The latest UNESCO guideline on the HUL approach
[18][29] promotes a landscape-based strategy at the international level. National and local governments must enact, disseminate, promote, and track its implementations. Authorities are urged to redevelop instruments and tools responsive to local principles and needs related to the HUL critical steps which are (1) mapping resources; (2) reaching consensus; (3) assessing the vulnerabilities; (4) integrating urban heritage values and vulnerabilities, (5) prioritizing actions, and (6) establishing partnership and local management frameworks
[12]. The new philosophy on managing heritage areas describes urban heritage management as “managing the thoughtful transition”, thus it proposes a holistic strategy to managing historic sites
[12][30][31]. The concept of heritage management has developed from a tangible method towards a more holistic framework that incorporates intangible values, attributes, and sustainable urban gentrifications, followed by a more critical analysis of urban historic social and economic roles. The strategy is referred to as the urban landscape method
[11]. There are also four supporting tools for the HUL approach, which are (1) civic engagement tools; (2) financial tools; (3) regulatory systems, and (4) knowledge and planning tools
[12]. For every critical step of the HUL approach, these four tools are involved in various forms to support it in diverse proportions according to each specific case.
2.3. Interaction between Urban FM and the HUL Approach
The role of FM in historical urban development is infrequently studied, and its contribution to sustaining the operation of heritage buildings is sometimes problematic. Most studies stated that FM was mainly related to supporting core activities within a single-owned building(s)
[9][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. In fact, FM could be understood from a broader perspective
[40], for example, understanding FM from urban scale viewpoints. FM is a branch of the management discipline that addresses the tools and services that support the functionality, safety, and sustainability of buildings, grounds, infrastructures, and real estate
[41]. The International Facility Management Association (IFMA) also proposes a new definition of FM: “Facility Management is a profession/discipline that encompasses multiple disciplines to ensure the functionality of the built environment, by integrating people, place, process, and technology”. This new definition allowed urban FM to legitimately become an expansion of the FM discipline since urban FM is a manifestation of an urban scale facility management. This study pinpointed the prospect of urban FM to perform in a more expansive setting, especially urban heritage, as argued by Salaj
[13] in terms of extending the possibility of the role of urban FM to develop itself as an involving collaborator in promoting living areas and emphasizing health and well-being.
In terms of cultural heritage management, FM is known to be a discipline focusing on property. FM can be described to have originated from the convergence of three key fields of practice, including land management, property maintenance, and office administration
[42]. This notion should be applied to a broader viewpoint, both tangible and intangible, following the 2011 HUL Recommendation by UNESCO in managing urban heritage sites
[10].
Similar to the HUL approach, Salaj et al.
[20] explained that through establishing solid relationships with residents, urban FM would be able to develop inclusive governing, efficiency, co-financing, co-ownership, and co-creation of urban public spaces to enhance people’s participation, engagement, confidence, equality, and cohesion. Enhancement of citizens’ participation in governing and development processes is important for the higher achievement of SDGs
[43]. From that perspective, co-financing is in line with the public-private-people-partnership (PPPP) model
[22], co-owning with the personal perception of responsibility and attachment to the public domain
[44][45], and co-creation with the collaborative governance approach resulting in the creation of quality public spaces that contribute to people’s well-being
[46]. Urban FM stayed as an under-studied FM feature due to the multiple overlapping elements, including urban planning, urban gentrification, urban management, and urban sustainability
[9][13][41][47].
Redevelopment in the built environment, particularly the urban historical area, is frequently concentrated on technical elements compared to its non-technical features
[48]. Gentrification in urban areas must be closely monitored to grasp sustainable growth because of numerous social advancements. Strengthening people’s awareness and demands of the environment is critical to increasing their desire for technological possibilities
[14][48], an important component of FM.
3. Conclusions
Urban FM established an interactive, effective, collaborative governance that enabled co-creation, co-finance, and co-ownership within urban public spaces to increase people’s trust, attachment, commitment, inclusion, and integration. Therefore, it enhanced massive public participation in the urban heritage conservation process through urban collaborative decisions using evaluation-based techniques
[32][49][50] by putting persons and organizations at the center of urban planning and revitalization through a variety of creative techniques, optimizing social and natural capital, and creating more fair and enjoyable places through community facilities
[51][52].
Urban FM can be implemented to provide an integrated array of services supporting the operation, fruition, and valorization of urban goods by optimizing BIMs and enhancing information management for urban FM as a critical enabler for a more sustainable built environment
[53][54]. In the service of cultural heritage protection, social media gave new information on regular contacts with the historic urban landscape and heritage locations. On the other hand, assets management provided a holistic way to combine data from many approaches to support particular applications and assist decision-making
[55].
Herein indicated that the urban heritage conservation field is closely related to urban FM. Urban heritage conservation and urban FM are required to conduct similar technical tasks such as urban infrastructures, facilities, and scheduled maintenance. The latest landscape-based approach in managing the historical area, the HUL approach, recommended by UNESCO in 2011, also gave special attention to the people as an essential component, comparable with FM and urban FM, which are people-oriented disciplines. Implementation of FM in urban heritage areas was considered unique in a manner that it is supposed to be conducted accordingly to the international, national, and regional heritage codes and laws. With the exception of urban FM implementation in non-heritage regions, which focuses on improving people’s well-being, efficiency, and effectiveness, the UHFM is obligated to make every effort to preserve the district’s authenticity and historical significance, regardless of cost. The key was finding the balance between efficiency, people’s well-being, and preserving authenticity.