example, the local city council. Only by this “formalization” can the Objectives that were developed in the process become the official Objectives of the local political body with all consequences. If the local political body does not accept the Objectives, then the implementation becomes much harder. The basis and input for the DEVELOPMENT PHASE is the common understanding of the issues at stake, including, as previously mentioned, the Domains

8.5 Phase III: DEVELOPMENT

147

Resources, Challenges, Context, Concepts, and Development Narrative. On this common ground, a general, more abstract vision for the site can first be developed. This can for example be a short text like the following example: Regensburg is proud of its World Heritage and aware of the responsibility that it brings along  – also for future generations. The UNESCO-World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof is one of the most significant location factors for the City of Regensburg and its region. It is a witness to European history, an attractive residential and working environment for over 15,000 people, the cultural centre, a national and international tourist magnet, the central location for business and commerce, a fascinating environment for leisure and discovery for citizens and guests, and our carrier of identity and image, within and beyond the area. In order to safeguard and further enhance this significance and purpose for the city and region, the vision for the UNESCO-World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof seeks to achieve  – harmoniously balancing the diverse usage interests – the following: The unique UNESCO-World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof  – centre of European history  – must be safeguarded in its substance and be made accessible for all citizens and guests to experience. AND The unique UNESCO-World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof is to be preserved and further developed as a multifunctional and vibrant place for all citizens, businesses and guests. (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 47)

However, it can also be in a different format, for example, an image, a collection of descriptive attributes, or a short and concise narrative. After this common vision is agreed upon, Strategies can be developed to achieve these Objectives. The Strategies are more specific than the Vision. The following is an example of a strategy from the city of Regensburg: Strategy: Expansion of cultural activities Cultural activities are aimed at citizens and visitors. They will be augmented by the integration of the World Heritage aspect. Additional events will be developed, particularly for children and young people. (City of Regensburg et  al., 2012, p. 54)

And, finally, based on the Strategies, concrete actions can be developed: 1 . Preparation of a cultural development plan 2. Updating and implementing the museum plan 3. Creation of a Cultural and Congress Centre. (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 54)

Following this deductive process, starting with a broader vision, more specific Strategies, and detailed actions, has proven helpful because it ensures that all actions are related to the overall vision and that all visions, Strategies, and actions are coherent (City of Regensburg et al., 2011; Council of Europe, 2016). The potential pitfalls in the DEVELOPMENT PHASE include members of the stakeholder group advancing predefined actions that are not in line with the selected Strategies. The outputs of the DEVELOPMENT PHASE are related to the Entity Group’s Vision, Strategy, and Planning. A general vision is the first step of the DEVELOPMENT PHASE and is closely related to generating Strategies that achieve this Vision. The process planning incorporates the development of these visions and Strategies and also specific actions. The process of planning cannot be entirely separated from its outcomes here because the outputs of the

148

8  Description of the Metamodel

DEVELOPMENT PHASE are rarely “complete” but rather fluent and prone to changes at later stages of the HBD Process (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 57f; Council of Europe, 2016). The outputs of the DEVELOPMENT PHASE differ from the outputs of the ANALYSIS PHASE, as they are more than mere descriptions of the issues at stake and of existing Challenges. They provide ideas on the conceptual level (vision), strategic level (strategies), and even – if already possible – on specific interventions and actions. This step of the HBD Process is crucial because it allows the Main Actors and the stakeholder group to progress from describing Challenges and potentials to a clear view on how these potentials can be used. In the DEVELOPMENT PHASE, a range of methods can be used, ranging from Creativity methods like mind mapping and design thinking to moderation, mediation and conflict solving methods, for example, to agree on a joint vision if the Stakeholders have diverse starting points. The foundation for the successful development of visions, Strategies, and actions is the common understanding of the issues at stake that was prepared in the ANALYSIS PHASE. Potential problems in the DEVELOPMENT PHASE include changing members of the stakeholder group so that there is a lack of common understanding of the issues at stake. Another danger is that some members follow hidden agendas that are not transparent to the whole group. Citizen Participation: Local communities and citizens, permanent and non-­ permanent, must be integrated into the process (Richards & Marques, 2018). This can be achieved by including community representatives in the stakeholder group or through an open civic participation process (Ripp, 2011, p. 29f). Regardless of how the communities are involved, it is beneficial to pay close attention to keeping the HBD Process aligned with the interests of and Benefits for local communities and not only specific Stakeholders, such as retailers, who have strong voices in the political realm (Göttler & Ripp, 2017). In the DEVELOPMENT PHASE, the following Domains are relevant: People, Resources, Context, Processes, Methods, and Development Narrative. Within the Domain People, the following groups are relevant: the Main Actors who steer and coordinate the process, the Affected People such as Stakeholders that are directly participating in the process and permanent (Inhabitants) or non-permanent communities (tourists, people using services in the city, students) that are involved in the process. Decision Makers play a crucial role in developing the suggestions of the DEVELOPMENT PHASE into the political decisions that are necessary to start the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE. The relevant Resources in the DEVELOPMENT PHASE come from Built Cultural Heritage as “cultural capital” (Throsby, 2005), including the reuse of assets such as historic buildings or squares (Council of Europe, 2016; Gustafsson & Polesie, 2013). Material aspects can be relevant for restoration and conservation, but also in Capacity Building activities (Gustafsson, 2009). Intangible heritage, for example, in the form of traditions or the use of specific places, including the green spaces, is another resource that is relevant (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 68f).

8.5 Phase III: DEVELOPMENT

149

Human-related resources are Knowledge, Human Infrastructure, including the availability of staff or experts, Skills such as moderation skills and planning skills, and more general aspects like Creativity and innovation, which are the core necessity for a successful DEVELOPMENT PHASE. Financial Resources are relevant not only for the whole HBD process but also for the implementation of vision, Strategies, and actions throughout the whole process and especially in the DEVELOPMENT PHASE.  The scope of financial support available can help develop Strategies and actions that are realistic. Policies are another Resource that must be considered because some Strategies might be potentially successful but not possible due to specific Policies. The DEVELOPMENT PHASE is influenced by the Context in which the HDB Process occurs. The Context comprises Qualitative Qualities, including parameters such as atmosphere, design, and well-being, and Quantitative Qualities such as the number of inhabitants, average income, and average age. Furthermore, specific Interests and Needs, for example, of elderly citizens or children (City of Regensburg et  al., 2012, p.  72) and Values, either classical preservation values like age value (Arrhenius, 2004) or use values (Council of Europe, 2005) also determine the Context of the process. The specific Meaning of the cultural heritage, for example, in a religious context (Singh, 2004), is also relevant. Challenges that have been analysed in the ANALYSIS PHASE are relevant for the direction of potential development. The Functions of different parts of the urban heritage, such as urban spaces for festivities, must also be considered along with the Organisational Structures involved in matters of governance, including questions of ownership or “usership”. There are other elements from the specific context that should be considered, for example, if parts of the site are a military area (Dobinson et al., 1997) or special situations like natural disasters (City of Regensburg/Planning and Building et al., 2009). The Domain Methods describes all methods and tools that are useful for the different phases of the Metamodel, a range of which are useful in the DEVELOPMENT PHASE. The Domain Development Narrative consists of the Entity Groups Challenges/ Threats, Opportunities, and Benefits. Challenges, for which a common understanding was prepared in the ANALYSIS PHASE, can be, for example, a low-quality urban realm (Council of Europe, 2016). Threats can include an economic crisis either in a region or on a national level (Gustafsson, 2009). Opportunities are related to the general vision and can include finding new public uses for historic buildings, stimulating local communities to identify with the site, and enhancing the communication of heritage values (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 71f) to the combination of different programs for Capacity Building activities and in parallel restoring and developing historic properties (Gustafsson, 2009). Benefits are related to the enhancement of quality of life for local permanent and non-permanent communities. For example, better accessibility to the historic urban fabric, either physical access or to understand the Values, can be an improvement for the quality of life or create jobs for more members of the communities (City of Regensburg et al., 2011; Council of Europe, 2016; Gustafsson, 2009).

150

8  Description of the Metamodel

The Domain Processes is also relevant for the DEVELOPMENT PHASE. Vision and Strategy Development are especially relevant because they are the core of what is happening in the DEVELOPMENT PHASE.

8.6 Phase IV: IMPLEMENTATION The IMPLEMENTATION PHASE follows the DEVELOPMENT PHASE.  After the Objectives and Strategies have been defined, some activities and actions can be implemented. Experiences from the three case-models show that the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE very rarely follows a linear path after the development process (City of Regensburg et al., 2011; Ripp et al., 2011). It is normal that some single actions have been implemented parallel to a structured process of HBD, and their implementation also continues after the process. In a HBD process described in the form of a spiral with flat phases in between the loops, actions are usually implemented in the flat phases between the loops. This is especially true for larger urban projects, for example, in the field of renovation or new infrastructure projects. For example, the renovation of the stone bridge in Regensburg, an action that played a role in the management plan, had already been started during the preparation of the management plan in 2010/11. The intervention lasted from 2010 to 2018 (City of Regensburg et al., 2012; Egermann, 2019). This example shows that the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE is best treated in a flexible way (Fig. 8.13).

Fig. 8.13  Relevant Domains, Entity Groups, input and output of the Implementation phase

8.6 Phase IV: IMPLEMENTATION

151

8.6.1 Description, Inputs, and Outputs of the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE During the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE, the actions that were defined following the vision and Strategies are executed. This phase, like the DEVELOPMENT PHASE, is often spread out, and some activities or actions are already implemented during the phases “before”. The implementation of some actions and activities can take much longer and continues during and after the EVALUATION PHASE. For example, activities that are connected to the design or improvement of infrastructure projects can take a considerable amount of time (City of Regensburg, 2015, p. 28ff; Council of Europe, 2016, p.  34). The Main Actors of the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE can be much wider and more diversified than those involved in the DEVELOPMENT PHASE. Actions and activities may be defined by the core stakeholder group during the DEVELOPMENT PHASE, but other departments, NGOs, companies, private persons, and other institutions may be responsible for the implementation. Before the implementation, there must be communication and consent with other partners that have not been part of the core stakeholder group. The Main Actors (the key driver) are responsible for communicating the developed activities to other partners. External partners can be motivated either through formal decisions such as a city council vote or in an informal way by convincing them that the proposed activity or action is beneficial for them and makes sense in a wider context. Informal methods may still require the involvement of senior persons in the hierarchy or from the political level. The inputs for the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE are the Entity Groups Vision, Strategy, and Planning. The Entity Group Planning includes Entities like specific actions and activities. In many cases, additional planning steps to specify each action and activity is necessary before the implementation can begin. The experiences of the COMUS and Hero projects have shown that the level of detail in which the actions and activities are defined in a holistic and cross-cutting process can be on a general level without a great amount of detail (City of Regensburg et al., 2011; Council of Europe, 2016). In the COMUS project, feasibility studies (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 34) were used to assess if actions are manageable but also to elaborate a more detailed planning scenario for specific actions that can then be used for the implementation. For example, during the HerO Project in Regensburg, the different departments and external partners specified the developed actions and activities (City of Regensburg, 2015, p. 23; City of Regensburg et  al., 2012, p.  49ff). The outputs of the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE are related to the Domain Development Narrative and especially to the Entity Groups Benefits, Opportunities, and Challenges/Threats. The monitoring of the Implementation of Actions and activities is crucial. As actions and activities are usually implemented by a range of different bodies, it is necessary to monitor the Main Actors of the process. Monitoring includes information about whether the actions and activities are implemented or not. On a more detailed level, the monitoring includes the quality of the actions and activities and possibly their effects. The monitoring of the implementation can be organised in different ways, including the

152

8  Description of the Metamodel

continuation of the stakeholder meetings with additional persons responsible for the implementation, the dedication of different monitoring responsibilities to specific members of the stakeholder group, and the collection of written reports. How the implementation is monitored is far less relevant than ensuring that there is some kind of monitoring in place. The monitoring also includes taking necessary actions if some actions and activities are not implemented, for example, stimulating the necessary decisions in the city council or other governing bodies. During the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE, the Domains Resources, People, and Context are especially relevant. The possible actions and activities are diverse. In Regensburg, for example, the realization of the visitor centre in the historic Salt Barn (Entity Group: Built Cultural Heritage; Domain: Resources) included the preparation and realization of political decisions (Entity Group: Decision Makers; Domain: People) and altering the function of the building (Entity Group: Function; Domain: Context) (City of Regensburg et al., 2010, 2012, p. 73; Fell & Huber, 2011; Ripp et al., 2019). The most significant pitfall for the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE is a lack of follow-up monitoring after the development of visions, Strategies, and actions (Ripp & Rodwell, 2018). in many places, it seems to be a pattern of fault that the energy that is put into the development of visions and actions, for example, in the format of a management plan, is lost in the more complicated and long-term implementation of the actions (Ripp & Rodwell, 2018). Change of the political context, the Decision Makers, and/or the officers in charge can be another threat for the implementation (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 19f; Ripp, 2017; Ripp & Stein, 2018, p. 2f). This is a considerable danger, particularly in circumstances where the political context is fluid. Another threat for the implementation of defined actions arises from more serious Challenges in the context, for example, in the form of economic crises and natural disasters. The scope of the defined actions, and especially the perspectives in terms of time, can be another potential danger. On the one hand, it is important to have a long-term vision for the site and related Strategies and actions; on the other hand, enough flexibility is needed to address Challenges and Changes that emerge. Continuously checking if the Strategies and actions are still compatible with the current situation is desirable but, in many cases, not realistic (City of Regensburg et al., 2012). A continuation of the stakeholder meetings, for example, on an annual basis, can help monitor the process and react if necessary. Another possibility is organising follow-up conferences or workshops in which the Stakeholders are reactivated and the Implementation of Actions is discussed (City of Regensburg, 2015).

8.7 Phase V: EVALUATION The EVALUATION PHASE aims to control the results of the process and evaluate if the implemented actions have met the Objectives and if the defined Strategies are working to meet the Objectives. The inputs for the EVALUATION PHASE are the Development Narrative and the Entity Groups Benefits, Challenges/Threats, and

8.7 Phase V: EVALUATION

153

Opportunities. Evaluation can be conducted using a structured approach at a certain point in time or on an ad-hoc basis following certain external triggers or political motivation. The outputs of the EVALUATION PHASE are the evaluated Domains: People, Resources, Concepts, Principles, and Context. On a conceptual level, the EVALUATION PHASE provides feedback and judgements that can be compared with the situation at the beginning of the HBD process.

8.7.1 Description, Inputs, and Outputs of the EVALUATION PHASE The EVALUATION PHASE should also be understood in a flexible way in terms of time. The Evaluation of implemented actions and activities and their results is a different task to controlling if the designed actions and activities are implemented. The control in the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE targets the question “if” actions and activities are implemented, while the Evaluation addresses how the actions and activities have been implemented and what the results are. Therefore, it makes sense to introduce the EVALUATION PHASE as a separate task. Evaluation, diversified through many different methodologies, is based in science but usually not used systematically by local administrations. For example, in the HerO Project, a monitoring scheme to evaluate actions has been developed, but not a single partner city has implemented it (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 77f). With regard to heritage-based development processes, the inputs for the EVALUATION PHASE are related to the Domains People, Resources, Principles, Concept, Context, and Development Narrative. The following Entity Groups are of special relevance: Benefits, Opportunities, Challenges/Threats (all Domain Development Narrative), and Effects (Domain: Concepts). The main objective of the EVALUATION PHASE is determining if the envisioned Benefits have been achieved through the developed actions and activities or which other effects have occurred: Have Challenges been addressed in an effective way, have the actions and activities caused different effects, or maybe even new threats? Considering if new Opportunities have emerged (from the implementation of activities or actions or Change in the context, for example) is also part of the evaluation. The Main Actors in the EVALUATION PHASE are the main driver of the HBD process and external experts for specific Evaluation tasks (for example, surveys). The output of the EVALUATION PHASE is the evaluation of the Domains People, Resources, Principles, Concept, Context, and Development Narrative. This knowledge can then be used to start a new spiral of the HBD process, Change/adapt the Strategies, or further develop the activities. In principle, it is possible to monitor the Effects of the results on a regular basis or to evaluate specific actions, activities, or Effects. The regular monitoring of results (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 77f) can be successful if existing data is

154

8  Description of the Metamodel

used (Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe, 2015; De Lotto, 2008, p. 33f). If new types of data need to be recorded on a regular basis, this can pose a challenge for the local governing bodies, as was experienced in the COMUS Project. The lack of existing data, which can also serve as a reference for the Evaluation, was one of the reasons for preparing preliminary technical files to be a starting point for the HBD processes (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 36). In many cases, it is more practicable to evaluate specific implemented actions or activities of specific Effects on an ad-hoc or planned basis. For example, the action “Development and Implementation of a World Heritage Visitor Centre” in Regensburg, which was developed through a HBD process, was evaluated in the framework of a seminar at the University of Regensburg 2019–2020. (Ripp, 2019–2020) There is a wide variety of evaluation methods, ranging from self-evaluation (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2012), as used in the periodic reporting process of the World Heritage Centre for World Heritage Sites (Ringbeck, 2008, p. 75) or in the COMUS Project (Ripp, 2017), to formative or summative evaluation (Davies & Heath, 2014). Evaluation can be implemented by internal staff or external experts or scientists or in a combination of both. The Evaluation can be structured or unstructured, and the observation can be in the form of introspection or by a third party. The observation can be direct or indirect, in a real-world situation or in the form of a laboratory situation. The observer can participate in actions or not, and the observation can be visible or discrete (Bortz & Döring, 2005, p. 328f). If actions or activities are (partially) funded by third parties on the national or international level, the methodology for Evaluation can be determined by the donor institution. Despite the wide range of scientific methodologies in real-life situations, the Evaluation can also be done in an ad hoc way based on the individual perceptions of Stakeholders and/or Decision Makers and available data (City of Regensburg, 2015). Some examples of Challenges in the EVALUATION PHASE are the Evaluation of projects being simply forgotten or no one accepting responsibility for it. Another pitfall is that the interpretation of evaluation results, or even the definition of the evaluation parameters, could be politically controversial. For example, if the function of a historic building was converted for public use, for example, a museum, the visitor numbers of the museums might be subject to debate and different political parties or Stakeholders might interpret them differently based on their expectations and political Values and Objectives (2017). A similar situation can occur when historic areas are subject to urban renewal. Controversy can arise from the fact that the rent in these areas has gone up, and parts of the population have now limited access to this area, while other parties might focus on the fact that a partially dysfunctional area has been “repaired” (Helbrecht, 2016; Rodwell, 2018). The THRIVE Metamodel provides space to address conflicts concerning Values and Objectives in the DEVELOPMENT PHASE, where a vision and Strategies for the site are developed. The difference between the EVALUATION PHASE (of implemented projects) and the SCOPING PHASE (to structure HBD processes) is that the EVALUATION PHASE is focused on the Effects of the actions and evaluating activities, while the SCOPING PHASE focuses on the preparation and structuring of a HBD Process. While the EVALUATION PHASE is usually retrospective (or accompanying the

8.8 Overview of All Phases

155

implementation), the SCOPING PHASE is preoperational and anticipates what might be relevant during the process. Existing Evaluation data and results are a valuable input for the SCOPING PHASE. Finally, the Evaluation of different actions and activities can only contribute to a bigger picture of the situation at hand. As cities are complex systems, the Evaluation results for singular actions and activities need to be combined with other knowledge and data to get a deep understanding of the issues at stake (De Lotto, 2008, p. 33).

