Final Report Summary - HERITAGE PLUS (ERA-NET Plus on Cultural Heritage and Global Change Research)
Executive Summary:
Europe’s cultural heritage is the world’s most diverse and rich patrimony attracting millions of visitors every year to monuments, historical city centres, archaeological sites and museums.
Moreover, heritage is an important component of individual and collective identity. In both its tangible, intangible and digital forms, it contributes to the cohesion of the European Union and plays a fundamental role in European integration by creating relations among citizens.
European cultural heritage is of exceptional economic importance for the tourism industry, generating an estimated annual revenue of EUR 335 billion, and many of the 9 million jobs in the tourism sector are linked to it directly or indirectly. The market for conservation of this heritage is estimated at some EUR 5 billion per year2. Moreover, in an urban context cultural heritage is proven to be an important asset to attract high educated and high income residents. It’s an important localising factor for international companies and a determinant of the development of creative and other industries.
Apart from natural ageing, Europe’s cultural heritage is exposed to many threats such as climate change and pollution, increasing urbanisation, mass tourism, human negligence, vandalism and even terrorism. It is a fragile and non-renewable resource, much of which has been irretrievably lost over the last century. Protection of cultural heritage in the face of global change is thus becoming a major challenge for decision-makers, stakeholders and citizens in Europe. Research into strategies, methodologies and tools is needed to safeguard cultural heritage against continuous decay. Before irreversible damage is done, concerted actions, based on sound science, are needed to protect, strengthen and adapt Europe's unique cultural patrimony.
The world will continue to change rapidly due to a number of systemic causes, due to globalisation, the inversion of private/public life driven by technology and man-made environmental change. European living is urban living, but even this is not immune to change. The rise of populism is a clear indicator that European citizens are bewildered by the pace of change. Cultural heritage is a rock in a storm; it is a touchstone, a reference point for many - though not for everyone.
The importance of cultural heritage is reflected in its prominence as a major focus area in many national programmes and strategic activities. HERITAGE PLUS proposed to improve the coordination of national research activities and policies in the domain of Cultural Heritage Research, while also reducing the fragmentation of research efforts at national.
The main objective of the HERITAGE PLUS project was to pool the necessary financial resources from the participating national programmes and the European Community and to launch a single Joint Call for Proposals (HERITAGE PLUS Call) for research projects in the cultural heritage field that were been evaluated and managed jointly by the participating programmes. This collaborative approach provided a better use of public resources, while the European Community contribution to the Joint Call budget stressed the high interest generated by this common action.
This HERITAGE PLUS Joint Call designed to fund transnational, interdisciplinary, innovative R&D projects focussed mainly on tangible cultural heritage research, while not excluding interlinked aspects of intangible and digital heritage. An important outcome of the HERITAGE PLUS Call was the shortening of the time-to-market of scientific outcomes and the narrowing the gap between research and stakeholders.
The thematic focus areas of the Joint Call were based on the JPI Cultural Heritage strategic national priorities of the participating programme owners.
In particular the HERITAGE PLUS project was fully in line with the JPI Cultural Heritage as part of the implementation of the SRA and of the Action Programme. Consequently the HERITAGE PLUS joint call focused in topics on tangible cultural heritage research, while not excluding interlinked aspects of digital and intangible heritage following the interdisciplinary approach basic criteria on which the Strategic Research Agenda devolved within JPI CH.
Project Context and Objectives:
Europe’s Cultural Heritage is the world’s most diverse and richest patrimony, attracting millions of visitors every year to monuments, historic city centres, archaeological sites and museums.
Moreover, this heritage is an important component of individual and collective identity. In both its tangible and intangible forms, it contributes to the cohesion of the European Union and plays a fundamental role in European integration by creating relations among citizens.
Natural aging apart, Europe’s Cultural Heritage is exposed to many threats such as climate change and pollution, increasing urbanization, mass tourism, human negligence, vandalism, and even terrorism. It is a fragile and non-renewable resource, much of which has been irretrievably lost over the last century.
Protection of Cultural Heritage with respect to global change is thus becoming a major concern for decision-makers, stakeholders and citizens in Europe. Research into strategies, methodologies and tools is needed to safeguard Cultural Heritage against continuous decay. Before irreversible damage is done, concerted actions, based on sound science, are needed to protect, strengthen and adapt to Europe's unique cultural patrimony.
In fact, coordination is required to overcome the fragmentation of initiatives deriving by diverse and sometimes potentially conflicting approaches (research – administration – management – exploitation), by the multiplicity and geographical dispersion of bodies and institutions involved with or in charge of Cultural Heritage, and by the different local environmental, social and economic conditions. If there is a field in which joint action is required, this is Cultural Heritage, for its global value in human history and identity.
The 2010 Commission Recommendation on the research joint programming initiative "Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new challenge for Europe" encourages the Member States and associated countries to "develop a common vision on how cooperation and coordination in the field of research at Union level can help to preserve Cultural Heritage in all its forms, ensuring its security and sustainable exploitation", "to develop a common strategic research agenda", " an implementation plan establishing priorities and timelines and specifying the action, instruments and resources required for its implementation" and " to set up a common management structure".
With this HERITAGE PLUS Project, research has been able to reinforce this unique and fundamental role and create a pan European cultural heritage research sector from this fragmented field.
The main objective of the HERITAGE PLUS was to pool the necessary financial resources from the participating national programmes and the European Community and to launch a single Joint Call for Proposals (HERITAGE PLUS Call) for research projects in the cultural heritage field that was evaluated and managed jointly by the participating programmes. The European added value of transnational cooperation was realized through research partnerships involving academic and industry groups typically from 3 to 5 countries.
The thematic focus areas of the Joint Call are based on the strategic national priorities of the participating programme owners. The main objectives were:
- Safeguarding the cultural heritage resource (Protection)
- Creating knowledge (Interpretation)
- Developing a reflecting society (Recognition),
- Connecting people with heritage (Access)
HERITAGE PLUS was structured in four Work Packages: coordination and management, Preparation of the Joint Call, implementation of the call and Project monitoring and impact assessment. An adequate management structure has implemented, with associated activities to both disseminate the objectives and initial achievements, and provide an evaluation framework for addressing its impact.
Besides the normal national reporting, the Project Coordinators of the funded projects were requested to submit an annual HERITAGE PLUS report to assure a function of control and to ensure that the projects were running to schedule.
The consortium evaluated the impact of HERITAGE PLUS towards its two goals of implementing the JPI Cultural Heritage (e.g. coherent articulation between HERITAGE PLUS and JPI CH SRA and Action Programme) and the contribution to the integration of the research community fostering collaboration beyond the current programme.
At the end of the process, the impact of the HERITAGE Plus action on the alignment of national programmes were analyzed.
During the life of the HERITAGE PLUS project, a long-lasting co-operation and integration with European and not European Ministries and research institutions have been achieved, at the same time creating links with the main international organization on Cultural Heritage.
The HERITAGE PLUS call expected a two-steps submission and evaluation process: Step 1 for Pre-Proposals and Step 2 for Full Proposals, which will be evaluated by external experts and a final ranking list will be determined by an independent panel.
The first step of the Heritage Plus Call was launched on the 3rd March 2014, with the deadline for the submission of the pre-proposal on the 28th April. A first eligibility check was effectuated between April, the 30th, and May, the 26th 2014, based on National Eligibility Criteria as reported in the call Guidelines. After evaluation of the remaining eligible pre-proposals, the Heritage Plus Management Group invited applicants from 61 pre-proposals to submit full-proposal to the second step by October the 22nd
54 full proposals were finally submitted and evaluated by an International Peer Review Panel (IPRP) composed of 10 experts. The final ranking list was then presented to the Heritage Plus Management Group in Rome, the 18th and 19th March 2015, in order to be definitively approved. 16 projects were finally financed by the Management Group.
During the first step of Heritage Plus, considerable interest was shown to the Call, with 352 pre-proposals received.
This number demonstrated the important impact of the Call dissemination to the research an academic communities in Europe, representing approximately a total of 1409 institutions, research organizations, laboratories, universities and other actors involved in Heritage Plus pre-proposals. The Project leaders of these proposals were coming, for a vast majority (76%) of them, from 5 countries: Italy, United Kingdom, Portugal, France and Spain, of which an overwhelming majority coming from Italy (48%).
The main information regarding the number of Participating Countries, Eligible Partners, Call process, Time schedule, Call budget and Funding schema are summarized in the Table below.
Call JPI CULTURAL HERITAGE SECOND CALL (HERITAGE PLUS)
Topics Research topics:
- Safeguarding tangible cultural heritage and its associated intangible expressions
- Sustainable strategies for protecting and managing cultural heritage
- Use and re-use of all kinds of cultural heritage
Eligible applicants Universities, Research organizations, Enterprises
Minimum of 3 Partners from 3 Countries
Countries involved 15 Countries:18 funding programme owners
Call Budget 6.6 M€ National Funding
3.1 M€ Maximum EC contribution (HERITAGE PLUS Project)
Total call budget: 9.7 M€
Funding schema Virtual common pot
National funding decisions according to the selection list
Proposals received Pre-proposal submitted Step 1: 352
Pre-proposal passed in Step 2 : 61
Final proposal submitted in Step 2: 54
Number of funded projects 16
HERITAGE PLUS has finally granted sixteen research projects in the field of tangible, intangible and digital cultural heritage with a unique joint transnational call. These research projects reporting were evaluated during their long life by the HERITAGE PLUS Consortium with the support of the JPI Cultural Heritage Scientific Committee and all the research projects had the opportunities to showed the results and the outcome in many dissemination actions.
The project has also contributed to reinforcing the dialog within the cultural heritage research community and with the policy community involved in the JPI on Cultural Heritage.
The sixteen-research projects granted are:
N. Acronym Full Title Countries involved (*)
1 CHANGES Changes in cultural Heritage Activities: New Goals and benefits for Economy and Society
Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden
2 CHT2 Cultural Heritage Through Time
Italy, UK, Spain, Poland
3 CHIME Cultural Heritage and Improvised Music in European Festivals UK, Sweden, The Netherlands
4 CLIMA Cultural Landscape risk Identification, Management and Assessment
Italy, UK, Cyprus, Denmark
5 CMOP Cleaning Modern Oil Paints
Netherlands,UK, Italy
6 ENDOW Enhancing access to 20th Century cultural heritage through Distributed Orphan UK, Scotland, Netherlands, Italy
7 EURO-MAGIC A Million Pictures: Magic Lantern Slide Heritage as Artefacts in the Common European History of Learning The Netherlands, UK, Belgium, Spain
8 EUWATHER Rivers and Canals as Cultural Landscapes
Italy, UK, The Netherlands, Spain
9 HeAT Heritage and Threat
Denmark, Romania, Poland, Italy
10 HIMANIS HIstorical MANuscript Indexing for user-controlled Search France, Spain, Netherlands
11 HERITAMUS (In)Tangible: a research on the relationship between tangible and intangible heritage Portugal, Spain, France
12 HEURIGHT14 The Right to Cultural Heritage – Its Protection and Enforcement through Cooperation in the European Union Poland, UK, Italy
13 GASTROCERT Gastronomy and Creative Entrepreneurship in Rural Tourism Sweden, Italy, UK, Spain
14 PICH The impact of urban planning and governance reform on the historic built environment and intangible cultural heritage Netherlands, UK, Italy, Norway
15 PROTEGO PROTection of European Cultural HEritage from GeO - hazards
Italy, UK, Cyprus, Spain
16 REFIT Resituating Europe’s first towns: A case study in enhancing knowledge transfer and developing sustainable management of cultural UK, France, Spain
*The First country in Bold and italics is the Country Leader
Project Results:
As already said, the transnational Call for proposals selected a list of three topics, as priorities to be answered by the research projects and funded by the financial partners. These topics were driven from the JPI CH Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) and are the following:
1. Safeguarding tangible cultural heritage and its associated intangible expressions
2. Sustainable strategies for protecting and managing cultural heritage
3. Use and re-use of all kinds of cultural heritage
The final selection of research projects involved a total of 66 research partners from Heritage Plus countries. , 122 Associated Partners were associated with the transnational research proposals through letters of commitment, and sometimes, further financial commitments. The share of partners from the University / academic sector was really important, but in most of the cases, the difference between Universities and research institutions was contributionsubtle. 15 of the financed projects had a Project Leader originating from the academic sector.
