In fact, the whole discussion about cultural heritage, both in material and intangible dimensions, is based on the evaluation process. Objects and places have a certain significance if they are characterized by specific values. In the history of reflection on this theme, there often returns the constant element of axiological cogitation, if a value exists in itself, or is associated with an evaluative entity. From the point of view of both conservation and tourism, no doubt all tangible goods (but also aspects of spirituality) are looked at through the prism of humans – the inhabitant, the traveller/tourist, conservator and restorer of art, urban planner. Valuing cultural goods is a process that in one way helps to identify those elements that must be especially protected, the other of elements are those, which for some specific reason are interesting and worth seeing and knowing. There is no way as yet to keep unchanged all the existing elements of the broader material culture. The essence of a city is the constant evolution of form and function, both in terms of qualitative and spatial, and so the city exists and develops through permanent changes.
In many definitions of the scope of heritage are manifested different categories of values, which are or should characterize historical objects and complexes or the entire urban landscapes. Usually within each basic category of reference are the values of: historical, scientific, aesthetic, artistic and cultural heritage. All of these categories relate essentially to the system of values characteristic of the time in which the valuation is made, and so the different categories of view from the perspective of “me, here and now”, which is close to
the reality of the origins of modern care of monuments (e.g. system of monuments of Riegel from the early twentieth century). Increasingly, attention is drawn to contemporary values which should be considered both in the context of the present as well as next generations. The good of broadly understood culture should also be considered through the prism of functions that can meet today and in the future, and this action must take into account the values assigned to them. Therefore, according to Affelt (2009), the division can be called into two distinctive groups: a collection of retrospective (cultural) relating to the object's past, as well as prospective (socio-economic), which is oriented to the future of this object, as a kind of restoration of behaviour cultural values. Individual, specifically named values are equivalent to one another in both groups (Table 2).
Table 2 The names of the values divided into two set – Source: Affelt 2009
Cultural values Socio-economic values
1 The value of social identity The value of social utility 2 The value of authenticity The value of preserving the
function
3 The value of integrity The value of economic potential 4 The value of uniqueness The educational value
5 The artistic value The aesthetic value 6. The historical value The political value
7 Values of special significance, such as the diversity and attractiveness of the cultural landscape
Affelt (2012) also draws attention to the names of individual values by assigning two basic functions: representative and communicative. The representative function determines the wholeness or fragmentation of evaluative analysis and the communicative function determines the effectiveness of communications narrative valuing individual addressees-stakeholders.
Another example of the evaluation of historic buildings can be a proposal of cards of monument (Rouba 2012), which identified 30 named values, divided into 6 separate categories. In the process of evaluation by specialists, each value is awarded a specific number of points on a scale of 1 to 10 (a total of 300 points) (Table 3). This proposal relates to historic buildings, but the appropriate adjustment can also be used for evaluation of spatial systems, such as cities or historic districts.
The process of evaluation / valuation of historic buildings is the basis for the process of introduction of any changes within them, so maintenance work, as well as the restoration, revaluation and revitalization. Therefore, it is an essential element to the introduction within historic conurbation, as well as individual objects, tourism function. Also, any changes in the quantity, quality and space of that function require specific values, especially in the context of wider cultural values, including the historical, artistic and scientific.
A slightly different issue is the valuation of objects of urban space from the point of view of attractiveness to potential tourists. Some of the features are then of particular importance, while others are marginal. It should be noted, however, that the development of tourism in the historic area of the city must be done with respect to the above-mentioned values. In terms of international / global meaning, universal values are defines by “Convention Concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”. Nominated properties
shall therefore (UNESCO 2012):
1) represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; or
2) exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design; or 3) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or
to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; or
4) be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; or
5) be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of; or
6) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance.
Certain objects and space due to the above-mentioned values (e.g. aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual material for previous, current and future generations) acquire cultural significance, emphasizing the so-called The Burra
use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects (…)”.
This document also highlights the fact of bringing these places and objects a whole range of values for different individuals or groups, and not only through the prism of the so-called universal values (ICOMOS 1999).