8.8 Overview of All Phases A summary overview of the complete THRIVE Metamodel is introduced in this section, which is intended to serve as a guide to orient the reader before moving on to the proceeding chapter that deals with the implementation and demonstration of the Metamodel. Figure 8.14 depicts the relevant Domains and inputs and outputs of each phase. Though the different phases appear to be of the same “size”, in reality, the time and effort for each phase can differ significantly. For example, the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE can be stretched out over many years if infrastructure or urban renewal projects are among the defined actions and activities (City of Regensburg et  al., 2012; Ripp & Rodwell, 2018). Consecutive order of the phases: The consecutive order of the phases in the Metamodel is only to be understood as a conceptual aid to help understand the

Fig. 8.14  Relevant Domains, Entity Groups, Input and Output of the Evaluation Phase

156

8  Description of the Metamodel

different necessary steps and how they are integrated in a logical way with each other. As already stated (see Sect. 8.2), in real-life HBD processes, the phases are often not distinct or clearly separable and also not clear in their sequence. It is typical that these happen parallel to each other; for example, the implementation of some relevant actions and activities can have already started even before the Scoping of the HBD process has taken place. For example, this occurred in the case of the implementation of the World Heritage Visitor Centre in Regensburg. The implementation of the visitor centre started already in 2008 (City of Regensburg et al., 2010). During the HBD process that was implemented with the management plan, the action “visitor centre” played a major role in addressing the defined vision (City of Regensburg et al., 2012) and the related Strategies. On the one hand, this example shows that the Metamodel is flexible enough to integrate existing parts that are already there, and, on the other hand, that it is possible to link existing parts with the general concept of the Metamodel. In the COMUS Project, the SCOPING PHASE was very long; it took several years because it included the preparation of preliminary technical Files (Council of Europe, 2016; Ripp & Stein, 2018). At the start of the work, the first obstacle in participating cities, such as Armenia and Belarus, was that there were no basic data like maps, lists of heritage buildings, and inventories. In a phase before the HBD process started and before Stakeholders were integrated, the first step was preparing the PTFs to provide basic information on the cities and some basic information with which the process could be started (Council of Europe, 2016). This example shows that the five phases of the Metamodel can and should be used in a flexible way adapted to the needs of the specific situation. A characteristic of a good HBD process, however, is that it incorporates all five phases of the Metamodel (see Chap. 2). Through the development of the MM through GT and DRM, it is clear that the case-models HerO, COMUS, and Halland, which are representative of HBD development processes in dozens of cities in very different environments, contexts, and nature, share the characteristics of these five phases. The timing and the relation of the different phases have to be flexible, but the presence of all phases is a quality criterion of HBD processes. There has been a particular focus on the Evaluation (Binns, 2005; Davies & Heath, 2014) and the DEVELOPMENT PHASE within the scientific community (for example, in connection with management plans: (Ringbeck, 2008; Ripp & Rodwell, 2018)). The Implementation of Actions and activities has also been the subject of some scientific work, for example, in combination with the Evaluation of the process of urban renewal (Altrock, 2007). The Analysis of the existing situation has been described in the framework of the HerO and COMUS Projects (City of Regensburg et  al., 2011; Ripp & Stein, 2018) while the SCOPING PHASE has not been the subject of extensive scientific work. This shows that the importance of this phase has not been recognized by many authors and few urban experts and scientific personnel have the necessary combination of Skills to analyse and describe the Analysis, the development of actions, their implementation and Evaluation, of the design of the HBD process itself. The clear and direct definition of the SCOPING PHASE is, therefore, an important contribution of the Metamodel to improving the quality of HBD processes (Fig. 8.15).

8.8 Overview of All Phases

157

Fig. 8.15  overview of all five phases of the THRIVE metamodel

The five phases are connected not only through the inputs and outputs of each phase but also through the overall design of the HBD process as a complete and coherent process that comprises all the phases. The main actor is the most important aspect to integrate and connect the five different phases. In an ideal case, the main actor is the same person from the SCOPING PHASE to the EVALUATION PHASE. Because the HBD process can take a considerable amount of time, usually several years, the Main Actors can change. This was the case in the COMUS Project, where the initial main actor was an employee from the Council of Europe, but this changed (Council of Europe, 2016; Ripp & Stein, 2018) over the course of the project (including the pre-phase with the preparation of the PTFs). The Change of the main person in a complex process such as a HBD process can pose a challenge to the overall process and all participants (Domain: People). A complex set of Knowledge and Skills on a professional and personal level then needs to be transferred. Major threats to the smooth integration of the different phases are consequently a Change/disruption of the persons in charge (main actor), and Change on the political level can also be challenging (Domain: People; Entity Group: Decision Makers); for example, the political aims from the start of the HBD process can be changed. In general, the more the participants of the process (Domain: People) change during the HBD, the more challenging it can be to integrate new persons and transfer the already accumulated Knowledge and skill-related issues like trust in the stakeholder group. Change in the context, such as the economic situation or more severe issues such as natural disasters or war, can dramatically influence the HBD process and even

158

8  Description of the Metamodel

stop it. One consequence of the importance of Knowledge transfer between the different phases and the different (possibly changing) people involved is a stronger emphasis on knowledge management during the whole process. This can include classical knowledge management tools such as detailed minutes of the meetings and more digital knowledge management tools, including the use of filesharing and storage tools or project management software. It can also be challenging to address actions and activities that have been previously decided and already started but prove to be contradictory to the vision and Strategies of the HBD process during the DEVELOPMENT PHASE. The adaptation of these actions and activities is a possible solution that might not be possible in every case.

References Ahmad, Y. (2006). The scope and definitions of heritage: From tangible to intangible. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(3), 292–300. Aldred, R. (2012). Governing transport from welfare state to hollow state: The case of cycling in the UK. Transport Policy, 23, 95–102. Altrock, U. (2007). Evaluation und Monitoring in Stadterneuerung und Stadtplanung-Traditionen und Entwicklungstrends. In T.  Weith (Ed.), Stadtumbau erfolgreich evaluieren, Münster (pp. 29–55). Waxmann Verlag. Arnstein, S.  R. (1969). Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. Arrhenius, T. (2004). The cult of age in mass-society: Alois Riegl’s theory of conservation. Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, Criticism, 1, 75–81. Bandarin, F., & Van Oers, R. (2012). The historic urban landscape: Managing heritage in an urban century. Wiley-Blackwell. Barile, S., & Saviano, M. (2015). From the management of cultural heritage to the governance of the cultural heritage system. In G. M. Golinelli (Ed.), Cultural heritage and value creation (pp. 71–103). Springer. Bell, S., Morse, S., & Shah, R. A. (2012). Understanding stakeholder participation in research as part of sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Management, 101, 13–22. Binns, L. (2005). Capitalising on culture: An evaluation of culture-led urban regeneration policy. Futures Academy, Technological Univetrsity of Dublin. Bødker, S., Kyng, M., & Greenbaum, J. (1991). Setting the stage: Workshops and group interaction. In Design at work (pp. 139–154). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2005). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human-und Sozialwissenschaftler. Springer. Bouchenaki, M. (2016). UNESCO experiences in safeguarding world heritage cities in the Arab region. In Unesco (Ed.), Culture: Urban future; global report on culture for sustainable urban development (pp. 46–51). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245999 Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–43. Bryson, J. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21–53. Ceku, H., Zenelaj, B., Petrela, S., Dömpke, S., Lulo, A., & Ripp, M. (2012). Integrated management of historic towns. Guidebook for South East Europe. https://www.regensburg.de/fm/464/ Guidebook%20for%20South-­East%20Europe-­EN.pdf

References

159

City of Quedlinburg. (2014). World heritage management plan. http://www.quedlinburg.de/de/ unesco-­welterbe/managementplan-­unesco-­welterbestaette-­quedlinburg-­stiftskirche-­schloss-­ und-­altsstadt-­20003692.html City of Regensburg. (2011). HerO- Heritage as opportunity Flagship Projects April 2011. https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/309309126_HerO_Heritage_as_opportunity_List_of_ Flagship_Projects City of Regensburg. (2015). Zwischenbericht Managemengtplan Umsetzungsstand Schlüsselmaßnahmen. Retrieved 20 Feb 2020 from https://urbanexpert.net/wp-­content/ uploads/sites/8/2019/02/Zwischenbericht-­Managementplan-­Regensburg.pdf City of Regensburg, Bartla, L., & Ripp, M. (2010). Analytical case study: Visitor Centre World Heritage Regensburg. https://www.regensburg.de/fm/464/Regensburg_case_study.pdf City of Regensburg, Ripp, M., & Scheffler, N. (2011). HerO – Heritage as opportunity. The road to success: Integrated management of historic towns – Guidebook. https://www.regensburg.de/ fm/464/HerO%20Guidebook%20EN.pdf City of Regensburg, Mühlmann, R., & Ripp, M. (2012). Management plan UNESCO World Heritage Site “Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof”. https://www.regensburg.de/fm/464/ STADT_RGBG_MANAGEMENTPLAN_WELTERBE_GB_screen.pdf City of Regensburg/Planning and Building, D., Ripp, M., & Bühler, B. (2009). Earth wind water fire – Environmental challenges to urban world heritage. https://www.regensburg.de/fm/464/ owhc_broschuere_regensburg_2008%5B1%5D.pdf Council of Europe. (2005). Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-­list/-­/conventions/ rms/0900001680083746 Council of Europe. (2016). COMMUNITY-LED URBAN STRATEGIES IN HISTORIC TOWNS (COMUS) Communities at the heart of heritage governance. https://rm.coe.int/ comus-­communities-­at-­the-­heart-­of-­heritage-­governance-­principles-­for-­h/1680728eb4 Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe. (2015). Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe. Full report. http://www.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2015/06/ CHCfE_FULL-­REPORT_v2.pdf Davies, M., & Heath, C. (2014). “Good” organisational reasons for “ineffectual” research: Evaluating summative evaluation of museums and galleries. Cultural Trends, 23(1), 57–69. De Lotto, R. (2008). Assessment of development and regeneration urban projects: Cultural and operational implications in metropolization context. International Journal of Energy and Environment, 2(1), 25–34. Dobinson, C. S., Lake, J., & Schofield, A. J. (1997). Monuments of war: Defining England’s 20th-­ century defence heritage. Antiquity, 71(272), 288–288. Dobrovic, Z. (2001). Strategic planning under uncertainty: Building the metamodel. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 25(1), 11–26. Dostal, P., & Hampl, M. (2007). Systemic geographical approach, methodological plurality, uncertainties and risks. In P. Dostal & J. Langhammer (Eds.), Modeling natural environment and society (pp. 29–44). Drakakis-Smith, D. W. (2000). Third world cities. Psychology Press. Egermann, R. (2019). Museumsstück oder Verkehrsbauwerk  – Aspekte zur Instandsetzung der Steinernen Brücke in Regensburg. Bautechnik, 96(1), 31–39. Fell, H., & Huber, J. (2011). Besucherzentrum Welterbe Regensburg: Eine kleine Gebrauchsanweisung. Dr. Peter Morsbach Verlag. Fistola, R., & Rocca, R.  A. L. (2013). Smart city Plannung: A systemic approach. In The 6th Knowledge Cities World Summit (KCWS 2013) (pp. 520–529). Lookus Scientific. Gaillard, B., & Rodwell, D. (2015). A failure of process? Comprehending the issues fostering heritage conflict in Dresden Elbe Valley and Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Sites. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 6(1), 16–40. Göttler, M., & Ripp, M. (2017). Community involvement in heritage management. http://openarchive.icomos.org/1812/

160

8  Description of the Metamodel

Gustafsson, C. (2009). The Halland Model. A Trading zone for building conservation in concert with labour market policy and the construction industry, aiming at regional sustainable development. Gustafsson, C., & Polesie, T. (2013). Return on investments. Some measurable results of the conservation of the Rossared Manor House. BDC Bollettino del Dipartimento di Conservazione dei Beni Architettonici ed Ambientali dell’Università degli Studi di Napoli, 13(1), 101–118. Gustafsson, C., & Rosvall, J. (2008). The Halland model and the Gotheburg model: A quest toward integrated sustainable conservation. City & Time, 4(1), 15–30. Helbrecht, I. (2016). Gentrifizierung in Berlin: Verdrängungsprozesse und Bleibestrategien. transcript Verlag. Johnston, C., & Myers, D. (2009). Resolving conflict and building consensus in heritage place management: Issues and challenges. In D.  Myers, S.  N. Smith, & G.  Ostergren (Eds.), Consensus building, negotiation, and conflict resolution for heritage place management. Proceedings of a workshop organized by the Getty Conservation Institute (pp.  1–23). The Getty Conservation Institute. https://www.indumap.de/sites/default/files/hanbuch/dateien/consensus_building_opt.pdf Karakiewicz, J., & Bos, C. (2016). Ever smarter, cities that learn: The application of complex adaptive systems theory to urban development. SMART FUTURE CITIES, Melbourne. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313090284_EVER_SMARTER_CITIES_THAT_ LEARN_the_application_of_complex_adaptive_systems_theory_to_urban_development Kasperska, E. (2015). Civitas renaissance project in Szczecinek in the context of sustainable development. Rocznik Ochrona Srodowiska, 17, 747–759. Khazraee, E. (2011). Domain specific considerations of metadata for cultural heritage. In T. Baker, D. I. Hillmann, & A. Isaac (Eds.), International conference on Dublin Core and metadata applications. DC-2011 – The Hague proceedings papers, project reports and posters for DC-2011 at The Hague (pp. 189–191). https://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/download/3645/1871 Menzel, W. (2017). Arbeitsgemeinschaft historische Städte Bamberg Görlitz Lübeck Meißen Regensburg Stralsund. Retrieved 1 Feb 2017 from http://www.ag-­historische-­staedte.de Midgley, G., & Lindhult, E. (2017). What is systemic innovation? Research memorandum. University of Hull, Business School. http://www2.hull.ac.uk/hubs/pdf/memorandum%2099.pdf Narayanan, Y. (2016). Deep ecology and urban conservation principles for urban villages: Planning for Hauz Khas Village, Delhi City. In S.  Labadi & W.  Logan (Eds.), Urban heritage, development and sustainability international frameworks, national and local governance (pp. 291–307). Routledge. Richards, G.  W., & Marques, L. (2018). Creating synergies between cultural policy and tourism for permanent and temporary citizens. Committee on Culture of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG). http://www.agenda21culture.net/sites/default/files/files/cities/content/ informe_2018_bcn_cultural_policy_and_tourism_-­eng_1.pdf Ringbeck, B. (2008). Management plans for world heritage sites a practical guide. German Comission for UNESCO. Ripp, M. (2011). Der Regensburger Welterbe-Managementplan. Gestaltung einer Welterbe-­ Strategie gemeinsam mit den Bürgern. In Arbeitskreis Regensburger Herbstsymposion (Ed.), Zum Teufel mit den Baudenkmälern – 200 Jahre Denkmalschutz in Regensburg (pp. 83–86). Peter Morsbach Verlag. Ripp, M. (2013). List of cities that were inspired by the management plan-approach developed in the HerO Project. City of Regensburg. Ripp, M. (2017). Major findings from self-evaluation feedback reports of the COMUS project. City of Regensburg. Ripp, M. (2018). Heritage as a system and process that belongs to local communities. Reframing the role of local communities and stakeholders. Council of Europe/Faro Convention Workshop, Fontecchio. https://rm.coe.int/ heritage-­as-­a-­system-­and-­process-­that-­belongs-­to-­local-­communities-­mr-­/16807bc255

