See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/319023938

Lights and shadows over the Recommendation on the Historic Urban

Landscape: ‘managing change’ in Ballarat and Cuenca through a radical
approach focused on values and authenticity

Article in International Journal of Heritage Studies · August 2017

DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572

CITATIONS READS

12 309

2 authors:

Julia Rey Pérez Plácido González Martínez

Universidad de Sevilla Tongji University
13 PUBLICATIONS 46 CITATIONS 53 PUBLICATIONS 58 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Register of Contemporary Architecture in Andalusia / Registro Andaluz de Arquitectura Contemporanea View project

Urban Heritage Conservation in China View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Plácido González Martínez on 21 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Lights and shadows over the implementation of the Recommendation
on the Historic Urban Landscape: “Managing change” in Ballarat and
Cuenca using a radical approach focused on values and authenticity.

Julia Rey Péreza, Plácido González Martínezb

a
Higher Technical School of Architecture, University Institute of Architecture and Construction
Sciences, University of Seville, Seville, Spain; bCollege of Architecture and Urban Planning,
Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

The 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) is the most
recent incorporation to the global process of heritage production that was
triggered by the 1972 World Heritage Convention. Five years since the
publication of the Recommendation, it is clear that, despite UNESCO’s efforts,
opportunities for the implementation of the HUL on a global level have been
scarce. An increasing awareness regarding public participation has provided an
additional opportunity for the HUL, due to an enhanced understanding of an ideal
urban heritage management that, avant la lettre, disregards traditional up-down
decision-making processes. Our paper provides a critical evaluation of the
positive and negative aspects which have arisen from the implementation of HUL
Recommendation with regards to charters and theory. We have also taken into
consideration the risks that are concomitant to its ambitious holistic approach, as
well as the ambiguities with regards to the definition of landscape on which the
HUL is based. This paper also identifies the opportunities that a renewed focus
on heritage values and authenticity management, as reflected in the cases of
Cuenca (Ecuador) and Ballarat (Australia), may offer for the successful
implementation of the HUL approach.

Keywords: urban heritage, urban development, citizen participation, governance.

Introduction

Current trends of urbanisation pose the challenge of heritage conservation being

concealed with urban development on an unprecedented scale. Over the last few

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

decades, this issue has been a focal point in heritage discussion, due to the potential for

historic urban environments to become assets of the global cultural economy (Greffe

2004; Pereira Roders and Van Oers 2011). A narrative of the development of heritage

charters and recommendations shows conceptual advances. The social and economic

challenges to heritage were first identified in the 1972 World Heritage Convention,

effectively overcoming the traditional aesthetic and historical implications which were

present both in the Athens Charter (ICOMOS 1931) and the Venice Charter (ICOMOS

1964).

The 1972 Convention advocated the inclusion of heritage assets in the day-to-

day life of communities, fostering management rather than the use of traditional

preservation measures (UNESCO 1972). Subsequent documents including the Nairobi

Recommendation (UNESCO 1976); the Washington Charter (ICOMOS 1987), and the

Nara Document (ICOMOS 1994) followed the spirit of the 1972 Convention, by

addressing the problem of rapid urban growth as well as demanding the implementation

of social and economic revitalization policies, thus reinforcing the cultural profile of

historic cities, and in doing so, avoiding heritage commodification. Conceived as a tool

for managing sustainable change in urban environments from a heritage perspective, the

2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) is the most recent step

in this direction. This recommendation amalgamates the aforementioned concepts

together with new contemporary concerns regarding urban heritage (UNESCO 2011b;

UNESCO 2011a). These are related to the idea of the ‘right to the city’(D. Harvey

2008), and involve citizen participation and urban governance, a concept which has

been apparent in the Western post-industrial societies since the early 1990s.

The conceptual innovativeness of the HUL Recommendation is down to the

incorporation of new attributes for heritage valuation, and in particular, to the

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

integration of non-heritage disciplines. However, at the same time, we feel that this, in

fact, constitutes its most severe handicap, and this is an aspect that we will discuss

further in this paper. Recent international experiences of culture-based urban

revitalization in countries like China have demonstrated the limitations of the prevailing

economic interpretations of the Recommendation, thus jeopardising both the living

conditions and the local population’s attachment to the place (Van Oers and Pereira

Roders 2013; Su 2011).

From our perspective, the key to counteracting such a situation is to recover and

enhance the role of authenticity, the importance of which has diminished, in fact it is

only mentioned in the 24th paragraph of the HUL Recommendation (UNESCO 2011b).

Authenticity has been described as a utopic aspiration (Bandarin and Van Oers 2012).

However, an insight into the theoretical basis of the HUL and a review of recent

developments in the debate amongst scholars regarding heritage, offer an opportunity to

recover the concept of authenticity from a value-based approach. Said recovery would

lead to the incorporation of other contemporary global problems such as poverty,

inequality, immigration and climate change to the heritage debate, issues which

currently determine the life of urban citizens to a greater extent than the Universal

Outstanding Values (OUVs) proposed by UNESCO (UNESCO 1972).

The HUL Recommendation explicitly refers to the definition of values

(UNESCO 2011b), and although the value-based approach has recently been accused of

favouring authorized heritage discourses (Smith 2006; Walter 2014), we alongside other

authors, (Jokilehto 2012) consider that the reference to values is still pertinent, provided

that it employs consistent value typologies that incorporate ideas such as diversity and

development over time, both of which are applicable to urban heritage management

(Fredheim and Khalaf 2016).

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

 Said values offer urban heritage a performative framework for identification,

and provide the opportunity for negotiation with other fields such as sociology,

anthropology, environmental studies, archaeology, and economics from a balanced

perspective. The review of the Ballarat (Australia) and Cuenca (Ecuador) case studies

will also demonstrate how the use of a value-based approach may enhance the HUL

Recommendation’s greatest conceptual strength for implementation: the promotion of a

shared vision of the urban realm by local stakeholders, in addition to its integration into

the definition of policies (Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016, 106). The case studies will

also take into consideration the theoretical basis of the HUL Recommendation and the

manner in which it is being put into practice, highlighting the need for citizens to play

an active role in planning the future development of their city. These cases will

specifically emphasise the importance of planning tools in which connections may be

made between urban and heritage regulations, providing a wide array of stakeholders

access to heritage management. The conclusions will explore the validity of the HUL as

a means for future development, claiming for additional efforts in the implementation of

the HUL based on a reinforced definition of authenticity.

