presentation layout slides 2-6: introduction to wp5 slides 7-8: task 5.1 slides 9-18: analysis of...
Post on 22-Dec-2015
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
PRESENTATION LAYOUTSLIDES 2-6: Introduction to WP5SLIDES 7-8: Task 5.1SLIDES 9-18: Analysis of the input we have so far to Task 5.1SLIDES 19-20: Task 5.2SLIDES 21-24: Analysis of the feedback & issues posted and
discussed with interest to Task 5.2SLIDES 25-26: Task 5.3SLIDES 27: Discussion on strategic Re-orientation of the
projectSLIDES 28-31: Questions from the Ljubjlana preparatory meetingSLIDES 32-41: Our proposal from Kick-off presentationSLIDE 42: Final Output of WP5
WP5: RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES
WP LeaderAntonia Moropoulou
NTUA
ObjectivesObjectives of WP5 of WP5
5.15.1 Development of integrated documentation Development of integrated documentation protocols - harmonisation criteriaprotocols - harmonisation criteria
5.25.2 Knowledge based decision making procedures - Knowledge based decision making procedures - CHIC GuidelineCHIC Guideline
5.35.3 Strategic planning for implementation and Strategic planning for implementation and validation of the CHIC Guidelinevalidation of the CHIC Guideline
WP5WP5 RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION
AND STRATEGIESAND STRATEGIES
WP5 will be organized in the following tasks
The AimThe AimTo develop criteria and a methodology for the creation of a Model
System for integrated documentation
Implemented
through National, E.U. and International Regulations
Considering Indicative Parameters
of data documentation
The established methods will be consolidated and enhanced with the ideas gained in different countries and developed by the existing European standards and codes, according to common criteria, methodology and guidelines.
WPs Workflow
TASK 5.1TASK 5.1
INTEGRATED DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLSINTEGRATED DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS (L: UL, M: (L: UL, M: NTUA, UNIBO, IPPT PAN,Z-ZNTUA, UNIBO, IPPT PAN,Z-Z))
Deliverable D 5.1 will be:
Integrated document protocols and harmonized criteria for IC modelsThey will include presentation and evaluation of the existing documentation protocols in the sector of cultural heritage protection used in EU countries and recommendations for the creation of integrated documentation
protocols in the sector of cultural heritage protection.
Presentation & evaluation of the existing documentation protocols in the sector of cultural heritage protection
Suggestion for the creation of integrated documentation protocols, which will provide new documentation procedures, upgrading in data level the current documentation methodologies (WP2), responding to criteria & indicators for risk assessment (WP3), responding to advanced diagnostics & data management (WP4)
Harmonization of existing criteria & indicators of existing European standards for the development of the Identity Card concept
Significant feedback of the relevant data will be given by the Network of Researchers, consisting of experts from all over Europe dealing with documentation protocols used for cultural heritage protection.
DISCUSSION ON TASK & DELIVERABLE 5.1
RESEARCH ON GREEK DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS
D3.1: Report on risk indicators and roadmap for future research priorities – Annex A / Identification of needs for future research priorities
D4.1: Report on Methods and Tools for data collection and presentation
D2.1: Activity Report of Task 2.1
NTUA comments & additions for Mesoscale – Micro scale – Integrated Diagnostic Methodology. It is proposed to develop these issues when addressing future recommendations and strategies in WP5.
NTUA additions of Categories / Subcategories additions
Professor Alfredo Ronchi: “EU LEGISLATION AND CULTURAL HERITAGE / MEDICI FRAMEWORK OF COOPERATION
Nypan Terje: List of Directives reviewed by the working group and now part of the EHLF work.