References

161

Ripp, M. (2019–2020). Seminar: Besucherzentren als spezielle Vermittlungsform des kulturellen Erbes. Konzeption, Evaluation, Funktion. Ripp, M., & Rodwell, D. (2015). The geography of urban heritage. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 6(3), 240–276. Ripp, M., & Rodwell, D. (2018). Governance in UNESCO World Heritage Sites: Reframing the role of management plans as a tool to improve community engagement. In S. Makuvaza (Ed.), Aspects of management planning for cultural world heritage sites (pp. 241–253). Springer. Ripp, M., & Stein, P. (2018). Applying the Faro convention principles to deliver heritage-based urban development: The COMUS-project. Community-­ led urban strategies in historic towns. Council of Europe. http://rm.coe.int/ applying-­the-­faro-­convention-­principles-­to-­deliver-­heritage-­based-­urba/168078827f Ripp, M., Eidenschink, U., & Milz, C. (2011). Strategies, policies and tools for an integrated World Heritage management approach: Experiences from the city of Regensburg. Facilities, 29(7–8), 286–302. (Facilities). Ripp, M., Hauer, S., & Cavdar, M. (2019). Heritage-based urban development: The example of Regensburg. In A.  P. Rhoders & F.  Bandarin (Eds.), Reshaping urban conservation (pp. 435–457). Springer. Rodwell, D. (2018). “Gentry”? Heritage conservation for communities. Change Over Time, 8(1), 74–100. Rodwell, D., & van Oers, R. (2007). Summary report of the regional conference of countries of Eastern and Central Europe on “Management and Preservation of Historic Centers of Cities inscribed on the World Heritage List”. U. W. H. Centre. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-­47-­7.pdf Rypkema, D.  D. (2005). The economics of historic preservation: A community leader’s guide (S. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United, Ed., 2nd ed.). Sandholz, S. (2017). Urban centres in Asia and Latin America. Heritage and identities in changing urban landscapes. Springer. Scheffler, N., Ripp, M., & Bühler, B. (2009). Cultural heritage integrated management plans. URBACT Project HerO Heritage as opportunity. Thematic Report, 2. https://urbact.eu/ file/7613/download?token=A21X3uyE Seraphin, H., Sheeran, P., Pilato, M., & Management. (2018). Over-tourism and the fall of Venice as a destination. Journal of Destination Marketing, 9, 374–376. Shalaginova, I. (2012). Understanding heritage: A constructivist approach to heritage interpretation as a mechanism for understanding heritage sites. Dissertation, BTU Cottbus. Singh, S. (2004). Religion, heritage and travel: Case references from the Indian Himalayas. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(1), 44–65. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge. Stadt, G. (2013). UNESCO Weltkulturerbe Graz Managementplan. https://www.graz.at/cms/doku mente/10135889_8033447/0de1e53e/WKE_mp_pro_ansicht.pdf Stewart, D.  W., Shamdasani, P.  N., & Rook, D.  W. (2007). The focus group moderator. In D. W. Stewart, P. N. Shamdasani, & D. W. Rook (Eds.), Focus groups (pp. 69–89). Sage. Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2012). Systematic evaluation: A self-instructional guide to theory and practice (Vol. 8). Springer. Throsby, D. (2005). On the sustainability of cultural capital (Research Papers Macquarie University/Department of Economics). http://www.econ.mq.edu.au/Econ_docs/research_ papers2/2005_research_papers/cult_cap_throsby.pdf Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. Turner, M. (2013). UNESCO recommendation on the historic urban landscape. In M. T. Albert, R. Bernecker, & B. Rudolff (Eds.), Understanding heritage: Perspectives in heritage studies (pp. 77–87). Unesco. (2010). Managing historic cities (World Heritage papers 27). http://whc.unesco.org/en/ series/27/

162

8  Description of the Metamodel

Unesco. (2011). Recommendation on historic urban landscape. https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/ activities/documents/activity-­638-­98.pdf Unesco. (2016). Culture: Urban future; global report on culture for sustainable urban development. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245999 Unesco, & Whitrap. (2016). The HUL Guidebook managing heritage in dynamic and constantly changing environments a practical guide to UNESCO’s recommendation on the historic urban landscape. http://www.historicurbanlandscape.com/themes/196/userfiles/download/2016/6/7/ wirey5prpznidqx.pdf United Nations Development Programme, & Malik, K. (2014). Human development report 2014: Sustaining human progress-reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience (PDF). UN. Urbact. (2019). URBAN LEARNING  – Integrative energy planning of urban areas. Collective learning for improved governance. Retrieved 29 July 2019 from http://www.urbanlearning.eu/ toolbox/planning-­process/ Van Gigch, J. P. (1991). System design modeling and metamodeling. Plenum Press. Vecco, M. (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(3), 321–324. World Bank. (2001). Cultural heritage and development: A framework for action in the Middle East and North Africa. World Bank. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy02/2001026833.html

Chapter 9

Application of the Metamodel

The Metamodel can be applied in different scenarios and for different purposes. The most relevant scenarios are explained in this chapter. The general and specific use of the Metamodel is described, and the role of each phase of the Metamodel corresponding to each scenario is elaborated together with a brief comparison to alternative approaches. An overview of the application scenarios is presented in Sect. 9.1. This chapter describes and explains how the Metamodel can be used. For this purpose, different scenarios are developed, and the use of the Metamodel is described in a dedicated section for each scenario. In the scope of this research, the use of the Metamodel is limited to three scenarios: The design of HBD processes (Sect. 9.1), the evaluation of HBD processes (Sect. 9.2), and the Improvement of already ongoing HBD processes (Sect. 9.3). For each of the scenarios, the following aspects are addressed: Users of the Metamodel, Use of the Metamodel, General use, Specific use, Benefit of using the Metamodel vs. other approaches, Example of concrete steps for use, and Pitfalls and potential problems. The final section of the chapter then explores some additional potential scenarios briefly.

9.1 Designing Heritage-Based Development Processes The design of HBD processes is one of the use scenarios for the Metamodel. In principle, the Metamodel can be used in any setting because of its high level of abstraction. It can be used to obtain an understanding of the whole process, including the elements (on the abstract level of Entity Groups and Domains, but which can be specified with specific Entities of a specific case), the different phases of the process, and how they interrelate. An example of a setting where the Metamodel can be used is when the World Bank addresses cases in underdeveloped countries to improve the quality of life for local citizens through HBD and work towards their other objectives (World Bank, 2001). In this context, cultural heritage is used as a © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Ripp, A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development, Heritage Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08238-2_9

163

164

9  Application of the Metamodel

resource and vehicle to reach these objectives. Assuming there is no HBD process in place, the Metamodel can be used to design a HBD process: Users of the Metamodel The Metamodel can be used by officers from the public sector on a local, regional, or national level. It can also be used by external experts who are hired to design and or implement an HBD process. It can also be used by officers from international organisations or NGOs who are working in the field of sustainable urban development. Use of the Metamodel The Metamodel can be used to understand the whole process of HBD. It can be used to design a HBD process for a specific case. General Use On a general level, the Metamodel represents the HBD process on an abstract level and can be used to select appropriate models and methods to “translate” the abstract Metamodel, for example, into a specific roadmap that is ready for implementation in a specific case. Specific Use One main use of the Metamodel is designing HBD processes, so it can be used to do the following in the SCOPING PHASE of the HBD process: • Understand the different phases of an HBD process. • Develop a realistic understanding of the time needed for each phase and the whole process. • Understand the different relevant Entities on the local level in the HBD process (based on the Domains and Entities). • Understand and define the role of the key driver in the process. • Understand and define the governance of the process and how the decision makers are to be integrated into the process. • Understand and define the necessary Financial Resources for the local HBD process. • Understand and develop general Objectives for the local HBD process. • Define what Knowledge and Skills for a successful HBD process are available and what Knowledge and Skills need to be introduced into the process by external expertise • Understand the role of Stakeholders and develop initial ideas about how to select and integrate them into the process The Metamodel with its Five Phases can be used to understand what Skills are needed for the process; for example, in a specific scenario, it could be found that the existing team has limited moderation skills. One result could be acknowledging that an external moderator (or a person from a different department) is needed. Methods to find and hire a suitable moderator could be developed, and, if necessary, a call for tender could be launched (see Chap. 11) (City of Regensburg et al., 2012).

9.1  Designing Heritage-Based Development Processes

165

In the ANALYSING PHASE, the Metamodel can be used to obtain a clear and realistic understanding of the situation at hand. This includes understanding what Objectives and decisions are already in place. The Metamodel can help understand and structure the phase of ANALYSIS. The Metamodel with its phases can here also be used to gain a common understanding of the existing situation, including strengths and weaknesses, as a joint exercise that is an important basis for the development of common Objectives, visions, and actions. For example, in the COMUS Project, the Analysis of the situation at hand in each of the pilot cities was already a joint action (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 30). In the design of the COMUS process, the decision to organise it conjointly was intentional because the importance of this common starting point with the joint understanding was acknowledged from the beginning. The Metamodel also makes it clear that the common understanding of the existing situation that was developed in the ANALYSIS PHASE is a pre-requirement for a successful DEVELOPMENT PHASE. The Metamodel, with its different phases, can support the design of a HBD process and demonstrates that the different phases are to a certain degree linear. Is it very helpful to conduct the ANALYSIS PHASE before the DEVELOPMENT PHASE; otherwise, Objectives that are jointly decided might have to be changed if new information from the Analysis comes into the process. The Metamodel can also determine which Resources are necessary for the DEVELOPMENT PHASE. For example, soft Skills like Creativity and Knowledge of referring methodologies are also often needed in this phase (see Chap. 3). In the design of HBD processes, the Implementation of Actions that meet the Objectives requires a thorough Analysis of the existing situation and the joint development of visions, and Objectives. While designing HBD processes, the Metamodel can already identify potential institutions and persons who might be helpful with the Implementation of Actions at a later stage, including NGOs and private partners. When designing HBD processes, it is important to understand that the Evaluation of implemented activities is usually not a one-stop action and is connected to the Implementation of Actions that can extend over a long period. During the design of HBD processes, the Metamodel can identify parameters, sources, and partners that can later be helpful with the Evaluation of the implemented actions. For example, a clear understanding of the five phases in the Metamodel when designing a process can help to research potential sources for Evaluation parameters or decide if the Evaluation of implemented projects needs external expertise or will only be based on a joint Evaluation of all involved Stakeholders (see Sect. 8.7). Benefit of Using the Metamodel vs. Other Approaches The advantage of using the Metamodel to design HBD processes over other methods, such as a spontaneous approach, the methods from specific cases, or the use of a specific model, is rooted in the following: • The use of the Metamodel ensures that all potential relevant Entity Groups and Domains are respected • The use of the Metamodel ensures an understanding of the different phases that are part of the HBD process

166

9  Application of the Metamodel

• The Metamodel can be used with specific Entities that are not relevant or present in other cases of models • The use of the Metamodel promotes a diligent phase of Scoping, which has been identified as crucial for a successful HBD process • The use of the Metamodel enables the persons responsible for the design of the HBD process to start with a deep and wide understanding of the nature of the process, including potential pitfalls and Challenges The Following Are Examples of Concrete Steps for Using the Metamodel in the Scenario “Design HBD Processes” (Step-by-Step Guide) 1. Understand the HBD processes with all its components (Entity Groups and Domains) and phases. 2. Set up a team to design the HBD process (Best is a small group of people with different views and backgrounds). 3. Transfer the abstract representations in the Metamodel (Entity Group and Domains) to specific Entities that are relevant in the specific case. 4. Define key points and general Objectives. 5. Select Stakeholders. 6. Identify Decision Makers and governance structures. 7. Define a Roadmap for the HBD process that includes: Milestones, Timing, Decisions. 8. Start Implementing the HBD process. Pitfalls and Potential Problems The greatest danger when using the Metamodel for the HBD process is not understanding the phases and progressing to different phases too early, for example, to the DEVELOPMENT PHASE, without having a common understanding of the situation.

9.2 Evaluating Heritage-Based Development Processes The second scenario for which the Metamodel can be used is the Evaluation of HBD processes. The motivation for the Evaluation can be a scientific Analysis or an Evaluation in connection with international aid programs or regional, national, or international funding schemes, among others. With the use of the Metamodel, the following qualitative questions can be evaluated: • • • •

Have all relevant Stakeholders been involved in the process? Is the process based on a logical structure? Are the parts of the process in a logical order and based on each other? Is the scope of the process meeting the specific requirements of the local situation?

9.2  Evaluating Heritage-Based Development Processes

167

Users of the Metamodel In connection with the evaluation of HBD processes, the Metamodel can be used by officers from the public sector on a local, regional, or national level. It can also be used by scientists, external experts, or officers from international organisations or NGOs who are working in the field of sustainable urban development. Use of the Metamodel The Metamodel can be used to evaluate a complete HBD process based on its process architecture, Entities and processes, and individual steps and phases. To a lesser extent, the Metamodel can also be used to evaluate individual processes where heritage serves as the core for urban development, like, for example, the development of a museum in a historic building. The Metamodel would not be used to its full capacity for these smaller processes because of their relatively limited complexity. Specific Use of Different Phases of the Metamodel The following are examples of how the different phases of the Metamodel can be used to evaluate HBD processes: SCOPING PHASE The Metamodel can evaluate if HBD processes have been diligently planned. The Metamodel is particularly useful in cases where there were problems and Challenges during the HBD process, as it can highlight the important role of the SCOPING PHASE and analyse what has been missing during the design of the targeted HBD process. This can improve HBD processes in the future. Example: The SCOPING PHASE is particularly relevant in cases of severe conflict between different Stakeholders and or political Decision Makers that endanger or even halt HBD processes. The Analysis of the HBD process could determine that the process was not thoroughly planned in the SCOPING PHASE, and the necessary Skills such as moderation and conflict management were not anticipated and, therefore, not accessible to the persons who led the discussions. ANALYSIS PHASE In the ANALYSIS PHASE, the Metamodel can determine if there has been adequate Analysis of the existing situation and if a joint understanding of the issues at stake has been developed. Example: In HBD processes, a conflict can arise during the development of specific Objectives and actions. This conflict can be rooted in the fact that there has not been a common understanding of the issues at stake. This can be caused by a lack of understanding of the sequential phases (see Sect. 8.2). The Metamodel can be used to understand the logic of the sequential order with its different phases and can evaluate if not following this order caused problems. DEVELOPMENT PHASE The DEVELOPMENT PHASE, where the Visions and Objectives are conjointly developed, can be evaluated with the help of the Metamodel. More specifically, the Metamodel can be used, for example, to evaluate if specific Entity Groups like Creativity were missing in the DEVELOPMENT PHASE, or if the basis for

168

9  Application of the Metamodel

the DEVELOPMENT PHASE was not solid enough. It can also be used to understand and evaluate if the development of visions and actions is targeted towards the expected outcomes of the DEVELOPMENT PHASE (see Sect. 8.5). Example: During the elaboration of the World Heritage Management Plan in Regensburg, conflicts between different Stakeholders were present during all phases. However, they jointly developed an understanding of the situation at hand (Analysis) in the DEVELOPMENT PHASE, which could be referenced to mitigate these conflicts. Here, the Evaluation of the DEVELOPMENT PHASE with the use of the Metamodel can detect challenges and issues that are based on a missing common understanding of the problems at hand. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE In evaluating the Implementation of Actions, the Metamodel can determine whether actions were developed based on a common Analysis and the joint development of a vision and Objectives or were motivated by individual Interests. Based on this understanding, in specific cases, specific actions can also be stopped. Benefit of Using the Metamodel vs. Other Approaches There are a broad variety of existing methodologies for Evaluation. In contrast to quantitative methods, the use of the Metamodel in the Evaluation can ensure an understanding of the complete (integrated) process and which individual Entity Groups, Domains, and phases are relevant. The focus on the quality and design of the process opens up possibilities for a different kind of Evaluation of HBD processes, and important lessons can be learned for other processes in a similar or even the same environment. The Metamodel’s systemic view focuses on the interrelations and connections between different Entity Groups, Domains, and phases in the HBD processes and can help to understand how the existing situation, Effects, and results are related to the design of the process and its role in the overall result of the HBD. The Following Is an Example of Concrete Steps for Using the Metamodel to Evaluate Design HBD Processes (Step-by-Step Guide) For the Evaluation of HBD processes, the Metamodel can serve as a starting point to understand the relevant Entity Groups, Domains and processes and how they are represented in the specific case by concrete Entities. This overall view, beginning with the Scoping of the HBD process, can be used to do the following: • • • •

Define Objectives for the Evaluation of HBD Select proper methodologies for the Evaluation of HBD Keep the overall process in focus, even when concentrating on specific aspects Select Entity Groups, Domains, and processes that can be part of a comparative Analysis in other cases related to the Evaluation results of specific aspects in HBD • Analyse the systemic connection and causes of Effects beyond linear cause and effect relations

9.3  Improving Heritage-Based Development Processes

169

Pitfalls and Potential Problems The Metamodel can be used to evaluate the overall HBD process in a specific case. Evaluation methodologies are needed to evaluate specific Effects and actions. The Metamodel can be best used in combination with other evaluation methodologies, especially if quantitative evaluation parameters are desired.

