Your browser does not fully support modern features. Please upgrade for a smoother experience.
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects:
Others
La consapevolezza del legame tra patrimonio culturale e sviluppo sostenibile è diventata sempre più evidente, portando a una maggiore attenzione al Riuso Adattivo (AR) dei beni culturali come processo consapevole di creazione di nuovi valori. Questa tendenza ha spinto a riflettere sulle pratiche di pianificazione urbana e sulla promozione di politiche di AR e valorizzazione del patrimonio, che possono contribuire alla sostenibilità ambientale, alla coesione sociale e all’identità culturale, fornendo così terreno fertile per l’innovazione e lo sviluppo economico locale. Tuttavia, le decisioni riguardanti gli interventi AR pongono una complessità significativa a causa dei molteplici interessi in gioco, nonché dei costi elevati che scoraggiano gli investimenti.
- cultural historic heritage
- circular economy
- historic centers
1. Introduzione
Il concetto di raggiungimento di cicli chiusi [ 1 ] è un principio fondamentale all’interno del paradigma ecologico, ma la sua completa attuazione rimane finora non realizzata. Affrontare le sfide del nostro tempo implica l’adozione di modelli osservabili dai sistemi naturali, offrendo approcci efficienti alla gestione, alla produzione e al consumo [ 2 ].
L’economia tradizionale, spesso definita economia “convenzionale”, ha avuto effetti dannosi sui paesaggi culturali e sui singoli beni/siti culturali. Ha causato danni ambientali, problemi di salute e disagi ai sistemi sociali, contribuendo in definitiva a un’elevata entropia [ 3 , 4 ]. Al contrario, il concetto emergente di Economia Circolare (CE) ha il potenziale per valorizzare il patrimonio culturale e i paesaggi, promuovendo allo stesso tempo la prosperità economica. Ciò richiede lo sviluppo di processi organizzativi e imprenditoriali che promuovano relazioni simbiotiche e generino nuovi legami. La CE non solo riduce l’entropia a vari livelli, ma migliora anche l’efficienza e la resilienza [ 5 ]. Inoltre, l’EC si fonda su principi di cooperazione, solidarietà, coevoluzione e pensiero a lungo termine. Si basa sulle pratiche di gestione dei beni comuni, che, a loro volta, richiedono cooperazione, collaborazione e coordinamento tra i vari soggetti interessati. Questo approccio abbraccia valori relazionali, valori intrinseci e la coproduzione di valori economici sia per l'uso che per il mercato [ 6 ].
Considering landscapes and cultural heritage as common goods encourages the formation of a “community of relationships”. This community plays a crucial role in determining quality of life while also giving rise to new chains of economic value [7]. To shape a progressive future rooted in a “new humanism” [5] inspirtioin must be found in a journey of modernization that embraces the symbiotic relationship between society and nature: “Noi, il soggettivo ed il collettivo, il soggettivo ed il naturale, riconfigurando i valori della modernità in una prospettiva di ‘razionalità relazionale’ che rappresenta il fondamento stesso della prospettiva di un nuovo Umanesimo … fondato sulla simbiosi società/natura, innanzitutto attraverso la valorizzazione di tutti i ‘beni comuni’ presenti nel sistema urbano territoriale a partire dal patrimonio culturale, dagli ecosistemi naturali, dalla biodiversità, dal paesaggio, capaci a loro volta di promuovere la decentralizzazione, l’autorganizzazione, l’autogestione” [5]. This involves prioritizing the enrichment of “common goods” [5] within the urban territorial system, including cultural heritage, natural ecosystems, biodiversity, and the landscape. Elevating these assets can foster decentralization, empowering local communities to self-organize and self-manage. This holistic approach promotes sustainability, resilience, and equitable resource distribution, establishing a harmonious coexistence between society and the natural world guided by the principles of a “new humanism” [5].
Embracing this viewpoint entails presenting regeneration initiatives according to the “circular city model” [8,9,10,11,12]. This model embodies an urban economy that emphasizes circularization in production and consumption. It focuses on strategies that aim to alleviate the strain on finite natural resources, reducing their consumption while promoting sustainable practices [8,9,10,11,12]. In this perspective, the awareness of the link between cultural heritage and sustainable development has become increasingly evident, leading to a greater focus on the Adaptive Reuse (AR) of cultural assets as a conscious process of creating new values [13]. This trend has prompted a reflection on urban planning practices and the promotion of AR and valorization policies for heritage, which can contribute to environmental sustainability, social cohesion, and cultural identity, thereby providing fertile ground for innovation and local economic development. However, decisions regarding AD interventions pose significant complexity due to the multiple interests at stake, as well as the high costs that discourage investments [14,15].
2. Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Historical Landscape
The scarcity of resources, rapid urbanization, and climate change pose threats to ecosystems and human well-being [1,2]. To address these challenges, sustainable development [3] and the transition to a CE are considered crucial [4,5]. A CE involves production and consumption processes that minimize environmental impacts and waste generation, extending the lifespan of products and materials while reducing consumption and waste [6]. The built environment, which consumes a significant amount of resources and produces carbon dioxide emissions, is a key sector to focus on [4,8].
