on the Construction Aspects of the Heritage Protection
Cavtat, Croatia, 14 – 17 October 2006
Valorization of cultural heritage in sustainable development of the Dubrovnik region
Model analysis of features restricting the use of region components
M.Sc.Krunoslav Šmit; architect
University of Zagreb - Faculty of Architecture, Zagreb, Croatia
Key words:Dubrovnik; Urban region; Sustainable development; Structural-functional model; Valorization, Cultural heritage
Abstract:INTRODUCTION - Research into the Dubrovnik region was prompted by problems of development and preservation of cultural heritage of the urban region. The coastal area of the Dubrovnik urban region is characterized by intensive construction works and population growth, whereas the hinterland faces stagnation in the development and population decrease. To ensure the preservation of cultural heritage, development of the region is planned in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. However, compatibility of the region’s development with the principles of sustainable development has not been valorized yet. GOAL - The research goal is to valorize features of sustainable development and show the role of cultural heritage in the development of the Dubrovnik urban region. METHODS - 1. Design of the region’s structural-functional model to show its structural and functional features. 2. Valorization of how compatible the region’s organization is with an ideally organized region, i.e. region organized in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. 3. Valorization of how compatible the researched region is with comparable regions from the nearby environment. 4. Valorization of features of sustainable development of the region. RESULTS - Research results show evaluation of the structural and functional organization of the Dubrovnik urban region – Croatia and comparable regions: Ibiza – Spain, Cannes – France, San Remo - Italy and Rhodes – Greece.CONCLUSIONS - Organization of the Dubrovnik urban region, unlike the four Mediterranean regions, is characterized by restricted maximum use of the space conditioned by elements of cultural heritage.
1. INTRODUCTION
Dubrovnik is the urban center of the southeastern most region of Croatia, the region lying on the Adriatic coast between the delta of the river Neretva and the Prevlaka peninsula.
Research into the Dubrovnik urban region was prompted by the region’s development problems and preservation of its cultural heritage. Its coastal area is characterized by intensive construction and population growth, whereas the hinterland faces stagnation in the development and population decrease.
Preservation of the region’s cultural heritage is ensured through the development planning compatible with the principles of sustainability. This has been built into the legal norms regulating spatial and urban plans.[1]
Sustainable development principles have been laid out in the strategic document of the United Nations called Agenda 21[2] In this declaration a series of coordinated activities has been proposed to make development economically, socially and ecologically sustainable. Sustainable development, as promoted in Agenda 21, is based on the coordination between economic growth on the one side and use of eco systems and resources on the other. The attempt is being made to adjust the people’s standard of living to the natural environment capacities without exhausting natural resources – their quality and level of usability remain unaltered for future generations.[3]
Agenda 21 defined principles of sustainable development: environment, future, quality of life, fairness, preparedness and comprehensive thinking.
However, in the Dubrovnik urban region cultural heritage use compatibility with the principles of sustainable development has not yet been valorized.
2. HYPOTHESIS AND GOAL
Sustainable development features and the role of cultural heritage in the development of the Dubrovnik urban region were assessed by proposing two hypotheses. Research goals were achieved by confirming the two hypotheses.
HYPOTHESIS 1 – By developing a structural-functional model it is possible to show and valorize the organization of the Dubrovnik urban region. GOAL 1 – To develop and assess a structural-functional model of the Dubrovnik urban region organization.
HYPOTHESIS 2 – It is possible to develop a valorization method that would show the role of cultural heritage in the sustainable development of the region.GOAL 2 – To establish the role of cultural heritage in restricting intensive usage of the region components by applying this method.
3. METHOD
Two methods have been developed and applied: 1. Method for developing a structural-functional model of the region organization, and 2. Method for valorization of features of the region organization.