CHIC ID CARD Top Level: Based on the working session in Ravenna Meeting
4.1 New Questionnaire
Discussion of : Accessibility / Coding / Methodology/Structure EU-CHIC VIENNA MEETING WP2 WORKSHOP
Input for the development of Integrated Documentation Protocols
Harmonization of criteria & indicators
The output of all the above, combined with previous work and experience of NTUA in the field leads to the clarification and integration to the protocols of all necessary data regarding
PROTECTION – MANAGEMENT – DECISION MAKING
RESEARCH ON GREEK DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS
Presentation of Greek informative systems of documentationPresentation of Greek informative systems of documentation
The cases of 3 Greek Directorates of the Greek Ministry of Culture:
1. The National Archive of Monuments Information System
2. The Acropolis Restoration Service (YSMA)
3. The General Directorate of Museum Restoration and Technical Projects / Directorate of Museum construction
PresentationPresentation of Greek informative systems of risk assessment and of Greek informative systems of risk assessment and managementmanagement
1. Risk Map of Cultural Heritage – the Dodecanese case study: ARCHI-MED
Q1.Name of the method
Q2 Country
Q3 Level of implementation
Q5 Number of catalogued elements
Q7 Accessibility
Q8 Computerized system
Q9 Internet accessibility
Q10 Authorized person to draw up the form
Q11 Database updating
Q13 Location
Q13 A Brief description of location data
Q14 History
Q14 A Brief description of history data
Q15 Building elements
Q15 A Brief description of elements data
Q16 State of conservation and restoration activities
Q16 ABrief description of conservation data
Q17 Survey
Q17 A Brief description of survey data
Q 18 Legal conditions and constrains
Q Brief description of legal conditions data
Q19 A Location
Q19 B History
Q19 C Restoration activities
Q19 D State of conservation
Q19 E Materials
Q19 F Structure
Q19 G Surveys
Q19 H Risks prevention
Q19 I Legal conditions
Notes and suggestion
Check list editor
D2.1 RESULTS: study of protocols for data collection and analysis devoted to the main elements under the concepts of preservation and sustainability of Cultural Heritage, in order to create a complete history of the entire lifetime of the heritage good.
Summary of dataset.Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q7A Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
Q 13.1
Q 13.2
Q 13.3
Q 13.4
Q 13.5 Q13A
Q 14.1
Q 14.2
Q 14.3
Q 14.4
Q 14.5
Q 14.6
Q 14.7
Q 14.8 Q14A
Q 15.1
Q 15.2
Q 15.3
Q 15.4
Q 15.5 Q15A
Q 16.1
Q 16.2
Q 16.3
Q 16.4 Q16A
Q 17.1
Q 17.2
Q 17.3 Q17A
Q 18.1
Q 18.2
Q 18.3
Q 18.4 Q18A
Q 19A
Q 19B
Q 19C
Q 19D
Q 19E
Q 19F
Q 19G
Q 19H Q 19I Q 19J
1National Protective Inventory Malta 1 1960
2.000 (old system) 300 (new) English 1 2 2 5
It has been updated for the first time X
boundaries and buffer zones X X X X X X X X X
Deepness depends on type of property X X
linked to resources X
ownership is not public data 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2
2BAUDID inspection of C. H. Germany 2 2004 400 per year German 2
owners, authorities 2 1 2
Regularly inspected X X X X X X X X X X
state of art and advices about maintenance X X 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 1
3Register of Cultural Monuments Estonia 1 1994 12000 Estonian 1,2 Partially public 2 2 1 X X Caddaster X X X X X X
not at public level X general info
not at public level
not at public level 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4Register of Cultural Heritage Assets Slovakia 1 1985
9.752(imm) 14.501 (mov) Slovakian 1,2
Only immovable is public 2 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X 4 3 1 3 2 1 2 1 3
5Cultural Heritage Register Slovenia 1 1991 27.000 Slovenian 1 2 2 1 X X X X X X X 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4
6 White Card Poland 1 1975 168.000 Polish 1,2Access should be justified 1 1 1 X X
Topographic num; land register X X X X X X X X X
equipment, installation, decorations X X X X X X 4 4 4 3 4 2 2 2 3
7 Cemetery Card Poland 1 1975 26.000 Polish 1 1 1 4 X X
State administration data, card num X X X X X X
plans, archive materilas X X 4 3 2 2 3 1 2 1 3
8MAMEG inspection of C. H. Hungary 1 2006 20 per year Hungarian 2
owners, authorities 2 1 2 X X X X X X X X X
state of art and advices about maintenance X visual survey 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 1
9 Site Card Israel 3 1993 Hebrew 1 1 1 0 X X X X X X
main elements and physical conditions X X 4 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 3
10
Register of national protected monuments and sites Hungary 1 1881 11.300 1 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2
11Integrated Information System of C. H. (IISPP) Czech republic 1 2003
40.315(imm) 40.000 (mov) Czech 2
Employees of National heritage Inst. 2 2 1 X X X X Land register X X X X X 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3
12 / Denmark 1 2009
9.000 protected + 30.000 Danish 1
Partially restricted. Admin & munic. 2 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 4
13 IGESPAR IP Portugal 1 2001 2158 (imm.) Portuguese 1,2 Partially public 2 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4
14 Inventory Sweden 1 2008 75.000 Swedish 1 2 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 4 2 1 3 3 1 1 2
15Register of C.H. buildings Finland 0 2009