The HUL Recommendation: the new identification and management of

heritage, from a landscape approach

The increasing importance of the role of heritage in urban economies from the

1970s onwards (D. C. Harvey 2001), has been considered as a crucial opportunity for

confirming its ‘landscape’ dimension. This means that the definition of heritage no

longer focuses solely on monuments, but that it now includes cities, landscapes and the

territory thanks to a new holistic vision encompassing economic, technical,

environmental, social, geographic, aesthetic, urban and natural aspects (De La Torre and

Throsby 2002; Veldpaus 2015; Veldpaus and Pereira Roders 2014). This development
International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]
is deemed to be positive, however, it is evident that critical assessment is required,

especially considering the rising importance of what has been referred to as ‘the urban

atmosphere’ and ‘ambience’ in new entrepreneurial models of city governance (D.

Harvey 1989). The landscape approach, therefore, poses a question that goes beyond

mere aesthetics and perception, focusing on which objects, places, activities and

processes take part in the current overarching global heritage vision, as well as their

purpose in the concept of heritage.

Despite its very orthodox origins, the ongoing debate regarding the integration

between the old and the new in landscape terms was only recently considered in the

charters and recommendations. This had a particular influence on the 2005 Vienna

Memorandum for the integration of contemporary architecture in historic cities

(UNESCO 2005) as well as taking steps forward in determining the unexplored

definition of the intangible qualities of built heritage in the 2008 Declaration of Quebec

on the preservation of the spirit of the place (ICOMOS 2008). Regardless of the

differences which are apparent, in both the Vienna and the Quebec documents it was

acknowledged that development is unavoidable and that this has a significant effect on

the character of the built environment, raising the question of how to deal with both

matters, an issue which was initially addressed by the 2011 UNESCO HUL

Recommendation. Said recommendation aimed to become an innovative tool for

heritage conservation and urban planning, amidst recent rapid urban growth, spurred on

by country-to-city migration and the global boom of real estate markets. It is important

to point out that as a ‘tool’, the HUL Recommendation refers exclusively to the

management of change in urban environments from the perspectives of heritage and

culture, and does not constitute a new protection category (UNESCO 2011b, 9;

UNESCO 2020).
International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]
 The definition of the HUL appears in Article 9 of the Recommendation,

overcoming the notion of isolated heritage assets and giving a new role to citizen

engagement and the spirit of the place. Drawing from the cultural landscape category,

HUL encompasses a variety of natural, cultural and socio-economic processes that

occur in the city from a space, time and experience perspective. A wide array of aspects

such as urban morphology, visual axes, architectural typologies, open spaces,

topography, vegetation, infrastructures, archaeological elements, rituals, values,

knowledge, also plays a fundamental role to the transformative character of

contemporary architecture (UNESCO 2011b).

Nevertheless, there are challenges to the holistic ‘landscaped’ expansion of the

heritage limits. Firstly, new tools and resources are required for the conservation and

management of more and more complex varied heritage assets (Fernandez-Baca,

Escobar, and Sanz 2011; Taylor 2016; Van Oers and Haraguchi 2010, 14-16). Secondly,

overcoming criticism from the academic realm is vital. Authors such as Lalana have

indicated the risk of deliberately loosening the definition of the so-called ‘landscaping

approach’, considering that this might lead to it being interpreted exclusively from a

visual perspective, thus neglecting its whole variety of layers, and in doing so,

jeopardising the identification of the values which are to be preserved (Lalana 2011).

Conceptual and instrumental challenges are fundamental, and we acknowledge that a

lack of political will and appetite for economic revenue may encourage certain

stakeholders to adopt non-rigorous, ‘easy ways’. Nevertheless, we consider that the

inclusiveness of landscape is a solid base. Whether from its geographical, pictorial,

linguistic and sociological understanding, the official formulation of the HUL implies

the idea of an overall integrated system that, in theory, would apply perfectly to the city.

It incorporates the notion of sustainability as the ethical framework that allows for a

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

balanced relationship amongst its constitutive elements. The aims and goals of the HUL

Recommendation adhere to this argument, employing landscape as a means of

overcoming the difference between historical environments and areas of new

development; nature and culture and built heritage and its context, therefore witnessing

the complex process of building a city over time.

The ‘experiential’ dimension brought into heritage by the concept of landscape

also favours the implementation of the HUL (Taylor 2016, 472). The Amsterdam

Charter (Council of Europe 1975), the Nairobi Declaration (UNESCO 1976) and the

Washington Charter (ICOMOS 1987) explicitly referred to the importance of public

opinion in urban conservation. The HUL Recommendation has incorporated

‘experiential’ terms such as “well-being” and “quality of life”, presenting new social

issues to the heritage debate, including the forgotten urban population living in poverty

or non-legal migrant status, and the prioritisation of modernisation over the rights of

traditional communities due to the pressures of economic development (Taylor 2016).

The HUL Recommendation also serves to bring a discussion from the 1931

Athens Charter regarding the integration of urban heritage conservation and urban

planning up to date. An essential reference is the 1973 Urban Plan of Bologna, where

conservation was intrinsically linked to non-monumental aspects of the urban

landscape, such as the hinterland and the active implication of the citizens (Campos

Venuti 1981, 53-56). The HUL Recommendation has also incorporated definitions

about genius loci, which are unrelated to urban conservation, such as urban

phenomenology and the spiritual quality of the human habitat, which was present in the

creation of the United Nations HABITAT programme in 1978 (Bandarin and Van Oers

2012; Jacobs 1973; De Carlo 1980).

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

 Building on from these precedents, the HUL Recommendation aims to deal with

urban conservation in the 21st Century by addressing the following specific

considerations:

(1) Sensitivity towards global urban growth, identified by UNESCO as a

major challenge for the next 30 years. The HUL Recommendation is linked to

the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015), which was

adopted at the recent Habitat III Conference in Quito and which acts as a roadmap

in the fight against urban poverty and inequality thanks to a people-centred

approach aiming to “make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (United

Nations, 2015). The Recommendation sticks to the doctrine of the 2030 Agenda,

proposing management tools to connect the HUL to the political vision of the city

(Veldpaus, Pereira Roders, and Colenbrander 2013). The HUL Recommendation

is considered as the most adequate tool for the management of UNESCO World

Heritage Sites (UNESCO 2015; Taylor 2016), as well as for the improvement and

conservation of urban areas in general, regardless of their inclusion on the World

Heritage List (UNESCO 2013, 1).

(2) Demand for improvements at administration and institutional levels: the

Recommendation aims to incorporate new stakeholders such as local volunteers,

universities and private companies (UNESCO 2013, 5), as well as to develop an

attractive vision for a political system that aims to overcome administrative inertia

and face this challenge head on (Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016b). Among the

four tools suggested by the Recommendation, the “Regulatory systems” refer to

special bylaws which incorporate the management of tangible and intangible

heritage assets with their social and environmental values (WHITRAP and
International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]
 Ballarat 2016, 14). In doing so, this places “urban culture and heritage as a

priority component of urban plans and strategies through the adoption of planning

instruments, including master plans, zoning guidelines and strategic growth

policies that safeguard a diverse range of tangible and intangible cultural assets

and landscapes and mitigate the disruptive impact of development” (HABITAT

III 2016, 16).

