Lights and shadows over the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape: ‘managing change’ in Ballarat and Cuenca through a radical approach focused on values and authenticity

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ Esta es la versión aceptada del artículo publicado en: This is a accepted manuscript of a paper published in: International Journal of Heritage Studies (2017): 27/01/2025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 Copyright: © 2017 Published with licence by Informa uK limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group El acceso a la versión publicada del artículo puede requerir la suscripción de la revista. Access to the published version may require subscription. “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in [International Journal of Heritage Studies] on [2017], available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 Lights and shadows over the implementation of the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape: “Managing change” in Ballarat and Cuenca using a radical approach focused on values and authenticity. Julia Rey Péreza, Plácido González Martínezb aHigher Technical School of Architecture, University Institute of Architecture and Construction Sciences, University of Seville, Seville, Spain; bCollege of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai, China. The 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) is the most recent incorporation to the global process of heritage production that was triggered by the 1972 World Heritage Convention. Five years since the publication of the Recommendation, it is clear that, despite UNESCO’s efforts, opportunities for the implementation of the HUL on a global level have been scarce. An increasing awareness regarding public participation has provided an additional opportunity for the HUL, due to an enhanced understanding of an ideal urban heritage management that, avant la lettre, disregards traditional up-down decision-making processes. Our paper provides a critical evaluation of the positive and negative aspects which have arisen from the implementation of HUL Recommendation with regards to charters and theory. We have also taken into consideration the risks that are concomitant to its ambitious holistic approach, as well as the ambiguities with regards to the definition of landscape on which the HUL is based. This paper also identifies the opportunities that a renewed focus on heritage values and authenticity management, as reflected in the cases of Cuenca (Ecuador) and Ballarat (Australia), may offer for the successful implementation of the HUL approach. Keywords: urban heritage, urban development, citizen participation, governance. Introduction Current trends of urbanisation pose the challenge of heritage conservation being concealed with urban development on an unprecedented scale. Over the last few International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 decades, this issue has been a focal point in heritage discussion, due to the potential for historic urban environments to become assets of the global cultural economy (Greffe 2004; Pereira Roders and Van Oers 2011). A narrative of the development of heritage charters and recommendations shows conceptual advances. The social and economic challenges to heritage were first identified in the 1972 World Heritage Convention, effectively overcoming the traditional aesthetic and historical implications which were present both in the Athens Charter (ICOMOS 1931) and the Venice Charter (ICOMOS 1964). The 1972 Convention advocated the inclusion of heritage assets in the day-to- day life of communities, fostering management rather than the use of traditional preservation measures (UNESCO 1972). Subsequent documents including the Nairobi Recommendation (UNESCO 1976); the Washington Charter (ICOMOS 1987), and the Nara Document (ICOMOS 1994) followed the spirit of the 1972 Convention, by addressing the problem of rapid urban growth as well as demanding the implementation of social and economic revitalization policies, thus reinforcing the cultural profile of historic cities, and in doing so, avoiding heritage commodification. Conceived as a tool for managing sustainable change in urban environments from a heritage perspective, the 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) is the most recent step in this direction. This recommendation amalgamates the aforementioned concepts together with new contemporary concerns regarding urban heritage (UNESCO 2011b; UNESCO 2011a). These are related to the idea of the ‘right to the city’(D. Harvey 2008), and involve citizen participation and urban governance, a concept which has been apparent in the Western post-industrial societies since the early 1990s. The conceptual innovativeness of the HUL Recommendation is down to the incorporation of new attributes for heritage valuation, and in particular, to the International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 integration of non-heritage disciplines. However, at the same time, we feel that this, in fact, constitutes its most severe handicap, and this is an aspect that we will discuss further in this paper. Recent international experiences of culture-based urban revitalization in countries like China have demonstrated the limitations of the prevailing economic interpretations of the Recommendation, thus jeopardising both the living conditions and the local population’s attachment to the place (Van Oers and Pereira Roders 2013; Su 2011). From our perspective, the key to counteracting such a situation is to recover and enhance the role of authenticity, the importance of which has diminished, in fact it is only mentioned in the 24th paragraph of the HUL Recommendation (UNESCO 2011b). Authenticity