3.1 Method for developing a structural-functional model of the region organization
The method for developing a structural-functional model of the region organization consists of: development of the structural, and development of the functional organization.
a) Development of the structural model of organization
The organizational model of an urban region has the following structural components: construction, infrastructure, landscape, tourism and industry. For the purpose of developing a model, data from cartographic and other sources are collected. Components of the region are identified from these sources and built into the model. Results are presented in the form of separate thematic maps of individual components or maps of all components integrally.
b) Development of the functional organizational model
In the process of developing the structural model the first step is identification of functional components of a region. Next, groups of components are identified, followed by linear groups of components and lastly by spatial units. Results of the functional model are also presented in the form of thematic maps with integral or individual functional components.
3.2 Method for the valorization of the regiona organization features
Valorization method of the features of urban region organization comprises: absolute valorization, relative valorization, and assessment of the structural-functional organization.
a) Absolute valorization
Absolute valorization of the structural-functional model comprises development of a model of sustainable development factors and absolute valorization of features including assessment of urban region organization.
Development of a model of sustainable development factors begins with an analysis of two groups of indicators. The first group is comprised of indicators which restrict the use of region components. These include indicators of restricted use of construction, infrastructure, landscape and industry. The second group is comprised of indicators of sustainability of the region’s organization. These include indicators of integral functional system, decentralization, common development direction and local development.
Indicators are analyzed within groups of indicators and within regional spatial units. Features of these indicators are incorporated into the model of sustainable development factors. They are presented in the form of thematic maps highlighting either individual factors or showing all factors. Results are, furthermore, systematized in the form of tables. Tables with a numeric presentation of the region organization features compatible with the principles of sustainable development are constructed.
Absolute valorization assesses deviations from the ideal region – a region organized according to the principles of sustainable development. The coefficient used for valorization is A-KOOR. This coefficient is calculated individually and overall for all factors: construction, infrastructure, landscape, industry, integral functional system, decentralization, common development direction, local development and urban region. A-KOOR takes the form of a decimal number ranging between 0 do 1.
b) Relative valorization
Relative valorization of a structural-functional model is comprised of the development of a model of sustainable development factors, calculation of an A-KOOR coefficient and relative valorization of features including assessment of the region organization.
Relative valorization assesses deviations of the researched region from the real region. A real region is made of a representative sample of comparable regions. The regions sample is chosen by comparability criteria – immediate, local and global environment. For all regions comprising the sample organization model and model of sustainable development factors are developed and an A-KOOR coefficent calculated.
Values are systematically presented in tables and the mean value is calculated. The mean value represents the A-KOOR of the real region.
A-KOOR of the researched and the real region is then analysed, resulting in R-KOOR.
R-KOOR takes the form of a decimal number between -1 and 1.
c) Assessment of the structural-functional organization
Assessment of features of the structural-functional organization of an urban region comprises absolute and relative assessment.
Absolute valorization results in an A-KOOR coefficient, whereas relative valorization gives an R-KOOR coefficient.
A-KOOR and R-KOOR values are then entered into a table and the final result is KOOR. KOOR = A-KOOR (R-KOOR)
4. RESULT (e.g. Fig. 1-2)
Research results show features and assessment of the structural-functional organization of the Dubrovnik urban region (Croatia) (town: 50,000 inhabitants / region: 130,000 inhabitants).
Representative sample of comparable regions comprises the following urban regions: Ibiza - Spain (island: 100,000 inhabitants), Cannes – France (town: 70,000 inhabitants), San Remo - Italy (town: 50,000 inhabitants) and Rhodes - Greece (town: 40,000 inhabitants/island: 160,000 inhabitants).
a) Assessment of restricted usage of components of the Dubrovnik urban region
KOOR of construction: 0.5(0)
KOOR of infrastructure: 0.3(-0.1)
KOOR of landscape: 0.1(-0.1)
KOOR of industry: 0(-0.1)
b) Assessment of the Dubrovnik urban region system sustainability
KOOR of the integral functional system: 0.8(+0.3)
KOOR of decentralization: 0(-0.4)
KOOR of common development direction: 0(-0.5)
KOOR of local development: 0(-0.1)
c) Assessment of the structural-functional organization of the Dubrovnik urban region
KOOR of Dubrovnik: 0.2(-0.1)
5. ANALYSIS
5.1 The relationship between cultural heritage and tourism components
The research subject is cultural heritage which, in the development of a region, falls under the category of active tourism offer.