(3) Heritage is a credible economic resource for contemporary urban

societies (Mason 2008, 309). Another of the four tools endorsed by the

Recommendation is the provision of funding to promote entrepreneurship and

support traditional economic activities, attracting local private investors and

encouraging the development of flexible financial start-ups (WHITRAP and

Ballarat 2016, 14). Said tool is fundamental in order to be able to persuade local

authorities, investors and planners of the potential that cultural values have for

generating economic output (Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016). It refers to one of

the most conceptually innovative aspects of the Recommendation: its

consideration of the historical processes and socioeconomic activities at the

origins of material heritage assets in accordance with the spirit of the La Valetta

Principles (ICOMOS 2011).

The HUL approach has to address its own challenges in addition to promoting

these innovations. The positive achievements of the approach include the contribution

that it has had on the discussions regarding the management of acceptable change

according to heritage values and authenticity; on the characterisation of urban

conservation as an environmental process; on the new interpretations of heritage from

the point of view of the citizens; on the comprehensive management of all types of
International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]
heritage (natural, cultural, intangible, historic and modern); and on the incorporation of

the local population in the decision-making process (Bandarin and Van Oers 2012).

By tackling key issues for the future of cities that have never been considered

before in the heritage realm, The HUL goes beyond the traditional conservation

approach to the historic environment (Bandarin and Oers 2012, 273). These concepts

include sustainability, mobility, migration, quality of life, eradication of poverty,

importance of place, social justice, cultural creativity, technological advancement and

economic opportunity. However, the generous criteria of the HUL require careful

attention, as said criteria may serve to perpetuate the identification between heritage and

cultural and economic elites, favouring public and private stakeholders with a mere

utilitarian interest on its identification and eventual commodification. Cases such as

Lijiang in China show a clear example of the apparent limitations in making the benefits

of heritage reach all layers of the population in a proportional manner (Su 2011; Shao

2017). The difficulties in implementing the HUL in China may be attributed mainly to

the excessive stress conveyed by economic expectations.

The widely ambitious nature of the Recommendation is inevitably complicating

its implementation. The ambiguities and generalisations present in the text may

contribute positively, facilitating its comprehension, but at the same time, they may

neglect the specificity of situations and places. In short, the primary challenge of HUL

is to define strategies which may allow for all of the referred inputs to be incorporated

into the definition of urban development policies. In order to do so, they must overcome

the greatest obstacle of all: to stimulate a new attitude among elected representatives

and officials favouring the implementation of the HUL. This is due to the fact that a

political response is required in order to bring together heritage and the well-being of

the citizens (UNESCO 2013).

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

The matter of authenticity
The 1994 Nara Document rejected orthodox definitions of authenticity,

traditionally oriented towards the idea of heritage asset as an ‘object’, and which

referred exclusively to its materiality. Using claims that were based on the non-material

dimension of heritage from a non-Western perspective, the Charter offered the

opportunity for the crossed influences between heritage and other fields to be revealed.

Taken back to Western societies, the aim of integrating the non-Western perspectives

into the global heritage discourse of the Nara Document was followed by new demands

for the democratisation of heritage practice, including its designation, management and

production.

The introduction of heritage into the public debate appears to have been a

significant cultural challenge (Bandarin and Van Oers 2012), and one that has directed

discussions in the field towards a radical redefinition of heritage itself. These

discussions range from its role within current discourses of power (Smith 2006), to its

contextualization within a wider concept of preservation in global societies (Harrison

2015). Despite its importance, the HUL Recommendation purposely understates the

discussion about heritage authenticity, acknowledging its alleged utopian character

when applied to cities and landscapes (Bandarin and Van Oers 2012). Authenticity is

first mentioned in the 24th paragraph of the HUL Recommendation, referring to the role

that knowledge and planning tools play in protecting the authenticity and integrity of

urban heritage, and it is not considered any further. We might assume that the

Recommendation implicitly adheres to the Nara Document acknowledging the power of

local communities in defining their vision about authenticity. However, our contention

is that the implementation of the HUL Recommendation would, in fact, require even

greater steps forward due to the incorporation of overwhelming amounts of layered

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

information regarding decision making. Authenticity would not then become irrelevant,

but in fact, it would be a much more complicated concept to deal with.

Intertwined with the definition of heritage, authenticity remains a basic concept

from which criteria for urban heritage conservation can be established. It is

acknowledged as a cultural form of power (Zukin 2010; Korpela 2010), which could

potentially pose the risks of commodification and social exclusion (Pottie-Sherman and

Hebert 2015; González Martínez 2016). Understood as a political question (Smith

2006), authenticity would offer criteria to achieve a future vision of society where the

participated construction of heritage would prevail over private interests and

commodification: the rule of public concern over disputes between stakeholder’s rights,

universal access to healthcare, culture and education, and a sound management of

shared resources. This would be done taking into consideration age, gender, ethnicity

and social class. This notion could be summed up in the following aims:

- To empower citizenship through participation in heritage identification

and management.

- To provide continuity to the indigenous ways of life of traditional

communities and their practices in the face of globalisation.

- To promote awareness about the enhanced role of culture in

contemporary urban societies.

As this text will go on to demonstrate, the methods for the implementation of

HUL rely greatly on the definition of attributes by a variety of stakeholders involved in

the process of heritage conservation. Defining attributes enables easy identification, in

particular by the citizens, and this refers to frameworks of shared values, which lie at

the basis of authentication. In adopting a value-based approach, it is also necessary to

consider as well, the inherent risk within the discourse of values to serve authorised

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

heritage discourses (Smith 2006), as this might neglect the aims for inclusiveness and

empowerment which are referred to. Despite this warning, we consider that the value-

based approach offers an adequate arena for settling a discourse of power, on which

authenticity would guide decisions with regards to which values or rights are to be

prioritised in the heritage discourse (Jokilehto 1999; D. Harvey 2008; Harrison 2015).

Authenticity would guarantee a balance within the framework of shared values

(Mendes Zancheti and Jokilehto 1997; Silverman 2015). Furthermore, the right to the

city would appear at the forefront of the discussion, enabling different stakeholders to

exercise said right, and in doing so allowing them to change the city and society with it

(Lefebvre 1974; D. Harvey 2008). Accordingly, if one of the values, such as the social

value, calls for a society that allows for the representation of minorities, an ‘authentic’

historic urban landscape could even be one produced by migrant communities. This idea

moves away from the more traditional interpretations that tend to favour the local

‘genuine’ population. Alternatively, if the cultural value calls for the incorporation of

nature; the ‘authentic’ historic urban landscape would be the one that enhances the

symbiosis between culture and nature within the city and its integration in a wider,

territorial context. Likewise, if the economic value calls for a system that favours

modest consumption practices, an “authentic” historic urban landscape would be one

that encourages sustainable mobility among other factors.