If the repartition of Projects Leaders and Principal Investigators between the different sectors wasn't really homogeneous, this fact user-controlled by the very high diversity of Associated Partners, who included additional actors from NGOs, local and national authorities, libraries, archive services, archaeological sites, or were organizations and trusts.
For each of the call topic are below summarized the main outcomes produced by the projects funded.
Topic 1 Safeguarding tangible Cultural Heritage and its associated intangible expressions
This topic was rated number one by five projects (CHT2, CLIMA, CMOP, HEAT and PROTHEGO) and rated as being part of the three main priorities by the additional projects. This topic's scope, sufficiently broad, resulted in very diverse projects, whose contribution to the the can be organized in three main research orientations. The first possible orientation was to develop technologies and procedures for long-term monitoring and maintenance of all forms of heritage. This could include with heritage, as for the project CMOP, which investigated better conservation procedures for modern oil paintings, while considering the question of integrity and authenticity through the restoration works. This could also include the different historical and environmental contexts and historical layers of cultural heritage, for instance with the project CHT2, where researchers investigated how to combine these layers in a single model.
The second option was the investigation of changes in all forms of heritage, such as landscapes (HEAT, CHT2), sites (PROTHEGO), or structures and materials decay in a context of important environmental and global changes.
Then, several projects planed to develop decision support tools for havebetter maintenance of all forms of cultural heritage. As an example, tools for decision making based on integrated risk assessments organization by the projects PROTHEGO and CLIMA, for a better preservation and monitoring of cultural landscapes and archaeological sites.
Main outcomes
• A general multidisciplinary methodology for creating 4D models of heritage assets ranging from buildings, urban contexts or landscapes, integrating heterogeneous sources such as archival materials (multi-temporal aerial and terrestrial photographs, historical maps, ancient drawings and paintings, previous archaeological studies, etc.), and accessible through a 4D visualizer tool.
• 4D digital models of the four case-study heritage sites, implementing the methodology mentioned above, and allowing to share multi-temporal information on the web, for remote analyses of lost or damaged assets, for dissemination purposes and aiming to provide the stakeholders with a 4D method for managing their heritage sites, planning possible future interventions and visualising changes due to anthropic activities or intervention, pollution, wars, earthquakes or other natural hazards.
• Four concrete examples on how to develop active collaborations with local stakeholders allowing the realization of such models, with the contribution of nontechnical disciplines
• The development of an innovative tool for risks and threats to archaeological heritage management, through a multi-risk WebGIS Platform, combining advanced remote sensing technologies, both from satellites and from drones and ground-based, with GIS application, for mapping and long-term monitoring of the examined archaeological landscapes, providing periodic risk maps of the main anthropogenic and environmental threats affecting the archaeological sites.
• An easily transferable risk assessment methodology, resulting from an in-depth analysis of the main anthropogenic and environmental pressures affecting the archaeological sites, and of the potential of the most innovative remote sensing techniques, combining archaeological and geo-archaeological expertise related to knowledge and protection of archaeological cultural landscapes, combining experts of soil processes, land use and climate change and experts of Satellite and ground-based remote sensing.
• Raise dramatically the awareness on available new technologies for landscape and heritage managers, by combining and making available pre-existing knowledge and products owned by project's individual partners to individuals and organizations outside the immediate research community. Promotion of best practice and active involvement of local authorities, public and private end-users through workshops, meetings and roundtables.
• An inventory of degradation phenomena of modern oil paintings, significantly contributing to an online tool helping to inform degradation phenomena noted on painting surfaces. The database includes visual examples of various phenomena as well as explanations for their likely causes, forming together a substantial resource for further research.
• A model for the interpretation of the development of water sensitivity in modern oil paintings. New analytical procedures were developed to investigate these materials with high accuracy and sensitivity, and new analytical methodologies were employed to investigate the physical properties and behaviors of model paints.
• Valuable guidance, low-risk options for conservation treatment, enhanced tools and methodologies for conservators and collections care professionals, that are more appropriate for use on these paints. Three case study works of art by well-known international artists, and analytical investigations and cleaning tests performed on more than 50 other paintings, serving as useful examples of this newly developed approach, for conservators to take forward into studio practice.
• The creation of continuous professional development, student training courses and workshops for conservators. The project collaborated with postgraduate and undergraduate students and staff and research outcomes were shared in university courses, incorporated into workshops and meetings involving stakeholders from the paint manufacturer, heritage science, and most notably, conservation industries/professions. In addition, a short educational documentary film aimed at the general public reached over 30.000 people on social media.
• The identification and categorization of various threats to cultural heritage, and corresponding stakeholder positions: conflict, economic development, ignorance, and misunderstanding or conscious misuse etc. The multi-faceted approach, varied from theoretical and philosophical to empirical, through grass-roots involvement to interaction with stakeholders in armed conflict (Kurdistan).
• The publication of a taxonomy of threats, in spring 2019, following an open access symposium in November 2018 (Shanghai, China), and identifying types of threats to/from heritage and the nature of conflicts that can lead to destructive processes of cultural heritage. A working hypothesis was formulated in the form of a threat complex explaining the process of formation and implementation of threats.
• An online and GIS research tools for landscape and heritage management developed in collaboration with the Politecnico di Milano, Centro per la Conservazione e Valorizzazione dei Beni Culturali, completed with an extensive and open-access database for dams in the Middle East.
• A traveling exhibition, which traveled through entire Denmark, raising the debate on the impact of migration movement and refugees on the perception of heritage, and several other planned exhibitions, with historical pictures from Syria, feeding contemporary discussions about refugee movements, their impact on heritage and the role of heritage in a post-conflict Syria. For the general public a documentary was also produced, titled: Flooded Heritage. The Impact of Dams in the Near East;
• The production of the most complete database related to European geo-hazards available so far for any future analysis. This data collection was completed in collaboration with the European Geo Surveys, analyzing available European databases, in order to define their consistency and usability for project purposes. A final geo-hazards database was implemented specifically for the project, available on the project website web GIS (map viewer11) and an updated impact scenario in Europe of Natural Hazards vs Cultural Heritage was produced.
• The creation of digital factsheets for each UNESCO World Heritage List site within Europe, highlighting the information available and the potential susceptibility of the location to a selected number of geo-hazards, and easily downloadable in .pdf on the website. To that end, PROTHEGO analyzed datasets from the over 10 yearslong project from the European Space Agency (ESA) and the EU Terrafirma and PanGeo, along with other InSAR data derived products.
• A novel methodology to incorporate PS-InSAR data into continental-scale risk analysis of UNESCO World Heritage List (WHL) was developed and tested through the project.
• A network of public and private decision-makers and end-users involved in planning and management of cultural heritage sites was created, culminating in a final dissemination event “European World Heritage Sites affected by geo-hazards —satellite monitoring future challenges: the PROTHEGO project contribution” hosted at the UNESCO's headquarters in Paris in March 2018.
Topic 2 Sustainable strategies for protecting and managing Cultural Heritage
This topic was rated as first priority by a vast majority of Heritage Plus projects (7 projects; HEURIGHT14, CHANGES, EUWATHER, ENDOW, HERITAMUS, EUROMAGIC, REFIT). Two of these projects (EUWATHER and REFIT) focused on heritage landscapes, but also related sites, buildings and artifacts investigating the significance and the values they hold for individuals and communities, but also how these are influenced by global changes. Within the broader framework of this topic, they studied opportunities for production, recognition, revitalization and regeneration of these landscapes, including their translation into and connections with digital heritage.
Such opportunities were also studied for other specific forms of heritages, , the project HERITAMUS, with Fado and Flamenco, or the project budget: with the magic lantern. For all these projects, research activities were backboned by strong interactions and dialogue with heritage users and managers, studying how these interactions influence the management of heritage and its environment and trying to understand the meanings that cultural heritage holds for people and how they perceive, use and interpret it. Some additional projects developed besides research activities, methodological tools or frameworks for an “integrated” management of heritage (CHANGES), including all these different categories of actors. Furthermore, the important question of changing rights and responsibilities around cultural heritage was also investigated by projects such as HEURIGHT14 and ENDOW.
Main outcomes
• Cross-cutting insights on how heritage is defined, used and managed in decision and policy-making and avenues to strengthen its protection, access, and governance, especially through the elaboration of recommendations and guidelines– openly accessible via an online platform – concerning best practices for the use of cultural heritage.
• A new digitised heritage platform - an online database comprising historical photographic archives in Central and Eastern Europe, preserved at the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw, and documenting the non-existent cultural heritage of Europe’s Eastern Borderlands, while interrogating the access to this forgotten and contested cultural heritage through digital technologies.
• An external network of experts, stakeholders, public institutions and organizations in the field of cultural heritage (UNESCO, UNIDROIT, UN Human Rights Council, International Law Association, European Parliament, European Commission, European Investment Bank, Ministries of culture).
• Several national and regional case-studies: Poland, Ukraine and Eastern Partnership; Poland and Germany cultural heritage legal relations; access of cultural heritage in the United Kingdom, including in its external relations (with Europe but also with former colonies) and through digitisation; European Union and the Western Balkans (Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia).
• A tool for a reliable evaluation of maintenance costs, in the form of a simplified chart of conservation processes, generated as a conceptualization of the previous partners' experiences, and an evolution of the new Maintenance Cost Analysis service, implemented by the Associate Partner Monumentenwacht Flanders.
• A set of simple rules for policy makers and influencers for more effective and sustainable funding policies, aiming to guarantee that grants become a tool for change, based on the cost-effective analysis of the previous models.
• The shift from a traditional vision in which conservation was just a duty without worries for generated income, to a complex and multifaceted system, mainly controlled by financial mechanisms, rooted in the vision of an inclusive society, where groups of practitioners count and not just market, creating surpluses but also indirect non-market values A project database publicly available through an open-source platform linked to the project website, allowing access to all data collected during the project and reversed in the SDI (Spatial Data Information).
• 11 new digital itineraries for Italy, Spain, UK, and the Netherlands, downloadable for free from the project website as well as from the platform, co-designed with local communities and stakeholders through various workshops and meetings.
• A methodology and a reference model to start digitizing the European minor waterways’ heritage, promoting innovative ways of valorizing it through IT tools.
• A “manual for practitioners” aiming at stimulating the production of similar trails in Europe, freely downloadable from the website, explaining how to build a new digital route for tourist purposes along minor waterways and valorize its tangible and intangible assets.
• The analysis of the legal requirements of “diligent search” across the orphan works legislation of 20 countries, (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Check Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, United Kingdom), compiling a list of 1 400 sources and helping to understand how the EU Member States have implemented the orphan works Directive as well as other regulations in force – if any – in those countries.
• The identification of best practices of orphan works clearance across cultural heritage sectors, through different surveys and one report.
• The creation of 20 flowcharts, reflecting the diligent search logical framework for each country studied, forming the base for the implementation of the platform.
• A cost-effective de-centralized platform enabling cultural institutions across Europe to source information from end-users and determine the copyright status of works contained in their collections: The Endow platform15, including forms for the 20 jurisdictions, guides the “diligent searcher” through the process and allows him to print out a .pdf with all steps performed, which is what is required by the legislation.
• Five datasets of historical sound recordings containing more than 30.000 items, resulting from intensive fieldworks, informal conversations with practitioners and stakeholders, recognized by the communities of practice, and partly published in peer-reviewed articles.
• The access to historical documents considered lost, and the digitization and restoration of a body of more than 600 audio items of which 70 deserved specific restoration treatments for later publishing.
• An exhibition in the Fado Museum in Portugal, titled “Automatic Music Machines” reaching at least 3000 persons.
• An innovative tool providing access to complex interconnected historical and ethnographical data on tangible and intangible heritage, facilitating the organizing the structuring, and retrieving of these data and deepening knowledge about their practices, shaping their “parliament of things”. This tool was meant to be used by the general public, local communities, stakeholders and researchers
• An important contribution to Lucerna, a collaboration between lantern researchers and an online sustainable resource on the magic lantern. More than 30.000 illustrated slides have been entered into this web resource, guaranteeing long-term preservation and access to these digital data.
• A general methodology for the description, cataloging and digitization of slides, comprising a codebook for the description and cataloging of slides developed and tested by the Girona and Salamanca teams20, two manuals for preparing digital files to be entered into Lucerna, and an extensive document providing recommendations for the digitization of slides.