1.591 entireites/ 4.926 buildings Finnish 1,2
C.H. officials can see more information 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 3
16Monumentenwacht Vlaanderen Belgium 2 1991
1.500 per year Dutch 2
owners, authorities 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X X
state of art and advices about maintenance X visual survey 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 1
17 SIGEC Italy 1 1990 2.000.000 Italian 2
Admin.; universities, research 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 3
18Cultuurhistorische Waardenkaart Netherlands 3 2000 30.000 Dutch 1 2 2 0 X X X X X X X 4 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
19Nationaal Monumentenregister Netherlands 1 1968 52.000 Dutch 2
Authorities. Partially public 2 2 2 X X X X X X
elements important for resigetering X 4 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 3
20Monumentenwacht Netherlands Netherlands 1 1974 24.000 Dutch 1 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X X X X
state of art and advices about maintenance X visual survey 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 1
21 / Norway 1 2005
4.900 protected b./ 2.500 1 2 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4
22
Method of Insitute for restoration town Dubrovnik Croatia 3 1979 830
Croatian, English 1,2
Inst. rest Dubrovnik, Ministry of Culture 2 1 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
23
Ficha de patrimonio etnológico en Castilla y León Spain 2 2001 Spanish 2
Regional Government 2 1 0 X X X X X X X X X
Brief description of main elements and physical conditions X X
General status, pathologies in every structural element, historical changes in every structural element, intervention X
General dimensions X
Preservation status, urban planning status, value proposal 4 3 2 4 4 4 2 2 4
24
Inventario de patrimonio de patrimonio industrial de la provincia de Valladolid Spain 3 1996 Spanish 2
Local government 2 1 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Detailed description of main elements and physical conditions X X X
Detailed status, pathologies in every structural element, historical changes in every structural element, X
General dimensions X X
Preservation status, urban planning status, value proposal 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4
25 / Fyrom 1 2004 1394 1 1 1Head of INDOC 2 X X X X
Localisation according to admisnistrative X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
26 YSMA Digital data Base Greece 2 1988Akropolis Monuments Greek 2
Acropolis employees 2 1
archaeologists of Acropolis 1 X X X X X X X X X
monuments’ historical phases and old interventions & pictures or reference documents X X X
hierarchical order from the entire monument &structural parts to the individual architectural member X X X
earlier interventions and contemporary interventions for structural restoration and surface conservation. X X
described with special key words and associated with six special information groups/windows 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 1
27
Technical Reports for museum interventions, extensions, upgrades or new buildings Greece 1 Greek 2
Ministry of Culture employees 1 1
responsible architect 1 X X
archaeological data x X X X X X X X X X X X X
collaboration with other Government agencies 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4
28 POLEMON Greece 1 1999 Greek 2
Directorate of Nat. Monuments Record, Antiquities Ephorates, Museums 2 1
Directorate of Nat. Monuments Record, Antiquities Ephorates, Museums 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
29
Archives of the National Monuments’ Record of the English Heritage England 1 1983 1,000,000 English 1 2 2
English Heritage staff 2 X X X
Address, grid ref and quarter sheet X X X X X X
Typology, characteristic features, Monument period and type X X
Brief description of main elements
No mention or restricted at reference documents
No mention or restricted at reference documents X
Not to be reproduced without permission 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
30
Pastcape of the National Monuments’ Record of the English Heritage England 1 1983 1,000,000 English 1 2 2
English Heritage staff 2 X X X
Address, grid ref, coordinates and quarter sheet X X X X X X
Typology, characteristic features, Monument period and type, rehabilitation works X X X
Fair description of main elements X X
General info and reference documents
No mention or restricted at reference documents X
Not to be reproduced without permission 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2
EU-CHIC VIENNA MEETING WP2 WORKSHOP(SKB, LABEIN)
Elaboration of 4 sets of questions : Accessibility: What is the most appropriate accessibility policy? Are there different admin and users' profiles? Is it free? What's the best interface? Coding :Which is the most feasible universal coding? Which pros and cons have the alternatives? How to standardize analysis and language? Methodology:How must data be inserted and storaged? Which relations within data and with metadata must be allowed? Is there a specific methodology or fill-in guidance? Structure :What is the most appropriate structure (info hierarchy)? What is essential, what optional and what is the threshold in terms of time and detail?
CHIC ID CARD Top Level. Based on the working session in Ravenna October 12.