has been described as a utopic aspiration (Bandarin and Van Oers 2012). However, an insight into the theoretical basis of the HUL and a review of recent developments in the debate amongst scholars regarding heritage, offer an opportunity to recover the concept of authenticity from a value-based approach. Said recovery would lead to the incorporation of other contemporary global problems such as poverty, inequality, immigration and climate change to the heritage debate, issues which currently determine the life of urban citizens to a greater extent than the Universal Outstanding Values (OUVs) proposed by UNESCO (UNESCO 1972). The HUL Recommendation explicitly refers to the definition of values (UNESCO 2011b), and although the value-based approach has recently been accused of favouring authorized heritage discourses (Smith 2006; Walter 2014), we alongside other authors, (Jokilehto 2012) consider that the reference to values is still pertinent, provided that it employs consistent value typologies that incorporate ideas such as diversity and development over time, both of which are applicable to urban heritage management (Fredheim and Khalaf 2016). International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 Said values offer urban heritage a performative framework for identification, and provide the opportunity for negotiation with other fields such as sociology, anthropology, environmental studies, archaeology, and economics from a balanced perspective. The review of the Ballarat (Australia) and Cuenca (Ecuador) case studies will also demonstrate how the use of a value-based approach may enhance the HUL Recommendation’s greatest conceptual strength for implementation: the promotion of a shared vision of the urban realm by local stakeholders, in addition to its integration into the definition of policies (Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016, 106). The case studies will also take into consideration the theoretical basis of the HUL Recommendation and the manner in which it is being put into practice, highlighting the need for citizens to play an active role in planning the future development of their city. These cases will specifically emphasise the importance of planning tools in which connections may be made between urban and heritage regulations, providing a wide array of stakeholders access to heritage management. The conclusions will explore the validity of the HUL as a means for future development, claiming for additional efforts in the implementation of the HUL based on a reinforced definition of authenticity. The HUL Recommendation: the new identification and management of heritage, from a landscape approach The increasing importance of the role of heritage in urban economies from the 1970s onwards (D. C. Harvey 2001), has been considered as a crucial opportunity for confirming its ‘landscape’ dimension. This means that the definition of heritage no longer focuses solely on monuments, but that it now includes cities, landscapes and the territory thanks to a new holistic vision encompassing economic, technical, environmental, social, geographic, aesthetic, urban and natural aspects (De La Torre and Throsby 2002; Veldpaus 2015; Veldpaus and Pereira Roders 2014). This development International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 is deemed to be positive, however, it is evident that critical assessment is required, especially considering the rising importance of what has been referred to as ‘the urban atmosphere’ and ‘ambience’ in new entrepreneurial models of city governance (D. Harvey 1989). The landscape approach, therefore, poses a question that goes beyond mere aesthetics and perception, focusing on which objects, places, activities and processes take part in the current overarching global heritage vision, as well as their purpose in the concept of heritage. Despite its very orthodox origins, the ongoing debate regarding the integration between the old and the new in landscape terms was only recently considered in the charters and recommendations. This had a particular influence on the 2005 Vienna Memorandum for the integration of contemporary architecture in historic cities (UNESCO 2005) as well as taking steps forward in determining the unexplored definition of the intangible qualities of built heritage in the 2008 Declaration of Quebec on the preservation of the spirit of the place (ICOMOS 2008). Regardless of the differences which are apparent, in both the Vienna and the Quebec documents it was acknowledged that development is unavoidable and that this has a significant effect on the character of the built environment, raising the question of how to deal with both matters, an issue which was initially addressed by the 2011 UNESCO HUL Recommendation. Said recommendation aimed to become an innovative tool for heritage conservation and urban planning, amidst recent rapid urban growth, spurred on by country-to-city migration and the global boom of real estate markets. It is important to point out that as a ‘tool’, the HUL Recommendation refers exclusively to the management of change in urban environments from the perspectives of heritage and culture, and does not constitute a new protection category (UNESCO 2011b, 9; UNESCO 2020). International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 The definition of the HUL appears in Article 9 of the Recommendation, overcoming the notion of isolated heritage assets and giving a new role to citizen engagement and the spirit of the place. Drawing from the cultural landscape category, HUL encompasses a variety of natural, cultural and socio-economic processes that occur in the city from a space, time and experience perspective. A wide array of aspects such as urban morphology, visual