A review of two case studies in Ballarat (Australia) and Cuenca (Ecuador) show

different methodologies used for the implementation of the HUL, where the definition

of authenticity recovers its core position within the heritage discourse. A review of both

case studies will enable us to verify the extent to which the subsequent definition of

policies by the municipalities has been embedded with this political meaning that

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

ultimately allows for the exercising of the right to heritage and to the city by all

stakeholders.

Ballarat and Cuenca: two pioneering cases of HUL implementation

The dissemination of the HUL started with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre

(UNESCO, n.d.), and most notably using the creation of the WHITRAP, a category 2

UNESCO Centre for World Heritage. The WHITRAP initiated in 2012, the Special

Programme on HUL to promote the global implementation of the HUL approach, in

particular in the Asia-Pacific region (Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016, 94). Since 2013

its implementation has been fostered through research, training and the development of

pilot projects (WHITRAP 2016; WHITRAP and UNESCO, n.d.).

China, The Philippines, India, Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, Azerbaijan,

Canada, Bahrain, Australia and Ecuador are some of the countries that were involved in

the early implementation of the Recommendation (WHITRAP 2016; UNESCO, n.d.;

WHITRAP and UNESCO, n.d.). Cities in Europe such as Seville, Salamanca, Naples or

Edinburgh, are advancing in a similar direction from an exclusively academic

perspective (Rivas Sanz and Vázquez Justel 2011; Pons, Pereira Roders, and Turner

2011; IAPH 2016; Martini 2013; De Rosa and Di Palma 2013; Wilkinson 2015).

An evaluation of the first results shows evidence both of positive and negative

aspects. For instance, the paradigms of culture and Smart cities have made Chinese

cities a favourable choice for testing out the HUL, and the firm impulse that the

Recommendation received from the WHITRAP was a clear sign of new and deeper

political guidelines for sustainable development in the country (Van Oers and Pereira

Roders 2013). However, despite these early efforts, the implementation of the HUL

seems to have stagnated due to the difficulty of conceptualising this idea in the Chinese

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

language. This standstill is also down to the excessive pressure on heritage as a source

of local revenue, which is understood to be the principal indicator in evaluating the

success of local cadres in the administration.

The involvement of local governments and academic institutions, with different

degrees of leadership, is a keystone for the application of the HUL. All cases referred to

in the HUL Guidebook depart from two main ideas, harmonising urban conservation

with regeneration and sustainability (WHITRAP and Ballarat 2016), and involving

citizens in the identification and management of heritage values. The latter is considered

as a way of progressing towards further institutional and administrative changes in

urban governance (Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016). This new urban governance is

understood as being the culmination of the process, which guarantees the definition of

authenticity based on a framework of shared values and the related definition of criteria

for intervention and conservation.

Ballarat and Cuenca stand amongst the pioneering experiences of the HUL

approach due to their range and size; the fundamental role of the citizens; their

interdisciplinary nature and the effect that it is having in the academic realm as well as

in local administration. Ballarat is particularly significant, due to the institutional

transformation that resulted from the implementation of the Recommendation (Buckley,

Cooke, and Fayad 2016, 95) and the case of Cuenca, showcases new means of

incorporating the citizens in the identification of heritage value alongside an

interdisciplinary team (GOHUL 2016).

Ballarat: the management of change from the administration.

Ballarat was the first municipality to begin to implement the HUL approach

within its strategic processes as envisaged by UNESCO. Its key to success is the

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

steadfast involvement of the local government, and the change of its political vision

towards the landscape approach (Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016, 100). The adoption

of the HUL approach has produced a new political framework, which has completely

restructured the administration system, aiming to guarantee sustainable change. This has

meant not only the full implication of the citizens but also that of elected representatives

and government officials, who have received specific training on the Recommendation.

The main changes have been directed towards the establishment of new mechanisms for

heritage value identification, as well as alternative, ‘horizontal’ management methods

(Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016, 95,98).

The project entitled Ballarat Strategy. Our vision for 2040 (Ballarat 2015), has

produced strategic guidelines for the management of the city. These guidelines focus on

development, infrastructure and planning (Ballarat 2016), through a series of integrated

and participatory Local Area Plans as well as the inclusion of the HUL concepts into

local planning policy regimes (WHITRAP and Ballarat 2016; Ballarat, n.d.). Ballarat

Imagine was conceived as a participatory process, and more than 6500 participants from

the whole city were involved in the new identification of heritage values (Ballarat

2013). The results of this process defined heritage, lifestyle and the sense of community

as the key elements which the future sustainable strategy of Ballarat for 2040 should be

based on.

Ballarat imagine asked its participants to respond to three questions: what do

they love, what they would like to preserve, and what do they envision as a future for

their city. The results showed that the answers to the two first questions were very

similar, pointing to a variety of attributes that reveal the heritage values that define the

authenticity of the city. The elements that the participants indicated that they wished to

retain in the future showed a strengthened vision of what they love about their city. This

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

allowed for the construction of the city’s identification from a citizens’ perspective

(Ballarat 2013) (table 1).

VALUES ENVIRONMENT SOCIAL ARCHITECTURAL ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURES USES AXES

Lakes, gardens, landscape and Quiet city, warm people, family

LOVE AND General facilites and
environment, clean fresh air, green spaces, atmosphere, safety, generosity of Culture-access to music
RETAIN / Heritage resources, relatively cheap Public transport
proximity to nature, places to walk and people’s hearts, the friendliness, and arts, markets
ATTRIBUTES housing Cultural identity,
ride your bike community feel
BALLARAT heritage, lifestyle
and community
More events and feelings
Better economy, better Invest in infrastructure prior to entertainment, tourist
FUTURE More skate/BMX parks and water parks Arcades
employment opportunities development and better transport attractions and sports
facilities

Cultural identity has become dominant axis for future planning through the

provision of tools for civic engagement, knowledge and planning, thanks to the

cooperation of local Universities. Amongst all of the measures, the Regulatory Tools for

the HUL approach are responsible for a considerable number of improvements which

develop: 1) Statutory planning and enforcement, 2) Community engagement policy, and

3) the Ballarat Strategy, Ballarat Planning Scheme overlays and controls, regeneration

plans, frameworks and policies (WHITRAP and Ballarat 2016, 25). The resulting

administrative and political structure has taken on the challenge of establishing

authenticity with regards to ‘the limits of change’, incorporating the information that

was compiled from the results of the citizens’ participation. Another important issue is

related to transparency and public scrutiny, as all of the information has been made

available online thus giving the population practical tools to engage in discussions.