• Several creative re-use and protection through use activities and collaborations, documented on a project DVD, of which an important temporary exhibition in free access in Filmmuseum Girona, attracting more than 10.000 people.
• The Linternauta App22, which provided a new way of giving access to magic lantern slide with the aid of an educational tool, to be used, among others, by museums to valorize their collections.
• An in-depth qualitative and quantitative analysis of stakeholders interactions in the four case study landscapes, followed by an additional analysis of 3 landscapes without oppida in England, and involving interviews, questionnaires, mind- mapping exercises and small focus groups. These included 985 respondents to the questionnaire and 192 in-depth interviews and resulted in a publication24.
• Creation of guides to these cultural landscapes to complement the stakeholder engagement. They include information, not only on heritage but also on ecology, agriculture and integrate stakeholder perspectives through interviews. These guides come in two formats: downloadable field guides .pdf to be used on-site; digital interactive field guides with enhanced content for remote access.
• Creation of exhibitions accessible to the wider audience: a traveling exhibition, transferred to a digital one on the project website, and to a permanent exhibition at Salmonsbury, where the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust developed a visitor center, including information on the archaeology, ecology and farming, with digital engagement resources, and where REFIT and JPI are specifically mentioned.
• A final monograph describing the process published by the Bibracte monograph series in 2018/2019.
Topic 3 Use and re-use of all kinds of Cultural Heritage
Even if this topic wasn't chosen as first priority by a majority of research projects –only four to rated this topic as first priority (aging, CHIME, PICH, GASTROCERT) – this topic remains highly transversal, and urbanization number of additional projects (6) rated this topic in their second or third priorities. The questions of the exploration of the contested and conflicting issues around access to cultural heritage, or of the use and re-use of heritage from different fields of study, were already addressed by the previous topic. Through this topic, the projects CHIME and GASTROCERT also question the balance between tourism, conservation, sustainability and authenticity, and the opening to other fields such as art, art history, science, digital heritage, in order to move the field towards truly interdisciplinary heritage studies. Digital heritage was also the main concern of the project HIMANIS, exploring ways to facilitate access to tangible heritage (Manuscripts) and their intangible expressions, through innovative digital instruments. In addition, the topic also addressed the balance between historical integrity and authenticity to ensure that the different interpretations and management of heritage in a pluralistic society are taken into account. Projects such as PICH studied the rebalancing between surrounding natural and cultural environments and societal developments, including regulation and exploration of planning and architecture/design issues.
Main outcomes
• The creation of a unique collection for medieval studies through the digitization of the Chancery corpus, covering 200 years of royal administration and justice in France and Europe. This corpus encompasses 199 volumes, representing 83.000 pages, with 64.830 royal charters in 175 registers, and 24 formularies and related resources, freely accessible to the general public.
• As part of the digitization, the curatorial restoration of 32 volumes of the corpus.
• The development of novel technologies and cost-effective solutions allowing for the first time to perform image analysis, layout segmentation, line identification, handwritten text recognition, for querying large sets of handwritten document images. The partners applied this artificial intelligence to the 83.000 pages.
• The creation of a unique user-friendly interface to access and query the CHANCERY corpus textual data, including crowdsourcing functionalities
• A mapping study and typology of jazz festivals and heritage sites in Europe, drawing on case studies from different European contexts, and exploring the history and development of festivals, from Southern Europe in the 1940s to their pan-European form today.
• A toolkit addressed to heritage and festival managers, accessible to a large audience: The Grow Your Own Festival initiative (GYOF). This toolkit was also developed into a CHIME App in 2016, revealing a lot of data about the mediation of festivals in digital space. This App is currently at the final stage of development for commercialization.
• The GYOF initiative led to the development of an annual one-day festival event in Birmingham, delivered in partnership with MAC Birmingham and the Surge Orchestra. This event will have a significant impact on the multi-cultural arts scene of Birmingham.
• A Travelling Exhibition entitled A History of Dutch Jazz Festivals in 30-some Objects produced in partnership with the Dutch Jazz Archive, disseminated at a range of national and international events, and available via a published booklet, downloadable from the project website.
• A transnational comparison of case studies, offering a comprehensive overview encapsulating the interdisciplinary dimensions of the relationship of gastronomy and tourism and allowing a better understanding of how cultural heritage can be used and re-used in sustainable ways.
• A comprehensive literature review, mapping the theoretical and empirical gastrotourism terrain and included in a peer-reviewed publication.
• A toolkit addressed to SMEs, and other actors, to communicate the importance of landscapes and traditions through ‘narratives’, create more effective and interactive media for educating and informing the local public, create better promotional materials, and successfully engage and contribute to regional gastronomy initiatives.
• A ‘Meta-mapping’/GIS based on the historical, ecological-environmental and socioeconomic evaluation of multilayer landscapes, bringing together different heritage dimensions, to be employed using the computer and portable electronic devices
• Twelve in-depth case studies conducted by the project teams in four countries, and 4 comparative reports covering three settings: the built heritage of historic urban cores, former industrial areas and the urban landscape.
• A web-based interactive education module addressed to academics, heritage managers and policy makers, where the approaches and findings are presented in a systematic and progressive way to aid learning.
• A policy brief and practical guidance, that will ensure that new approaches to urban planning enhance rather than undermine the conservation of the built and intangible urban heritage.
• A final project book summarising all the comparative reports and findings of the project, for wide dissemination and in open access
According to the Heritage Plus initial work plan, WP4 objectives are to monitor and assess outputs and impact of funded trans-national projects, compared to their initial objectives, resources and timetable established, but also to monitor and assess the impact and benefits of the Heritage Plus programme as a whole, based on criteria such as achieving a better integration of the cultural heritage research community, increasing coordination between cultural heritage research funding players, and implementing the JPI CH Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) four research priorities: (1) Developing a reflective society (2) Connecting people with heritage (3) Creating knowledge (4)
Safeguarding our cultural heritage resource.
The Monitoring of trans-national projects progress and follow-up was gathered in individual reports and summarised in three annual progress reports (D4.1 D4.2 and D4.3).
The Impact assessment of the Joint Call Based on the adapted JHEP indicators and the data monitored information about the impact of the Heritage Plus Joint Call has been collected and
complemented by a questionnaire (Set up of a questionnaire for impact assessment analysis) are reported in Deliverable 4.4 “Final Report on the Joint Call impact assessment and summarized below.
Potential Impact:
Impact
One of the main objectives of the Heritage Plus was to generate new and exciting knowledge exchange opportunities, foster entrepreneurial talent, and stimulate innovation while improving the competitiveness, productivity, and performance of businesses and commercial enterprises.
We can analyze the impact of the 16 projects funded in the following different ways
Stakeholders involvement
A key milestone to be produced, according to the initial Heritage Plus Work Plan, was to “Set up a questionnaire for impact assessment analysis to be approved by the management group” in November 2017. The draft questionnaire was presented and validated by the Heritage Plus financing partners during the Management Group meeting in Rome, the 28th November 2017, and the final version was addressed to the 16 Heritage Plus research projects in May 2018 with a deadline in September. This questionnaire made use of the online survey instrument “Limesurvey” and included a series of 27 questions, with additional sub-questions, ranging from question on the general Call process (clarity of call documents and procedures) to questions on Call sustainability (use of the results after the end of the call, continuation of the research projects) and added-value (compared to other transnational funding mechanisms or compared to no call
at all). Questions were drafted using best-practices presented in the ERALEARN2020 online platform and available Deliverables and were adapted to the Heritage Plus call for proposal monitoring requirements.
45% of the projects survey34 respondents estimated that their impact on this particular aspect was high or very high.
The monitoring performed by Heritage Plus, allowed to count the number of stakeholders involved in different project's activities. For each of its annual reports and for the projects' final reports, Project Leaders were invited to report in tables the activities involving stakeholders, while indicating the type of activity, the categories of stakeholders reached by the activity, and their number.
Projects were also invited to share a brief description of each activity as well as to indicate its outcomes.
Four categories of stakeholders were defined: A. Policymakers and influencers; B. Cultural Heritage research community; C. Parallel international projects/ organizations; D. Industry, SMEs and Civil Society.
The results of this monitoring activities indicate that more than 30% of the stakeholders' outreach activities were addressed to industries, SMEs, and civil society.
This has been a very important component of Heritage Plus transnational research projects. Even if this was not automatically reflected by the number of partners from the private sector represented in the project's Principal Investigators (only 3), in addition, 7 of the 16 financed projects included SMEs in their Associated Partners.
Economic benefits and market
For some of the projects, the creation of specific products addressed to the market was included in their initial objectives, but it resulted in concrete business opportunities for only 18% of the projects survey respondents. The expected economic benefits of Heritage Plus projects can be distributed into three different approaches:
1) First, some projects directly targeted the production of tools, technologies and methodologies addressed to the private sector in their initial plan, with strong market potential. This was, as an example, the case for the projects HIMANIS, whose achieved results will allow one of its partners – A2iA – to put a new technology on the market. This was also the case for the projects CHT2, or the project CLIMA, both of which created new Cultural Heritage applications addressed to the market. For these projects, the JPI-CH Scientific Committee suggested in its reviews to even more anchor findings and results and make more efforts to approach the market. Business and exploitation plans, which are however confidential, were developed by projects such as HIMANIS, CHT2 or CLIMA (as planned in their initial Description of Work) and one particular even shared afterward its business plan.
2) Then, some projects created, through their research activities, cost-efficiency solutions and procedures, with direct potential economic impact on their field of investigation. This was the case for the project CHANGES, who published its final report on cost-efficiency and economic effects of Planned Preventive Conservation, as an open access publication, or CHIME, which model for the effective creation of music festivals will have a strong potential economic impact on interested partners. The project CMOP, by developing valuable guidance, low-risk options for conservation treatment, enhanced tools and methodologies for conservators and collections care professionals, will also bring economic benefits to the sector, allowing the implementation of the cost-effective solution, and potentially bringing to the market new and improved paints. Moreover, the projects CHANGES and GASTROCERT demonstrated that in order to reach a better economic impact, rather than a need for more funding, there was more a need for guidance and best practices for a better use of these funding.
3) Finally, some projects were deeply implemented in their territory and had strong local repercussions on the whole “ecosystem”: SMEs, touristic entrepreneurs, policymakers and heritage managers, local businesses, farmers etc. They were successful in putting cultural heritage at the center of projects involving all local stakeholders and aiming at rethinking and reshaping the whole economical logic of the territory, with long and unable consequences and benefits. This is particularly the case for the REFIT project, which used oppida as a focal point to rethink the relations between all local stakeholders. This was also the case for the project EUWATHER, which involved all stakeholders in the revalorization of a neglected aspect of their local cultural heritage, the canals and minor waterways. The project GASTROCERT achieved similar goals with gastronomy.
The projects had also a positive economic impact on their own organizations and research institutions. The Questionnaire survey showed that for 75% of the respondents, Heritage Plus had a strong impact on budget and Research & Development expenses, and resulted in an increase of Research & Development personnel for 60% of them. For more than 80% of them, Heritage Plus results will also be used to feed R&D efforts in the near future.
For a smaller part of them, the participation to the Heritage Plus call for proposals even allowed some non-permanent personnel to get a permanent position in their institutions or in another partner institution. As an example, thanks to the CMOP project, a senior researcher was recruited by the RCE, and the Tate Museum offered a permanent position to a post-doc researcher.
Publications
The number of publications has largely gone beyond the expected projects' results. Heritage Plus project listed a total of 420 publications at the end of the projects, of which 238 were peer-reviewed publications and 182 “other” scientific publications. More than half of these publications were in open-access. These numbers have been at the end of the project reviewed and upgraded, comparing the tables and the individual written reports provided by the project leaders, resulting in a slightly similar total of 226 peer-reviewed publications, and 258 additional publications. To these additional publications, it also possible to add a total of 181 reports, deliverables and working papers produced by the research partners. All in one, this gives the impressive number of 665 different publications, which are addressed to researchers, the general public, policy makers, heritage managers, curators or entrepreneurs, and having a potential impact on research and advancement of knowledge.