axes, architectural typologies, open spaces, topography, vegetation, infrastructures, archaeological elements, rituals, values, knowledge, also plays a fundamental role to the transformative character of contemporary architecture (UNESCO 2011b). Nevertheless, there are challenges to the holistic ‘landscaped’ expansion of the heritage limits. Firstly, new tools and resources are required for the conservation and management of more and more complex varied heritage assets (Fernandez-Baca, Escobar, and Sanz 2011; Taylor 2016; Van Oers and Haraguchi 2010, 14-16). Secondly, overcoming criticism from the academic realm is vital. Authors such as Lalana have indicated the risk of deliberately loosening the definition of the so-called ‘landscaping approach’, considering that this might lead to it being interpreted exclusively from a visual perspective, thus neglecting its whole variety of layers, and in doing so, jeopardising the identification of the values which are to be preserved (Lalana 2011). Conceptual and instrumental challenges are fundamental, and we acknowledge that a lack of political will and appetite for economic revenue may encourage certain stakeholders to adopt non-rigorous, ‘easy ways’. Nevertheless, we consider that the inclusiveness of landscape is a solid base. Whether from its geographical, pictorial, linguistic and sociological understanding, the official formulation of the HUL implies the idea of an overall integrated system that, in theory, would apply perfectly to the city. It incorporates the notion of sustainability as the ethical framework that allows for a International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 balanced relationship amongst its constitutive elements. The aims and goals of the HUL Recommendation adhere to this argument, employing landscape as a means of overcoming the difference between historical environments and areas of new development; nature and culture and built heritage and its context, therefore witnessing the complex process of building a city over time. The ‘experiential’ dimension brought into heritage by the concept of landscape also favours the implementation of the HUL (Taylor 2016, 472). The Amsterdam Charter (Council of Europe 1975), the Nairobi Declaration (UNESCO 1976) and the Washington Charter (ICOMOS 1987) explicitly referred to the importance of public opinion in urban conservation. The HUL Recommendation has incorporated ‘experiential’ terms such as “well-being” and “quality of life”, presenting new social issues to the heritage debate, including the forgotten urban population living in poverty or non-legal migrant status, and the prioritisation of modernisation over the rights of traditional communities due to the pressures of economic development (Taylor 2016). The HUL Recommendation also serves to bring a discussion from the 1931 Athens Charter regarding the integration of urban heritage conservation and urban planning up to date. An essential reference is the 1973 Urban Plan of Bologna, where conservation was intrinsically linked to non-monumental aspects of the urban landscape, such as the hinterland and the active implication of the citizens (Campos Venuti 1981, 53-56). The HUL Recommendation has also incorporated definitions about genius loci, which are unrelated to urban conservation, such as urban phenomenology and the spiritual quality of the human habitat, which was present in the creation of the United Nations HABITAT programme in 1978 (Bandarin and Van Oers 2012; Jacobs 1973; De Carlo 1980). International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 Building on from these precedents, the HUL Recommendation aims to deal with urban conservation in the 21st Century by addressing the following specific considerations: (1) Sensitivity towards global urban growth, identified by UNESCO as a major challenge for the next 30 years. The HUL Recommendation is linked to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015), which was adopted at the recent Habitat III Conference in Quito and which acts as a roadmap in the fight against urban poverty and inequality thanks to a people-centred approach aiming to “make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (United Nations, 2015). The Recommendation sticks to the doctrine of the 2030 Agenda, proposing management tools to connect the HUL to the political vision of the city (Veldpaus, Pereira Roders, and Colenbrander 2013). The HUL Recommendation is considered as the most adequate tool for the management of UNESCO World Heritage Sites (UNESCO 2015; Taylor 2016), as well as for the improvement and conservation of urban areas in general, regardless of their inclusion on the World Heritage List (UNESCO 2013, 1). (2) Demand for improvements at administration and institutional levels: the Recommendation aims to incorporate new stakeholders such as local volunteers, universities and private companies (UNESCO 2013, 5), as well as to develop an attractive vision for a political system that aims to overcome administrative inertia and face this challenge head on (Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016b). Among the four tools suggested by the Recommendation, the “Regulatory systems” refer to special bylaws which incorporate the management of tangible and intangible heritage assets with their social and environmental values (WHITRAP and International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 language. This standstill is also down to the excessive pressure on heritage as a source of local revenue, which is understood to be the principal indicator in evaluating the success of local cadres in the administration. The involvement of local governments and academic institutions, with different degrees of leadership, is a keystone for the application of the