Nr. . element name Score Comments
1 Picture, drawing, basic graphic data… visual info 26 One piece. Links to more can be given. Format must be defined.
2 Name 26 This field might be broken down into 2 or more. Example: official name, local name.
3 Address 26 Includes number, postal code. Country code: see next.
4 Country / Nation 26
5 Region 26
6 Geo Location, coordinates 26
7 General description of the object (prose). 26 Everyone agrees on this. But how this short description is to be made depends on different subject interests. A guideline should be developed. In a computer system a limit must be set to the number of words / positions allowed.
8 Original use 26
9 Current use 26
10 Date / year of construction (of the oldest parts) 26 Needs some possibility to inform about additions etc. over time. This could be done in the general description. Also possible to have a free text field added to write some very short info on developments over time.
11 Typology 26 Set of defined typologies must be developed.
12 Link ; URL for more information Mentioned in the meeting but not as a specific information element.
13 Cadastre id. This was not mentioned in the meeting, but will often be tied to the unique id or the identification of the property in the national property register.
14 Unique national and European identifier. Not mentioned in the meeting. Can be system generated based on a unique national identifier.
15 Legal regulation (status) 26 Protected according to…… Type protection. Needs to be defined more precisely on a European level. The national legislation is always the basis.
16 Contact person/details, administration name, department etc.… 15 This will not be a mandatory field. But in some countries this is already standard information.
17 Ownership type 23 Private, Public (state, municipality), combined?.
18 State of conservation/Maintenance condition 26 A grade expressed by a number (0 – 3). Ref CEN standard on Condition survey of immovable heritage (protected and historic buildings, sites and constructions).
19 Risk (grading) / Hazard potential 17 / 18 Grading system must be developed. Can this be combined with hazard potential?
20 Vulnerability (importance, value, etc.?). 14 With this participants meant an indicator for how important the monument etc. is and the importance to intervene if damage develops? This is a very tricky indicator to have – at least at the top level, it needs some guidelines but seems problematic at this level.
21 Historic data, data on former interventions etc. 24 Pointer or information on where this can be found. Possible to have a very short prose description?
22 Structural type similar to another info element. 26 It was unclear if this information element concurred with typology (see 11). If not it needs some further elaboration? If it is the same it needs to be incorporated into Typologies.
23 Basic construction material 26 The notes from the meeting read ‘Basic materials’. I have assumed we are talking construction materials.
Notes:Top score is 26; i.e. all participants agreed.All this top level information should be public and this may need some clarification with national regulations and rules on public protection of individuals.The number of objects (structures, sites) will be above 1 million on a European level. If we include immovable heritage in historic zones, protected urban environments as well as other valuable immovable heritage, we assess we are speaking of close to 2-3 million. This is a substantial number to manage.3 colours reflect 3 ‘chapters’ or ‘sections’ of the ID card.
D3.1 RESULTS: Survey on actual risk
assessment methodologies
- identification
and analysis of existing
directives for risk
assessment related to
monument conservation
General information about informative systems for risk assessment and management related to Immovable Cultural Heritage
• Name•Country•Responsible institution•Level of implementation•Access• Updating• Reference to catalogue (census)
Risk assessment methodology
Factors of danger •Static-structural domain•Environment domain•Weather/Climate domain•Anthropic domain
Vulnerability
Legal constrains
Risk mathematical model/algorithm
Possibility to realize database queries
Data downloadable
On Risk indicators: The hazards identified are focusing mainly on the Macroscale of the risk assessment problem. However, the risk of damage associated with monuments is also a function of various other factors such as the conservation state of the materials (i.e. not only the static/structural aspects of the building), the importance and distribution of cultural heritage, the impact factor of the hazards present, various socioeconomic parameters etc. Since the materials’ state of conservation depends on their physicochemical and physicomechanical parameters and the materials’ behavior in a corrosive environment is not generalized, the risk assessment should be dealt in the direction of revealing the specific active decay mechanism with an integrated decay study both in Mesoscale [type of decay (morphology)] and Microscale [kinetics of the phenomenon (decay rate) and thermodynamics of the phenomenon (susceptibility to decay)] level, through a Standardized Diagnostic Study Methodology.
NTUA’s Proposals & Additions to D3.1
D4.1 RESULTS: Survey on
identification of MTTs for data collection and
presentation of the most
effective MTTs in relation to the
Cultural Heritage Identity Card
(CHIC).