However, these different categories of publications encompass contrasted realities, with different implications regarding the impact of these publications on the research community and other stakeholders. On one hand, to start with peer-reviewed publications, these include contributions to conferences proceedings, publications in high impact journals, publications in university journals, short papers, and even sometimes, long term contributions to collections. Some of these peer reviewed publications (a limited number) are not translated in English, limiting considerably their impact on the European research community. On the other hand, the second category of publications, “other” scientific publications, varies from books, or complete collections of books, to very short conference papers and articles on internet. It can also include reports that were not initially planed in the projects' objectives. A large share of these publications is not translated in english, even if the majority is still available in english. Some of these publications are also targeting very specific groups of stakeholders and local actors (guidelines, policy briefs, exploitation plans) and the question of their translation in english is sometimes less relevant. Regarding the last category, reports and working papers, they mainly include deliverables and publications that were planed in the initial projects' Description of Work. However, even if an important part of these deliverables were produced, they are, for a vast majority, not freely accessible and remain for private dissemination and use among projects' partners.
Dissemination activities
According to the reporting performed through Heritage Plus project, the knowledge transfer and dissemination activities of the Heritage Plus projects have reached more than 2.2 million people, taking into account that sometimes, projects claimed a reach of audiences without quantifying these, which implies that the impact of these dissemination activities may have been even higher. In addition, there was sometimes a confusion for projects leaders between activities related to dissemination and activities related to stakeholders involvement.
The predefined templates and categories available for the reporting of dissemination activities were: appearance in printed media, exhibitions, websites, logos, newsletters, online presentations, live presentations and others. “Others” included very diverse and specific forms of dissemination used by research projects, such as the project CHIME, who disseminated its research results in music festivals. It resulted that the “others” category appears as the second most important category. It is also interesting to notice that researchers still quoted “printed media” as the most effective way of dissemination, while the impact on audiences of the online presentations and websites is somehow underestimated in their individual reports. Regarding the impact of newsletters, this impact is almost considered as non-existent.
Projects' sustainability
Sustainability raises three important notes of concern: how will the research results of these projects be used after their end, what will happen of Heritage Plus projects' partnerships and consortia, and how to keep the tools and digital platforms developed after the projects have ended. These three questions are the backbone of Heritage Plus projects' sustainability plans after the end of the financing programme, and the guarantee of a long-lasting impact.
One of the Heritage Plus call initial objectives was to maximize the value of research outcomes by promoting their transfer to individuals and organizations outside the immediate research community, and, where appropriated, to facilitate the knowledge transfer of those outcomes to both the research community and society where they would make a difference. This transfer already started during the projects, but the most important part of it will happen later. But too little time has passed since the majority of projects ended, so that it is really difficult to assess the impact of this knowledge transfer, and its potential sustainability in time.
Regarding the use of Heritage Plus projects' results, for more than 80% of the Project Leaders answering to the survey, these results will be used by some other participants belonging to the research consortium in the future. In addition, all of them estimated that these results would be used by Associated Partners in the project consortium after the end of their project, and half of them estimated that organizations and institutions not initially involved in the projects' consortia would uptake these results. In addition, for 7 Project Leaders, these results will be used to build new transnational projects. However, some of these results, outputs and outcomes are still to be produced after the official end of the projects.
Relation to JPI CH strategic research agenda and Heritage Plus topics
As previously described all projects funded largely contributed to the three Heritage Plus research topics: 1. Safeguarding tangible cultural heritage and its associated intangible expressions; 2. Sustainable strategies for protecting and managing cultural heritage; 3. Use and re-use of all kinds of cultural heritage.
These 3 topics were drowned from the JPI CH Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) published in 2014 and all projects contributed indirectly to the four SRA priorities which are: 1. Developing Reflective society; 2. Connecting people with heritage; 3. Creating knowledge; 4. Safeguarding cultural heritage resource.
Regarding the first challenge, Developing a reflective society, projects considered in a vast majority, that the involvement of associated partners, the development of partnerships and collaborations with key stakeholders as well as the dissemination to the general public were the main instruments to answer to this challenge, in particular through a deep involvement of these stakeholders in research activities, in workshops and in internal meetings. Conferences oriented to the general public, participatory approaches, but also publications and articles contributed to the promotion of the project and to the construction of a reflective society. “Reflective” was understood, in its first sense, to challenge people's views of heritage and reach a better understanding from societies at large, as well as of the strong connection between past and modern times, of the agents of changes to Cultural Heritage, and at drawing attention to the challenges and threats faced by the preservation of cultural heritage in Europe. In it's second sense, “reflecting” was interpreted as a better understanding of why people care about cultural values and heritage, and what are the different values cultural heritage holds for these people and stakeholders. Most important, it also included the description of how the general public and other stakeholders are fundamental contributors to the construction of cultural heritage.
Thus, Heritage Plus projects such as REFIT, GATSROCERT, EUWATHER or PICH, contributed largely to a better understanding of historical, cultural, social and economic dimensions of heritage management, adopting holistic approaches and increasing knowledge regarding the significance of individually and collectively held cultural, social and economic heritage values. They assisted local and regional communities in the development of solutions to resource management that were demonstrated to be efficient and sustainable, and in the assessment of the impact of cultural heritage on the way they perceive the “sense of place”. The last sense of “reflection” raised by the different projects, was also to question the work of local governments, other agencies and NGOs in heritage
management and planning, by encouraging debates and reflection on the management of landscape and heritage, highlighting the significance of research findings for practice.
Heritage Plus projects met the second SRA challenge of Connecting people with heritage in different ways. Firstly, they fostered virtual and digital connection of people to their past and cultural heritage, by the development of specific tools, digital resources, by involving them and disseminating projects results through mass media and social media.
Projects encouraged the development of tools addressed to non-professionals, in order to actively connect people to their heritage. For instance, CHT2 and HEURIGHT14 created interactive online platforms and models intended to connect people with forgotten or lost cultural heritage, and allowing a better understanding of cultural sites by non-experts.
Secondly, Projects contributed to people's connection with heritage, by facilitating the physical or virtual access to this heritage. To give an example, the REFIT project created digital guides to ensure public engagement and access with the oppida landscapes remotely and physically. Some other projects, such as GASTROCERT, contributed to sustainable and respectful touristic development, preserving the integrity and authenticity of heritage as a touristic resource, while guaranteeing its sustainable access to the majority of people. The project CMOP contributed also to secure public access to paintings which are very important pieces of our heritage, providing an innovative solution to their preservation. Public engagement events, field-works, public lectures, were also ways used by projects to physically re-connect people to their heritage, while fostering creative reuses of this heritage, for instance in the project EUROMAGIC. Sometimes, projects went even further, offering to people an active role in the preservation of cultural heritage, as with the projects ENDOW and HERITAMUS.
Heritage Plus transnational projects also contributed to Creating knowledge by increasing the quantity of available knowledge in specific research areas, and by improving the quality of this knowledge in under-investigated areas, making it easily available and accessible to researchers and to the general public. Alongside with traditional academic output – such as monographs, journals articles, conference presentations, books, documentaries, exhibitions – the amount of archaeological and environmental data collected within projects such as CLIMA, of new ethnographic data within projects such as HERITAMUS, or of literature reviews providing state of the art of the current knowledge in specific fields, represent an important tool of knowledge, most of the time freely accessible on the web. Knowledge was also generated through transnational comparisons. Generally, projects implemented at national scales don't have the similar critical mass, relevant stakeholders as well as associated partners networks to produce such meaningful comparisons. A comparison was, as an example, at the heart of the GASTROCERT project, aiming, through national end regional comparisons, to increase the knowledge of heritage resources and assets and understand how these can be sustainably exploited and support rural development. This was also the case, among other, for the projects PICH, REFIT, CHANGES or EUWATHER. These comparisons helped in finding innovative approaches facilitating the safeguarding of cultural heritage, and forming the basis for future research projects. Likewise, these comparisons shaped solid bases to inform decisions, policies and intervention plans around cultural heritage, and provide a critical analysis on how EU laws and policies can be improved, such as with the project HEURIGHT14.
The last challenge, safeguarding our cultural heritage resource, was also addressed in very contrasting ways by Heritage Plus research projects. While some projects, such as EUWATHER used sustainable ecotourism to safeguard and promote neglected pieces of heritage – canals, waterways and waterscapes – other projects studied the negative impact of tourism on cultural heritage sites preservation. The project GASTROCERT, as an example, assessed which were the limits of using tourism and gastronomy as an instrument for rural development, and the dynamic relation and fragile balance between tourism and cultural heritage integrity. Several projects, such as CHT2, ENDOW or HIMANIS aimed to safeguard cultural heritage resources through digitalization projects, making them accessible in sustainable ways to researchers and to the general public.
Likewise, projects such as CHANGES or PICH, defined strategies for conservation and valorization, drafted and circulated policy briefs addressed to policymakers and heritage managers, and performed case studies and comparison reports playing a huge role in advising policymakers as well as heritage managers and civil society. Tools were also produced by projects such as PROTHEGO, CHT2, or CLIMA, in order to support the Cultural Heritage communities in their daily safeguarding work. Finally, enhancing knowledge and informing the general public about the threats to the preservation of Cultural Heritage was also perceived as an efficient way to protect and safeguard heritage, forcing the local authorities to take rapid actions. For instance, the project CMOP, besides contributing to defining the most effective measures that would reduce the risk of artwork degradations, highlighted and alerted simultaneously policymakers about the negative impact of environmental pollution on the safeguard of cultural artifacts.
In addition to the specific impact produced by the projects funded HERITAGE PLUS has contributed to improved the long-lasting co-operation and integration of European research institutions, and has also created links with the other relevant Joint Programming Initiatives.
With this project, HERITAGE PLUS-JPI CH has produced a big impact in terms of:
• Allow all the JPICH participating countries to work together in a concrete way and to measure themselves with real problems in the cooperation among different countries, different rules, etc.
• Favor enlargement of the cultural heritage research community
• Integrate different research areas on cultural heritage (tangible, intangible and digital) to work together and to achieve an integrated approach within an international framework
• Foster the cultural heritage research community favoring a multidisciplinary scientific approach and the number of transnational projects
In general, we can say that HERITAGE PLUS project has strengthened the position of Europe as an international leader in cultural heritage research, able to steer research agendas through its involvement in major international programmes and capable of reinforcing European policy-making. This is certainly an important step forward to the creation of the European Research Area in the field of cultural heritage.
Dissemination and Communication
Regarding the step of Communication and Dissemination activities carried out by the HERITAGE PLUS project Consortium over the life of the project audience dates for the JPI CH website is very positive.
The online presence of the JPI CH, assessed via Google search outcome, is effective. The JPICH website appears first in a simple keyword search,– this indicates that the site is well optimized for online search.The remaining search results are a variety of European and National agencies involved in Cultural Heritage Research – again, well within the expected parameters for the search terms used.
Consortium members are engaged in a broad range of activities aimed at promoting the JPI CH – from attending events, to issuing press releases and developing key contacts with relevant stakeholder groups.
Key findings from the online survey of communications and dissemination activities by project partners during the reporting period indicate that:
• Day-to-day communications activities are generally good; however there are some simple tasks where immediate gains could be made for little effort,
• Engagement with each of the four stakeholder groups varies, but activities involving Policy Makers and Influencers and The Cultural Heritage Research Community featuring particularly strongly. Engagement with Parallel Projects and Organisations and with Industry, SMEs and Civil Society could perhaps be improved.
Two main conferences were organized by the HERITAGE PLUS and JPI-CH Coordinator in order to present and review all projects financed within the context of the Heritage Plus call for proposal, but also by the first JPI-CH Pilot call.
The first event took place the 20th and 21st February 2017 in Brussels. The second one was organized in Torino, the 28th and 29th May 2018, quite nearly to the official Heritage Plus research projects' conclusion, the 1st of June.
Both events offered the opportunity to debate with Heritage Plus partners, JPI CH members, JPI CH Scientific Committee members, other stakeholders and representatives from the European Commission, about the results and impact of the transnational research projects, and the different ways to maximize this impact.
In addition, both events were also a key opportunity to suggest some synergies between research projects with similar, common or at least very close objectives and methodologies, and to foster the formation of a network of research actors and interested stakeholders, with the JPI CH as a central node.
Many elements resulting from these debates were useful for the evaluation of the impact of the project.
