The Integrated Evaluation as a Driving Tool for Cultural-Heritage Enhancement Strategies

  • Lucia Della SpinaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


The paper shows the setting up of an integrated evaluation process to identify a sustainable enhancement strategy for a particularly significant territory in southern Italy that expresses the concept of Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) proposed by the UNESCO. The evaluation process is flexible to adapt to the specificity of complex contexts, to enable interaction with heterogeneous knowledge and to capture local values associated with the particular dimensions of a multi-scalar system. The evaluation is defined as a multidimensional, dynamic, incremental and cyclical learning process, which combines evaluation techniques integrated with public-participation techniques in order to delineate shared and transparent intervention strategies. Through a shared observation process of the context have been identified the values and resources, the key stakeholder categories and their preferences. Selecting context-aware actions enables us to reduce the conflicts by transforming them into synergies, recognizing as essential the components of a constantly evolving, multidimensional and complex landscape in which various systems of values and relationships interact. A ‘tailor-made’ multi-methodological approach that is enables the combination of the approaches of the Soft-System Methodology, Multi-Criteria Analysis and Multi-Group Analysis with the purpose of identifying the components of the perceived scenario and developing a strategic map able to put in network a system of micro actions, material and immaterial, sensitive to context specificities.


Cultural heritage Cultural development policies Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) Adaptive decision making process Multicriteria-multi-group analysis Stakeholder analysis 


  1. Ackoff, R. L. (2010). Systems thinking for curious managers. Gillingham: Triarchy Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bánáthy, B. H. (2000). Guided evolution of society: A systems view (contemporary systems thinking). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calabrò, F., Della Spina, L., & Sturiale L. (2013). Cultural planning: A model of governance of the landscape and cultural resources in development strategies in rural contexts. In Proceedings of the XVII—IPSAPA Interdisciplinary Scientific Conference (Vol. 5, pp. 177–188). Lettonia: Rezekne Higher Educ Inst-Rezeknes Augstskola.Google Scholar
  4. Calabrò, F., & Della Spina, L. (2014). Innovative tools for the effectiveness and efficiency of administrative action of the metropolitan cities: The strategic operational programme. In Advanced engineering forum (Vol. 11, pp 3–10). Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calabrò F., Della Spina, L., & Tramontana, C. (2015). Il mosaico paesistico-culturale: la dieta mediterranea per il rinascimento di un’area interna della Calabria. In 29th International Interdisciplinary Conference. The Turning Point of the Landscape-cultural Mosaic: Renaissance Revelation Resilience. Napoli, Italy.Google Scholar
  6. Calabrò, F. (2017). Local Communities and management of cultural heritage of the inner areas. An application of break-even analysis. In O. Gervasi et al. (Eds.), Computational science and its applications—ICCSA 2017. ICCSA 2017. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 10406). Springer, Cham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Checkland, P. (1981). System thinking, system practice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Concilio, G. (2010). Bricolaging knowledge and practices in spatial strategy-making. In M. Cerreta, G. Concilio & V. Monno (Eds.), Making strategies in spatial planning. Knowledge and values (pp. 281–303). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Della Spina, L., & Calabrò, F. (2008). La valutazione a supporto della fattibilità dei programmi di sviluppo urbano sostenibile, LaborEst (Vol. 1, pp. 5–10). Reggio Calabria: Laruffa editore.Google Scholar
  11. Della Spina, L., Scrivo, R., Ventura, C., & Viglianisi, A. (2015). Urban renewal: Negotiation procedures and evaluation models. In Computational Science and Its Applications—ICCSA 2015—15th International Conference, Banff, AB, Canada, June 22–25, 2015, Proceedings, Part III  (Vol. 9157, pp. 88–103). Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Della Spina, L., Ventura, C., & Viglianisi A. (2016). A multicriteria assessment model for selecting strategic projects in urban areas. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (Vol. 9788, pp. 414–427). Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S. O., Lo Cascio, S., & Munda, G. (2000). Combining participative and institutional approaches with multi-criteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issue in Troina, Sicily. Ecological Economics, 34(2), 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eden, C., & Simpson, P. (1989). SODA and cognitive mapping in practice. In J. Rosenhead (Ed.), Rational analysis for a problematic world (pp. 43–70). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Funtowicz, S. O., Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., & Ravetz, J. (2002). Multicriteria-based environmental policy. In H. Abaza & A. Baranzini (Eds.), Implementing sustainable development (pp. 53–77). Cheltenham: UNEP/Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  16. Fusco Girard, L. (2010). Creative evaluations for a human sustainable planning. In Making strategies in spatial planning (pp. 305–327). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. Fusco Girard, L. (2012). Per uno sviluppo umano sostenibile nel Mezzogiorno: Come gestire la transizione verso una nuova base economica urbana. In AA.VV., Nord e Sud a 150 anni dall’Unità d’Italia (pp. 759–779). Roma: Svimez.Google Scholar
  18. Gupta, K., Sleezer, C. M., & Russ-Eft, D. F. (2007). A practical guide to needs assessment. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, M. (2003). Systems thinking: Creating holisms for managers. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., & Voogd, H. (1990). Multicriteria evaluation in physical planning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  21. Nijkamp, P., & Fusco Girard, L. (1997). Le valutazioni per lo sviluppo sostenibile della città e del territorio. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  22. Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (2001). Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Roy, B. (1985). Méthodologie multicritère d’aide à la décision. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  24. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process, planning, piority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Saaty, T. A., & Vargas, L. G. (2006). Decision making with the analytic process. New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. UNESCO. (2011). Recommendation on the historic urban landscape. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.Google Scholar
  28. Wittwer, J. W. (2009). Fishbone diagram/cause and effect diagram. In Excel, from Accessed at 27 June 2016.
  29. Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mediterranea University of Reggio CalabriaReggio CalabriaItaly

Personalised recommendations