Conclusions
Among mentioned in the work various definitions and concepts related to the functioning historic urban complexes, today we can identify some common features, which are characteristic for the historical city, especially from the point of view of development opportunities within its tourist function.
1. The size of the city is not significant, both in terms of population and area occupied by it. A historic city can also be a town, that today, no longer has the status of a city, but in the past, did serve as a city.
2. Historic character does not have to have a whole town (especially in the case of large cities), but at least one compact spatial urban complex, such as a historic district.
3. “Historicity” of the city is not a direct function of its age or period of origin, and a particular watershed boundary belonging to the group of historic cities cannot be identified. Particular attention should be paid to relatively young cities, especially those that arose in the XX century, since from the point of view of the present times, an unambiguous identification of suitable traits which rank these centres is not possible.
4. From the point of view of tourism development, particularly important are historic landscapes of urban areas, especially:
- clear, consistent and legible spatial layout of streets, squares, parcels, or areas of greenery;
- dominant historical landscape, distinguishing those historic districts from other similar assumptions;
- the presence of monumental buildings (e.g. castles, palaces and other residential buildings, cathedral or other large religious buildings, forts, historic industrial plants and fabrics);
- historic fabric of the city (residential) filling an urban plan based on the above-mentioned objects;
Table 3 The value of historic buildings – Source: Rouba 2012
The values and characteristics of the intellectual realm
1 The continuation value (age, duration) 2 The value of historical and documentary
3 The degree of recognition of the monument (history, technology, development specialist) 4 The scientific value
Values and emotional characteristics
5 The artistic value 6 The aesthetic value
7 Value composed with the environment
8 Antiquity (readability qualities certify the origin of a particular era) 9 Uniqueness
10 The quality and value of historical accretions 11 Quality and value added items today
12 The quality of the adaptation work (destructive monument <non-destructive) Surplus values 13 The authenticity
14 The integrity Utility
15 The material value (in its category)
16 Value in use (the ability to act as primary or secondary function)
17 Compliance with the nature of contemporary features and characteristics of the object
Social and potential values
18 The importance of the culture of the local community (the familiarity) 19 The importance of national culture
20 The importance of a global culture
21 Social interaction (abandoned, devastated<maintained, appreciated) 22 Assessment of made revitalization activities
The issue of conservation and social policy
23 Assessment of the conservation status of monument conservation 24 The degree of recognition of the needs of conservation
25 The quality of the maintenance work 26 The quality of the restoration work 27 Regularity of use (risk<safety)
28 Regularity of exercise daily care (preventive maintenance) 29 Degree of protection against risks (theft, fire, disaster)
- co-existence of the urban historical city together with the specific features of the natural environment, both within the same city (e.g. the organization of urban space in relation to the terrain and river network and other elements of the environment) and the environment (specific landscape “contact” of the city and the surrounding environment).
5. These cities may have their own characteristics due to their duties and functions in the past epochs, highlighting both in spatial and in the historical substance (e.g. medieval and later mining towns, cities with a dominant military function, centres of pilgrimage shrines of different rank, nineteenth-century industrial cities).
6. An essential element of the work aimed at introducing modern functions (including the tourist function) to historical cities (that assumption served other functions) is the process of evaluation / valuation of entire urban layouts and their individual components (e.g., concrete objects). Today, in addition to the traditionally conceived values (e.g., historical, artistic, scientific), the utilitarian nature should also be considered as a value, especially in the context of their future social and economic functions.
7. The most important and irrefutable historical values of spatial units is their authenticity and integrity, which should result in the adjustment of the direction and scope of functions carried today (and in the future) to respect and preserve those values.