HUL. All cases referred to in the HUL Guidebook depart from two main ideas, harmonising urban conservation with regeneration and sustainability (WHITRAP and Ballarat 2016), and involving citizens in the identification and management of heritage values. The latter is considered as a way of progressing towards further institutional and administrative changes in urban governance (Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016). This new urban governance is understood as being the culmination of the process, which guarantees the definition of authenticity based on a framework of shared values and the related definition of criteria for intervention and conservation. Ballarat and Cuenca stand amongst the pioneering experiences of the HUL approach due to their range and size; the fundamental role of the citizens; their interdisciplinary nature and the effect that it is having in the academic realm as well as in local administration. Ballarat is particularly significant, due to the institutional transformation that resulted from the implementation of the Recommendation (Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016, 95) and the case of Cuenca, showcases new means of incorporating the citizens in the identification of heritage value alongside an interdisciplinary team (GOHUL 2016). Ballarat: the management of change from the administration. Ballarat was the first municipality to begin to implement the HUL approach within its strategic processes as envisaged by UNESCO. Its key to success is the International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 steadfast involvement of the local government, and the change of its political vision towards the landscape approach (Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016, 100). The adoption of the HUL approach has produced a new political framework, which has completely restructured the administration system, aiming to guarantee sustainable change. This has meant not only the full implication of the citizens but also that of elected representatives and government officials, who have received specific training on the Recommendation. The main changes have been directed towards the establishment of new mechanisms for heritage value identification, as well as alternative, ‘horizontal’ management methods (Buckley, Cooke, and Fayad 2016, 95,98). The project entitled Ballarat Strategy. Our vision for 2040 (Ballarat 2015), has produced strategic guidelines for the management of the city. These guidelines focus on development, infrastructure and planning (Ballarat 2016), through a series of integrated and participatory Local Area Plans as well as the inclusion of the HUL concepts into local planning policy regimes (WHITRAP and Ballarat 2016; Ballarat, n.d.). Ballarat Imagine was conceived as a participatory process, and more than 6500 participants from the whole city were involved in the new identification of heritage values (Ballarat 2013). The results of this process defined heritage, lifestyle and the sense of community as the key elements which the future sustainable strategy of Ballarat for 2040 should be based on. Ballarat imagine asked its participants to respond to three questions: what do they love, what they would like to preserve, and what do they envision as a future for their city. The results showed that the answers to the two first questions were very similar, pointing to a variety of attributes that reveal the heritage values that define the authenticity of the city. The elements that the participants indicated that they wished to retain in the future showed a strengthened vision of what they love about their city. This International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 allowed for the construction of the city’s identification from a citizens’ perspective (Ballarat 2013) (table 1). Cultural identity has become dominant axis for future planning through the provision of tools for civic engagement, knowledge and planning, thanks to the cooperation of local Universities. Amongst all of the measures, the Regulatory Tools for the HUL approach are responsible for a considerable number of improvements which develop: 1) Statutory planning and enforcement, 2) Community engagement policy, and 3) the Ballarat Strategy, Ballarat Planning Scheme overlays and controls, regeneration plans, frameworks and policies (WHITRAP and Ballarat 2016, 25). The resulting administrative and political structure has taken on the challenge of establishing authenticity with regards to ‘the limits of change’, incorporating the information that was compiled from the results of the citizens’ participation. Another important issue is related to transparency and public scrutiny, as all of the information has been made available online thus giving the population practical tools to engage in discussions. (Ballarat, n.d.). Cuenca: managing complexity from academia The case study of Cuenca was led by the University of Cuenca, adhering to the six steps proposed by UNESCO for the implementation of the HUL (UNESCO, n.d.). The tasks included the creation of an interdisciplinary research team with the purpose of studying the city from all possible dimensions, incorporating the attributes mentioned in articles 8 and 9 of the HUL Recommendation. The team brought together geologists, biologists, geographers, economists, anthropologists, sociologists and architects in order VALUES SOCIAL ARCHITECTURAL ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURES USES AXES Lakes, gardens, landscape and environment, clean fresh air, green spaces, proximity to nature, places to walk and ride your bike Quiet city, warm people, family atmosphere, safety, generosity of people’s hearts, the friendliness, community feel General facilites and resources, relatively