9.3 Improving Heritage-Based Development Processes The third scenario comprises using the Metamodel to improve HBD processes that are already running. In comparison to the first scenario (Design HBD processes), the existing process with all its advantages and disadvantages must be taken into account and can only be changed. As the HBD process is already running in this scenario, there may be existing conflicts, discussions, and obstacles, so the approach needs to be well planned and incorporate a high level of soft skills to evaluate the work that is already complete. Example: In the framework of a development project, a HBD process might already be ongoing, but the discussion is stuck because it is difficult to identify actions or interventions that are feasible in the specific setting. Users of the Metamodel In this scenario, the Metamodel can be used by officers from the public sector on a local, regional, or national level. It can also be used by external experts who are hired to improve the HBD process or officers from international organisations or NGOs who are involved in the process on the ground. Use of the Metamodel The improvement of existing HBD processes can involve the expansion of involved Stakeholders, the additional involvement of external experts, the Change of how the Decision Makers are involved, the timing of the process, the use of different methods in the DEVELOPMENT PHASE, and the repetition of an ANALYSIS PHASE to reach a common understanding of the situation. The possibilities for improvement are wide and must be based on the specific situation at hand. General Use of the Metamodel The Metamodel can be used to understand the whole process of HBD and which Entity Groups and Domains are relevant. It can also be used to understand the logic of the overall process and the sequential phases. With this understanding, the HBD process can be analysed and compared to the Metamodel (which was developed based on “successful” HBD processes). Based on this Analysis, the necessary steps to Adapt and Change the process can be taken. Specific Use of the Different Phases of the Metamodel SCOPING PHASE When the Metamodel is used to improve HBD processes that are already running, the SCOPING PHASE is usually already complete. However, it is possible that

170

9  Application of the Metamodel

some of the outcomes of the SCOPING PHASE are missing and need to be repeated. For example, the identification of the Stakeholders might have been completed by a single person, and therefore the involved Stakeholders do not fully represent the local community. To improve the process, the Metamodel can serve as a reference to conduct a more professional stakeholder identification and expand the stakeholder group. No supporters were identified in the Scoping of the targeted HBD process, and, therefore, the support in the public media is weak. The Metamodel can be used as a reference to determine the importance of the role of external supporters, and they can be identified and approached even if the process is already running. ANALYSIS PHASE As already stated (see Sect. 8.4), the Analysis of the existing situation and a common understanding of the issues at stake is crucial. The Metamodel can determine the sequential logic of the five phases for HBD development and analyse if this logical order has been followed in the specific situation at hand. Example: In specific cases, the Analysis might focus very much on specific sectoral Challenges, for example, weakness of local infrastructure. The Metamodel demonstrates that a holistic understanding of the situation in a broad HBD process is important, and, in specific cases, more data, maps, plans, decisions, and Knowledge must be integrated into the Analysis for a complete picture before discussing solutions to sectoral Challenges. DEVELOPMENT PHASE The DEVELOPMENT PHASE is mainly characterized by a creative process to develop visions, Objectives, actions, and interventions. The idea is to develop an overall vision and more specific Objectives and feasible actions and, if applicable, define which objectives are priorities. Example: In a specific case, there might be a large variety of ideas for specific actions, some of which will have already been defined within other Processes. The use of the Metamodel can help to understand how important it is to include Knowledge of existing ideas and actions in the ANALYSIS PHASE so that this Knowledge forms the basis for the DEVELOPMENT PHASE. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE The IMPLEMENTATION PHASE, understood as an ongoing and sometimes long-­ term period where the developed activities and interventions are implemented, can be difficult. Changes in the context can prevent, challenge, or delay the implementation. Example: In specific cases, for example, a developed action could be the introduction of new signposting for heritage buildings. However, in the meanwhile, it could be determined from visitor surveys that 70% of the visitors use their smartphones to navigate the city. The Metamodel demonstrates that this new data can be introduced in the ANALYSIS PHASE, and it could Change the development or prioritization of actions to implement. As a result, the new physical signposting action might be stopped, reduced, or combined with digital methods.

9.4  Other Scenarios

171

EVALUATION PHASE The EVALUATION PHASE is important for analysing if the implemented actions or interventions have contributed to meeting the defined Objectives and evaluating other changes that have occurred. The Metamodel emphasizes that the EVALUATION PHASE is important (the results of which can also be the basis for future HBD processes) and an integral part of any HBD process. Example: A specific case of a developed activity could be the introduction of new signposting to stimulate citizens and visitors to visit a different area of a city. The Metamodel can illustrate that this action is not finished without the Evaluation of the real change that was triggered. While Evaluation is often forgotten once actions are implemented, it can open up a new understanding of a situation and trigger new ideas. Benefit of Using the Metamodel vs. Other Approaches In comparison to the improvement of running a HBD process based on personal experience or individual ideas, the Metamodel, which is universal, ensures that the Benefits and positive aspects of successful HBD Cases and models can be transferred to the specific case. Concrete Steps for Using the Metamodel to Improve the Design of HBD Processes are as Follows (Step-by Step-Guide) As this use for the Metamodel depends on the specific situation, what has already been completed, how it has been completed, and what is planned, there is no universal step-by-step guide for using the Metamodel in this scenario. In this case, the use is determined by and should respond to the Challenges that are met in the specific case. Pitfalls and Potential Problems The most significant threat in using the Metamodel to improve an already running HBD process is treating the Metamodel as a standard model (see Sects. 4.2, 5.1, and 6.3). The Metamodel can only be used to relate its abstract Entity Groups and Domains to the specific Entities on the site. It cannot be used as a blueprint but rather as a conceptual method to understand what is important and the logic of the process.

9.4 Other Scenarios Besides the described scenarios, there are several other purposes for which the Metamodel might be used, for example, Capacity Building, especially teaching, training, coaching, and curriculum development. This section lists some of these potential uses:

172

9  Application of the Metamodel

1. Teaching and Training HBD processes For Teaching HBD, the Metamodel can be used to structure the teaching content, starting with what Entity Groups and Domains are relevant to the five phases of HBD. This structure can serve as a basis for the transfer of Knowledge concerning all involved Entity Groups and Domains and the five phases and help develop the necessary Skills. This scenario could be relevant in the framework of the development of a new university course or training. 2. Coaching persons who are involved in HBD processes Another potential scenario is coaching persons who are actively involved in HBD processes, including politicians, external experts, and officers in the public administration. For coaching, the Metamodel can illustrate the complete process and the interrelations between all parts of the process and the roles of the persons involved. The Metamodel can also clarify the different roles of involved persons and focus on necessary Skills and potential conflicts and Challenges. 3. Curriculum development to develop scientific curricula on HBD processes Higher Education institutions could use the Metamodel to structure curricula on HBD, heritage management, and similar topics. The Metamodel can serve as a backbone to represent all relevant Entity Groups and Domains, as well as the five phases in the curricula. Parts of the Metamodel could also be used to structure specific curricula, for example, focusing on the Scoping of such processes or the Evaluation. 4. Structure scientific work such as comparative studies The Metamodel can also be used to structure scientific work, such as comparative studies, case studies, and more conceptual work. 5. Developing Models Last but not least, the original purpose of metamodels, according to Van Gigch, also includes the development of models. The THRIVE Metamodel (Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development) can also be used to develop models in a specific environment, which can then be applied to a wide number of real-world cases. One example could be a region where the impact of climate change leads to severe consequences; in such a case, the Metamodel could be used to develop a model for improving the quality of life for local communities using urban heritage.

References City of Regensburg, Mühlmann, R., & Ripp, M. (2012). Management plan UNESCO World Heritage Site “Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof”. https://www.regensburg.de/fm/464/ STADT_RGBG_MANAGEMENTPLAN_WELTERBE_GB_screen.pdf Council of Europe. (2016). COMMUNITY-LED URBAN STRATEGIES IN HISTORIC TOWNS (COMUS) Communities at the heart of heritage governance. https://rm.coe.int/ comus-­communities-­at-­the-­heart-­of-­heritage-­governance-­principles-­for-­h/1680728eb4 World Bank. (2001). Cultural heritage and development: A framework for action in the Middle East and North Africa. World Bank. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy02/2001026833.html

Chapter 10

Demonstration

This chapter demonstrates the artefact in one specific environment and evaluates whether it works or needs to be further adapted. The real-world example that is used is the UNESCO World Heritage City Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof. Through simulation, the abstract representations of the Metamodel are related to existing Entities. The objective of demonstration and the background of the Regensburg case are briefly introduced in Sect. 10.1. The criteria for selecting Regensburg for the demonstration and the purpose of the demonstration are discussed in Sect. 10.2 before providing the preconditions and an in-depth description of the case in Sect. 10.3. In Sect. 10.4, the actual demonstration of the Metamodel through Regensburg is explored, while Sect. 10.5 explains how the five phases of the Metamodel were evident in this case. In Sects. 10.6 and 10.7, respectively, an overview of Regensburg’s input–output and an evaluation of the case in relation to the Metamodel requirements are provided.

10.1 Demonstration Objective and Case Introduction According to Peffers et al. (2007), demonstration must “find a suitable context” and “use artefact to solve one or more instances of the problem”. The Metamodel is used in the case of Regensburg to evaluate the heritage-based urban development process that was implemented from 2008 to 2012 by the development of a World Heritage Management Plan to safeguard and further develop the UNESCO Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof (City of Regensburg, 2015; City of Regensburg et  al., 2012). The following step after the demonstration of the Metamodel is the Evaluation of whether the Metamodel is meeting its requirements. The methodology of the demonstration is a simulation. The Metamodel is simulated with the data from the Regensburg case. The general Objective of the demonstration is to prove that the artefact can solve one or more instances of the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Ripp, A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development, Heritage Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08238-2_10

173

174

10 Demonstration

problem (Peffers et al., 2007). The Metamodel requirements are evaluated after the demonstration to operationalise this objective for the THRIVE Metamodel (Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development). During the demonstration, the Metamodel is applied to evaluate the HBD process in Regensburg. The problem instance here is targeted towards the Evaluation of HBD processes, which is one potential case for the application of the Metamodel. This includes, for example, checking if all relevant Entities are represented in the Entity Groups and the Domains. The demonstration is implemented using “single act of demonstration” (Peffers et al., 2007). From a retrospective perspective, existing published information and my personal were used to evaluate the HBD process in Regensburg that was implemented through the development of the World Heritage Management Plan in the framework of the HerO Project (Table 10.1).

10.2 Purpose and Sampling of Demonstration Case Demonstration of the artefact is one step in DRM. This section illustrates why and how this is done. The implementation of DRM based on six phases (see Sect. 4.2) includes the demonstration of the artefact as the fourth phase. The objective of the demonstration is to show the artefact in a scenario to prove that the artefact does solve the explicated problem. In principle, demonstration can be applied to solve one or more instances of the problem. For this research, the demonstration is used to evaluate an already finished HBD process. The problem instance is related to the Evaluation of HBD processes. The main purposes of the demonstration in this specific case are: • To check if the relevant Entities are represented by the Entity Groups and Domains (taking into account the approach-immanent restrictions (see Chap. 7). Table 10.1  Demonstration and Evaluation phase in DRM Phase in DRM Demonstration (4) Objective Proof that artefact is able to solve one or more instances of the problem Method

Tools Problem Instance Case

Evaluation (5) Evaluate if the artefact was able to solve the problem and develop ideas for Change Evaluation of HBD process in one case (“single Analysing the results and experiences of the act demonstration”) demonstration Step by step comparison of the specific case with abstract representations and phases of the Metamodel Literature on the specific case Metamodel Requirements Personal knowledge Results of Demonstration Evaluation of heritage-based urban development Evaluation of heritage-based processes urban development processes Regensburg Regensburg

Source: Peffers and own considerations Peffers et al. (2007)

10.2 Purpose and Sampling of Demonstration Case

175

• To understand and evaluate the five phases of the Metamodel with special focus on the question of how “distinctly” they can be defined as separate phases of the process • To evaluate if the general outline of the Metamodel is representative of the sampled case • To evaluate if the developed model-specific language is sufficient • To evaluate if important representations of elements, processes, inputs, or outputs are missing • To evaluate if the Metamodel is meeting the Metamodel requirements (see Chap. 5 and Sect. 7.2.4) For the demonstration, one case from the three case-models (City of Regensburg et al., 2011; Council of Europe, 2016; Gustafsson, 2009) was selected. The selection was based on the following criteria: 1. The selected case had already been implemented, and a heritage-based urban development approach was also used 2. An integrated approach, bringing together different uses, Stakeholders, and others, was used 3. It is finished, and a final Evaluation (even if only by subjective means) is available 4. The case must be extensively described and, to a certain degree, scientifically analysed 5. Enough data and text on the case is published in the English language 6. The process has resulted in a proven contribution to the quality of life for local communities (successful) 7. The process is “finished”, at least to the point of the development of Objectives and actions and the implementation of a significant number of those actions 8. The process is based on a strong narrative with heritage as a driver for urban/ regional development 9. The Knowledge of the process, including Challenges, pitfalls, failures, and hidden agendas The criteria have been defined to ensure that the selected case for the demonstration can be analysed in detail, and the Challenges in the process can also be the subject of the Evaluation that follows. The criteria for the selection of the demonstration case do not result in a restriction of potential scenarios where the Metamodel can be applied. However, a complete picture, with all the behind-the-scenes information and access to all hidden agendas and conflicts that are not obvious, is needed for the development of the Metamodel. Different cases within each of the case-models where I was involved were examined. However, my knowledge is only extensive enough in the case of the City of Regensburg to be in a situation to evaluate if or how the Challenges, pitfalls, failures, and hidden agendas can be represented in the developed Metamodel. Due to my involvement in the examined process, there was a significant level of Knowledge available for the evaluation. In the city of Regensburg, a heritage-based urban

176

10 Demonstration

development approach has been implemented (Ripp et al., 2019). It was clear from the beginning of the management plan process that the objectives were development and preservation (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 11). An integrated approach was implemented. A wide range of public and private Stakeholders were involved. They represented different Interests, Functions, and user groups. The process in Regensburg is complete, and an intermediate report on the implementation is available. The process has been extensively described, and several scientific articles have been published. The publications on the process are widely available in English. The overall feedback on the process and its results has been positive, and some actions have resulted in an improved quality of life for local communities. In Regensburg, Objectives and actions have been developed, and a significant part of actions have been implemented (City of Regensburg, 2015). The process was based on a strong narrative with heritage as a driver for urban/regional development. Each of the case-models has a different setting, different Objectives, and different Resources, but the core idea was similar: How to use Built Cultural Heritage in urban development to benefit the local communities. In developing the elements of the Metamodel, it is necessary to know what Entities were involved (Domains), how decisions were made (control levels of logic), and which processes and interactions took place (Rationalities and Organisational Levels).

10.3 Preconditions and Description of the Case The framework, setting, key figures, and information of the case are described in the following section, which should provide the necessary context to understand the demonstration and simulation of the Metamodel in the proceeding chapters. Regensburg is a city with 164,000 inhabitants (data from 2016 Ref: (City of Regensburg/Amt für Stadtentwicklung, 2019), which is located on the northernmost point of the Danube river in the eastern part of Bavaria. It is located around 330 metres above sea level. The history of the city dates back to the stone age, when there was a prehistoric settlement named Radasbona. A Roman fort was built around 90 A.D., and another Roman fortress named Castra Regina (named for its location by the river Regens) was founded in 179 A.D. under Emperor Marcus Aurelius. The city flourished in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries based on trade connections that reached as far as Paris, Venice, and Kyiv. The location on the river Danube was a great advantage. By 1320, the town expanded to the boundaries which it would keep for over 500 years. In the nineteenth century, the city developed beyond its mediaeval core area. On the northern bank of the Danube, the Stadtamhof district was closely connected with Regensburg but belonged to the State of Bavaria. At that time, Stadtamhof was not fully integrated into the Imperial City of Regensburg but was incorporated into the city in 1924. Today, Stadtamhof is a lively inner-city area (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 14) (Fig. 10.1).