List of Websites:
http://www.jpi-culturalheritage.ue
Coordinator:
Arch. Dora Di Francesco
Ministero per i beni, le attività culturali
Via Collegio Romano27
Roma, Italy
tel. +39 06.67232002
jpi_ch@beniculturali.it
Europe’s cultural heritage is the world’s most diverse and rich patrimony attracting millions of visitors every year to monuments, historical city centres, archaeological sites and museums.
Moreover, heritage is an important component of individual and collective identity. In both its tangible, intangible and digital forms, it contributes to the cohesion of the European Union and plays a fundamental role in European integration by creating relations among citizens.
European cultural heritage is of exceptional economic importance for the tourism industry, generating an estimated annual revenue of EUR 335 billion, and many of the 9 million jobs in the tourism sector are linked to it directly or indirectly. The market for conservation of this heritage is estimated at some EUR 5 billion per year2. Moreover, in an urban context cultural heritage is proven to be an important asset to attract high educated and high income residents. It’s an important localising factor for international companies and a determinant of the development of creative and other industries.
Apart from natural ageing, Europe’s cultural heritage is exposed to many threats such as climate change and pollution, increasing urbanisation, mass tourism, human negligence, vandalism and even terrorism. It is a fragile and non-renewable resource, much of which has been irretrievably lost over the last century. Protection of cultural heritage in the face of global change is thus becoming a major challenge for decision-makers, stakeholders and citizens in Europe. Research into strategies, methodologies and tools is needed to safeguard cultural heritage against continuous decay. Before irreversible damage is done, concerted actions, based on sound science, are needed to protect, strengthen and adapt Europe's unique cultural patrimony.
The world will continue to change rapidly due to a number of systemic causes, due to globalisation, the inversion of private/public life driven by technology and man-made environmental change. European living is urban living, but even this is not immune to change. The rise of populism is a clear indicator that European citizens are bewildered by the pace of change. Cultural heritage is a rock in a storm; it is a touchstone, a reference point for many - though not for everyone.
The importance of cultural heritage is reflected in its prominence as a major focus area in many national programmes and strategic activities. HERITAGE PLUS proposed to improve the coordination of national research activities and policies in the domain of Cultural Heritage Research, while also reducing the fragmentation of research efforts at national.
The main objective of the HERITAGE PLUS project was to pool the necessary financial resources from the participating national programmes and the European Community and to launch a single Joint Call for Proposals (HERITAGE PLUS Call) for research projects in the cultural heritage field that were been evaluated and managed jointly by the participating programmes. This collaborative approach provided a better use of public resources, while the European Community contribution to the Joint Call budget stressed the high interest generated by this common action.
This HERITAGE PLUS Joint Call designed to fund transnational, interdisciplinary, innovative R&D projects focussed mainly on tangible cultural heritage research, while not excluding interlinked aspects of intangible and digital heritage. An important outcome of the HERITAGE PLUS Call was the shortening of the time-to-market of scientific outcomes and the narrowing the gap between research and stakeholders.
The thematic focus areas of the Joint Call were based on the JPI Cultural Heritage strategic national priorities of the participating programme owners.
In particular the HERITAGE PLUS project was fully in line with the JPI Cultural Heritage as part of the implementation of the SRA and of the Action Programme. Consequently the HERITAGE PLUS joint call focused in topics on tangible cultural heritage research, while not excluding interlinked aspects of digital and intangible heritage following the interdisciplinary approach basic criteria on which the Strategic Research Agenda devolved within JPI CH.
Project Context and Objectives:
Europe’s Cultural Heritage is the world’s most diverse and richest patrimony, attracting millions of visitors every year to monuments, historic city centres, archaeological sites and museums.
Moreover, this heritage is an important component of individual and collective identity. In both its tangible and intangible forms, it contributes to the cohesion of the European Union and plays a fundamental role in European integration by creating relations among citizens.
Natural aging apart, Europe’s Cultural Heritage is exposed to many threats such as climate change and pollution, increasing urbanization, mass tourism, human negligence, vandalism, and even terrorism. It is a fragile and non-renewable resource, much of which has been irretrievably lost over the last century.
Protection of Cultural Heritage with respect to global change is thus becoming a major concern for decision-makers, stakeholders and citizens in Europe. Research into strategies, methodologies and tools is needed to safeguard Cultural Heritage against continuous decay. Before irreversible damage is done, concerted actions, based on sound science, are needed to protect, strengthen and adapt to Europe's unique cultural patrimony.
In fact, coordination is required to overcome the fragmentation of initiatives deriving by diverse and sometimes potentially conflicting approaches (research – administration – management – exploitation), by the multiplicity and geographical dispersion of bodies and institutions involved with or in charge of Cultural Heritage, and by the different local environmental, social and economic conditions. If there is a field in which joint action is required, this is Cultural Heritage, for its global value in human history and identity.
The 2010 Commission Recommendation on the research joint programming initiative "Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new challenge for Europe" encourages the Member States and associated countries to "develop a common vision on how cooperation and coordination in the field of research at Union level can help to preserve Cultural Heritage in all its forms, ensuring its security and sustainable exploitation", "to develop a common strategic research agenda", " an implementation plan establishing priorities and timelines and specifying the action, instruments and resources required for its implementation" and " to set up a common management structure".
With this HERITAGE PLUS Project, research has been able to reinforce this unique and fundamental role and create a pan European cultural heritage research sector from this fragmented field.
The main objective of the HERITAGE PLUS was to pool the necessary financial resources from the participating national programmes and the European Community and to launch a single Joint Call for Proposals (HERITAGE PLUS Call) for research projects in the cultural heritage field that was evaluated and managed jointly by the participating programmes. The European added value of transnational cooperation was realized through research partnerships involving academic and industry groups typically from 3 to 5 countries.
The thematic focus areas of the Joint Call are based on the strategic national priorities of the participating programme owners. The main objectives were:
- Safeguarding the cultural heritage resource (Protection)
- Creating knowledge (Interpretation)
- Developing a reflecting society (Recognition),
- Connecting people with heritage (Access)
HERITAGE PLUS was structured in four Work Packages: coordination and management, Preparation of the Joint Call, implementation of the call and Project monitoring and impact assessment. An adequate management structure has implemented, with associated activities to both disseminate the objectives and initial achievements, and provide an evaluation framework for addressing its impact.
Besides the normal national reporting, the Project Coordinators of the funded projects were requested to submit an annual HERITAGE PLUS report to assure a function of control and to ensure that the projects were running to schedule.
The consortium evaluated the impact of HERITAGE PLUS towards its two goals of implementing the JPI Cultural Heritage (e.g. coherent articulation between HERITAGE PLUS and JPI CH SRA and Action Programme) and the contribution to the integration of the research community fostering collaboration beyond the current programme.
At the end of the process, the impact of the HERITAGE Plus action on the alignment of national programmes were analyzed.
During the life of the HERITAGE PLUS project, a long-lasting co-operation and integration with European and not European Ministries and research institutions have been achieved, at the same time creating links with the main international organization on Cultural Heritage.
The HERITAGE PLUS call expected a two-steps submission and evaluation process: Step 1 for Pre-Proposals and Step 2 for Full Proposals, which will be evaluated by external experts and a final ranking list will be determined by an independent panel.
The first step of the Heritage Plus Call was launched on the 3rd March 2014, with the deadline for the submission of the pre-proposal on the 28th April. A first eligibility check was effectuated between April, the 30th, and May, the 26th 2014, based on National Eligibility Criteria as reported in the call Guidelines. After evaluation of the remaining eligible pre-proposals, the Heritage Plus Management Group invited applicants from 61 pre-proposals to submit full-proposal to the second step by October the 22nd
54 full proposals were finally submitted and evaluated by an International Peer Review Panel (IPRP) composed of 10 experts. The final ranking list was then presented to the Heritage Plus Management Group in Rome, the 18th and 19th March 2015, in order to be definitively approved. 16 projects were finally financed by the Management Group.
During the first step of Heritage Plus, considerable interest was shown to the Call, with 352 pre-proposals received.
This number demonstrated the important impact of the Call dissemination to the research an academic communities in Europe, representing approximately a total of 1409 institutions, research organizations, laboratories, universities and other actors involved in Heritage Plus pre-proposals. The Project leaders of these proposals were coming, for a vast majority (76%) of them, from 5 countries: Italy, United Kingdom, Portugal, France and Spain, of which an overwhelming majority coming from Italy (48%).
The main information regarding the number of Participating Countries, Eligible Partners, Call process, Time schedule, Call budget and Funding schema are summarized in the Table below.
Call JPI CULTURAL HERITAGE SECOND CALL (HERITAGE PLUS)
Topics Research topics:
- Safeguarding tangible cultural heritage and its associated intangible expressions
- Sustainable strategies for protecting and managing cultural heritage
- Use and re-use of all kinds of cultural heritage
Eligible applicants Universities, Research organizations, Enterprises
Minimum of 3 Partners from 3 Countries
Countries involved 15 Countries:18 funding programme owners
Call Budget 6.6 M€ National Funding
3.1 M€ Maximum EC contribution (HERITAGE PLUS Project)
Total call budget: 9.7 M€
Funding schema Virtual common pot
National funding decisions according to the selection list
Proposals received Pre-proposal submitted Step 1: 352
Pre-proposal passed in Step 2 : 61
Final proposal submitted in Step 2: 54
Number of funded projects 16
HERITAGE PLUS has finally granted sixteen research projects in the field of tangible, intangible and digital cultural heritage with a unique joint transnational call. These research projects reporting were evaluated during their long life by the HERITAGE PLUS Consortium with the support of the JPI Cultural Heritage Scientific Committee and all the research projects had the opportunities to showed the results and the outcome in many dissemination actions.
The project has also contributed to reinforcing the dialog within the cultural heritage research community and with the policy community involved in the JPI on Cultural Heritage.
The sixteen-research projects granted are:
N. Acronym Full Title Countries involved (*)
1 CHANGES Changes in cultural Heritage Activities: New Goals and benefits for Economy and Society
Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden
2 CHT2 Cultural Heritage Through Time
Italy, UK, Spain, Poland
3 CHIME Cultural Heritage and Improvised Music in European Festivals UK, Sweden, The Netherlands
4 CLIMA Cultural Landscape risk Identification, Management and Assessment
Italy, UK, Cyprus, Denmark
5 CMOP Cleaning Modern Oil Paints
Netherlands,UK, Italy
6 ENDOW Enhancing access to 20th Century cultural heritage through Distributed Orphan UK, Scotland, Netherlands, Italy
7 EURO-MAGIC A Million Pictures: Magic Lantern Slide Heritage as Artefacts in the Common European History of Learning The Netherlands, UK, Belgium, Spain
8 EUWATHER Rivers and Canals as Cultural Landscapes
Italy, UK, The Netherlands, Spain
9 HeAT Heritage and Threat
Denmark, Romania, Poland, Italy
10 HIMANIS HIstorical MANuscript Indexing for user-controlled Search France, Spain, Netherlands
11 HERITAMUS (In)Tangible: a research on the relationship between tangible and intangible heritage Portugal, Spain, France
12 HEURIGHT14 The Right to Cultural Heritage – Its Protection and Enforcement through Cooperation in the European Union Poland, UK, Italy
13 GASTROCERT Gastronomy and Creative Entrepreneurship in Rural Tourism Sweden, Italy, UK, Spain
14 PICH The impact of urban planning and governance reform on the historic built environment and intangible cultural heritage Netherlands, UK, Italy, Norway
15 PROTEGO PROTection of European Cultural HEritage from GeO - hazards
Italy, UK, Cyprus, Spain
16 REFIT Resituating Europe’s first towns: A case study in enhancing knowledge transfer and developing sustainable management of cultural UK, France, Spain
*The First country in Bold and italics is the Country Leader
Project Results:
As already said, the transnational Call for proposals selected a list of three topics, as priorities to be answered by the research projects and funded by the financial partners. These topics were driven from the JPI CH Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) and are the following:
1. Safeguarding tangible cultural heritage and its associated intangible expressions
2. Sustainable strategies for protecting and managing cultural heritage
3. Use and re-use of all kinds of cultural heritage
The final selection of research projects involved a total of 66 research partners from Heritage Plus countries. , 122 Associated Partners were associated with the transnational research proposals through letters of commitment, and sometimes, further financial commitments. The share of partners from the University / academic sector was really important, but in most of the cases, the difference between Universities and research institutions was contributionsubtle. 15 of the financed projects had a Project Leader originating from the academic sector.