(Ballarat, n.d.).

Cuenca: managing complexity from academia

The case study of Cuenca was led by the University of Cuenca, adhering to the

six steps proposed by UNESCO for the implementation of the HUL (UNESCO, n.d.).

The tasks included the creation of an interdisciplinary research team with the purpose of

studying the city from all possible dimensions, incorporating the attributes mentioned in

articles 8 and 9 of the HUL Recommendation. The team brought together geologists,

biologists, geographers, economists, anthropologists, sociologists and architects in order

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

to map the natural, cultural and social resources in the city (Step 1). The results were

later compared with the citizens’ visions, in an event entitled ‘Visionary Conference’, in

2015 (Rey-Pérez et al. 2017).

The Conference was financed by the University of Cuenca, WHITRAP and The

Netherlands Funds-in-Trust for World Heritage, and support was also received from the

municipality of Cuenca. This project involved officials and citizens working hand-in-

hand in the identification of values, attributes and vulnerabilities (steps 2 and 3), and

furthermore, in drafting recommendations for the management of Cuenca’s future

sustainable development (Step 4). All stakeholders involved, (citizens, officials and

experts) defined the possible development strategies, as well as their prioritisation (step

5) (Cuenca 2015).

As a World Heritage Site, Cuenca departed from an orthodox approach to urban

heritage protection which focused on historical assets as objects. The collaborative work

of citizens and experts allowed for the incorporation of other relevant questions which

were considered as essential by the inhabitants to the character of the city. Citizens were

asked to identify elements with which they had developed a certain engagement, and a

variety of different answers were received. These included attributes such as

gastronomy, city squares, the sound of the rivers and the perspective of the mountains,

as well as the valuation of assets outside of the declared heritage area (streets, parks,

houses…). The collaborative work also identified other potential threats such as public

safety, pollution and hygiene, which could endanger the construction of identity and the

authenticity of the city (Table 2). According to the studied demands, Cuenca has been

studied beyond the limits of just its historical centre, as part of the process of re-

valuation or re-identification, a timely and fundamental aspect towards the planning,

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

control, activation and future urban conservation.
VALUES ENVIRONMENT SOCIAL ARCHITECTURAL CUSTOMS INFRASTRUCTURES USES AXES

Squares, the sound of rivers, mountains,

birds and trees, apple hearts, cold, smell of
IDENTITY Qualifying the
rain, sunrises, parks, Turi's
ELEMENTS integration of
landscape,views, lookout, smell of Cathedral, streets, houses, schools, gastronomy, handicrafts,
THROUGH THE social circus, stadium Cultural Heritage
flowers, bread, coffee, nature, incense, roof tiles, museum traditional clothing
SENSES / in the HUL,
typical food, wet field, fresh air, riverside
ATTRIBUTES adapting
eucalyptus and sweets, church bells and
infrastructures
CUENCA christmas lights
and
environmental
Alcoholism, insecurity, crime, Abandoned and dirty markets, Proliferation of car parks, loss of issues, fostering /
Degraded, dirty and abandoned spaces, orientating
prostitution, mendacity and sale construction of modern buildings and street lighting, traffic or smog,
ANOMALIES squares or streets, polluted and informal trade
of drugs in the squares, noises asphalt, state of conservation of vehicle whistling, rudeness in the
THROUGH THE overflowed rivers, pollution, grafitis, no junk food and impact
and the street fights, lack of housing, overcrowding of families in buses, smell of burned oil, tram,
SENSES abandoned animals, destruction of trees reduction
hygiene, children work, the historic center, buildings smell of sewers, pollution from
and flowers, garbage collection points
inmigrants, bad education deteriored by chemical attack industrial park

The tables show two different cities, with diverse needs and approaches to the

urban heritage, both of which involve its citizens. Ballarat defines its authenticity

through a balance of environmental, social, architectural, economical and use values,

the attributes of which speak clearly about the characteristics that the city aims to

conserve for the future. The case of Cuenca shows how authenticity has been defined

from the perspective of architectural and environmental values, attributes which stand

out from the others. Both tables show how the two cities have also focused on attributes

which are located in the surrounding areas, enabling them to be able to evaluate the city

from the point of view of the periphery. The main difference in the two cases lies in the

social value, an aspect which has been interpreted in two completely different ways.

Ballarat shows a significant number of attributes that are projected towards its future

goals, and which are worthy of consideration for the creation of a new urban

authenticity. Cuenca exemplifies the way in which social values are currently being

evaluated, with a strong critique of its ancient roots.

Both tables show how steps 1, 2 and 3, proposed by UNESCO for the

implementation of the HUL approach have been carefully observed, leading to a

democratic, value-based construction of urban heritage authenticity. The corresponding

public policies, as well as their prioritisation (corresponding to steps 4 and 5) in Ballarat

and Cuenca clearly demonstrate the different views regarding the modern welfare state

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

in their respective societies. In Australia the aim is for this policy to continue, whereas

the Ecuador case study has brought forward criticism regarding its irregular

implementation.

Future advancements also differ in both cases. While in Ballarat the

rearrangement of the administration and the definition of policies may offer a guarantee

for the continuity of the HUL approach, the Cuenca experience has come to a halt.

Although the Municipality received all the information that was compiled both by the

interdisciplinary team and the Visionary Conference as a result of 2 years of work, the

HUL approach is yet to be incorporated into an Urban Development Plan designed by

both the citizens and experts, which adopts heritage and culture as major motivators.

The lack of political will has meant that this plan is currently on hold despite the

agreement signed by the WHITRAP, the University of Cuenca and the Municipality to

incorporate the city into the HUL Pilot Cities Network (WHITRAP 2016).

In both cases, the definition of authenticity has resulted from the identification

of heritage values, with the citizens adopting an active and significant role. All

stakeholders have been made aware of the new implications of the concept of landscape,

applied to the conservation of urban heritage. The significant accomplishments which

have been made to this effect, still rely on political decisions to enable them to fully

reach their potential. This is due to the fact that, as the case of Cuenca shows, the values

and attributes identified do not necessarily match the municipality’s political priorities,

especially when these challenge the discourse of power that emanates from its

governmental action.

Scientific expectations versus the implementation challenges. A long path

ahead towards the effective fulfilment of the HUL Recommendation.