cheap housing Culture-access to music and arts, markets BALLARAT ENVIRONMENT Public transport Invest in infrastructure prior to development and better transport Heritage Arcades Cultural identity, heritage, lifestyle and community feelings More skate/BMX parks and water parks More events and entertainment, tourist attractions and sports facilities Better economy, better employment opportunities FUTURE LOVE AND RETAIN / ATTRIBUTES International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 to map the natural, cultural and social resources in the city (Step 1). The results were later compared with the citizens’ visions, in an event entitled ‘Visionary Conference’, in 2015 (Rey-Pérez et al. 2017). The Conference was financed by the University of Cuenca, WHITRAP and The Netherlands Funds-in-Trust for World Heritage, and support was also received from the municipality of Cuenca. This project involved officials and citizens working hand-in- hand in the identification of values, attributes and vulnerabilities (steps 2 and 3), and furthermore, in drafting recommendations for the management of Cuenca’s future sustainable development (Step 4). All stakeholders involved, (citizens, officials and experts) defined the possible development strategies, as well as their prioritisation (step 5) (Cuenca 2015). As a World Heritage Site, Cuenca departed from an orthodox approach to urban heritage protection which focused on historical assets as objects. The collaborative work of citizens and experts allowed for the incorporation of other relevant questions which were considered as essential by the inhabitants to the character of the city. Citizens were asked to identify elements with which they had developed a certain engagement, and a variety of different answers were received. These included attributes such as gastronomy, city squares, the sound of the rivers and the perspective of the mountains, as well as the valuation of assets outside of the declared heritage area (streets, parks, houses…). The collaborative work also identified other potential threats such as public safety, pollution and hygiene, which could endanger the construction of identity and the authenticity of the city (Table 2). According to the studied demands, Cuenca has been studied beyond the limits of just its historical centre, as part of the process of revaluation or re-identification, a timely and fundamental aspect towards the planning, International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 control, activation and future urban conservation. The tables show two different cities, with diverse needs and approaches to the urban heritage, both of which involve its citizens. Ballarat defines its authenticity through a balance of environmental, social, architectural, economical and use values, the attributes of which speak clearly about the characteristics that the city aims to conserve for the future. The case of Cuenca shows how authenticity has been defined from the perspective of architectural and environmental values, attributes which stand out from the others. Both tables show how the two cities have also focused on attributes which are located in the surrounding areas, enabling them to be able to evaluate the city from the point of view of the periphery. The main difference in the two cases lies in the social value, an aspect which has been interpreted in two completely different ways. Ballarat shows a significant number of attributes that are projected towards its future goals, and which are worthy of consideration for the creation of a new urban authenticity. Cuenca exemplifies the way in which social values are currently being evaluated, with a strong critique of its ancient roots. Both tables show how steps 1, 2 and 3, proposed by UNESCO for the implementation of the HUL approach have been carefully observed, leading to a democratic, value-based construction of urban heritage authenticity. The corresponding public policies, as well as their prioritisation (corresponding to steps 4 and 5) in Ballarat and Cuenca clearly demonstrate the different views regarding the modern welfare state VALUES SOCIAL ARCHITECTURAL CUSTOMS INFRASTRUCTURES USES AXES CUENCA ENVIRONMENT IDENTITY ELEMENTS THROUGH THE SENSES / ATTRIBUTES Squares, the sound of rivers, mountains, birds and trees, apple hearts, cold, smell of rain, sunrises, parks, Turi's landscape,views, lookout, smell of flowers, bread, coffee, nature, incense, typical food, wet field, fresh air, riverside eucalyptus and sweets, church bells and christmas lights Cathedral, streets, houses, schools, roof tiles, museum social circus, stadium Degraded, dirty and abandoned spaces, squares or streets, polluted and overflowed rivers, pollution, grafitis, abandoned animals, destruction of trees and flowers, garbage collection points ANOMALIES THROUGH THE SENSES Qualifying the integration of Cultural Heritage in the HUL, adapting infrastructures and environmental issues, fostering / orientating informal trade and impact reduction Alcoholism, insecurity, crime, prostitution, mendacity and sale of drugs in the squares, noises and the street fights, lack of hygiene, children work, inmigrants, bad education Abandoned and dirty markets, construction of modern buildings and asphalt, state of conservation of housing, overcrowding of families in the historic center, buildings deteriored by chemical attack Proliferation of car parks, loss of street lighting, traffic or smog, vehicle whistling, rudeness in the buses, smell of burned oil, tram, smell of sewers, pollution from industrial park gastronomy, handicrafts, traditional clothing no junk food International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 in their respective societies. In Australia the aim is for this policy to