Category of data collection
Sub category Additions / variations depending on IS
General description: Architecture typeBuilding elementsMaterialsBuilding techniques
Decoration (Greece)Ownership & Legal Status (Greece, Slovenia, Spain)Electromechanical elements (Greece)Movable objects (Italy)Context and landscape (Malta)Dating (Poland)Legal protection status (Slovenia)
Geographic situation: Historic buildings and monumentsLinear structuresProtected areasArchaeological sites and monuments
Historic buildings and monuments- individual item- complex item (Italy)Archaeological sites - Individual item- complex item (Italy)
Surveying and documentation
Measured plansRealistic 2D depictionsRealistic 3D depictions
Historical development Historical resources researchArchaeologyDating methodsConstruction historyConservation activitiesArt history
Conservation Activities (Greece)
Material condition and structural health assessment
Maintenance inspectionsDiagnostic surveys
Outer effects impact Long term environmental effectsEnvironmental changeAnthropic impact and improper useDisasters - Floods Disasters - LandslidesDisasters – Wind, storms and hurricanesDisasters – Earthquakes and tsunamisDisasters – FireDisasters – others
Dangers- coastal dynamicsDisasters – avalanchesDisasters – vulcanoesEnvironment-air – erosion indexEnvironment-air – blackening indexAnthropic – dynamics of demographic densityAnthropic – pressure of tourismAnthropic – liability to theft (all Italy)
Vulnerability and risk management
Preventive careMitigationsMonitoring
Management, Exploitation & Maintenance Planning
Preservation plansExploitation
Accessibility assessment (Greece)Maintenance inspections (Slovenia)
Scientific research MTTs R&DThematic research and databases
Within category "Surveying and documentation" we suggest including the subcategory Visual Observations
Category “Outer effects impacts” could be renamed into "Environmental Factors"so that it would be more extensive, including the whole environment (ground, suroundings,flora, fauna etc..), not just climate effects
Category "Historical development" could be renamed to "Historical documentation" ommiting the Conservation activities
The subcategory "Improper use" could not be under “Outer effects impacts” but there should be added an new Category "Uses" including all the past and the current use of the building / monument
We suggest a new Category "Interventions" containing all the information of the building / monument, with subcategories as Construction phases, Conservation activities and Conservation Interventions
In the category „Management Exploitation & Maintenance Planning“ we could use as MTTs links to a GIS database regarding the management plans and the maintennce schedules
Under the category "Material condition and structural assessment" we would suggest including the subcategories "Phenomena and decay mechanisms", "Building areas and Sampling", "Analytical techniques testing"
Category “Outer effects impacts” could be renamed into "Environmental Factors"so that it would be more extensive, including the whole environment (ground, suroundings,flora, fauna etc..), not just climate effects
Under the category „Vulnerability and Risk Management“ we would suggest including the subcategory „Expert Decision Making System“ using as MTTs Inspection Indicators, Diagnosis Indicators and Intervention Indicators
On methods and Tools: Suggestion of new categoriesGeneral info Architectural DocumentationInterventionsOwnership and Legal Status & proposals for changes to the main categories and sub-categories
NTUA’s Proposals & Additions to D4.1
TASK 5.2
KNOWLEDGE BASED DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES AND “EU CHIC” GUIDELINE (L: NTUA, M: UL, IIT, Z-Z, UNIBO, LABEIN)
The integrated documentation protocols developed in Task 5.1 will be complemented dynamically, according the necessity of performing inspection, diagnosis and intervention works, leading to knowledge based decision making procedures.
Significant feedback of the relevant data will be given by the Advisory Network, consisting of representatives of national authorities established in European countries, dealing with cultural heritage protection.
After compiling all the information, the EU CHIC guideline about recommendations on how to evaluate & use the IC models to monuments & sets of historic buildings will be produced.
Deliverable D 5.2 will be:
EU CHIC Identity Card Guideline This guideline will contain:
The assessment of the data collection that should be undertaken, including risk indicators. This part of the document will be created in a form of specific kind of combination of questionnaires and data sheet, including harmonization of
criteria and indicators of existing European standards for the development of the Identity Card concept The evaluation of the most usable tools and methods to collect and store the data and the criteria to select the most
appropriate in every case The criteria to be considered regarding further and past alternation of assets.