10.3 Preconditions and Description of the Case

177

Fig. 10.1  City view of Regensburg with river Danube, the cathedral and the historic salt barn as well as the stone bridge to the right. (Source: Matthias Ripp)

The contemporary inner-city area, including Stadtamhof, has almost 20,000 residents (City of Regensburg/Amt für Stadtentwicklung, 2019), 21,000 workplaces, and more than 600 individual retail outlets with around 78,000 square metres of commercial space (City of Regensburg et  al., 2012, p.  14). The central area of Regensburg is largely unaffected by motorised traffic and mainly used by pedestrians and cyclists. The Old town, which has been inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage list since 2006, covers an area of 182.2 hectares and the complete buffer zone is 775.6 hectares (City of, 2019). The situation of the World Heritage site is unique because only limited destruction of the site occurred during World War II. Many houses still show many different layers of history, including some preserved Roman features. The Old Town comprises an architectural ensemble with a compartmentalised city structure. Almost 1000 individually listed buildings and historic public spaces contribute to the special atmosphere (City of Regensburg, 2019). The buildings still serve many different functions. The mixture of these functions is one reason for the popularity of the Old Town. The whole city is still in the middle of a dynamic urban development that started in the 1980s. This development was triggered by the establishment of a large car industry plant (of about the same size as the Old Town area, but on the fringe of the city) in the 1980s and the reactivation of the University in the 1970s, which today, together with the University of Applied Science and the University for Church Music, caters for more than 32,000 students (Louisa, 2015) (Fig. 10.2).

178

10 Demonstration

Fig. 10.2  World Heritage Core and Buffer Zone of World Heritage Site Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof. (Source: Stadt Regensburg)

Description of Heritage and World Heritage Short description The Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof lies on the Danube and constitutes an outstanding example of an inner European mediaeval centre of trade, which is emphasised by the interaction between cultural and architectural influences. Numerous buildings of extraordinary quality bear witness to its political, commercial and religious importance since the ninth century. The urban structures reflect 2000 years of continuous building development and encompass Roman, Romanesque and Gothic elements. Regensburg‘s stock of buildings, originating from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries, continue to imbue the urban landscape with its tall buildings, dark and narrow lanes and strong fortifications. These structures include mediaeval patrician houses and towers, a large number of churches and monastic ensembles, as well as the Steinerne Brücke, which dates from the twelfth century. The Old City also bears significance as having been one of the main political gathering venues right up to the nineteenth century. Numerous buildings bear witness to its history as a centre of the Holy Roman Empire. (continued)

10.3 Preconditions and Description of the Case

179

UNESCO Criteria The Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof fulfils three of the ten UNESCO requirements to be classified as an asset with outstanding universal value Criteria II

The cultural heritage exhibits an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape. Regensburg’s architecture reflects the role of the town as a mediaeval centre of trade and its influence on the region north of the Alps. Regensburg was an important transfer location for continental trading routes to Italy, Bohemia, Russia and Byzantium. The city also had numerous connections to the intercontinental silk roads. This facilitated an intensive exchange of cultural and architectural influences, which characterise the city to this very day. Criteria III

The cultural heritage bears exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition. The Old City of Regensburg bears exceptional witness to the cultural traditions of the Holy Roman Empire. During the High Middle Ages, Regensburg was the preferred meeting place for imperial assemblies. But the city also played an important role in recent European history, serving as the preferred venue for the Perpetual Imperial Diets from 1663 to 1806. The remains of two imperial palaces dating from the 9th century, as well as numerous well-preserved historical buildings, bear witness to the former wealth and political influence of the city. Criteria IV

The cultural heritage is an outstanding example of a type of building, an architectural or technological ensemble which illustrates a significant stage in human history. The Old City of Regensburg is an outstanding example of an inner European mediaeval commercial city whose historical stages of development have been well preserved. The development of trade from the 11th to the 14th century is particularly well illustrated.

Integrity and Authenticity Regensburg is the only substantially preserved mediaeval city in Germany that has continuously functioned as an urban mechanism right up to the present day. The World Heritage property corresponds to the mediaeval footprint of Regensburg since the fourteenth century. The Old City survived the Second World War extraordinarily well. Due to that, and the efforts undertaken in the 1970s to preserve the historical Old City, a large number of historical buildings have remained well conserved. This contributes to the historical and visual integrity of the mediaeval trading city. Thanks to the stone construction method employed, the buildings in the World Heritage zone have largely retained their authenticity. The restoration of the buildings is carefully supervised to ensure such works are in line with the statutory regulations and that the original historical substance is duly considered. (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 16ff)

180

10 Demonstration

Challenges The Challenges for the city are diverse, changing, and influenced by many factors. There has been a significant demographic change in Regensburg, including rapid growth and also a change of the structure of the population through migration (City of Regensburg/Amt für Stadtentwicklung, 2019). As with many other cities in Germany, the question of affordable housing is pertinent in Regensburg. The renting and purchasing property prices, especially in the World Heritage Core Zone, have steadily increased (Sparkasse Regensburg, 2015). The increasing traffic volume and number of inhabitants are becoming more and more problematic, and the integration of new forms of urban mobility, which is also connected with climate change response, poses a challenge, especially on the edges of the World Heritage inscribed historic core. Accessibility of the World Heritage area is a constant concern that is also reflected in the responding Strategies and measures in the World Heritage Management Plan (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 62). Finding the right balance between tourism and citizens is another challenge (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 54f). In the world heritage city of Regensburg, the high density and quality of listed buildings and valuable tangible heritage in the form of historic houses and historic places make it especially difficult to respond to these Challenges in some cases (Deutscher Städtetag, 2019). The expansion of green spaces and the enhancement of “temporary green” (essentially mobile plants in pots in the public realms) are identified Strategies in the management plan (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 68f), but some specific measures to mitigate the results of climate change have proven difficult; for example, the addition of more plants and trees in the historic urban area has been opposed because preservation authorities have defended the “historically accurate” image of a city made of stone, as there are hardly any trees in the squares. The implementation of energy-saving Materials in historic houses is limited for preservation reasons. The Old Town of Regensburg, even if only approx. 1/10 of the overall area of the city, has become a major asset for the identity of the inhabitants not only of the Old Town area but of the whole city and even to a certain extent the greater region, which caters for about 600.000 inhabitants (City of Regensburg/Amt für Stadtentwicklung, 2019). There are several NGOs that focus on the Old Town, for example, “Altstadfreunde Regensburg”, one of the oldest NGOs in the area of heritage in Germany (Morsbach, 2019). The special role of the Old Town became very clear during the elaboration of the management plan. The participants expressed the greatest interest in all topics related to the Old Town. This could be seen by the high number of conflicting Interests and the development of many Objectives, Strategies, and actions clearly related to the Old Town, even when the management plan development intentionally did not target the Old Town area alone (City of Regensburg et  al., 2012, p.  50ff). Similar experiences have been reported by communal officers who have been involved in the preparation of other integrated urban development processes like the elaboration of “Regensburg Plan 2005” (City of Regensburg, 2005). In 2007 (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 7), only one year after the inscription of Regensburg on the UNESCO World Heritage List, the city took the decision to revise the management plan that was prepared for the inscription. This process led to the development of a completely new management plan that was integrated and

10.4 Demonstration Using the World Heritage City Old Town of Regensburg…

181

developed co-jointly with a broad representation of Stakeholders, as was suggested by Ringbeck (2008). The process was started in 2007 and the city council voted for the management plan in 2012 (City of Regensburg, 2012). In 2015, an intermediate report on the implementation of the management plan determined the following: 1/3 of the key measures had been implemented, 1/6 of the key measures are in the implementation process (2015), 1/3 of the key measures are in the planning/preparation phase for the implementation, while ¼ of the key measures have not been started, and 1/12 of the key measures have been decided not to be implemented or to be integrated into other key measures (City of Regensburg, 2015, p. 28).

10.4 Demonstration Using the World Heritage City Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof Using the previously explicated Domains and Entities of the Metamodel, this section demonstrates how the Metamodel can be used in this particular case. The section is divided into headings corresponding to the Metamodel’s established eight Domains (see Sect. 8.1). Elements of the Metamodel The different Domains of the Metamodel, including the respective Entity Groups, are compared to the “real-life” Entities that were relevant in Regensburg to evaluate if all relevant Entities are represented in the Metamodel. 1. People The following Entity Groups in Regensburg belong to the Domain People: Actors, Affected People, and Decision Makers. Actors: Actors take an active role in the management, restoration, and marketing of cultural heritage. The Actors are important multipliers and have a great interest in and impact on the process of heritage-based development (Rodwell & van Oers, 2007, p. 3f). In the case of Regensburg, the team in the World Heritage Coordination Unit who designed and steered the process were the main Actors involved in the development of the world heritage management plan. The stakeholder group consisted of internal and external Stakeholders (City of Regensburg et  al., 2012, p. 106ff) and an external expert who also moderated some of the meetings (Scheffler, 2019) (Fig. 10.3). Affected People: Affected People is a term that refers to citizens (both permanent and temporary, such as visitors and shoppers) that are somehow affected by the cultural heritage. In Regensburg (as is probably the case in many other cities with significant central functions), there is a large number of heterogeneous groups of Affected People. During the development of the management plan, the Affected People or target groups of the process were not really defined. However, the scope of the Objectives and the vision shows that the circle of Affected People is very large and includes inhabitants of the whole region and also visitors to the city, and also demonstrates a broad understanding:

182

10 Demonstration

Fig. 10.3  Stakeholders involved in the Development of the Management plan in Regensburg. (Source: City of Regensburg) Vision for the UNESCO World Heritage Site – Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof Regensburg is proud of its World Heritage and aware of the responsibility that it brings along  – also for future generations. The UNESCO-World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof is one of the most significant location factors for the City of Regensburg and its region. It is • • • • • • •

a witness to European history, an attractive residential and working environment for over 15,000 people, the cultural centre, a national and international tourist magnet, the central location for business and commerce, a fascinating environment for leisure and discovery for citizens and guests, our carrier of identity and image, within and beyond the area.

In order to safeguard and further enhance this significance and purpose for the city and region, the vision for the UNESCO World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof seeks to achieve – harmoniously balancing the diverse usage interests – the following: The unique UNESCO-World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof – centre of European history – must be safeguarded in its substance and be made accessible for all citizens and guests to experience. AND The unique UNESCO-World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof is to be preserved and further developed as a multifunctional and vibrant place for all citizens, businesses and guests. (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 47)

Taking this into account, the Affected People in the case of Regensburg are not from a wide geographical scope but also include future generations. Decision Makers are sometimes not extensively involved in the process but have an important function because they make decisions concerning, for example, the

10.4 Demonstration Using the World Heritage City Old Town of Regensburg…

183

process, Objectives, members of the stakeholder group, and the allocation of Financial Resources. In Regensburg, the Councillor for planning and building in whose department the World Heritage Coordination Unit was located had an important role in deciding the process of elaboration of the management plan, the allocation of Financial Resources, the integration of an external expert, the members of the stakeholder group, and the design of the citizen participation workshop. They were acting partly as a representative of the mayor. The city council members were also involved in making decisions about the process in a city council vote on the full content of the world heritage management plan on 7.2.2012 (City of Regensburg, 2012), including the vision, the Objectives, and actions. In connection with the Implementation of Actions, responsible persons for different funding schemes on various governance levels on the federal and national levels were also important, for example, the persons in the Bavarian state ministry of the interior who were responsible for the allocation of ERFD Funding that was used to implement the World Heritage Visitor Centre, which was one of the key actions. 2. Resources The Resources can be structured in Tangible and Intangible and Human and Administrational Resources (see Sect. 8.1). Built Cultural Heritage: In Regensburg, the Built Cultural Heritage is the major resource in the heritage-based urban development process that was implemented by the development of the management plan. The heritage assets in Regensburg consist of almost 1000 listed buildings that are well preserved and under different ownership (City of Regensburg, 2019). Additionally, a large number of archaeological remains from Roman times are scattered throughout the Old Town area and beyond (Dietz, 1979); however, it is not only the individual heritage buildings that are an asset but the ensemble as a whole (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 14ff). The historic urban landscape (Ripp et  al., 2019; Turner, 2013) is still largely intact. Remains from historic functions, such as technical installations to move ships along the river, are also relevant, as are remains of Jewish heritage that are sometimes only present as memorials (Morsbach, 2019). Material: The Material aspects for heritage still play an important role in Regensburg, for example, during the ongoing repair of the cathedral or the renovation of the stone bridge, which was one of the most significant renovation projects of the early twenty-first century in the city. The availability of Material, Knowledge and Skills, and interplay of the historic Materials with new Materials, are only some aspects that had to be considered (Egermann, 2019). Intangible Heritage (including historic functions and written heritage): Intangible Heritage aspects were not the focus of the management plan in Regensburg. They were only indirectly addressed, for example, in the defined actions “Preparation of a cultural development plan” and “Updating and implementing the museum plan” (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 54). On the one hand, the examined case shows room for improvement, but, on the other hand, all aspects that arose within the process are represented in the Metamodel.

184

10 Demonstration

(Human) Knowledge, Human Infrastructure, Skills, Creativity, Innovation (Financial), and Financial Resources: Some of the human-related resources in the Regensburg case included the Human Infrastructure, including the participants of the stakeholder group to participate in the management plan meeting and the specialist officers within the public administration. Each and every one of these Stakeholders introduced specific Knowledge into the process, including Knowledge on existing Objectives within the urban planning department, on existing decisions on the budget needed for specific actions, or on relevant initiatives that are relevant. Moderation and Facilitation Skills were relevant Resources for the process. These skills were introduced in the form of an external expert, but some of the Stakeholders were also trained within the process to enhance their Skills in this context. Creativity and Innovation Skills were clearly visible in the DEVELOPMENT PHASE. For the management plan, moderation Skills were also vital, not only for the moderator of the stakeholder meetings (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 31) but also for officers from the local government to assume special roles in the civic participation process (Ripp, 2011). Financial Resources for the process had to be defined during the Scoping, and then the decision had to be taken to allocate the necessary Financial Resources by the Decision Makers (City of Regensburg, 2009). Financial Resources were discussed during the development of the Objectives and actions, and these Financial Resources had to be activated in the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE (for ongoing actions). (Administrational) Policies: In the ANALYSIS PHASE, existing Policies were mapped and named in the first section of the management plan. These policies included, for example, the following state legislation: “Bayerische Bauordnung – Bavarian Building Regulations – BayBO” In the version promulgated on Aug. 14, 2007 (Law Gazette p. 588), last amended by Article 78 (4) of the Act dated Feb. 25, 2010 (Law Gazette p. 66) The Bavarian Building Regulations form the legal basis for all building projects inside and outside the World Heritage area. They apply to all building structures and building products. Gesetz zum Schutz und zur Pflege der Denkmäler – Bavarian Law for the Protection and Preservation of Buildings/Monuments (Historical Buildings/Mo- numents Act – DSchG) Dated June 25, 1973 (Law Gazette p. 328), last amended by Article 3 of the Act of July 27, 2009 (Law Gazette p. 385). The Bavarian Historical Buildings/Monuments Act is the most important legal basis for all alterations of every structure inside the World Heritage area. The provisions for protection in this law are also valid for monuments and monument ensembles and their immediate proximity in the buffer zone. Quoted after (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 27)

And local legislation: By-Laws on Local Building Regulations for Protecting the Old City von Regensburg (Altstadtschutzsatzung) Dated Dec. 14, 2007 (Local Gazette. No. 50 of Dec. 10, 2007); ad- opted by way of Article 91 (1) no’s 7 and 4 (2) no. 7of the Bavarian Building Code (BayBO). The preservation and renewal of the cityscape of the Old City centre of Regensburg is a matter of architectural, cultural and social significance that has high priority and is in the public interest. The City of Regensburg has therefore issued By-Laws for protecting the Old City centre on the basis of Art. 91 (1) nos. 2 and 4 and Art. 91 (2) no. 1

10.4 Demonstration Using the World Heritage City Old Town of Regensburg…

185

of the Bavarian Building Code. The aim is to ensure that when the Old City centre of Regensburg‘s cityscape – which has been created over the centuries – continues to develop in keeping with the times, the historic buildings, local characteristics and traditional set-ups are taken into account in order to preserve the unique appearance and atmosphere of this city. (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 28)