If the repartition of Projects Leaders and Principal Investigators between the different sectors wasn't really homogeneous, this fact user-controlled by the very high diversity of Associated Partners, who included additional actors from NGOs, local and national authorities, libraries, archive services, archaeological sites, or were organizations and trusts.
For each of the call topic are below summarized the main outcomes produced by the projects funded.
Topic 1 Safeguarding tangible Cultural Heritage and its associated intangible expressions
This topic was rated number one by five projects (CHT2, CLIMA, CMOP, HEAT and PROTHEGO) and rated as being part of the three main priorities by the additional projects. This topic's scope, sufficiently broad, resulted in very diverse projects, whose contribution to the the can be organized in three main research orientations. The first possible orientation was to develop technologies and procedures for long-term monitoring and maintenance of all forms of heritage. This could include with heritage, as for the project CMOP, which investigated better conservation procedures for modern oil paintings, while considering the question of integrity and authenticity through the restoration works. This could also include the different historical and environmental contexts and historical layers of cultural heritage, for instance with the project CHT2, where researchers investigated how to combine these layers in a single model.
The second option was the investigation of changes in all forms of heritage, such as landscapes (HEAT, CHT2), sites (PROTHEGO), or structures and materials decay in a context of important environmental and global changes.
Then, several projects planed to develop decision support tools for havebetter maintenance of all forms of cultural heritage. As an example, tools for decision making based on integrated risk assessments organization by the projects PROTHEGO and CLIMA, for a better preservation and monitoring of cultural landscapes and archaeological sites.
Main outcomes
• A general multidisciplinary methodology for creating 4D models of heritage assets ranging from buildings, urban contexts or landscapes, integrating heterogeneous sources such as archival materials (multi-temporal aerial and terrestrial photographs, historical maps, ancient drawings and paintings, previous archaeological studies, etc.), and accessible through a 4D visualizer tool.
• 4D digital models of the four case-study heritage sites, implementing the methodology mentioned above, and allowing to share multi-temporal information on the web, for remote analyses of lost or damaged assets, for dissemination purposes and aiming to provide the stakeholders with a 4D method for managing their heritage sites, planning possible future interventions and visualising changes due to anthropic activities or intervention, pollution, wars, earthquakes or other natural hazards.
• Four concrete examples on how to develop active collaborations with local stakeholders allowing the realization of such models, with the contribution of nontechnical disciplines
• The development of an innovative tool for risks and threats to archaeological heritage management, through a multi-risk WebGIS Platform, combining advanced remote sensing technologies, both from satellites and from drones and ground-based, with GIS application, for mapping and long-term monitoring of the examined archaeological landscapes, providing periodic risk maps of the main anthropogenic and environmental threats affecting the archaeological sites.
• An easily transferable risk assessment methodology, resulting from an in-depth analysis of the main anthropogenic and environmental pressures affecting the archaeological sites, and of the potential of the most innovative remote sensing techniques, combining archaeological and geo-archaeological expertise related to knowledge and protection of archaeological cultural landscapes, combining experts of soil processes, land use and climate change and experts of Satellite and ground-based remote sensing.
• Raise dramatically the awareness on available new technologies for landscape and heritage managers, by combining and making available pre-existing knowledge and products owned by project's individual partners to individuals and organizations outside the immediate research community. Promotion of best practice and active involvement of local authorities, public and private end-users through workshops, meetings and roundtables.
• An inventory of degradation phenomena of modern oil paintings, significantly contributing to an online tool helping to inform degradation phenomena noted on painting surfaces. The database includes visual examples of various phenomena as well as explanations for their likely causes, forming together a substantial resource for further research.
• A model for the interpretation of the development of water sensitivity in modern oil paintings. New analytical procedures were developed to investigate these materials with high accuracy and sensitivity, and new analytical methodologies were employed to investigate the physical properties and behaviors of model paints.
• Valuable guidance, low-risk options for conservation treatment, enhanced tools and methodologies for conservators and collections care professionals, that are more appropriate for use on these paints. Three case study works of art by well-known international artists, and analytical investigations and cleaning tests performed on more than 50 other paintings, serving as useful examples of this newly developed approach, for conservators to take forward into studio practice.
• The creation of continuous professional development, student training courses and workshops for conservators. The project collaborated with postgraduate and undergraduate students and staff and research outcomes were shared in university courses, incorporated into workshops and meetings involving stakeholders from the paint manufacturer, heritage science, and most notably, conservation industries/professions. In addition, a short educational documentary film aimed at the general public reached over 30.000 people on social media.
• The identification and categorization of various threats to cultural heritage, and corresponding stakeholder positions: conflict, economic development, ignorance, and misunderstanding or conscious misuse etc. The multi-faceted approach, varied from theoretical and philosophical to empirical, through grass-roots involvement to interaction with stakeholders in armed conflict (Kurdistan).
• The publication of a taxonomy of threats, in spring 2019, following an open access symposium in November 2018 (Shanghai, China), and identifying types of threats to/from heritage and the nature of conflicts that can lead to destructive processes of cultural heritage. A working hypothesis was formulated in the form of a threat complex explaining the process of formation and implementation of threats.
• An online and GIS research tools for landscape and heritage management developed in collaboration with the Politecnico di Milano, Centro per la Conservazione e Valorizzazione dei Beni Culturali, completed with an extensive and open-access database for dams in the Middle East.
• A traveling exhibition, which traveled through entire Denmark, raising the debate on the impact of migration movement and refugees on the perception of heritage, and several other planned exhibitions, with historical pictures from Syria, feeding contemporary discussions about refugee movements, their impact on heritage and the role of heritage in a post-conflict Syria. For the general public a documentary was also produced, titled: Flooded Heritage. The Impact of Dams in the Near East;
• The production of the most complete database related to European geo-hazards available so far for any future analysis. This data collection was completed in collaboration with the European Geo Surveys, analyzing available European databases, in order to define their consistency and usability for project purposes. A final geo-hazards database was implemented specifically for the project, available on the project website web GIS (map viewer11) and an updated impact scenario in Europe of Natural Hazards vs Cultural Heritage was produced.
• The creation of digital factsheets for each UNESCO World Heritage List site within Europe, highlighting the information available and the potential susceptibility of the location to a selected number of geo-hazards, and easily downloadable in .pdf on the website. To that end, PROTHEGO analyzed datasets from the over 10 yearslong project from the European Space Agency (ESA) and the EU Terrafirma and PanGeo, along with other InSAR data derived products.
• A novel methodology to incorporate PS-InSAR data into continental-scale risk analysis of UNESCO World Heritage List (WHL) was developed and tested through the project.
• A network of public and private decision-makers and end-users involved in planning and management of cultural heritage sites was created, culminating in a final dissemination event “European World Heritage Sites affected by geo-hazards —satellite monitoring future challenges: the PROTHEGO project contribution” hosted at the UNESCO's headquarters in Paris in March 2018.
Topic 2 Sustainable strategies for protecting and managing Cultural Heritage
This topic was rated as first priority by a vast majority of Heritage Plus projects (7 projects; HEURIGHT14, CHANGES, EUWATHER, ENDOW, HERITAMUS, EUROMAGIC, REFIT). Two of these projects (EUWATHER and REFIT) focused on heritage landscapes, but also related sites, buildings and artifacts investigating the significance and the values they hold for individuals and communities, but also how these are influenced by global changes. Within the broader framework of this topic, they studied opportunities for production, recognition, revitalization and regeneration of these landscapes, including their translation into and connections with digital heritage.
Such opportunities were also studied for other specific forms of heritages, , the project HERITAMUS, with Fado and Flamenco, or the project budget: with the magic lantern. For all these projects, research activities were backboned by strong interactions and dialogue with heritage users and managers, studying how these interactions influence the management of heritage and its environment and trying to understand the meanings that cultural heritage holds for people and how they perceive, use and interpret it. Some additional projects developed besides research activities, methodological tools or frameworks for an “integrated” management of heritage (CHANGES), including all these different categories of actors. Furthermore, the important question of changing rights and responsibilities around cultural heritage was also investigated by projects such as HEURIGHT14 and ENDOW.
Main outcomes
• Cross-cutting insights on how heritage is defined, used and managed in decision and policy-making and avenues to strengthen its protection, access, and governance, especially through the elaboration of recommendations and guidelines– openly accessible via an online platform – concerning best practices for the use of cultural heritage.
• A new digitised heritage platform - an online database comprising historical photographic archives in Central and Eastern Europe, preserved at the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw, and documenting the non-existent cultural heritage of Europe’s Eastern Borderlands, while interrogating the access to this forgotten and contested cultural heritage through digital technologies.
• An external network of experts, stakeholders, public institutions and organizations in the field of cultural heritage (UNESCO, UNIDROIT, UN Human Rights Council, International Law Association, European Parliament, European Commission, European Investment Bank, Ministries of culture).
• Several national and regional case-studies: Poland, Ukraine and Eastern Partnership; Poland and Germany cultural heritage legal relations; access of cultural heritage in the United Kingdom, including in its external relations (with Europe but also with former colonies) and through digitisation; European Union and the Western Balkans (Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia).
• A tool for a reliable evaluation of maintenance costs, in the form of a simplified chart of conservation processes, generated as a conceptualization of the previous partners' experiences, and an evolution of the new Maintenance Cost Analysis service, implemented by the Associate Partner Monumentenwacht Flanders.
• A set of simple rules for policy makers and influencers for more effective and sustainable funding policies, aiming to guarantee that grants become a tool for change, based on the cost-effective analysis of the previous models.
• The shift from a traditional vision in which conservation was just a duty without worries for generated income, to a complex and multifaceted system, mainly controlled by financial mechanisms, rooted in the vision of an inclusive society, where groups of practitioners count and not just market, creating surpluses but also indirect non-market values A project database publicly available through an open-source platform linked to the project website, allowing access to all data collected during the project and reversed in the SDI (Spatial Data Information).
• 11 new digital itineraries for Italy, Spain, UK, and the Netherlands, downloadable for free from the project website as well as from the platform, co-designed with local communities and stakeholders through various workshops and meetings.
• A methodology and a reference model to start digitizing the European minor waterways’ heritage, promoting innovative ways of valorizing it through IT tools.
• A “manual for practitioners” aiming at stimulating the production of similar trails in Europe, freely downloadable from the website, explaining how to build a new digital route for tourist purposes along minor waterways and valorize its tangible and intangible assets.
• The analysis of the legal requirements of “diligent search” across the orphan works legislation of 20 countries, (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Check Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, United Kingdom), compiling a list of 1 400 sources and helping to understand how the EU Member States have implemented the orphan works Directive as well as other regulations in force – if any – in those countries.
• The identification of best practices of orphan works clearance across cultural heritage sectors, through different surveys and one report.
• The creation of 20 flowcharts, reflecting the diligent search logical framework for each country studied, forming the base for the implementation of the platform.
• A cost-effective de-centralized platform enabling cultural institutions across Europe to source information from end-users and determine the copyright status of works contained in their collections: The Endow platform15, including forms for the 20 jurisdictions, guides the “diligent searcher” through the process and allows him to print out a .pdf with all steps performed, which is what is required by the legislation.
• Five datasets of historical sound recordings containing more than 30.000 items, resulting from intensive fieldworks, informal conversations with practitioners and stakeholders, recognized by the communities of practice, and partly published in peer-reviewed articles.
• The access to historical documents considered lost, and the digitization and restoration of a body of more than 600 audio items of which 70 deserved specific restoration treatments for later publishing.
• An exhibition in the Fado Museum in Portugal, titled “Automatic Music Machines” reaching at least 3000 persons.
• An innovative tool providing access to complex interconnected historical and ethnographical data on tangible and intangible heritage, facilitating the organizing the structuring, and retrieving of these data and deepening knowledge about their practices, shaping their “parliament of things”. This tool was meant to be used by the general public, local communities, stakeholders and researchers
• An important contribution to Lucerna, a collaboration between lantern researchers and an online sustainable resource on the magic lantern. More than 30.000 illustrated slides have been entered into this web resource, guaranteeing long-term preservation and access to these digital data.
• A general methodology for the description, cataloging and digitization of slides, comprising a codebook for the description and cataloging of slides developed and tested by the Girona and Salamanca teams20, two manuals for preparing digital files to be entered into Lucerna, and an extensive document providing recommendations for the digitization of slides.