This guideline will be written in English and translated in languages of all CHIC partners: Arabic, Croatian, Czech, Flemish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Polish, Slovenian and Spanish
DISCUSSION ON TASK & DELIVERABLE 5.2
Finalize the Criteria for Decision making
NTUA’s Integrated Methodology for Decision Making Support with certain foreseen procedures
Criteria for IC models assessment including: The assessment of data collection that should be undertaken, including risk indicators, harmonization criteria and European standards indicators: (questionnaires and data sheets? ) The evaluation of the most practical tools and methods to collect and store data and the criteria to select the most appropriate case specific material The criteria to be considered regarding previous and future asset alterations
Emerging Methodologies for EU-CHIC results adoption - ITAM’s proposal of an IS method (software), entitled “CHOOGLE - Integrating national CH databases”,
MULTIPLE-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS / ALGORITHM FOR NECESSITY INDEXES CALCULATION) KRHTH
Feedback & Relevant Issues discussed
Presentation from ITAM
The Czech partner presented their proposal “CHOOGLE – integrating national cultural heritage basis” and the Coordinator considered that it was in line with the stated EU-CHIC objectives as it offered a possible upper-level solution for the project implementation.
One of the biggest advantages of the CHOOGLE system could be in creating comparable databases for the maintenance of cultural heritage objects.
ITAM– is there sufficient interest amongst EU-CHIC partners to further develop the CHOOGLE database, and to approach, as a first step, a demonstration to show that it is possible to join multiple databases and extract specific relevant data (such as that required for the EHL label).
A conclusion was reached that the consortia supports such a step towards ademonstration, but the coordinator said that he cannot redistribute the
project finances in support of this. Therefore, ITAM would need to individuallytake on the responsibilities and cost to further develop the system to
demonstrate it, although the EU-CHIC project will acknowledge itsdevelopment, and help to promote and sell it.
As discussed at the AC meeting on 31 January, participants emphasized the importance ofcompatibility in all databases emerging from EC financed projects. They also raised the issue ofopen access, the integration of different systems across Europe, and the challenge of how tolink them on a common meta-data basis. In principle participants support the proposal that theEU-CHIC identity card could be a product of the project, yet there were several that would haveto be addressed: EU-CHIC should develop with a standard level of minimum common information. The database should offer added value (e.g. will it directly serve the EHL). The database should be formed so that it can become a direct tool for supporting the EHL. The database will have to be a kind of specialized database in a group of cultural heritage
projects, yet be compatible with all others. The IT system should enable an interrogation of a large number of different datasets to reveal
relevant criteria and information required for the consideration of an award of a EHL label (so called labeling criteria). Possible label criteria are listed as the importance for EU history, for EU identity, for tourism, and for sustainability development. (Other aspects may need to be added pending further investigation.
The database should be founded on established standards of documentation and monitoring, and should incorporate risk assessments (integrated risk management) according to modern standards.
Emerging methodologies to assist in practical adoption of final CHIC results
Why should a relevant authority use a tool/system? What is its added value in comparison to other already existed
methods? How to motivate potential end-users to adopt it? Mrs. Rajčić recalled that the EC wants all databases that were, and
will be, developed in the frame of EU projects to be compatible with each other. AC members also noted that such a tool should be focused on one area of EU-CHIC; such as risk assessment for example, and should incorporate all relevant standards about cultural heritage objects, or even develop a new standard on meta data information, which should also be linked with CEN TC 356 endeavours.
Any new standard should encompass what each documentation system should have as mandatory and not mandatory information fields. From this perspective, EU-CHIC could innovatively develop a basis for standardisation work on that specific aspect, and this would represent an important significant step forward.
AC members questions to be addressed
TASK 5.3 STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND VALIDATION OF “EU CHIC”
(L: NTUA, M: UL, SKB, Z-Z, ITAM, FRAUNH., IIT, UNIBO, IPPT, LABEIN)
The developed Guideline needs to be further validated. Directives should be developed for:
Further research in order to finalize the recommendations for the creation of integrated documentation protocols & the development of knowledge based decision making procedures in the sector of cultural heritage protection
Strategies for implementing EU CHIC model in EU policies & standard bodies
Implementation of EU-CHIC results through demonstration projects, comparative studies, benchmarking of the guideline
The extension of the proposal to other assets not covered within the project topics: movable, archaeological, intangible & underwater heritage
At the end of this task, the final conference will be organized to present the outcomes of the EU-CHIC project to widen community of experts & other stakeholders engaged in the heritage safeguarding.
Deliverable D 5.3 will be:Strategic planning for EU CHIC guideline implementation
The strategies for further research on recommendations for integrated documentation protocols and knowledge based decision making procedures and strategies for implementation and validation of the developed recommendations will be
elaborated in this deliverable. Recommendations for the development of EU policies in this area will be considered. The strategic plan will be based on analysis of case studies of typical heritage buildings and/or sites delivered by all
project partners.