During the development of Objectives and actions, corresponding Objectives and if there was a need to adapt the local Policies were also discussed. For example, the following action was developed based on the objective to safeguard the tangible cultural heritage: “Verification of restoration by-laws for particular areas of Old City Regensburg” (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 51) was developed. 3. Concepts The Domain Concepts includes the following Entity Groups: Objectives, Strategies, Effects, and Benefits. The Entity Groups related to the Domain Concepts can be either existing or planned/desired. The existing Objectives and Strategies were analysed in Regensburg in an early phase of the management plan process as part of the contract by the hired external expert. To identify these existing Concepts, experienced senior officers from within the administration that could highlight them were essential. Concepts can also be developed within the framework of the management plan process. During the development of the joint vision for the World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof and the following steps for six different sectors (Built Cultural Heritage, culture and tourism, economic development, urban development and urban planning, environmental issues and recreation and awareness-raising and science) (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 50), Objectives, Strategies, and actions were developed. In this process, new Concepts also emerged and were then further discussed, elaborated, and included in the management plan; for example, the measure “Preparation of a concept for art in public space” was developed in the field of culture and tourism based on the objective “Art and culture in public space” (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 54). The discussion of Objectives included the discussion of desired Effects and potential Benefits (and even how they could be measured). The Domain Concepts contains a variety of content that can have different formats, for example, written Concepts, maps, content from documents that have a largely different scope, and city council decisions. 4. Processes The Domain of Processes describes a range of actions and activities that are to be implemented over a certain period of time and are not limited to a singular action (see Chap. 8). The related Entity Groups are as follows: Analysis, Change, Vision Development, Strategy Development, Definition, Financing Planning, Implementation of Actions, Evaluation, Scoping, and Capacity Building. In the management plan process in Regensburg, Analysis of existing Concepts was relevant at the beginning of the process. Change occurred on many levels: A change in the understanding of the needs of the “other” Stakeholders, change in the understanding that the participants in the process had a real stake in the World Heritage site management and ownership, and also change in many areas such as the

186

10 Demonstration

different participating sectors. Change also occurred through the integration of the citizens in the process. Their role was enhanced and changed from the sole recipient of information to integration in the decision-making process and the possibility to express their Interests and ideas. The idea of change was one basic element for the whole process (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 3). Vision Development was a Process that was at the core of the DEVELOPMENT PHASE in the development of the management plan. During a long and sometimes contentious meeting of the stakeholder group, the vision for the site was developed (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 44) and agreed upon by all participants. After the development of the general vision, strategies were developed for different thematic fields. The steps were clearly separated. The vision was a general idea of the future of the heritage Site. Visions for different thematic fields were then developed, along with Strategies to realize these visions. The visions were centred on how participants imagined the future of the site. The definition of Strategies included the development of specific actions. The process of the Implementation of Actions was already happening for some actions during the elaboration of the management plan in Regensburg and was still ongoing for some action for a long time after the process of management plan elaboration was complete. For example, concerning awareness-raising and research for the objective “Conveying the cultural value”, the measure “Creation of a building signage system” only started in 2019 (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 71). The Evaluation of Concepts happened during the early phases of the management plan elaboration. The Evaluation of actions occurred during the Interims-Conference that was organised in 2015 specifically for the Evaluation of the Implementation of Actions (City of Regensburg, 2015). Evaluation was also relevant during the discussions on specific Strategies and during the civic participation activities, where citizens identified their interests and other participants evaluated these Interests, and the group agreed on the most relevant ones (Ripp, 2011). Capacity Building as a Process was relevant to prepare some Stakeholders and train them in moderation skills so they could assume a special role in the civic participation process (Ripp, 2011). Capacity Building was also relevant for the core team who worked on the management plan Elaboration within the local government, which had to acquire specific Skills that were relevant during the process, including conflict solving Strategies for difficult situations during the meetings and workshops. 5. Principles Principles are more of a fixed framework that can be used as a guide for decisions. In contrast to Policies, Principles do not have to be formalized and fixed by a decision-making process. Principles are usually used as a reference guide during Processes. A large number of more general Governance Principles were also relevant during the elaboration of the management plan in Regensburg (Shipley & Kovacs, 2008). For example, the clarity and transparency of the process were based on principles of Good Governance. Principles can also be described as general Objectives that require specific methods for their implementation. During the process in Regensburg, Governance Principles were referred to in the Scoping of the

10.4 Demonstration Using the World Heritage City Old Town of Regensburg…

187

process and in the design of specific parts of the process, especially meetings and workshops. Governance Principles were never discussed formally but nevertheless used as a basis for the Scoping of the whole process. This was also true in Regensburg for Cooperation Principles. A major effort was taken to ensure a fair and transparent process and cooperation between all involved Stakeholders and the local community. For the design of the civic participation process, Participation Principles were used. These principles were based on the Knowledge of the external expert and on a document (Leitfaden zur Durchführung von Bürgerinformationsveranstaltungen und Bürgerbeteiligungsverfahren) (Stadt Regensburg – Planungs- und Baureferat, 2007) about organising citizen participation from the local authorities. Retrospectively, the Knowledge and use of Participation Principles and the Cooperation Principles were key to the success of the overall process and the acceptance of the process by the Stakeholders and the local community (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 39ff; Ripp, 2011). 6. Context The Context of a site is probably the most complex, diverse, and fluid part of heritage-based urban development processes. The Context as defined in the Metamodel is made up of Qualitative Qualities, Quantitative Qualities, Interests/ Needs, and Values. The Context in Regensburg had a huge influence on the process of the elaboration of the management plan, for example, the economic situation of the city, the increase in visitor numbers and inhabitants in the Old Town, to name but a few (Ripp et al., 2019). Qualitative Qualities that were relevant during the process in Regensburg included the structure of retail activities in the old town. The types of visitors to the old town were also relevant; for example, many young people are attracted by the atmosphere along the banks of the river Danube on warm summer evenings, and the special atmosphere of the Old Town makes it popular. This “soft” factor was also mentioned in the objective for the field of economic development (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 57). These kinds of qualities are hard to quantify but were nevertheless very relevant for the development of the vision for the site, Strategies, and actions. Quantitative Qualities include aspects of the context that can be counted or measured. Some of the Quantitative Qualities, for example, data on the air quality in the city, have been listed in the management plan (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 22) and were discussed in the early phases of the process. Apart from the number of listed buildings, retail space in the old town and the development of the number of visitors were relevant parameters and examples of Quantitative Qualities. These Quantitative Qualities were included in the discussion especially during the development of Strategies, for example, in the field of tourism and culture. The objective III. Increasing visitors ‘duration of stay The duration of stay and the number of overnight stays will be extended by enhancing the touristic attractive-ness of the World Heritage area and the feel-good factor for guests. Taking residents and customers’ interests into account, there will be an improvement in

188

10 Demonstration

tourist infrastructure and available offer, seasonal imbalance, service quality and development of brand and image.

And the related measure “1. Preparing a tourist concept” (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 54) were based on the statistical numbers of arrivals, overnight stays, and more. The Interests and Needs of communities, Stakeholders, and users of the urban heritage form a more “soft” and fluid part of the context. In the field of “economic development” during the elaboration of the management plan in Regensburg, the following principle was formulated: »A sustainable economy in a setting steeped in history.« The Old City is the primary shopping and commerce centre for Regensburg and the region. Its business activities make a significant contribution to the multifunctional quality of the World Heritage area. With its special atmosphere, the World Heritage area offers a unique location for businesses and workshops, as well as attractive and individual retail outlets and multifaceted services for residents and visitors. Future development will seek to find a suitable balance of historical preservation and commercial interest. (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 57)

This principle and the related Objectives and measures show that the balancing of different needs and Interests was a core process in the elaboration of the management plan. The different needs were sometimes of a conflicting nature. Understanding these different Needs and Interests and mitigating and developing principles, Objectives, and actions that were acceptable for all participants were among the most difficult but also most valuable activities in the elaboration of the management plan. Values are often behind Needs and Interests. In the first phase of the management plan, elaboration process, the methodology used included an action where all participants in the stakeholder group explained their most valued place in Regensburg to the groups from a personal point of view. This exercise included the participants talking about their Values when they explained why they prefer this specific place. This exercise helped to generate a positive dynamic in the groups and enhance the understanding and empathy within the stakeholder group. The Meanings of objects for the local community are closely connected to Values. In Regensburg, the Meaning of the “Bruckmandl” as an asset and a point for the inhabitants’ identification with the city and its Meaning as a symbol for the city can, to a certain extent, only be understood by those who know about it. The Meaning of places can be radically different for different “users” and at different times. During the day, Bismarckplatz can be perceived as a historical place with neoclassical architecture and its responding Meaning for the history of the city. During summer evenings, this urban place also has a Meaning as a very popular meeting place for young people and students. For dog owners, the plaza’s large fountain has the Meaning of a source of water so that the dog can drink during a stay in the Old Town. This multi-coding in terms of Meaning adds multiple layers, not only historic facts, art historic values but also personal memories that can hardly be accessed through the Analysis of written documents. Urban challenges are of a more universal nature and can affect many cities in a region or even continent, for example, economic challenges, migration, or demographic change (Deutscher Städtetag, 2019). In Regensburg, in 2015,

10.4 Demonstration Using the World Heritage City Old Town of Regensburg…

189

a large number of migrants arrived, and the city had to address this on an ad-hoc basis. Challenges can also be very specific, such as the situation in front of the railway station in Regensburg where there is a large number of public bus stops and regulation of traffic and public safety are concerns. Topics that are relevant for many European cities, such as the integration of new forms of urban mobility (light railway system, electric bicycles, and micro-mobility like e-scooters and electric cars), are also relevant in Regensburg. During the elaboration of the management plan, various Challenges of different scales and the basis to develop the Objectives and measures were discussed. However, the Challenges were not included in the written documentation of the management plan. Functions and their connected uses are an important topic in Regensburg. For example, the function of the old town as a place for retail but also for recreation was discussed. Functions were particularly pertinent when the multi-functionality of the old town and finding the right balance between conflicting uses were being debated (City of Regensburg et  al., 2012, p. 57). How to mitigate the conflicts that arise from the parallel state of the old town as a party mile (especially some are like the “obermünsterviertel”) and the growing number of inhabitants in the old town was also discussed. Organisational Structures greatly affect HBD processes in urban heritage sites. For example, which department is responsible for preservation and how is the preservation governance system integrated with economy and tourism departments. What do the various departments within the government perceive themselves to be responsible for? Even with a clear structure in the local administration and corresponding frameworks, this is still partly subject to how these rules and responsibilities are “lived.” In Regensburg, the role of NGOs was very strong, so they had a significant role in the process of elaboration the management plan. For example, the NGO “Altstadtfreunde”, often acting as a watchdog in the field of heritage and culture, was involved through its Chairperson (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 108). 7. Methods In Regensburg, the range of methods used was wide and diverse, from moderation methods like storytelling to special methods for citizen participation (Ripp, 2011) and methods for the implementation of stakeholder meetings. Most of these methods were introduced by the Main Actors and mainly by the external expert who had a deep Knowledge of this field. Some methods were even invented during the process. For example, during the separation of the wide field of urban heritage into different topics, a special responsible person for each topic was designated (“Themenpate”). These individuals were then trained in appropriate moderation behaviour and techniques. They then moderated smaller groups for each topic during the civic participation process. Later, they took roles in contributing and evaluating the final text of the management plan. In the follow up on the management plan, these persons tracked the progress of the implementation of specific actions within their field and reported these in an interim conference to the other Stakeholders (City of Regensburg, 2015). Methods like stakeholder mapping were also used in the beginning to design the process (Scoping). The experience from Regensburg demonstrates that Knowledge and implementation Skills in a wide variety of

190

10 Demonstration

methods can be beneficial in the process of heritage-based urban development. Creativity and team spirit can even lead to the development of new methods for a specific situation. “Good” methods can ease the HBD process and contribute to its overall success and address Challenges along the way. 8. Development Narrative A triangle of Challenges/Threats, Opportunities, and Benefits was present during the elaboration of the World Heritage Management Plan in Regensburg. A wide range of Challenges and Threats were already relevant in the phase where the existing documents, plans, and decisions were analysed. Challenges often served as the starting point for the stakeholder group or the citizens to develop Objectives and measures. For example, the existence of conflicts of use, especially in the World Heritage Core Zone, led to the development of the objective “Mitigation of use conflicts” and the related measure “1. Develop a district-based focal use concept to upgrade attractiveness of the World Heritage area (strengthening multifunctional character) and reduction of conflicts in use” (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 61). The Challenges were often discussed during the stakeholder meetings, but few of these Challenges are found in the final printed version of the management plan. Several challenges were omitted for political reasons. The line between Challenges and Threats is a fine one. However, Threats such as the potential damage by periodical flooding of the river Danube were included in this discussion in Regensburg, concerning the implementation of (mobile) flood prevention systems and their potential impact on the World Heritage Values (City of Regensburg et  al., 2012, p. 21). Opportunities and potential for improvement and development were at the centre of the discussion in the stakeholder groups and the citizen participation. One Opportunity that was discussed was the “Expansion of green spaces” and the following related measures: “Development and implementation of a programme to promote de-paving” and installation of greenery and vegetation in private courtyards and public spaces, improving the urban climate and supporting “adaptation to climate change” (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 68). While Benefits can also be unplanned and unanticipated, in an ideal case, they should be intentional. Benefits were discussed in the elaboration of the management plan, for example, in the formulated principles. In the field of action environment and leisure, the agreed principle was defined as “Green spaces are a fundamental element of life in the World Heritage area”. The green spaces and riverbanks constitute a valuable asset worthy of protection within the World Heritage area and buffer zone. They provide space for residents and guests to relax, contributing enormously to the attractiveness of the area. They also ensure better air quality, producing a pleasant microclimate and are therefore an important factor in “adaptation to climate change”. In terms of sustainable development, a balance was sought between the preservation of historical and environmental interests” (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 68). Opportunities for citizens to relax, better air quality, and a pleasant microclimate are the benefits in this case.

10.5 Simulating The Five Phases of the Metamodel

191

10.5 Simulating The Five Phases of the Metamodel The following section outlines the simulation of each of the five phases using the Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof. How each of the five phases of the Metamodel is present in the elaboration of the Regensburg World Heritage Management Plan is described in the proceeding subheadings dedicated to each phase. As already mentioned, they should not be understood as a purely linear and strict blueprint but rather as a conceptual framework for the different phases during the process. Phase I: SCOPING In Regensburg, the design of the process was defined during Phase I: SCOPING. This included the definition of general Objectives for the process, in this case, the elaboration of the management plan and the inclusion of a variety of Stakeholders. It also included the definition of a time frame for this process and a budget for an external expert. The Scoping also included the definition of a time budget for the internal staff that worked on the project. For the Scoping, existing examples of World Heritage management plans were analysed. The situation in Regensburg, considering prospective topics, Challenges, opportunities, etc., was analysed together with the Skills and Knowledge that were necessary for the process. Furthermore, the team examined which of these Skills and Knowledge were available within the internal staff and which were not. The first stakeholder analysis was carried out to suggest a group of Stakeholders to be involved in the process. There was an intense discussion with representatives from the political level of the local administration to decide the degree and form of involvement of the local political level in the process. Public procurement procedures to find an external expert were also carried out in this phase, and the internal staff were assigned roles for the process. Phase II: ANALYSIS Phase II: ANALYSIS was then carried out with the support of the external expert, who analysed existing decisions, strategic plans, and local Policies to understand the starting point of the process. The results of the Analysis were the starting point of the DEVELOPMENT PHASE. Phase III: DEVELOPMENT Phase III: DEVELOPMENT involved a series of meetings with the stakeholder groups to define Visions, Objectives and concrete measures. In this phase, an intensive citizen participation workshop also took place to involve the local community. This phase was the busiest phase for the external expert who structured the meetings, prepared them, documented them, assisted with moderation and decision-­ making methods, and moderated some of them. Phase IV: IMPLEMENTATION Phase IV: IMPLEMENTATION was more diffuse because the implementation of some actions had already begun during the DEVELOPMENT PHASE. The implementation of some actions remained unfinished by 2020 (time of writing), so the implementation of measures is something that is happening more iteratively.

192

10 Demonstration

Phase V: EVALUATION Phase V: EVALUATION is very much connected to the Implementation of Actions, so, in Regensburg, this phase was also not happening in a strictly linear way. The Evaluation of actions was rather sporadic and not conducted in a systemic and scientific way, but feedback was collected (or given by public opinion, e.g., newspapers, unsolicited) when some actions were finished. Some actions that were co-funded by external partners were evaluated by their respective programmes, for example, “Städtebauförderung” (the large-scale German program for urban renewal). Three years after the development of the management plan in 2015, a special workshop was carried out to evaluate the state of implementation of defined Strategies and measures (City of Regensburg, 2015). As demonstrated, all Five Phases of the Metamodel and their content were present in the Regensburg process. First, a team of local officers carried out a thorough Scoping of the process. In the ANALYSIS PHASE, the problems at stake and challenges were discussed with decision makers to serve as a starting point for the development of joint visions and actions afterwards. The implementation of actions followed, and the evaluation of specific actions was carried out. However, it is important to remember that the structure and content of the phases are not limitations; they are not a rigid and restrictive set of rules but a conceptual framework.