The recommendation on the HUL approach departs from the dynamic definition
International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]
of values shared by a variety of stakeholders. In view of the recent charters and

recommendations, these include citizens, professionals, tourists, private companies and

administrative bodies. Moreover, as it has been previously described, this approach also

incorporates other architectural, urban, historical, cultural, social and economic factors,

far from the values that traditionally applied to urban heritage (García Vázquez,

González Martínez, and Sierra Hernández 2014). Therefore, the integration of

stakeholders leads to the ultimate discussion regarding rights, and about who exerts

power in the city, moulding its activities, body and memory to shape a vision of society

itself (Lefebvre 1974; Harrison 2015). Such a consideration has a direct effect on the

definition of urban heritage authenticity, which can no longer be based solely on

materiality but instead on a shared vision of society, which jeopardises the future

success of the implementation of the HUL.

A more detailed review of the eight cities that have been studied by WHITRAP

as examples of the implementation of the HUL approach, as well as the cases of Ballarat

and Cuenca, reveal the following:

(1) The difficult integration of city and the territory: The focus on the landscape is

completely at odds with the idea of maintaining administrative divisions or

delimitations of heritage protection areas. This is shown in the case of Cuenca,

where authenticity, as defined by citizens and scholars, points to the connection

between the city and the hinterland, and the need to overcome important legal and

administrative barriers (Rey-Pérez and Astudillo 2016; Siguencia Ávila and Rey-

Pérez 2016; Rey-Pérez et al. 2017).

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

 (2) The “comprehensive surveys and mapping of the city’s natural, cultural and

human resources” (UNESCO 2011b; Loes Veldpaus and Pereira Roders 2013)

based on the holistic dimension of the HUL and its complex definition of

authenticity have resulted in enormous amounts of information. Its management

requires complex documentation and access tools and investments which are not

always available for researchers or officials (UNESCO 2013, 3).

(3) The ineffective connection between heritage and planning: Practical difficulties

appear in the active integration of the social and cultural dimension of urban

conservation in urban planning (Taylor 2016, 473; Van Oers and Haraguchi 2010,

14). As a consequence, the HUL’s transformative potential remains

underdeveloped, waiting for new urban regulations to be implemented in

accordance with the new approach. This is not only a matter of making

institutions fulfil their commitment to civil society, but it also has practical

effects: experience shows how the efforts for integration can speed up planning

bureaucracy, reducing potential pleas for planning regulations (WHITRAP and

Ballarat 2016, 9).

(4) The lack of a shared reference: The HUL Recommendation remains widely

unknown, preventing experiences from being shared as well as the construction of

shared knowledge. UNESCO aims to counteract this situation by promoting a

guide for those cities who decide to implement the HUL Recommendation

(WHITRAP and Ballarat 2016) as well as by creating HUL observatories

(GOHUL 2016). UNESCO also develops specific training activities, as well as a

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

 network to search for international case studies and provide easy access to the

guiding documents (UNESCO 2013, 6-7).

The definition of the HUL Toolkit by UNESCO is an important practical step

towards overcoming the aforementioned difficulties. It consists of 4 different tools

including Community Engagement; Knowledge and Planning; Regulatory Systems and

Financial Tools (WHITRAP and Ballarat 2016, 14) (UNESCO 2011b). These offer a

basic reference framework for the incorporation of new cases in the future. The use of

the Toolkit has raised a variety of practical questions that are a fundamental part of

current discussions:

(1) The need for a regulatory system, as current municipal regulations are

insufficient to contribute to urban regeneration,

(2) The need for a paradigm shift, from a technical definition of planning to political

and social planning.

(3) The development of financial incentives that may motivate the interests of the

private sector, therefore, limiting the burden on the public sector.

(4) To define adequate channels for community participation in decision making

and find innovative means to foster engagement with urban heritage

conservation.

For the most part, we consider that all these difficulties result from short-sighted

visions regarding the transformative power of heritage and culture, reducing its

consideration to a mere economic benefit. It is our contention that only with a full

understanding of HUL and its authenticity as a commitment to a modern, transformative

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

project for urban societies, will the potentials of a landscape approach effectively be put

into practice.

Conclusion
The HUL is the most complex and encompassing of all heritage concepts

defined up to now, potentially becoming an effective support for all kinds of heritage.

According to the Recommendation, the HUL is not a heritage category but is a tool for

heritage management, which is slowly achieving recognition thanks to UNESCO’s

efforts for its dissemination.

Our analysis shows how a growing number of cities have begun to show interest

in this new tool, finding support from scholars and citizens alongside other stakeholders

in civil society. However, the effectiveness of the changes that the HUL may promote is

still questionable, especially considering that its implementation methods fundamentally

contradict the tendencies of municipal governments worldwide to foster urban

regeneration through massive investments (Greffe 2004). Since heritage started to play

an important role in urban economies in the 1970s, the production of heritage (also

known as heritagisation) and the aim of placing culture at the forefront of urban

development have both been evaluated as a social conquest with emancipating

consequences, and criticised for enabling its potential commodification (D. C. Harvey

2001).

The formula for success is yet to be discovered, but on the contrary to what the

HUL Recommendation implicitly acknowledges, authenticity is an unavoidable

prerequisite. Our new framework for the definition of authenticity aims to bring this

concept to the forefront of management, carrying out decision-making processes

according to its complex contemporary character, encompassing participation and the

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

incorporation of the territory, among other characteristics that we have defined as

constitutive of the definition of landscape.

Beyond management, questions of agency and discourses of power lie at the

bottom of the discussion. The proposed definition of authenticity equally affects the

production of identities and the exertion of rights, taking the HUL a step beyond

aesthetics and history, claiming the right to the city and the power that different

stakeholders have to shape contemporary urban societies (D. Harvey 2008) through

their construction of heritage.

Direct knowledge of the two case studies which are referred to in this report

shows how despite the inclusiveness of the definitions of authenticity that may be

applicable to the HUL, the implementation of the Recommendation has lost steam and

has essentially disappeared from the urban agendas of municipalities in Western

countries. In these countries, conservative political systems do not favour changes to the

established balance of power among long term stakeholders. In such a context, all

efforts which are made by UNESCO on a supranational level will inevitably clash with

the reality of local situations, as Cuenca or Ballarat have shown.

Even though in the last years the development of implementation materials, the

dissemination of best practices and the targeting of planning processes point to further

potential changes, the HUL Recommendation faces an uncertain future. As an open

conclusion, and given the variety of issues to address and the complexity of the

problems to solve, we may point towards the oversizing of the real potential of the HUL

approach and the need to find adequate scales for its implementation. Such a re-

evaluation might lower the initial expectations regarding the HUL, but would certainly

avoid the prevalent understanding of the landscape as something still distant, opening

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

our eyes to the possibility of building it around us by means of more modest thoughts

and means.

References

Ballarat , City of . 2013. “Ballarat Imagine. What You Said.” Ballarat.

[Link]

[Link].

Ballarat , City of . 2015. “Today Tomorrow Together. The Ballarat Strategy. Our Vision

for 2040.” Ballarat. [Link]

_final_-_july_2015_-_reduced.pdf.