These cultural heritage items are built into the region model as structural-functional components of tourism.
They are presented in the form of individual destinations, tourist routes and areas with tourism offer. They are detected in guide books. Tourism offer which is not advertised does not represent the real situation, rather a desired one.
Therefore, the role of cultural heritage is examined indirectly, via tourism.
5.2The relationship between restricted usage and system sustainability
Figure 1:Structural-functional organization of the Dubrovnik urban region
Two types of indicators of sustainable development are used in the structural-functional region model. The first type comprises indicators of restricted usage, the second indicators of system sustainability.
Sustainable development can be achieved by preserving current features of the region and restricing their usage. The region model is therefore analyzed for the occurrence of elements responsible for restricted usage of construction, infrastructure, landscape and industry.
Sustainable development can also be achieved through a system in which sustainable relationships are achieved between geographical units of the region. The model is analyzed for the following system sustainability features: integral functional system, decentralization, common development direction and local development.
In this research a particular focus was given to an analysis of the role of cultural heritage in restricting the use of region components.
5.3 The role of cultural heritage in forming groupings
Cultural heritage has a role in preventing intensive usage of region components. The maximum level of intensive usage depends on the possibilities of protecting cultural heritage from being devastated.
Cultural heritage is an indicator of restricted usage of components in groupings.
Tourism industry constitutes 40% of the region’s components, 16% more than in comparable regions.
Groupings with tourism constitute 30% of all groupings, or 21% less than in comparable regions.
Tourism affects two times as many components of the region, however, in comparable regions it’s 7 times.
5.4 The role of cultural heritage in restricting the use of construction
Cultural heritage in the grouping with construction components restricts the possibility of their intensive usage.
Figure 2:Features of factors of sustainable development of the Dubrovnik urban region
Tourism industry constitutes 70% of construction components, 33% more than in comparable regions.
Groupings with tourism constitute 30% of groupings with construction components, or 19% less than in comparable regions.
Tourism affects 70% of construction components whereas in comparable regions it’s 140%.
5.5 The role of cultural heritage in restricting the use of infrastructure
Cultural heritage in the grouping with infrastructure components restricts the possibility of their intensive usage.
Tourism industry constitutes 43% of infrastructure components, 27% more than in comparable regions.
Groupings with tourism constitute 43% of groupings with infrastructure components, or 20% less than in comparable regions.
Tourism affects 20% of infrastructure components whereas in comparable regions it’s 130%.
5.6 The role of cultural heritage in restricting the use of landscape
Cultural heritage in the grouping with landscape components restricts the possibility of their intensive usage.
Tourism industry constitutes 167% of landscape components, 137% more than in comparable regions.
Groupings with tourism constitute 450% of groupings with landscape components, or 395% more than in comparable regions.
Tourism does not affect landscape components unlike in comparable regions where it affects 80% of them.
5.7 The role of cultural heritage in restricting the use of industry
Cultural heritage in the grouping with industry components restricts the possibility of their intensive usage.
Industry components have not been identified in the region. In comparable regions, tourism makes 198% of industry components.
In comparable regions groupings with tourism make 80% of groupings with industry components.
In comparable regions tourism affects 115% industry components.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 Conclusion 1
Hypotesis 1 is correct – By developing a structural-functional model it is possible to show and valorize the organization of the Dubrovnik urban region.
Goal 1 has been accomplished – A structural-functional model of the organization of the Dubrovnik urban region has been developed, as well as of Ibiza, Cannes, San Remo and Rhodes.
a)If sustainable development is to be achieved, as has been achieved in the comparable regions, the following steps must be taken:
- restrictions pertaining to construction, infrastructure, landscape and industry must be maintained,
- features of integral functional system must be reduced,
- features of decentralization and common development direction must be increased, and
- current features of local development must be maintained at the same level,
- compatibility of the region’s features with sustainable development must be reduced by 10%.