Authenticity should be understood as the maintenance of the original
material, together with the characteristic features of creation, such as layout, layout design, or a work of art in its original form, but also traces the history (e.g. natural disasters, reconstruction) and elapsed time (e.g. signs of wear and aging). This is a reliable source of historical information and real data (hence the historical and scientific value). The integrity is the homogeneity of the monument (historic urban complex) that manifests itself in the behaviour of technical solutions, urban and aesthetic typical of the time in which it was created. They can also be enriched by other elements that had accumulated over a period of its operation over the centuries. We can talk about the character of the preserved city example of a medieval (i.e. Gothic) city, the Renaissance or the nineteenth-century factory settlement.
All over the world, including primarily in Europe, there is a steady increase in the importance of historic buildings, especially historic urban planning, in the context of their economic value. This is largely due to the possibility of the development of tourism based on the heritage of historic cities, and the cities themselves become major tourist centres, providing tangible benefits to both residents and the broadly understood tourism business. However, it is important to note that, the objects of a historical nature, in addition to the express utility in terms of satisfying material needs, play a more important function. They stand guard over the identity of both local as well as regional and national, increasingly understood as a heritage of all humanity.
References
Affelt, W., (2009): Estetyka zabytku budownictwa jako wyzwanie dla jego
adaptacji. In Szmygin, B. ed. Adaptacja obiektów zabytkowych do współczesnych funkcji użytkowych. Wydawnictwo Politechniki Lubelskiej, Lublin, 7-18.
Affelt, W., (2012): Dziedzictwo transformowane: od autentycznych wrażeń do
wirtualnej nudy. In Szmygin, B. ed. Wartościowanie i ochronie i konserwacji zabytków, Wydawnictwo Politechniki Lubelskiej, Lublin, 7- 16.
COE (1985): Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of
Europe. (http://www.conventions.coe.int), accessed 2013-11-04.
CRACOW (2000): The Charter of Krakow 2000. Principles for Conservation of
Built Heritage. (http://lecce-workshop.unile.it/), accessed 2013-11-06.
ICOMOS (1964): International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of
Monuments and Sites “The Venice Charter”
(http://www.international.icomos.org/), accessed 2013-11-04.
ICOMOS (1987): International Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns
and Urban Area. (http://www.icomos.org), accessed 2013-11-06.
ICOMOS (1999): The Burra Charter. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places
of Cultural Significance. (http://www.australia.icomos.org), accessed 2013- 11-06.
ICOMOS (2004): International Charters for Conservation and Restoration.
Monuments and Sites I. (http://www.openarchive.icomos.org), accessed 2013-11-04.
ICOMOS (2005): The Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of
Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas (http://www.icomos.org), accessed 2013-11-05.
ICOMOS (2009): Vademecum konserwatora zabytków (cz. I). Międzynarodowe prawo ochrony dziedzictwa kultury. (http://www.icomos-poland.org), accessed 2013-11-03.
Pawłowski, K., Witwicki, M. (1973): Wartość zabytkowa zespołów miejskich a
zakres ich ochrony. In Skibniewski, Z. ed. Miasto i oblicze czasu, Arkady, Warszawa, Strojizdat, Moskwa, 173-184.
Piccinato, G., (1993): All Cities are Historic (But Some More So Than Others).
In Bogdani-Czepita, M., Broński, K., Görlich, K, Purchla, J. eds. Managing Historic Cities, International Cultural Centre, Krakow, 49-53.
Purchla. J., (1997): Wstęp. In Broński, K., Purchla, J., Zuziak, Z.K. ed. Miasto
historyczne. Potencjał dziedzictwa, Międzynarodowe Centrum Kultury, Kraków, 3-5.
Rouba, B., (2012): Wartościowanie w praktyce konserwatorskiej. In Szmygin, B.
ed. Wartościowanie i ochronie i konserwacji zabytków, Wydawnictwo Politechniki Lubelskiej, Lublin, 201-208.
UNESCO (1972): Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage. (http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/), accessed 2013-11-04.
UNESCO (1976): Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and
Contemporary Role of Historic Areas. (http://www.unesco.org), accessed 2013-11-04.
UNESCO (2011): Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.
(http://www.unesco.org), accessed 2013-11-04.
UNESCO (2012): Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention. (http://whc.unesco.org), accessed 2013-11-04.