Ballarat , City of . 2016. “A New Heritage Plan for Ballarat, 2016–2030.” Ballarat.

[Link]

__culture_and_place_august_2016.pdf.

Ballarat , City of . 2017. “Historic Urban Landscape Ballarat.” Accessed March 15 .

[Link]

Bandarin , F. , and Ron Van Oers . 2012. The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing

Heritage in an Urban Century. Oxford: Wiley.

Buckley , Kristal , Steven Cooke , and Susan Fayad . 2016. “Using the Historic Urban

Landscape to Re-imagine Ballarat. The Local Context.” In Urban Heritage,

Development and Sustainability. International Frameworks, National and Local

Governance, edited by Sophia Labadi and William Logan , 93–113. London and New

York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Campus Venuti , Giuseppe . 1981. Urbanismo y Austeridad. Madrid: Siglo Veinte.

Council of Europe. 1975. “The Declaration of Amsterdam.”

[Link]

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

Council of Europe. 1975. “The Declaration of Amsterdam.”

[Link]

enfrancais/ressources/charters-and-standards/169-the-declaration-of-amsterdam.

Cuenca , Universidad de . 2015. Conferencia Visionaria. Una Mirada Ciudadana de

Cuenca hacia el Futuro. ¡Todos tenemos algo que decir! Edited by Soledad Moscoso .

Cuenca: Universidad de Cuenca. [Link]

De Carlo , Giancarlo . 1980. “An Architecture of Participation.” Perspecta 17: 74–79.

De La Torre , Marta , and D. Throsby . 2002. Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage:

Research Report. Los Ángeles, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute.

De Rosa , Fortuna , and Maria Di Palma . 2013. “Historic Urban Landscape Approach

and Port Cities Regeneration: Naples between Identity and Outlook.” Sustainability 5:

4268–4287. doi:10.3390/su5104268.

Fernandez-Baca Casares , R. , P. S. Escobar , and N. Sanz . 2011. El Paisaje Histórico

Urbano en las Ciudades Patrimonio Mundial: Indicadores para su Conservación y

Gestión. II, Criterios, Metodología y Estudios Aplicados. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía,

Consejería de Cultura.

Fredheim , L. Harald , and Manal Khalaf . 2016. “The Significance of Values: Heritage

Value Typologies Re-examined.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 22 (6): 466–

481. doi:10.1080/13527258.2016.1171247.

García Vázquez , C. , P. González Martínez , and M. Sierra Hernández . 2014.

“Producción de nueva arquitectura en la ciudad de Sevilla y su relación con el Paisaje.”

In Guía Del Paisaje Histórico Urbano de Sevilla, edited by Fernandez-Baca Casares , R.

Sevilla: Consejería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía.

[Link]

illa/estudios_tematicos.html.

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

GOHUL. 2016. “Global Observatory on the Historic Urban Landscape.” [Link]

[Link]/.

González Martínez , P. 2016. “Authenticity as a Challenge in the Transformation of

Beijing’s Urban Heritage: The Commercial Gentrification of the Guozijian Historic

Area.” Cities 59: 48–56.

Greffe , Xavier . 2004. “Is Heritage an Asset or a Liability?” Journal of Cultural

Heritage 5: 301–309.

HABITAT III. 2016. “Habitat III. Zero Draft of the New Urban Agenda.”

[Link]

Harrison , R. 2015. “Beyond ‘Natural’ and ‘Cultural’ Heritage: Towards an Ontological

Politics of Heritage in the Age of Anthropocene.” Heritage and Society 8 (1): 24–42.

Harvey , D. 1989. “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation of

Urban Governance in Late Capitalism.” Geografiska Annaler Series B Human

Geography 71 (1): 3–17.

Harvey , David C. 2001. “Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: Temporality, Meaning

and the Scope of Heritage Studies.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 7 (4):

319–338.

Harvey , D. 2008. “The Right to the City.” New Left Review 53: 23–40.

IAPH (Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico). 2016. “Guía del Paisaje Histórico

Urbano de Sevilla.” Sevilla.

[Link]

illa/contenidos_guia_paisaje_historico_urbano_sevilla.html.

ICOMOS. 1931. “The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments –

1931.” [Link]

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/167-the-athens-charter-for-the-restoration-of-

historicmonuments.

ICOMOS. 1964. “International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of

Monuments and Sites.” [Link]

ICOMOS. 1987. “Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas

(The Washington Charter) – 1987.” [Link]

ICOMOS. 1994. “The Nara Document on Authenticity.”

[Link]/charters/[Link].

ICOMOS. 2008. “Quebec City Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place.”

Quebec, Canada. [Link]

ICOMOS. 2011. “The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of

Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas.” París.

[Link]

f.

Jacobs , Jane . 1973. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random

House Inc.

Jokilehto , Jukka . 1999. “Management of Sustainable Change in Historic Urban

Areas.” In Conservation and Urban Sustainable Development; A Theoretical

Framework, edited by Silvio Zancheti , 61–68. Recife: Centro de Conservação

Integrada Urbana e Territorial.

Jokilehto , Jukka . 2012. “Human Rights and Cultural Heritage. Observations on the

Recognition of Human Rights in the International Doctrine.” International Journal of

Heritage Studies 18 (3): 226–230.

Korpela , M. 2010. “A Postcolonial Imagination? Westerners Searching for Authenticity

in India.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36 (8): 1299–1315.

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

Lalana , José Luis . 2011. “El Paisaje Urbano Histórico: Modas, Paradigmas Y

Olvidos.” Ciudades: Revista Del Instituto Universitario de Urbanística de La

Universidad de Valladolid 14: 15–38. [Link]

codigo=3720255\n[Link]

orden=0.

Lefebvre , H. 1974. The Production of Space. Paris: Editions Anthropos.

Martini , Viviana . 2013. “The Conservation of Historic Urban Landscapes: An

Approach.” Universitá IUAV di Venezia.

[Link]

Mason , R. 2008. “Be Interested and Beware: Joining Economic Valuation and Heritage

Conservation.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 14 (4): 303–318.

[Link]

Mendes Zancheti , Sílvio , and Jukka Jokilehto . 1997. “Values and Urban Conservation

Planning: Some Reflections on Principles and Definitions.” Journal of Architectural

Conservation 3 (1): 37–51. Routledge. doi:10.1080/13556207.1997.10785179.

Pereira Roders , Ana , and Ron Van Oers . 2011. “World Heritage Cities Management.”

Facilities, edited by Ana Pereira Roders , 29 (7/8): 276–285. Emerald Group Publishing

Limited. [Link]

Pons , Angela , Ana Pereira Roders , and Molly Turner . 2011. “The Sustainability of

Management Practices in the Old City of Salamanca.” Edited by Ana Pereira Roders .