10.6 Overview of Regensburg’s INPUT–OUTPUT for the Five Phases The specific inputs and outputs for each phase of the Metamodel in relation to Regensburg are described in this section. The most important inputs and outputs and the activities that contributed to them in relation to each phase are also discussed. How outputs from certain phases can function as inputs from subsequent phases is also illustrated. In Regensburg, the input for the SCOPING PHASE was the existing situation and the existing Stakeholders who are relevant for the HBD process. This included the identification of relevant People, Resources, Concepts, Principles, and Context. For example, in the SCOPING PHASE, in the Domain People within the Entity Group Decision Makers, one input was the Knowledge of existing governance structures and the assessment of which of these decision structures are relevant for the HBD process. In the Domain Context, the Knowledge of the specific situation, for example, the specific structure of the physical heritage that included the listed buildings and the public squares, was one relevant input during the SCOPING PHASE. This included the state of conservation, ownership, and threats. The output of the SCOPING PHASE in Regensburg focused on the design of the HBD process. It included an initial Identification of relevant Stakeholders, a draft schedule for meetings, milestones and deliverables, and a general idea of who should design the process. In Regensburg, the process design was based on a core

10.6 Overview of Regensburg’s INPUT–OUTPUT for the Five Phases

193

stakeholder group that worked in a series of meetings on the Analysis of the existing situation, the Development of Visions, Objectives, and actions. This group was also intended to be involved in the implementation of specific measures to a certain degree. It was also planned from the beginning to include a specific workshop to involve the citizens in the process. It was also decided in the SCOPING PHASE to involve persons from a federal ministry responsible for European and national grants (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 9). One output of the SCOPING PHASE was the decision to assign special roles to members of the stakeholder group to lead specific thematic fields (City of Regensburg et al., 2012). Supporters of the process were identified and then briefed on the proposed process, the internal staff with the necessary Skills to work on the project were identified, and the necessary decisions were prepared and taken. The setting that was required for each of the meetings was also discussed, and suitable meeting rooms were booked. Considering the proposed members of the stakeholder group, the timing and duration of the meetings were also discussed. Pros and cons about an internal or external moderation of the meetings were also part of the debate, and, in the end, an external expert was paid for the moderation of the process. One very important point was determining how this “new” process could be integrated and connected with existing processes in the local administration while minimizing resistance and enhancing support. The press department of the city was consulted to decide a strategy to deal with the communication of the process and to generate initial ideas of the timing and type of citizen participation. All these outputs of the SCOPING PHASE were developed before even the first meeting of the stakeholder group took place; retrospectively, this was one of the most important phases that laid the foundations for the later success of the whole process. All these decisions, definitions, and preparations formed the basis for Phase II, the ANALYSIS PHASE. The ANALYSIS PHASE in Regensburg was prepared by an Analysis of existing documents, decisions, maps, and interviews with key Stakeholders by the external expert with support from the internal staff. The results of this Analysis were then presented in the first meetings of the stakeholder groups. The Stakeholders were then involved in this assessment and could comment and contribute from their Knowledge and experience. After this step, a common understanding of the Domains Resources, Concepts, Principles, Processes, Context, and the Development Narrative was established. For example, concerning the Development Narrative in Regensburg, a common understanding was developed that green spaces, for example, along the banks of the river Danube, play an important role as a resource for recreation and good air quality despite the stone nature of the historic core being strongly related to the OUV of the WH Inscription (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 68). In the ANALYSIS PHASE, members of the stakeholder group started with individually perceived impressions of the existing situation that were mainly connected to personal perceptions and Values. Based on this, a common understanding of the situation was developed conjointly. All these aspects of a common understanding of the existing situation were the outputs of the ANALYSIS PHASE and also the inputs for the DEVELOPMENT PHASE.  The outputs of the DEVELOPMENT PHASE in Regensburg were all related to the

194

10 Demonstration

Entity Groups Vision, Strategy, and Planning. The concrete output was an overall vision for the safeguarding and development of the WH Site. The Vision for the site in Regensburg was as follows: Vision for the UNESCO World Heritage Site – Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof Regensburg is proud of its World Heritage and aware of the responsibility that it brings along  – also for future generations. The UNESCO-World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof is one of the most significant location factors for the City of Regensburg and its region. It is • • • • • • •

A witness to European history An attractive residential and working environment for over 15,000 people The cultural centre a national and international tourist magnet the central location for business and commerce a fascinating environment for leisure and discovery for citizens and guests our carrier of identity and image, within and beyond the area.

In order to safeguard and further enhance this significance and purpose for the city and region, the vision for the UNESCO-World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof seeks to achieve – harmoniously balancing the diverse usage interests – the following: The unique UNESCO-World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof – centre of European history – must be safeguarded in its substance and be made accessible for all citizens and guests to experience. AND The unique UNESCO-World Heritage Site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof is to be preserved and further developed as a multifunctional and vibrant place for all citizens, businesses and guests. (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 47) (see also 8.1)

Specific visions for each of the thematic fields have been developed together with more specific Objectives and actions. The following is an example of a specific vision (labelled principle in the document) for the theme of tangible heritage: »World Heritage – also in the future.« The Ensemble Old City with Stadtamhof, its streets, alleys and square, as well as numerous individual historical buildings/monuments, is the most valuable cultural heritage of Regensburg. Its authenticity and integrity must be preserved. The World Heritage area must be preserved with sustainable development, while taking changing requirements into account. In this respect, particular consideration must be given to compatibility with the protected historical aspects. (City of Regensburg, et al., 2012, p. 51)

Then, the following is an example of a specific objective: I. Safeguarding the tangible cultural heritage The City of Regensburg employs and develops effective instruments to actively pursue the objective of conserving the architectural heritage. Buildings requiring restoration, particularly historical buildings/monuments at risk, will be carefully renewed. Appropriate funding should be acquired from both private and public sources for this effort.” (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 51)

10.6 Overview of Regensburg’s INPUT–OUTPUT for the Five Phases

195

And an action related to that objective (labelled measure in the document) was the following: “3. Establishment of a support programme for supporting private home owners (City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 51). These outputs, all of which were approved by a city council decision and documented in the WH Management Plan (City of Regensburg, 2012; City of Regensburg et  al., 2012), were then the inputs for the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE.  The IMPLEMENTATION PHASE, as already stated (see Sect. 8.6), is not to be seen as a strict phase with time limits but is for some projects still going on. The outputs of the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE are related to the Domain of the Development Narrative and the Entity Groups Benefits, Challenges/Threats and Opportunities. In Regensburg, for example, one expected Benefit of the action “3. Establishment of a support programme for supporting private home owners” was for example: flexible uses of funds strengthening citizen involvement. (City of Regensburg et  al., 2012, p. 51)

These outputs of the IMPLEMENTATION PHASE then served as the inputs for the EVALUATION PHASE, which, again, should not be understood as fixed or rigid. For example, a private support programme to support private homeowners was established, so in the EVALUATION PHASE for this specific action, it should be determined if the envisioned Benefits “Flexible uses of funds” and “Strengthening citizen involvement” have been achieved and to what degree (City of Regensburg, 2015; City of Regensburg et al., 2012, p. 51) (Fig. 10.4).

Fig. 10.4  Experiences from the Civic Participation process in Regensburg. (Source: City of Regensburg)

196

10 Demonstration

10.7 Evaluation in Relation to Metamodel Requirements This section evaluates how successful the application of the Metamodel in Regensburg was in relation to the established Metamodel requirements. Furthermore, some potential issues that may arise with particular aspects of the Metamodel have been highlighted, as well as possible ways these issues can be mitigated for certain stakeholders. The example of Regensburg, and, more specifically, the process of elaboration of the Regensburg World Heritage Management Plan, has demonstrated some strengths and weaknesses of the Metamodel. The relevant Metamodel requirements for this evaluation (see Sect. 7.2.4) are as follows: • Metamodel Requirement No. 1. Completeness: The HBD Metamodel shall be complete in the sense that it must represent all Entities that are relevant in HBD processes and that are described in the Domain. • Metamodel Requirement No. 3. The Metamodel shall be easy to understand and clear • Metamodel Requirement No. 7. The Metamodel shall be clear in the differentiation of different phases of HBD processes • Metamodel Requirement No. 8. The HBD Metamodel shall be relevant to the problem definition and Domain and only contain relevant Entities. • Metamodel Requirement No. 10. The relationship between the different Entities in the Metamodel shall be clear and easy to understand. It was positive that all Entities that were relevant in Regensburg were represented in the Entity Groups and Domains of the Metamodel. All five different phases are also clearly present in the Regensburg case. However, one weakness of the Metamodel was identified: there is no real representation of the function of the key driver of the process. The importance of the key driver for the process has already been described (see Sect. 8.3), and this one person where all strings were brought together and who explained the process to the Stakeholders and Decision Makers and motivated them was also found to be a very important factor for the whole HBD process in the case of Regensburg. The Entity Group Decision Makers in Regensburg were not limited to Decision Makers of the local government. Decision Makers from federal ministries responsible for funding were involved in the process, and this proved to be one of the success factors of the process (City of Regensburg et al., 2011, p. 9). This fact shows that the borders of the system that is represented in the Metamodel should be considered flexible. The Resources in the case of Regensburg were beyond the dualist classification of Tangible and Intangible Heritage. For example, small artefacts, archaeological artefacts, or documents as heritage did not always fit in one of these categories and intangible assets such as religious traditions are often connected to built heritage, for example, cathedrals or other churches. As with the Entity Groups Decision Makers, the Entity Groups Tangible and Intangible Heritage should be understood in a wide and flexible sense and as a suggestion for the clustering of heritage elements in the Domain Resources. This issue should be recognized when

10.7 Evaluation in Relation to Metamodel Requirements

197

the Metamodel is used so that the Entity Groups Tangible and Intangible Heritage are not understood as a sharp line to separate and sort the heritage assets in a city. For example, in the case of archaeological findings, the artefact itself might be a physical, tangible asset but may only be valuable for the site with the accompanying research and story. In the Metamodel, the Entity Groups Tangible and Intangible Heritage are, therefore, combined with the Entity Group “Heritage”. After the gaining in popularity of the HUL Recommendation during the last years (Rodwell, 2018; Unesco & Whitrap, 2016), it is widely understood that urban heritage is more than the Tangible and Intangible Heritage assets. Historical functions are another category that can help to understand the historic urban fabric, and they can be relevant in HBD processes. In Regensburg, one example of this is the historic functions of the Stone Bridge as presented in the World Heritage Visitor Centre (Fell & Huber, 2011). While today the Stone Bridge is mainly used as a crossing point for the river, in the past, it also functioned as a representative place or as a place to practice law, to produce energy through mills, etc. Therefore, to reflect this type of heritage and also other types of heritage like documentary heritage, the Metamodel is simplified, and the intangible and tangible division of heritage are combined in the Entity Group Heritage, which includes broader aspects of heritage. In the local process in Regensburg, the Entity Group Skills was not only a Resource but also trained and enhanced throughout the Process. This reiterates that the whole Metamodel with its systemic nature (see Sects. 4.1 and 6.2) is fluid and flexible rather than fixed and linear. In the case of the stakeholder group in Regensburg, the participants were diverse and represented a wide variety of different Interests. This diversity and variety of interests, along with the other mentioned results of the Evaluation of the Metamodel, indicate that the abstract nature of the Metamodel should be used as a guideline and backbone for local processes but not as a limitation when it comes to the specific design of these local processes. In Regensburg, local principles of citizen participation that were developed by the city council together with local citizens and NGOs were used in the process to elaborate the management plan (Stadt Regensburg  – Planungs- und Baureferat, 2007). During the demonstration of the Metamodel, it became clear that there is a risk of mixing up and misunderstanding principles and methods. Therefore, one result of the Evaluation is that this risk must be addressed in the section on the application of the Metamodel. Principles and Methods are not the same and should be treated as different Domains. While Principles can exist for a long time or a wider field of use, Methods are often specifically designed for one purpose – selected methods to achieve a specific objective during the process. While the Principles for civic participation in Regensburg were developed in 2006 and 2007, they remain relevant for a wide variety of different urban (planning) projects, including the specific method for prioritizing the needs of the Stakeholders in the stakeholder group so that only the most relevant needs of the whole group continue to be addressed. In Regensburg, a multi-choice voting method (Mehrpunktabfrage – multiple-choice method) was used for this purpose. For the Domain Principles, it is important to know the existing principles that are relevant for the local process and to agree on these relevant Principles with the Actors and Decision Makers.

198

10 Demonstration

Sometimes it can be necessary to develop or clarify these principles, for example, that the whole HBD process shall be transparent for all participants. For the Domain Methods, it is important to have access to a large variety of methods, Skills, and competencies to choose and implement the methods that fit the specific purpose. Relevant Principles can result in choosing specific Methods. The Principle transparency can lead to the Method of an open folder where all information on the HBD process is stored and publicly accessible. Principles, especially principles for cooperation, can also be introduced into the process by external experts. The demonstration also showed that a wide Knowledge of Methods and Knowledge and Skills of how to apply them were major factors for the success of the local process in Regensburg. By choosing and implementing specific Methods in Regensburg, the following was possible: • • • •

Prevent and solve conflicts within the stakeholder group Motivate and integrate the citizens into the process Foster an open discussion where all Stakeholders felt valued and respected Motivate and integrate staff from local government agencies (that were sceptical in the beginning) • Stimulate and expand the ownership of the Stakeholders for the whole process Another lesson that was learned from the demonstration is that the importance of Methods should not be underestimated: They play a key role in the success of HBD processes. During the demonstration, it also became obvious that the redundant point Context as an Entity Group within the Domain Context is not necessary and could potentially be left out. The Domain already well represents everything that can be considered relevant context. There is no additional benefit to duplicating the term on the next level of Entity Groups. The Entity Groups Qualitative Qualities, Quantitative Qualities, Interests/Needs, and Values are sufficient to represent the context that was relevant in the case of Regensburg and should also be sufficient in other cases. The Metamodel was consequently changed, and the Entity Group Context was deleted. The reference questions for the use of the Metamodel in this scenario (Evaluate HBD processes) can be assessed as follows: • Have all relevant stakeholders been involved in the process? • With the already described limitation that the representatives of the citizens and important NGOs have only been involved quite late in the process, all relevant Stakeholders have been involved. • Is the process based on a logical structure? • The process was prepared in detail and consisted of logical steps. No phases from the MM were missing in the process in Regensburg. • Are the parts of the process in a logical order and based on each other? • The sequencing of the process was logical and worked well. • Does the scope of the process meet the specific requirements of the local situation? • For the local environment and the existing context, the process design that was used worked well.

References

199

References City of Regensburg. (2005). Regensburg-Plan 2005. Planungs und Baureferat. Retrieved 2 Jan 2020 from https://www.regensburg.de/fm/121/regensburg_plan_2005.pdf City of Regensburg. (2009). Fortschreibung. des Regensburger Welterbe-Managementplans  – Stadtratsvorlage. https://www.regensburg.de/rathaus/stadtpolitik/regensburger-­sitzungsdienst/ textrecherche City of Regensburg. (2012). Stadtratsvorlage Welterbe-Managementplan. https://www.regensburg.de/rathaus/stadtpolitik/regensburger-­sitzungsdienst/textrecherche City of Regensburg. (2015). Zwischenbericht Managemengtplan Umsetzungsstand Schlüsselmaßnahmen. Retrieved 20 Feb 2020 from https://urbanexpert.net/wp-­content/ uploads/sites/8/2019/02/Zwischenbericht-­Managementplan-­Regensburg.pdf City of Regensburg. (2019). Welterbe Regensburg 1000 Denkmäler. Retrieved 31 May 2020 from https://www.regensburg.de/welterbe/welterbe-­regensburg/1000-­denkmaeler City of Regensburg, Ripp, M., & Scheffler, N. (2011). HerO – Heritage as opportunity. The road to success: Integrated management of historic towns – Guidebook. https://www.regensburg.de/ fm/464/HerO%20Guidebook%20EN.pdf City of Regensburg, Mühlmann, R., & Ripp, M. (2012). Management plan UNESCO World Heritage Site “Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof”. https://www.regensburg.de/fm/464/ STADT_RGBG_MANAGEMENTPLAN_WELTERBE_GB_screen.pdf City of Regensburg/Amt für Stadtentwicklung. (2019). Statistik Stadt Regensburg. City of Regensburg. Retrieved 31.5.2019 from http://www.statistik.regensburg.de Council of Europe. (2016). COMMUNITY-LED URBAN STRATEGIES IN HISTORIC TOWNS (COMUS) Communities at the heart of heritage governance. https://rm.coe.int/ comus-­communities-­at-­the-­heart-­of-­heritage-­governance-­principles-­for-­h/1680728eb4 Deutscher Städtetag. (2019). Hüter von Traditionen und Labore der Zukunft: Welterbe-Städte setzen Impulse. http://www.staedtetag.de/fachinformationen/kultur/089273/index.html Dietz, K. (1979). Regensburg zur Römerzeit. Pustet. Egermann, R. (2019). Museumsstück oder Verkehrsbauwerk  – Aspekte zur Instandsetzung der Steinernen Brücke in Regensburg. Bautechnik, 96(1), 31–39. Fell, H., & Huber, J. (2011). Besucherzentrum Welterbe Regensburg: Eine kleine Gebrauchsanweisung. Dr. Peter Morsbach Verlag. Gustafsson, C. (2009). The Halland Model. A Trading zone for building conservation in concert with labour market policy and the construction industry, aiming at regional sustainable development. Louisa, K. (2015, October 12). Die Studentenzahlen bleiben hoch. Mittelbayerische Zeitung. https://www.mittelbayerische.de/region/regensburg-­stadt-­nachrichten/die-­studentenzahlen-­ bleiben-­hoch-­21179-­art1293564.html Morsbach, D. P. (2019). Altstadtfreunde Regensburg. Vereinigung Freunde der Altstadt Regensburg e.V. Retrieved 31 May 2019 from https://www.altstadtfreunde-­regensburg.de Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. Ringbeck, B. (2008). Management plans for world heritage sites a practical guide. German Comission for UNESCO. Ripp, M. (2011). Der Regensburger Welterbe-Managementplan. Gestaltung einer Welterbe-­ Strategie gemeinsam mit den Bürgern. In Arbeitskreis Regensburger Herbstsymposion (Ed.), Zum Teufel mit den Baudenkmälern – 200 Jahre Denkmalschutz in Regensburg (pp. 83–86). Peter Morsbach Verlag. Ripp, M., Hauer, S., & Cavdar, M. (2019). Heritage-based urban development: The example of Regensburg. In A.  P. Rhoders & F.  Bandarin (Eds.), Reshaping urban conservation (pp. 435–457). Springer.