Cultural heritage, a driving force for sustainable development and urban livability, consists of non-renewable resources that express the values, knowledge, and traditions of people [17,18]. The management of cultural heritage has evolved to be understood as “change management”, involving a variety of stakeholders and disciplines [19,20,21,22,23]. The Adaptive Reuse (AR) of cultural heritage, which preserves the heritage by providing a new function to the site/building, extends the life cycle of the heritage and can implement circular models in its management [13,24,25,26,27,28,29]. This approach contributes to achieving sustainable development and circular cities [8,9,10,11,12,13,29,30].
AR, a central element of the CE concept which is in line with sustainable architecture [28], has emerged as a rapidly growing practice that promotes the three pillars of sustainability [21]. In fact, it offers numerous social, environmental, and economic benefits.
From a social perspective, the process of conserving and adaptively reusing built heritage requires widespread awareness of its material and immaterial values [21,27,29] within society. Governments, tourism businesses, cultural associations, and individuals must be actively involved in this process, and informative campaigns can increase the social awareness necessary for a transition towards a CE model [31,32].
The restoration of cultural and historical heritage (such as ancient buildings, historic villages, industrial complexes, etc.) is not only a crucial model for envisioning tourism development within a circular economic framework, but it also holds significant value for the local community. It becomes a source of pride that effectively protects the heritage. As a result, the local community benefits from an improved living environment, the quality of life in a particular area is enhanced, and regional development is facilitated. Furthermore, Foster and Saleh (2021) [34] state that “culture and buildings of cultural heritage are established drivers of socioeconomic development, urban landscape, and identity strategies”. In this regard, positive mutual cooperation and communication among stakeholders involved in restoration are necessary, as development objectives can only be achieved through the engagement and cooperation of all stakeholders. The recovery of cultural and historical heritage, including ancient buildings, historic villages, and industrial complexes, is not only a crucial model for tourism development but also holds value for the local community. The community itself protects the heritage it takes pride in, resulting in an improved living environment and a better quality of life in the surrounding area, thereby promoting regional development. According to Foster and Saleh (2021) [34], “culture and cultural heritage are established drivers of socioeconomic development, urban landscape, and identity strategies”. In this perspective, mutual cooperation and positive communication among stakeholders involved in restoration are necessary, as development objectives can only be achieved through the engagement and cooperation of all stakeholders.
Regarding environmental sustainability, reuse primarily results in lower consumption of energy and new materials, thus reducing emissions and land sealing [35,36,37]. Finally, from an economic perspective, two main advantages are evident: the cost-effectiveness of reuse compared to the demolition and construction of a new building [38,39,40,41,42], and the positive impact it has on the property value of the building itself and surrounding properties, generating social and economic flows [43]. The development of heritage tourism involves not only identifying, managing, and protecting the value of the heritage itself but also engaging local communities through economic and social benefits, ensuring the security of financial resources and promoting the marketing and promotion of the tourism destination [44]. Heritage tourism contributes to the economic sustainability of the tourism sector by increasing visitor numbers and the income generated by tourists as well as stimulating positive effects across various sectors and creating employment opportunities.
New or underutilized existing buildings, if kept efficient, can be reused for over a century, adapted, and reconfigured for new purposes and functions, contributing to the development of a prosperous and resilient built environment. Therefore, the importance of the AR approach for economic growth, social well-being, and environmental conservation is widely recognized. The reuse of underutilized or abandoned heritage provides new opportunities for these assets, decoupling growth from resource consumption [45,46].
Similar to new buildings, AR projects have a lifecycle consisting of various stages, including planning, design, construction, management, and maintenance [13,38,45,46]. These projects involve different public and private stakeholders. Therefore, a standardized methodology is necessary that considers all perspectives and helps “speak the same language” [47]. Scientific studies demonstrate that assessment tools such as sustainability protocols are relevant for this analysis, considering the importance of responsible approaches in the built environment to develop sustainability assessment tools [6,17,19,21,24,25,27,28,38,42,45,48].
In questo contesto, la ricerca nel campo delle valutazioni decisionali ha sempre più evidenziato l’importanza di adottare e promuovere pratiche responsabili che considerino attentamente le implicazioni del riutilizzo del patrimonio culturale. La sfida cruciale sta nel trovare metodologie di valutazione adeguate che garantiscano fattibilità e sostenibilità preservando l’integrità del patrimonio [ 49 , 50 , 51 ] senza comprometterne l’autenticità e il valore e consentendo anche una gestione efficace e consapevole. Raggiungere un adeguato equilibrio tra sviluppo e conservazione è una sfida complessa, soprattutto in un Paese come l’Italia, che è caratterizzato dalla più alta densità e distribuzione del patrimonio culturale al mondo.
In questa prospettiva diventa fondamentale promuovere una cultura della valutazione che consideri attentamente tutti gli aspetti, anche quelli finanziari, ponendo particolare attenzione alla conservazione. Il patrimonio culturale è un bene prezioso che deve essere salvaguardato per le generazioni future, e ciò richiede un approccio responsabile e consapevole delle implicazioni delle decisioni prese.
C’è una crescente necessità di strumenti e metodologie in grado di valutare l’impatto finanziario del riutilizzo nelle fasi preliminari, considerando anche l’importanza di preservare l’integrità storica e culturale del patrimonio. Questo delicato equilibrio richiede un impegno continuo per migliorare le pratiche di valutazione e promuovere la consapevolezza dell’importanza di un approccio responsabile al patrimonio culturale.
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151512019
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!