6.2 Conclusion 2
Hypotesis 2 is correct – It is possible to develop a valorization method that would show the role of cultural heritage in the region’s sustainable development.
Goal 2 has been accomplished – The role of cultural heritage in restricting intensive usage of the region components has been established by applying this method.
b)Tourism components were analyzed as indicators of the role of cultural heritage in the region model.
c)Tourism components were analyzed also as indicators of sustainable development features.
d)If sustainable development is to be achieved, the following steps must be taken:
- the number of components of active cultural heritage must be reduced,
- the number of groupings with active cultural heritage must be increased,
- influence of active cultural heritage on region components in their surrounding must be increased.
e)Dubrovnik cultural heritage, as opposed to the comparable regions, has two times smaller influence on construction. Cultural heritage and places make less of common groupings and therefore their mutual influence is also smaller. In the Dubrovnik region there are a smaller number of places than in comparable regions.
f)Dubrovnik cultural heritage, as opposed to the comparable regions, has six times smaller influence on infrastructure. Cultural heritage and infrastructure make less of common groupings and therefore their mutual influence is also smaller. In the Dubrovnik region there are less infrastructural corridors.
g)Dubrovnik cultural heritage did not establish a relationship with landscape because the two do not make any common groupings. In comparable regions, components of cultural heritage and landscape are roughly equally active. In the Dubrovnik region landscape components are not tourism active. From the tourism point of view, landscape is valorized as an integral space without emphasizing smaller units of distinct identity. The landscape of Konavle, Snježnica, Prevlaka and Elafiti islands is not known as separate tourism product. In comparable regions, landscape units with such features are an integral part of tourism offer.
h)Dubrovnik cultural heritage did not establish a relationship with industry for industrial zones have not been identified in the region. Industrial zones of the Dubrovnik region were not built into the model since their role in the region’s development is insignificant. In comparable regions, industrial zones of such importance were identified and built into the model. In comparable regions, cultural heritage affects there to be a roughly equal number of industry components.
REFERENCES
[1] Curwell, S.; Deakin, M.; Symes, M. 2006., Sustainable Urban Development, Volume 1: Framework and Protocols for Environmental Assessment, Routledge, London
[2] Leitmann, J. (1999.), Sustaining cities – Environmental planning and management in urban design, McGraw-Hill, New York
[3] Oliver, J. (2002.), Croatia, Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd, Melbourne
[4] Simonis, D; Garwood, D.; Hardy, P.; Leviton, A.; Quintero, J.; Roddis, M.; Watkins, R. (2006.), Italy, Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd, Melbourne
[5] Simonis, D; Andrews, S.; Ham A.; Forsyth, S; Noble, J.; Roddis, M; Scklechter, D. 2005., Spain, Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd, Melbourne
[6] Šmit, K. 2006., Strukturalna i funkcionalna transformacija osječke regije – disertacija u izradi, Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Arhitektonski fakultet, Poslijediplomski znanstveni studij, Prostorno planiranje, urbanizam i parkovna arhitektura, Zagreb
[7] Šmit, K. 2002., Urbanistička obilježja širenja Osijeka od 18. do kraja 20. stoljeća – magistarski rad, Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Arhitektonski fakultet, Poslijediplomski znanstveni studij, Prostorno planiranje, urbanizam i parkovna arhitektura, Zagreb
[8] Willet, D.; Bain. C; Clark M.; Hannigan D.; Hellander P.; Oliver, J. 2004., Greek Islands, Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd, Melbourne
[9] Williams, N.; Fallon, S.; Roddis, M; Robinson, D.; Knight, J.; Berry, O.; Stone, A.; Hart, A. 2006., France, Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd, Melbourne
[10] ***1998.a, Zakon o prostornom uređenju; Narodne novine 30/94 i 68/98, Zagreb