DISCUSSION ON TASK & DELIVERABLE 5.3
STRATEGIC RE-ORIENTATION OF THE PROJECT
A broad discussion on a strategic re-orientation of the project occurred. In this, it was noted that a series of significant activities on the emergence of the European Cultural Heritage Label (EHL) initiative were currently progressing within the European Commission and AC members suggested that such a reorientation could be to beneficially direct the project activities and efforts to the potential usage of the EU-CHIC systems as a tool for supporting the future implementation of the ECHL.
It was suggested that this new approach should mean involving the European Commission and linking the project to the European Cultural Heritage Label (ECHL) project process, along with the emerging EU Tourism Strategy, and with sustainability initiatives in emerging European politics.
EU-CHIC should identify relevant on-going political EU/EC initiatives and make use of them where mutual benefits could be achieved. For example, EU-CHIC and European Cultural Heritage Heads Forum links could be readily established via meta data, and from this perspective, what EU-CHIC is trying to accomplish could appear to the ECHL as being very attractive, highly relevant, applicable and economically justified, creating a win-win situation for all parties.
Further, it was suggested that EU-CHIC should try to address and motivate the European Cultural Heritage Heads Forum – ECHHF (there was a meeting on 26 and 27 May, 2011 in Amsterdam, NL). The aim might be to contextualise the EU-CHIC project under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty; the DG Research Joint Programme Initiative (JPI); and the potential benefits that could feed into the standardization CEN/TC 346 work, to promote the uptake and benefits of EU-CHIC at national levels.
Projects partners should also investigate future options to include EU-CHIC within the on-going JPI process, and be further motivated to identify relevant contact persons that could be contacted directly, and sent hard copies of the emerging material. For example, if direct contacts with Ministries are not feasible an approach via regional cultural heritage institutes is also possible. Other potential strategic targets are EC Eurostat and the EC Tourism Strategy.
Questions formed in Preparatory Meeting
Even though the WP5 starts at month 18, the preparation has already begun, through:
Research on information systems (IS) of documentation, risk assessment and management of Greece and the countries that NTUA had untertaken
NTUA’s contribution to WP2, WP3 & WP4 (reported in Mid Term Report)
Process of results deriving from previous related work packages (WP2, WP3, WP4).
WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS OF YOUR WP IN THE REPORTING PERIOD?
HOW CAN THESE RESULTS BE USED?
The adaptation of the WP5 results would lead to the increase of knowledge on the heritage across Europe, the support the development of sustainable maintenance, preservation and revitalization of historic sites and monuments through the development of guidelines for the assessment and use of efficient and user-friendly systems for the identification of parameters to characterize the heritage building and their possible alterations during its entire lifetime, using the concept of Identity Card.
The concept of the Identity Card of monuments will allow proper management, conservation and maintenance strategies.
In order to inform the research community of these important results and help end users adopte them an Awareness and Dissemination Plan containing different kind of activities is prepared and deployed along the project and beyond.All Project Partners, the Advisory Committee, the Advisory Network will establish, maintain and develop cooperative links with local authorities and stakeholders responsible for safeguarding the cultural heritage, encouraging them to adopt the EU-CHIC methodologies in local conservation schemes.
Implementation of the generated knowledge will help in decision making procedures, disseminating a common sense of responsibilities and preservation of cultural heritage. It will also be a place for discussion about the transfer of EU CHIC philosophy & methods to real practice of heritage protection through the channels opened by the Advisory network, ERA Heritage network, ECTP FACH, Europa Nostra, ICOMOS, COST, EUREKA etc.
The results of WP5 are expected to be the base for further research and practical use in the participating countries and other ones.
WHO CAN USE EACH OF THE RESULTS?
Ministries of Culture / Relevant Directorates – Ephorates
Museums
Local Bodies as Stakeholders of specific monuments or
historic city centers
Related NGOs
Research Institutes & Universities for education and
research in monuments’ protection
Laboratories and technical assistant bodies to
conservation
Scientific community
Owners and managers of Cultural Heritage buildings
Restoration enterprises (specially SMEs)
Construction & Consultants’ offices in the field of
conservation – restoration of historic buildings and
monuments
Architects and other prescription/specifying bodies
National Technology Platforms
Industry on building materials and interventions techniques
European and International Associations of
networks related to Cultural Heritage,
Organisation of World Heritage Cities, WHIN,
WCMC, World Monuments Fund-World Monuments
Watch, IDCBS,
FACH of the European Construction Technology
Platform,
ERANET
Standardization Committees, especially CEN/TC
346.