• Several creative re-use and protection through use activities and collaborations, documented on a project DVD, of which an important temporary exhibition in free access in Filmmuseum Girona, attracting more than 10.000 people.
• The Linternauta App22, which provided a new way of giving access to magic lantern slide with the aid of an educational tool, to be used, among others, by museums to valorize their collections.
• An in-depth qualitative and quantitative analysis of stakeholders interactions in the four case study landscapes, followed by an additional analysis of 3 landscapes without oppida in England, and involving interviews, questionnaires, mind- mapping exercises and small focus groups. These included 985 respondents to the questionnaire and 192 in-depth interviews and resulted in a publication24.
• Creation of guides to these cultural landscapes to complement the stakeholder engagement. They include information, not only on heritage but also on ecology, agriculture and integrate stakeholder perspectives through interviews. These guides come in two formats: downloadable field guides .pdf to be used on-site; digital interactive field guides with enhanced content for remote access.
• Creation of exhibitions accessible to the wider audience: a traveling exhibition, transferred to a digital one on the project website, and to a permanent exhibition at Salmonsbury, where the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust developed a visitor center, including information on the archaeology, ecology and farming, with digital engagement resources, and where REFIT and JPI are specifically mentioned.
• A final monograph describing the process published by the Bibracte monograph series in 2018/2019.
Topic 3 Use and re-use of all kinds of Cultural Heritage
Even if this topic wasn't chosen as first priority by a majority of research projects –only four to rated this topic as first priority (aging, CHIME, PICH, GASTROCERT) – this topic remains highly transversal, and urbanization number of additional projects (6) rated this topic in their second or third priorities. The questions of the exploration of the contested and conflicting issues around access to cultural heritage, or of the use and re-use of heritage from different fields of study, were already addressed by the previous topic. Through this topic, the projects CHIME and GASTROCERT also question the balance between tourism, conservation, sustainability and authenticity, and the opening to other fields such as art, art history, science, digital heritage, in order to move the field towards truly interdisciplinary heritage studies. Digital heritage was also the main concern of the project HIMANIS, exploring ways to facilitate access to tangible heritage (Manuscripts) and their intangible expressions, through innovative digital instruments. In addition, the topic also addressed the balance between historical integrity and authenticity to ensure that the different interpretations and management of heritage in a pluralistic society are taken into account. Projects such as PICH studied the rebalancing between surrounding natural and cultural environments and societal developments, including regulation and exploration of planning and architecture/design issues.
Main outcomes
• The creation of a unique collection for medieval studies through the digitization of the Chancery corpus, covering 200 years of royal administration and justice in France and Europe. This corpus encompasses 199 volumes, representing 83.000 pages, with 64.830 royal charters in 175 registers, and 24 formularies and related resources, freely accessible to the general public.
• As part of the digitization, the curatorial restoration of 32 volumes of the corpus.
• The development of novel technologies and cost-effective solutions allowing for the first time to perform image analysis, layout segmentation, line identification, handwritten text recognition, for querying large sets of handwritten document images. The partners applied this artificial intelligence to the 83.000 pages.
• The creation of a unique user-friendly interface to access and query the CHANCERY corpus textual data, including crowdsourcing functionalities
• A mapping study and typology of jazz festivals and heritage sites in Europe, drawing on case studies from different European contexts, and exploring the history and development of festivals, from Southern Europe in the 1940s to their pan-European form today.
• A toolkit addressed to heritage and festival managers, accessible to a large audience: The Grow Your Own Festival initiative (GYOF). This toolkit was also developed into a CHIME App in 2016, revealing a lot of data about the mediation of festivals in digital space. This App is currently at the final stage of development for commercialization.
• The GYOF initiative led to the development of an annual one-day festival event in Birmingham, delivered in partnership with MAC Birmingham and the Surge Orchestra. This event will have a significant impact on the multi-cultural arts scene of Birmingham.
• A Travelling Exhibition entitled A History of Dutch Jazz Festivals in 30-some Objects produced in partnership with the Dutch Jazz Archive, disseminated at a range of national and international events, and available via a published booklet, downloadable from the project website.
• A transnational comparison of case studies, offering a comprehensive overview encapsulating the interdisciplinary dimensions of the relationship of gastronomy and tourism and allowing a better understanding of how cultural heritage can be used and re-used in sustainable ways.
• A comprehensive literature review, mapping the theoretical and empirical gastrotourism terrain and included in a peer-reviewed publication.
• A toolkit addressed to SMEs, and other actors, to communicate the importance of landscapes and traditions through ‘narratives’, create more effective and interactive media for educating and informing the local public, create better promotional materials, and successfully engage and contribute to regional gastronomy initiatives.
• A ‘Meta-mapping’/GIS based on the historical, ecological-environmental and socioeconomic evaluation of multilayer landscapes, bringing together different heritage dimensions, to be employed using the computer and portable electronic devices
• Twelve in-depth case studies conducted by the project teams in four countries, and 4 comparative reports covering three settings: the built heritage of historic urban cores, former industrial areas and the urban landscape.
• A web-based interactive education module addressed to academics, heritage managers and policy makers, where the approaches and findings are presented in a systematic and progressive way to aid learning.
• A policy brief and practical guidance, that will ensure that new approaches to urban planning enhance rather than undermine the conservation of the built and intangible urban heritage.
• A final project book summarising all the comparative reports and findings of the project, for wide dissemination and in open access
According to the Heritage Plus initial work plan, WP4 objectives are to monitor and assess outputs and impact of funded trans-national projects, compared to their initial objectives, resources and timetable established, but also to monitor and assess the impact and benefits of the Heritage Plus programme as a whole, based on criteria such as achieving a better integration of the cultural heritage research community, increasing coordination between cultural heritage research funding players, and implementing the JPI CH Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) four research priorities: (1) Developing a reflective society (2) Connecting people with heritage (3) Creating knowledge (4)
Safeguarding our cultural heritage resource.
The Monitoring of trans-national projects progress and follow-up was gathered in individual reports and summarised in three annual progress reports (D4.1 D4.2 and D4.3).
The Impact assessment of the Joint Call Based on the adapted JHEP indicators and the data monitored information about the impact of the Heritage Plus Joint Call has been collected and
complemented by a questionnaire (Set up of a questionnaire for impact assessment analysis) are reported in Deliverable 4.4 “Final Report on the Joint Call impact assessment and summarized below.
Potential Impact:
Impact
One of the main objectives of the Heritage Plus was to generate new and exciting knowledge exchange opportunities, foster entrepreneurial talent, and stimulate innovation while improving the competitiveness, productivity, and performance of businesses and commercial enterprises.
We can analyze the impact of the 16 projects funded in the following different ways
Stakeholders involvement
A key milestone to be produced, according to the initial Heritage Plus Work Plan, was to “Set up a questionnaire for impact assessment analysis to be approved by the management group” in November 2017. The draft questionnaire was presented and validated by the Heritage Plus financing partners during the Management Group meeting in Rome, the 28th November 2017, and the final version was addressed to the 16 Heritage Plus research projects in May 2018 with a deadline in September. This questionnaire made use of the online survey instrument “Limesurvey” and included a series of 27 questions, with additional sub-questions, ranging from question on the general Call process (clarity of call documents and procedures) to questions on Call sustainability (use of the results after the end of the call, continuation of the research projects) and added-value (compared to other transnational funding mechanisms or compared to no call
at all). Questions were drafted using best-practices presented in the ERALEARN2020 online platform and available Deliverables and were adapted to the Heritage Plus call for proposal monitoring requirements.
45% of the projects survey34 respondents estimated that their impact on this particular aspect was high or very high.
The monitoring performed by Heritage Plus, allowed to count the number of stakeholders involved in different project's activities. For each of its annual reports and for the projects' final reports, Project Leaders were invited to report in tables the activities involving stakeholders, while indicating the type of activity, the categories of stakeholders reached by the activity, and their number.
Projects were also invited to share a brief description of each activity as well as to indicate its outcomes.
Four categories of stakeholders were defined: A. Policymakers and influencers; B. Cultural Heritage research community; C. Parallel international projects/ organizations; D. Industry, SMEs and Civil Society.
The results of this monitoring activities indicate that more than 30% of the stakeholders' outreach activities were addressed to industries, SMEs, and civil society.
This has been a very important component of Heritage Plus transnational research projects. Even if this was not automatically reflected by the number of partners from the private sector represented in the project's Principal Investigators (only 3), in addition, 7 of the 16 financed projects included SMEs in their Associated Partners.
Economic benefits and market
For some of the projects, the creation of specific products addressed to the market was included in their initial objectives, but it resulted in concrete business opportunities for only 18% of the projects survey respondents. The expected economic benefits of Heritage Plus projects can be distributed into three different approaches:
1) First, some projects directly targeted the production of tools, technologies and methodologies addressed to the private sector in their initial plan, with strong market potential. This was, as an example, the case for the projects HIMANIS, whose achieved results will allow one of its partners – A2iA – to put a new technology on the market. This was also the case for the projects CHT2, or the project CLIMA, both of which created new Cultural Heritage applications addressed to the market. For these projects, the JPI-CH Scientific Committee suggested in its reviews to even more anchor findings and results and make more efforts to approach the market. Business and exploitation plans, which are however confidential, were developed by projects such as HIMANIS, CHT2 or CLIMA (as planned in their initial Description of Work) and one particular even shared afterward its business plan.
2) Then, some projects created, through their research activities, cost-efficiency solutions and procedures, with direct potential economic impact on their field of investigation. This was the case for the project CHANGES, who published its final report on cost-efficiency and economic effects of Planned Preventive Conservation, as an open access publication, or CHIME, which model for the effective creation of music festivals will have a strong potential economic impact on interested partners. The project CMOP, by developing valuable guidance, low-risk options for conservation treatment, enhanced tools and methodologies for conservators and collections care professionals, will also bring economic benefits to the sector, allowing the implementation of the cost-effective solution, and potentially bringing to the market new and improved paints. Moreover, the projects CHANGES and GASTROCERT demonstrated that in order to reach a better economic impact, rather than a need for more funding, there was more a need for guidance and best practices for a better use of these funding.
3) Finally, some projects were deeply implemented in their territory and had strong local repercussions on the whole “ecosystem”: SMEs, touristic entrepreneurs, policymakers and heritage managers, local businesses, farmers etc. They were successful in putting cultural heritage at the center of projects involving all local stakeholders and aiming at rethinking and reshaping the whole economical logic of the territory, with long and unable consequences and benefits. This is particularly the case for the REFIT project, which used oppida as a focal point to rethink the relations between all local stakeholders. This was also the case for the project EUWATHER, which involved all stakeholders in the revalorization of a neglected aspect of their local cultural heritage, the canals and minor waterways. The project GASTROCERT achieved similar goals with gastronomy.
The projects had also a positive economic impact on their own organizations and research institutions. The Questionnaire survey showed that for 75% of the respondents, Heritage Plus had a strong impact on budget and Research & Development expenses, and resulted in an increase of Research & Development personnel for 60% of them. For more than 80% of them, Heritage Plus results will also be used to feed R&D efforts in the near future.
For a smaller part of them, the participation to the Heritage Plus call for proposals even allowed some non-permanent personnel to get a permanent position in their institutions or in another partner institution. As an example, thanks to the CMOP project, a senior researcher was recruited by the RCE, and the Tate Museum offered a permanent position to a post-doc researcher.
Publications
The number of publications has largely gone beyond the expected projects' results. Heritage Plus project listed a total of 420 publications at the end of the projects, of which 238 were peer-reviewed publications and 182 “other” scientific publications. More than half of these publications were in open-access. These numbers have been at the end of the project reviewed and upgraded, comparing the tables and the individual written reports provided by the project leaders, resulting in a slightly similar total of 226 peer-reviewed publications, and 258 additional publications. To these additional publications, it also possible to add a total of 181 reports, deliverables and working papers produced by the research partners. All in one, this gives the impressive number of 665 different publications, which are addressed to researchers, the general public, policy makers, heritage managers, curators or entrepreneurs, and having a potential impact on research and advancement of knowledge.