Facilities 29 (7/8): 326–338. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

[Link]

Pottie-Sherman , Y. , and D. Hiebert . 2015. “Authenticity with a Bang: Exploring

Suburban Culture and Migration through the New Phenomenon of the Richmond Night

Market.” Urban Studies 52 (3): 538–554.

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

Rey-Pérez , Julia , and Sebastián Astudillo . 2016. “La Construcción del Paisaje desde

una mirada interdisciplinar y ciudadana. El caso de Cuenca, Ecuador.” In Actas

Conferencia Visionaria. El Paisaje Urbano como soporte del Patrimonio Cultural y

Natural de Cuenca en debate. Una Mirada Ciudadana de Cuenca hacia el futuro de la

ciudad, edited by Soledad Moscoso , 57–68. Cuenca: Universidad de Cuenca.

[Link]

visionaria_com.pdf.

Rey-Pérez , Julia , Sebastián Astudillo , María Eugenia Siguencia , Juliana Forero , and

Silvia Auquilla . 2017. La aplicación de la Recomendación sobre el Paisaje Urbano

Histórico (PUH) En Cuenca – Ecuador. Una nueva aproximación al patrimonio cultural

y natural [The Application of the Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape

(HUL) in Cuenca – Ecuador. A New Approach to Cultural and Natural Heritage].

Edited by Julia Rey Pérez . Cuenca: Universidad de Cuenca.

[Link]

Rivas Sanz , Juan Luis de las , and Gregorio Vázquez Justel . 2011. “El Paisaje Urbano

Histórico de la ‘Ciudad Vieja’ de Salamanca, Claves Para Un Plan de Gestión.”

Ciudades: Revista del Instituto Universitario de Urbanística de La Universidad de

Valladolid 14: 57–80. [Link]

codigo=3720340\n[Link]

Shao , Y. 2017. “Conservation and Sustainable Development of Human–inhabited

World Heritage Site – Case of World Heritage Lijiang Old Town.” Built Heritage 2:

43–54.

Siguencia Ávila , Maria Eugenia , and Julia Rey-Pérez . 2016. “Heritage Values

Protection, from the Monument to the Urban Dimension. Case Study: The Historic

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

Centre of Santa Ana de Los Ríos de Cuenca.” The Historic Environment: Policy and

Practice 7 (2): 164–176. doi:10.1080/17567505.2016.1172785.

Silverman , H. 2015. “Heritage and Authenticity.” In The Palgrave Handbook of

Contemporary Heritage Research, edited by E. Waterton and S. Watson , 69–88.

London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Smith , Laurajane . 2006. Uses of Heritage. New York: Routledge.

Su , Xiaobo . 2011. “Heritage Production and Urban Locational Policy in Lijiang,

China.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 35: 1118–1132.

Taylor , K. 2016. “The Historic Urban Landscape Paradigm and Cities as Cultural

Landscapes. Challenging Orthodoxy in Urban Conservation.” Landscape Research 41

(4): 471–480. [Link]

UNESCO. 1972. “Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and

Natural Heritage.” [Link]

UNESCO. 1976. “Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary

Role of Historic Areas.” [Link]

URL_ID=13133&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=[Link].

UNESCO. 2005. “VIENNA MEMORANDUM on ‘World Heritage and Contemporary

Architecture – Managing the Historic Urban Landscape’.”

[Link]

UNESCO. 2011a. “Proposals Concerning the Desirability of a Standard-setting

Instrument on Historic Urban Landscapes (36C/23).” París.

[Link]

UNESCO. 2011b. “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, including a

Glossary of Definitions.” [Link]

URL_ID=48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=[Link].

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

UNESCO. 2013. “Report on the International World Heritage Expert Meeting on the

Mainstreaming of the Methodological Approach Related to the Recommendation on the

Historic Urban Landscape in the Operational Guidelines.” Río de Janeiro.

[Link]

[Link].

UNESCO. 2015. “Hangzhou Outcomes. International Conference ‘Culture for

Sustainable Cities’.” [Link]

development/culture-for-sustainable-cities/.

UNESCO. 2017. “World Heritage Cities Programme.” Accessed May 25 .

[Link]

UNESCO. 2020. “36.” París. [Link]

United Nations. 2015. “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development (A/RES/70/1).” New York.

[Link]

Van Oers , Ron , and Sachiko Haraguchi . 2010. “Managing Cities and the Historic

Urban Landscape Initiative – An Introduction.” In WHC – World Heritage Papers No27

– Managing Historic Cities, edited by Ron Van Oers and Sachiko Haraguchi . París:

Unesco World Heritage Center.

Van Oers , Ron , and Ana Pereira Roders . 2013. “Road Map for Application of the

HUL Approach in China.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable

Development 3 (1): 4–17. doi:10.1108/JCHMSD-01-2013-0002.

Veldpaus , Loes . 2015. “Historic Urban Landscapes. Framing the Integration of Urban

and Heritage Planning in Multilevel Governance.” Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of

Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

Veldpaus , Loes , and Ana Pereira Roders . 2013. “Historic Urban Landscapes: An

Assessment Framework, Part I.” In 33RD Annual Conference of the International

Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA13) Impact Assessment: The Next Generation.

Calgary, Canada: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven.

[Link]

Veldpaus , Loes , and Ana Pereira Roders . 2014. “Learning from a Legacy: Venice to

Valletta.” Change over Time 4 (2): 244–263.

[Link]

Veldpaus , Loes , Ana Pereira Roders , and Bernard J. F. Colenbrander . 2013. “Urban

Heritage: Putting the Past into the Future.” The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice

4 (1): 3–18. doi:10.1179/1756750513Z.00000000022.

Walter , N. 2014. “From Values to Narrative: A New Foundation for the Conservation

of Historic Buildings.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 20 (6): 634–650.

WHITRAP, and City of Ballarat. 2016. “The HUL Guidebook. Managing Heritage in

Dynamic and Constantly Changing Urban Environments.”

[Link]

WHITRAP, and UNESCO. 2017. “World Heritage Institute of Training and Research

for the Asia and the Pacific Region under the Auspices of UNESCO.” Accessed June 18

. [Link]

WHITRAP, The World Heritage Institute of Training, and Research for the Asia and the

Pacific Region. 2016. “The Historic Urban Landscape.” Accessed August 4 .

[Link]

Wilkinson , Adam . 2015. “Integrating Engagement: Heritage as a Tool for

Strengthening Society.” In Conferencia Visionaria, edited by Soledad Moscoso

Cordero, 45–56. Cuenca: Universidad de Cuenca.

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

 [Link]

visionaria_com.pdf.

Zukin , Sharon . 2010. Naked City. The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. New

York: Oxford University.

International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) [Link]

View publication stats