Meta-Management / Meta-users: creation of sites
& databases for the extraction of necessity indices of
inspection – diagnosis – intervention works, for the
evaluation –monitoring and maintenance
Strategic planning & Policy making in National /
European / International level (measures, rules, laws,
guidelines etc)
The results of WP5 can be used by Governmental – Regional & Local Bodies in partners’ countries as well as in the ones disseminated to:
NTUA’s Proposal
Proposed Methodology for Integrated Documentation Protocols
At present there is no existing common procedures nor an established methodology for collecting, organizing and presenting data that could be used as a background for
decision making in the selection of refurbishment strategies because of:
should encompass all the
criteria of a
ALL DECISION MAKING SYSTEMS REQUIRE QUALITY CONTROL IN ALL THEIR PROCEDURESALL DECISION MAKING SYSTEMS REQUIRE QUALITY CONTROL IN ALL THEIR PROCEDURES
Problems in MethodologyIncompatible InterventionsProblems in RegulationsProblems in the National Codes and Euro codes
Total Quality Control System
Total Quality Control System
Methodology (Parameterization)
Criteria (Quality)Regulations / New
requirements from users
Compatibility – Serviceability Compatibility – Serviceability of materials & interventionsof materials & interventions
Quality Control
Architectural
Structural
Historic Documentation
Preservation of authenticityPreservation of authenticity
Materials and Conservation Interventions
The criteria of A Total Quality Control System are
Observance of the deontology of international conventionsdeontology of international conventions that demand the preservation and presentation of historic, sentimental virtues and the architecture of monuments, while preserving the authentic materials, forms and structures.
Serviceability of the conservation interventions and restorationsServiceability of the conservation interventions and restorations (so that the building can accept safely the new uses and face the earthquake risk)
CompatibilityCompatibility of the materials and conservation interventions with authentic materials, the building and its environment
SustainabilitySustainability Increase of lifetime Protection of the environment and energy savings Minimization of environmental impact on the monument
The archive should be a dynamic one, incorporating and supplying with information on the The archive should be a dynamic one, incorporating and supplying with information on the building, during its entire life-time. building, during its entire life-time.
The vital stage is the creation of an archive for every building including all the existing data concerning
-Special building documentation -Materials and building's structure in general
-Environmental factors-Air pollution-Degradation mechanisms
-Diagnosis techniques and methods -Intervention works
Decision Making Procedures
KNOWLEDGE BASED DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES.
The criteria for ranking the buildings and prioritize the activities of inspection, diagnosis & intervention are defined
by Necessity Indexes.
Necessity indexes – Criteria for decision making
Inspection necessity index. It originates from the need of tactical inspection of buildings in order to assess their condition
Diagnosis necessity index. It uses information deriving from diagnostic and intervention studies
Intervention necessity index. It is developed based on information deriving from diagnostic studies, inspection bulletins, environmental studies
Index of maximum hazardIndex of maximum hazard:: Based on the data introduced, it is the index which presents the maximum hazard
Integrated Methodology for Decision Making Support
RankingIntervention Necessity Index
Study for Interventions
(Specifications)
Interventions Works Assessment
Surveys and Monitoring
Inspection(manuals, check lists)
Diagnosis(Diagnosis Protocol)
Interventions Works
Inspection report
No
Yes
Diagnosis report
Yes
No
Diagnosis(Diagnosis Protocol)
Data BaseDocumentation, Environmental,
Air Pollution, Degradation Mechanisms, …
Need for interventions
Need for diagnosis
RankingDiagnosis Necessity Index
Check Lists
Check Lists
RankingInspection Necessity Index
RankingDiagnosis Necessity Index
Stages for the determination of limits of necessity indexes
Criteria for decision making
Criteria for decision making
Necessity indexes used for the facilitation of a decision making procedure
Necessity indexes used for the facilitation of a decision making procedure
Physical, chemical, mechanical parameters, indicative of the building materials’ state
Physical, chemical, mechanical parameters, indicative of the building materials’ state
Quantification of parametersQuantification of parameters
Determination of critical limits of parameters separating the range of values into zones of different hazard degree Determination of critical limits of parameters separating the range of values into zones of different hazard degree
Final Output of WP5
A Guideline establishing : the Identity Card concept to the European Cultural Heritage
the minimum criteria of the data collection to be undertaken, the most recommendable systems for data storage, the criteria regarding further or past alternation to be considered
the harmonization of existing criteria & indicators of existing European standards for the development of the Identity Card concept
A part of the guideline will be a model of data collection and presentation in form of data sheets – demonstrated by
the selected cases of heritage buildings
top related