However, these different categories of publications encompass contrasted realities, with different implications regarding the impact of these publications on the research community and other stakeholders. On one hand, to start with peer-reviewed publications, these include contributions to conferences proceedings, publications in high impact journals, publications in university journals, short papers, and even sometimes, long term contributions to collections. Some of these peer reviewed publications (a limited number) are not translated in English, limiting considerably their impact on the European research community. On the other hand, the second category of publications, “other” scientific publications, varies from books, or complete collections of books, to very short conference papers and articles on internet. It can also include reports that were not initially planed in the projects' objectives. A large share of these publications is not translated in english, even if the majority is still available in english. Some of these publications are also targeting very specific groups of stakeholders and local actors (guidelines, policy briefs, exploitation plans) and the question of their translation in english is sometimes less relevant. Regarding the last category, reports and working papers, they mainly include deliverables and publications that were planed in the initial projects' Description of Work. However, even if an important part of these deliverables were produced, they are, for a vast majority, not freely accessible and remain for private dissemination and use among projects' partners.
Dissemination activities
According to the reporting performed through Heritage Plus project, the knowledge transfer and dissemination activities of the Heritage Plus projects have reached more than 2.2 million people, taking into account that sometimes, projects claimed a reach of audiences without quantifying these, which implies that the impact of these dissemination activities may have been even higher. In addition, there was sometimes a confusion for projects leaders between activities related to dissemination and activities related to stakeholders involvement.
The predefined templates and categories available for the reporting of dissemination activities were: appearance in printed media, exhibitions, websites, logos, newsletters, online presentations, live presentations and others. “Others” included very diverse and specific forms of dissemination used by research projects, such as the project CHIME, who disseminated its research results in music festivals. It resulted that the “others” category appears as the second most important category. It is also interesting to notice that researchers still quoted “printed media” as the most effective way of dissemination, while the impact on audiences of the online presentations and websites is somehow underestimated in their individual reports. Regarding the impact of newsletters, this impact is almost considered as non-existent.
Projects' sustainability
Sustainability raises three important notes of concern: how will the research results of these projects be used after their end, what will happen of Heritage Plus projects' partnerships and consortia, and how to keep the tools and digital platforms developed after the projects have ended. These three questions are the backbone of Heritage Plus projects' sustainability plans after the end of the financing programme, and the guarantee of a long-lasting impact.
One of the Heritage Plus call initial objectives was to maximize the value of research outcomes by promoting their transfer to individuals and organizations outside the immediate research community, and, where appropriated, to facilitate the knowledge transfer of those outcomes to both the research community and society where they would make a difference. This transfer already started during the projects, but the most important part of it will happen later. But too little time has passed since the majority of projects ended, so that it is really difficult to assess the impact of this knowledge transfer, and its potential sustainability in time.
Regarding the use of Heritage Plus projects' results, for more than 80% of the Project Leaders answering to the survey, these results will be used by some other participants belonging to the research consortium in the future. In addition, all of them estimated that these results would be used by Associated Partners in the project consortium after the end of their project, and half of them estimated that organizations and institutions not initially involved in the projects' consortia would uptake these results. In addition, for 7 Project Leaders, these results will be used to build new transnational projects. However, some of these results, outputs and outcomes are still to be produced after the official end of the projects.
Relation to JPI CH strategic research agenda and Heritage Plus topics
As previously described all projects funded largely contributed to the three Heritage Plus research topics: 1. Safeguarding tangible cultural heritage and its associated intangible expressions; 2. Sustainable strategies for protecting and managing cultural heritage; 3. Use and re-use of all kinds of cultural heritage.
These 3 topics were drowned from the JPI CH Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) published in 2014 and all projects contributed indirectly to the four SRA priorities which are: 1. Developing Reflective society; 2. Connecting people with heritage; 3. Creating knowledge; 4. Safeguarding cultural heritage resource.
Regarding the first challenge, Developing a reflective society, projects considered in a vast majority, that the involvement of associated partners, the development of partnerships and collaborations with key stakeholders as well as the dissemination to the general public were the main instruments to answer to this challenge, in particular through a deep involvement of these stakeholders in research activities, in workshops and in internal meetings. Conferences oriented to the general public, participatory approaches, but also publications and articles contributed to the promotion of the project and to the construction of a reflective society. “Reflective” was understood, in its first sense, to challenge people's views of heritage and reach a better understanding from societies at large, as well as of the strong connection between past and modern times, of the agents of changes to Cultural Heritage, and at drawing attention to the challenges and threats faced by the preservation of cultural heritage in Europe. In it's second sense, “reflecting” was interpreted as a better understanding of why people care about cultural values and heritage, and what are the different values cultural heritage holds for these people and stakeholders. Most important, it also included the description of how the general public and other stakeholders are fundamental contributors to the construction of cultural heritage.
Thus, Heritage Plus projects such as REFIT, GATSROCERT, EUWATHER or PICH, contributed largely to a better understanding of historical, cultural, social and economic dimensions of heritage management, adopting holistic approaches and increasing knowledge regarding the significance of individually and collectively held cultural, social and economic heritage values. They assisted local and regional communities in the development of solutions to resource management that were demonstrated to be efficient and sustainable, and in the assessment of the impact of cultural heritage on the way they perceive the “sense of place”. The last sense of “reflection” raised by the different projects, was also to question the work of local governments, other agencies and NGOs in heritage
management and planning, by encouraging debates and reflection on the management of landscape and heritage, highlighting the significance of research findings for practice.
Heritage Plus projects met the second SRA challenge of Connecting people with heritage in different ways. Firstly, they fostered virtual and digital connection of people to their past and cultural heritage, by the development of specific tools, digital resources, by involving them and disseminating projects results through mass media and social media.
Projects encouraged the development of tools addressed to non-professionals, in order to actively connect people to their heritage. For instance, CHT2 and HEURIGHT14 created interactive online platforms and models intended to connect people with forgotten or lost cultural heritage, and allowing a better understanding of cultural sites by non-experts.
Secondly, Projects contributed to people's connection with heritage, by facilitating the physical or virtual access to this heritage. To give an example, the REFIT project created digital guides to ensure public engagement and access with the oppida landscapes remotely and physically. Some other projects, such as GASTROCERT, contributed to sustainable and respectful touristic development, preserving the integrity and authenticity of heritage as a touristic resource, while guaranteeing its sustainable access to the majority of people. The project CMOP contributed also to secure public access to paintings which are very important pieces of our heritage, providing an innovative solution to their preservation. Public engagement events, field-works, public lectures, were also ways used by projects to physically re-connect people to their heritage, while fostering creative reuses of this heritage, for instance in the project EUROMAGIC. Sometimes, projects went even further, offering to people an active role in the preservation of cultural heritage, as with the projects ENDOW and HERITAMUS.
Heritage Plus transnational projects also contributed to Creating knowledge by increasing the quantity of available knowledge in specific research areas, and by improving the quality of this knowledge in under-investigated areas, making it easily available and accessible to researchers and to the general public. Alongside with traditional academic output – such as monographs, journals articles, conference presentations, books, documentaries, exhibitions – the amount of archaeological and environmental data collected within projects such as CLIMA, of new ethnographic data within projects such as HERITAMUS, or of literature reviews providing state of the art of the current knowledge in specific fields, represent an important tool of knowledge, most of the time freely accessible on the web. Knowledge was also generated through transnational comparisons. Generally, projects implemented at national scales don't have the similar critical mass, relevant stakeholders as well as associated partners networks to produce such meaningful comparisons. A comparison was, as an example, at the heart of the GASTROCERT project, aiming, through national end regional comparisons, to increase the knowledge of heritage resources and assets and understand how these can be sustainably exploited and support rural development. This was also the case, among other, for the projects PICH, REFIT, CHANGES or EUWATHER. These comparisons helped in finding innovative approaches facilitating the safeguarding of cultural heritage, and forming the basis for future research projects. Likewise, these comparisons shaped solid bases to inform decisions, policies and intervention plans around cultural heritage, and provide a critical analysis on how EU laws and policies can be improved, such as with the project HEURIGHT14.
The last challenge, safeguarding our cultural heritage resource, was also addressed in very contrasting ways by Heritage Plus research projects. While some projects, such as EUWATHER used sustainable ecotourism to safeguard and promote neglected pieces of heritage – canals, waterways and waterscapes – other projects studied the negative impact of tourism on cultural heritage sites preservation. The project GASTROCERT, as an example, assessed which were the limits of using tourism and gastronomy as an instrument for rural development, and the dynamic relation and fragile balance between tourism and cultural heritage integrity. Several projects, such as CHT2, ENDOW or HIMANIS aimed to safeguard cultural heritage resources through digitalization projects, making them accessible in sustainable ways to researchers and to the general public.
Likewise, projects such as CHANGES or PICH, defined strategies for conservation and valorization, drafted and circulated policy briefs addressed to policymakers and heritage managers, and performed case studies and comparison reports playing a huge role in advising policymakers as well as heritage managers and civil society. Tools were also produced by projects such as PROTHEGO, CHT2, or CLIMA, in order to support the Cultural Heritage communities in their daily safeguarding work. Finally, enhancing knowledge and informing the general public about the threats to the preservation of Cultural Heritage was also perceived as an efficient way to protect and safeguard heritage, forcing the local authorities to take rapid actions. For instance, the project CMOP, besides contributing to defining the most effective measures that would reduce the risk of artwork degradations, highlighted and alerted simultaneously policymakers about the negative impact of environmental pollution on the safeguard of cultural artifacts.
In addition to the specific impact produced by the projects funded HERITAGE PLUS has contributed to improved the long-lasting co-operation and integration of European research institutions, and has also created links with the other relevant Joint Programming Initiatives.
With this project, HERITAGE PLUS-JPI CH has produced a big impact in terms of:
• Allow all the JPICH participating countries to work together in a concrete way and to measure themselves with real problems in the cooperation among different countries, different rules, etc.
• Favor enlargement of the cultural heritage research community
• Integrate different research areas on cultural heritage (tangible, intangible and digital) to work together and to achieve an integrated approach within an international framework
• Foster the cultural heritage research community favoring a multidisciplinary scientific approach and the number of transnational projects
In general, we can say that HERITAGE PLUS project has strengthened the position of Europe as an international leader in cultural heritage research, able to steer research agendas through its involvement in major international programmes and capable of reinforcing European policy-making. This is certainly an important step forward to the creation of the European Research Area in the field of cultural heritage.
Dissemination and Communication
Regarding the step of Communication and Dissemination activities carried out by the HERITAGE PLUS project Consortium over the life of the project audience dates for the JPI CH website is very positive.
The online presence of the JPI CH, assessed via Google search outcome, is effective. The JPICH website appears first in a simple keyword search,– this indicates that the site is well optimized for online search.The remaining search results are a variety of European and National agencies involved in Cultural Heritage Research – again, well within the expected parameters for the search terms used.
Consortium members are engaged in a broad range of activities aimed at promoting the JPI CH – from attending events, to issuing press releases and developing key contacts with relevant stakeholder groups.
Key findings from the online survey of communications and dissemination activities by project partners during the reporting period indicate that:
• Day-to-day communications activities are generally good; however there are some simple tasks where immediate gains could be made for little effort,
• Engagement with each of the four stakeholder groups varies, but activities involving Policy Makers and Influencers and The Cultural Heritage Research Community featuring particularly strongly. Engagement with Parallel Projects and Organisations and with Industry, SMEs and Civil Society could perhaps be improved.
Two main conferences were organized by the HERITAGE PLUS and JPI-CH Coordinator in order to present and review all projects financed within the context of the Heritage Plus call for proposal, but also by the first JPI-CH Pilot call.
The first event took place the 20th and 21st February 2017 in Brussels. The second one was organized in Torino, the 28th and 29th May 2018, quite nearly to the official Heritage Plus research projects' conclusion, the 1st of June.
Both events offered the opportunity to debate with Heritage Plus partners, JPI CH members, JPI CH Scientific Committee members, other stakeholders and representatives from the European Commission, about the results and impact of the transnational research projects, and the different ways to maximize this impact.
In addition, both events were also a key opportunity to suggest some synergies between research projects with similar, common or at least very close objectives and methodologies, and to foster the formation of a network of research actors and interested stakeholders, with the JPI CH as a central node.
Many elements resulting from these debates were useful for the evaluation of the impact of the project.
List of Websites:
http://www.jpi-culturalheritage.ue
Coordinator:
Arch. Dora Di Francesco
Ministero per i beni, le attività culturali
Via Collegio Romano27
Roma, Italy
tel. +39 06.67232002
jpi_ch@beniculturali.it