200

10 Demonstration

Rodwell, D. (2018). The historic urban landscape and the geography of urban heritage. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 9(3–4), 180–206. Rodwell, D., & van Oers, R. (2007). Summary report of the regional conference of countries of Eastern and Central Europe on “Management and Preservation of Historic Centers of Cities inscribed on the World Heritage List”. U. W. H. Centre. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-­47-­7.pdf Scheffler, N. (2019). Urban expert. Retrieved 31 May 2019 from https://urbanexpert.net Shipley, R., & Kovacs, J. F. (2008). Good governance principles for the cultural heritage sector: Lessons from international experience. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 8(2), 214–228. Sparkasse Regensburg. (2015). Der Immobilienreport Regensburg. https://www.sparkasse-­ regensburg.de/content/dam/myif/spk-­r egensburg/work/dokumente/pdf/allgemein/ Immobilienreport.pdf Stadt Regensburg  – Planungs- und Baureferat. (2007). Leitfaden zur Durchführung von Bürgerinformationsveranstaltungen und Bürgerbeteiligungsverfahren. Retrieved 5 Jan 2020 from https://www.regensburg.de/fm/121/buergerbeteiligung_leitfaden.pdf Turner, M. (2013). UNESCO recommendation on the historic urban landscape. In M. T. Albert, R. Bernecker, & B. Rudolff (Eds.), Understanding heritage: Perspectives in heritage studies (pp. 77–87). Unesco, & Whitrap. (2016). The HUL Guidebook managing heritage in dynamic and constantly changing environments a practical guide to UNESCO’s recommendation on the historic urban landscape. http://www.historicurbanlandscape.com/themes/196/userfiles/download/2016/6/7/ wirey5prpznidqx.pdf

Chapter 11

Condensed Resume

The major findings of this research are recapitulated, and a general resume of the selected approach is elaborated in the following section.

11.1 Introduction Addressing the identified problem required changing the originally anticipated approach and widening the scope to develop a metamodel instead of a model. This resulted in a complex examination of theoretical and logical questions about how to develop a new metamodel and at the same time build on successful existing models. There was no example to follow, and the methodological and theoretical framework had to be designed from the beginning with a pioneering approach. The resulting, developed mixed-methods research design worked well, and the Metamodel can respond to the explicated problem. Throughout this long journey, the integration of grounded theory proved to be extremely valuable because the Metamodel, as simple it may look in the end, can now be traced back to the three successful case-models, which makes it very credible. The systemic worldview and the understanding of the city as a system were vital to integrating the different theories and methods from different fields. The design of the research and reference logical questions was complex, complicated, and demanding. Van Gigch’s understanding of the world with the three levels of the real world, model, and metamodel were also vital to climbing the ladder of abstraction and reaching a more universally applicable understanding of heritage-based urban development. During the entire work, theoretical questions and the potential for practical application were the leading considerations. The Metamodel was developed and can now be used for a variety of purposes. Furthermore, the mixed-methods approach to develop the Metamodel can also, in principle, be used to develop metamodels in other fields.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Ripp, A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development, Heritage Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08238-2_11

201

202

11  Condensed Resume

11.2 Main Findings The departure point for this research was the problem that there is no universally applicable method for using urban heritage for development. Initially, the idea was to develop a model for this purpose. In the early stages of the research, it became clear that models have a limited capacity to be transferred to environments that differ significantly from the environments in which they were developed. As urban heritage is a global phenomenon and its context differs greatly throughout the different geographical and cultural settings, another solution had to be found, one that is more universally applicable. The idea to develop a model evolved into the idea of developing a metamodel because metamodels are more abstract and universal in their nature and can be used in a wider variety of settings. Even if they are not as easy to use as models, metamodels can represent and transfer the logic that lies behind models. The theoretical background for the research embraced different concepts of cultural heritage and how they have evolved over time. Urban heritage and recent trends in urban development have been analysed, considering how urban heritage can be integrated into urban development. The role of urban heritage in urban development has strengthened during the recent past, and it is now scientifically proven that heritage can be a powerful resource for development. A multidisciplinary approach was selected that builds upon the understanding of the city as a system and connects this view to its roots in urban morphology and urban governance theory. The metamodeling theory of John P. Van Gigch, which also incorporates a systems approach, was introduced to explore the logic of metamodels and how they can potentially be beneficial for addressing the problem at stake. Concepts from organisational development and change management enriched the examination of the process design and process dynamic. With this multidisciplinary approach, a strong and sound framework was needed to combine the different theories and approaches. A multimethod research design was developed that incorporates different deductive and explorative methodologies as well as different epistemologies and was structured in four main research phases (Fig. 11.1): During the first phase, the problem was explained, the research questions were defined, and relevant theories and methodologies were selected. In the second phase, the elements for the Metamodel were developed by the use of grounded theory and the Analysis of three sample case-models. During the third phase, the Metamodel was built using design research methodology. Requirements for the Metamodel were defined, and it was developed, demonstrated, and evaluated. In the fourth phase of the research, different scenarios were defined for the use of the Metamodel, and general theoretical assumptions were made. For better readability, the use scenarios (see Chap. 9) are presented in the final version before the demonstration (see Chap. 10) of the Metamodel. The metamodeling theory from John P.  Van Gigch was the basis for developing the Metamodel. The elements of the Metamodel are based on three successful models, where heritage was used for urban development: The HerO (Heritage as Opportunity) Project, where nine Cities from

11.2  Main Findings

203

Fig. 11.1  Mixed-methods research design and integration of different research methodologies in the research project

Western-Europe developed management plans to safeguard their heritage and stimulate urban development; the COMUS (Community-based Urban Development) Project, where nine small and medium towns in the Countries of the Eastern Partnership activated their local communities to elaborate plans and feasibility studies on how to use heritage for urban development; and the Halland Model project, where Swedish Labour Market interventions were combined with Capacity Building Activities in the field of heritage to stimulate regional economic development. The mixed-methods research approach combines different epistemologies (interpretative and post-positivist) with the underlying logic of the selected theories and methodologies that offers a systemic understanding of the city and a systemic view of the world. Based on Van Gigch’s metamodeling theory, the Metamodel characteristics and elements were defined, and the methods of grounded theory and design research methodology were integrated into one logical framework that served as the basis for the implementation of the research. For better understanding and usability, a domain-specific language for the Metamodel was developed. Following the research design, three texts from the case-models (raw data) were analysed with grounded theory methodology. Through line-by-line analysis of the texts by open coding, codes were generated to identify Entities that were relevant in the different processes. Axial and selective coding were then used to categorize the Entities into Entity Groups and more abstract Domains that served as the elements of the Metamodel (Fig. 11.2). From this basis, design research methodology was implemented following a set of steps (see Fig. 10.4) that were integrated into the complete research design.

204

11  Condensed Resume

Fig. 11.2  Elements of the Metamodel

Defined Metamodel requirements guided the process of Metamodel development. The result of this process was the THRIVE Metamodel (Metamodel for Heritage-­ Based Urban Development), which was then described in detail. From the general outline to the five different phases, the description explains the use of the different Entity Groups and Domains in each phase, as well as the inputs and outputs for each phase (Fig. 11.3). Each of the five phases is described in detail with suggestions of how they translate from the Metamodel to the world of models and the real world. This diagrammatic overview of the five phases shows how they are logically connected in the Metamodel. A set of Scenarios was developed showing how the Metamodel can be used, ranging from the design of heritage-based urban development processes to their evaluation and the design of models for heritage-based urban development. The Metamodel was demonstrated using the case of Regensburg, and whether it could appropriately represent a specific real-world case was evaluated. Minor adaptations have been made to the Metamodel according to the results.

11.3 Responding to the Research Questions and the Problem at Stake The following problem was addressed: There is no universal methodology for using cultural heritage to stimulate urban development and the enhancement of the quality of life of communities. Three research questions guided the research:

11.3  Responding to the Research Questions and the Problem at Stake

205

Fig. 11.3  The spiral shape and five phases of the Metamodel

How can an abstract Metamodel for HBD processes be described that can be applied in a broad variety of cases? This question is answered in the description of the Metamodel (see Chap. 8). The Metamodel consists of a spiral form with five different phases: The SCOPING PHASE, ANALYSIS PHASE, DEVELOPMENT PHASE, IMPLEMENTATION PHASE, and EVALUATION PHASE.  While the phases can be used to understand the general process, they are not always understood in sequential or consecutive order. The elements of the Metamodel are Entity Groups and Domains that are of different relevance in each of the five phases. What are the relevant factors, actors, phases, and processes at stake, and how can they be integrated into the design of successful local HBD processes? The relevant Entity Groups and Domains, of which the Metamodel is built, represent the relevant factors, actors and processes. The five different phases that structure the Metamodel represent phases that have been identified in the three case-models. How can this abstract Metamodel be used to structure, evaluate, and improve local HBD processes?

206

11  Condensed Resume

A set of scenarios has been developed to show how to use the Metamodel. One scenario involves developing or structuring heritage-based urban development processes. Other scenarios to evaluate and improve existing heritage-­ based urban development processes. Reference to potential users and the general and specific use of the Metamodel for each scenario have been elaborated together with the Benefits and potential pitfalls and problems of the Metamodel compared to other methods. The Metamodel has successfully answered the research questions.

11.4 Critical Reflection Few researchers use a systemic approach to urban heritage or a systemic understanding of the city in general, even though urban morphology in the second half of the twentieth century and the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape at the beginning of the twenty-first century clearly incorporated an approach where the interconnectedness, integration, and a holistic understanding of the urban form, functions, social parameters, and other elements of the urban fabric were brought together. With a focus still largely on material issues of culturally based scientific discussion and the trend towards a specialization in science rather than a generalization, there are cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary researchers working to understand urban heritage as a system. However, in the real world, the challenges and opportunities of urban heritage can rarely be addressed sufficiently with a sectoral approach. Urban Entities and processes are interconnected and fluid. Consequently, a systemic view, as difficult as it is to acquire, is often a better reflection of reality than a perspective focusing entirely on physical aspects of urban heritage. A trend towards the incorporation of this holistic approach is reflected in the increasing number of activities in the field of sustainability sciences. There are a great number of relevant scientific disciplines for urban heritage. Metamodeling, as a technique, is most frequently used in technical fields. It has only marginally been used in connection with cultural heritage and has never been applied to heritage-based urban development. A great number of models have been developed that do not explicitly refer to their inherent limitations related to specific environments and contexts. The main contribution of this research is the development of a universally applicable Metamodel for Heritage-Based Urban Development, which can enable greatly improved cross-disciplinary research on the subject and the design of curricula to train experts in heritage-based urban development, including urban planners and related academics. The Metamodel can be used on all three levels of Van Gigch’s worldview. It can be used to assess HBD processes in the real world, to assess models for HBD, and can be further developed and used to define principles for each of its Five Phases and thereby assist in the structuring of local processes and models. The Metamodel is universally applicable. The restrictions in its use are essentially determined by the fact that the user will need to understand what a metamodel is, what it can be used

11.5  Consequences of the Research Results

207

for, and for what its use is not appropriate. However, its direct use for local HBD processes is limited. There is always the intermediate step in that the Metamodel needs to be related to local processes. The real-world Entities need be to be linked to the abstract Entity Groups and Domains in the Metamodel. A certain amount of experience and understanding of the field is required to make these connections. Consequently, the Metamodel will not be helpful for everyone. A considerable amount of Skills, Knowledge, and experience are needed, including training in the use of the Metamodel. Upon critical reflection, several points are noteworthy: One of the most significant limitations was that the selected case-models were restricted to a West and East-European context. The inclusion of other models from different contexts would have broadened the basis to develop the Metamodel elements and increased the number of real-world experiences that have been built upon. There would have been many more issues to address concerning potentially helpful tools (see Chap. 10) for implementing the Metamodel, but it would have been beyond the scope of the present work.

11.5 Consequences of the Research Results With this research, a systemic understanding of successful heritage-based urban development processes has been developed and can be applied in different scenarios. An approach that considers a system’s nature and processes is most promising. A core structure can be developed, as can be seen in the Metamodel, but it has to be translated and applied to a local context. There are core patterns and a set of relevant Entity Groups and Domains that are universally relevant in HBD processes. The examination of the case-models through the grounded theory process demonstrated that a systemic understanding is one key elements of successful HBD processes. This finding can be transferred through the Metamodel to all HBD processes. Another outcome of the research is that identification and elaboration of the five phases of the Metamodel can now act as a guideline to design, evaluate, and improve HBD processes. The importance of the SCOPING PHASE for the success of HBD processes has clearly been documented in all three case-models. Considering this identified importance, further research should analyse how Scoping of such processes can best be implemented. The Metamodel can be used to ensure that the necessary energy is dedicated to this phase. Another consequence is that the analysed and highlighted relevance of site managers, key actors, and their required skills can also stimulate further research on their roles and careful consideration in real-world processes. Further research that could contribute to a better understanding of HBD processes and also improve HBD processes in the real world would be analysing the city as a system in general and expanding relevant concepts. There is no fundamental research that defines the city as a system with subsystems and relevant Entities and processes. I have started some parallel work that defines heritage as a system and but this work requires further

208

11  Condensed Resume

expansion. With the growing volume of research on heritage and sustainable development, most recent research has been focused on proving that heritage objects can be a resource for urban development. Research on good processes, methods, and the human factor within those processes is, however, still limited. Furthermore, many of the articles on heritage and sustainable development refer to a concept of sustainability that is based solely on the Brundtland report. There is room for more research to integrate and expand the quality of life concept with heritage-based urban development, as well as the concept of resilience, and especially how urban heritage contributes to it. To address the inherent conflicts between heritage values as used in the heritage sector (including age value) and values that are associated with quality of life (such as well-being) would also open new possibilities. More and more emerging fundamental conflicts between the responses to global warming and heritage preservation will inevitably bring these conflicts to the table. From the methodological point of view, it would be interesting to transfer the mixed-methods approach to develop a metamodel in other fields and test how it can be transferred, for example, to intangible heritage. The principal strategy to develop a metamodel is potentially useful for any field where the benefit of using models is limited.

11.6 Outlook In the future, the Metamodel can be used as a standard-setting tool for HBD processes that are funded and implemented by international organisations such as the United Nations Development Programme and the European Commission. The Metamodel can also be used to professionalize HBD processes, which can be especially relevant for organisations or institutions that are dealing with a large number of cases or which use HBD as a widely used approach or strategy. The Metamodel can also be used to overcome sectoral boundaries in real-world scenarios, as well as in the academic world. Another field of potential application is to structure capacity-­ building programs and academic curricula on HBD. The Metamodel could also be used to train key actors in HBD processes, similar to the 100 resilient cities program (Zebrowski, 2020). There are already some researchers working on a systemic understanding of urban heritage. It is likely that more researchers and research institutions will follow this approach in the future. A greater emphasis on the processes of HBD, and especially their quality, is also likely to emerge, keeping the focus on collecting proof that heritage can be a resource for improving the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of urban development and related processes. In the real world, we will inevitably see a professionalization of the integrative roles for such processes among key actors and site managers. The importance of necessary Skills such as facilitation and mediation to ensure the quality of HBD processes will most likely come more into the focus of involved organisations and networks. The relevance of the SCOPING PHASE, which has clearly been elaborated in this research, will likely receive more attention from experts who are aware of the Metamodel and, therefore, also enhance the

References

209

processes. John P. Van Gigch emphasized the potential power for transcultural integration of metamodels: “To span countries and speak systems across boundaries is only possible because the language of systems is a metalanguage which allows one to embrace all ideologies and tolerate all controversies.” (Van Gigch, 1996, p. 487) With this notion, the Metamodel will hopefully provide stimulus to reach one coherent understanding of heritage-based development processes across a wide range of different cultural contexts, connect practitioners and researchers around the world, and enhance the professionalization and quality of such processes, in the end improving the quality of life for members of local communities.

References Van Gigch, J. P. (1996). A system profile: John P. Van Gigch (1930–). Systems Research, 13(4), 483–488. Zebrowski, C. (2020). Acting local, thinking global: Globalizing resilience through 100 resilient cities. New Perspectives. Interdisciplinary Journal of Central & East European Politics and International Relations, 28(1), 71–88.