continue, whereas the Ecuador case study has brought forward criticism regarding its irregular implementation. Future advancements also differ in both cases. While in Ballarat the rearrangement of the administration and the definition of policies may offer a guarantee for the continuity of the HUL approach, the Cuenca experience has come to a halt. Although the Municipality received all the information that was compiled both by the interdisciplinary team and the Visionary Conference as a result of 2 years of work, the HUL approach is yet to be incorporated into an Urban Development Plan designed by both the citizens and experts, which adopts heritage and culture as major motivators. The lack of political will has meant that this plan is currently on hold despite the agreement signed by the WHITRAP, the University of Cuenca and the Municipality to incorporate the city into the HUL Pilot Cities Network (WHITRAP 2016). In both cases, the definition of authenticity has resulted from the identification of heritage values, with the citizens adopting an active and significant role. All stakeholders have been made aware of the new implications of the concept of landscape, applied to the conservation of urban heritage. The significant accomplishments which have been made to this effect, still rely on political decisions to enable them to fully reach their potential. This is due to the fact that, as the case of Cuenca shows, the values and attributes identified do not necessarily match the municipality’s political priorities, especially when these challenge the discourse of power that emanates from its governmental action. Scientific expectations versus the implementation challenges. A long path ahead towards the effective fulfilment of the HUL Recommendation. The recommendation on the HUL approach departs from the dynamic definition International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 of values shared by a variety of stakeholders. In view of the recent charters and recommendations, these include citizens, professionals, tourists, private companies and administrative bodies. Moreover, as it has been previously described, this approach also incorporates other architectural, urban, historical, cultural, social and economic factors, far from the values that traditionally applied to urban heritage (García Vázquez, González Martínez, and Sierra Hernández 2014). Therefore, the integration of stakeholders leads to the ultimate discussion regarding rights, and about who exerts power in the city, moulding its activities, body and memory to shape a vision of society itself (Lefebvre 1974; Harrison 2015). Such a consideration has a direct effect on the definition of urban heritage authenticity, which can no longer be based solely on materiality but instead on a shared vision of society, which jeopardises the future success of the implementation of the HUL. A more detailed review of the eight cities that have been studied by WHITRAP as examples of the implementation of the HUL approach, as well as the cases of Ballarat and Cuenca, reveal the following: (1) The difficult integration of city and the territory: The focus on the landscape is completely at odds with the idea of maintaining administrative divisions or delimitations of heritage protection areas. This is shown in the case of Cuenca, where authenticity, as defined by citizens and scholars, points to the connection between the city and the hinterland, and the need to overcome important legal and administrative barriers (Rey-Pérez and Astudillo 2016; Siguencia Ávila and Rey- Pérez 2016; Rey-Pérez et al. 2017). International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 (2) The “comprehensive surveys and mapping of the city’s natural, cultural and human resources” (UNESCO 2011b; Loes Veldpaus and Pereira Roders 2013) based on the holistic dimension of the HUL and its complex definition of authenticity have resulted in enormous amounts of information. Its management requires complex documentation and access tools and investments which are not always available for researchers or officials (UNESCO 2013, 3). (3) The ineffective connection between heritage and planning: Practical difficulties appear in the active integration of the social and cultural dimension of urban conservation in urban planning (Taylor 2016, 473; Van Oers and Haraguchi 2010, 14). As a consequence, the HUL’s transformative potential remains underdeveloped, waiting for new urban regulations to be implemented in accordance with the new approach. This is not only a matter of making institutions fulfil their commitment to civil society, but it also has practical effects: experience shows how the efforts for integration can speed up planning bureaucracy, reducing potential pleas for planning regulations (WHITRAP and Ballarat 2016, 9). (4) The lack of a shared reference: The HUL Recommendation remains widely unknown, preventing experiences from being shared as well as the construction of shared knowledge. UNESCO aims to counteract this situation by promoting a guide for those cities who decide to implement the HUL Recommendation (WHITRAP and Ballarat 2016) as well as by creating HUL observatories (GOHUL 2016). UNESCO also develops specific training activities, as well as a International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 network to search for international case studies and provide easy access to the guiding documents (UNESCO 2013, 6-7). The definition of the HUL Toolkit by UNESCO is an important practical step towards overcoming the aforementioned difficulties. It consists of 4 different tools including Community Engagement; Knowledge and Planning; Regulatory Systems and Financial Tools (WHITRAP and Ballarat 2016, 14) (UNESCO 2011b). These offer a basic reference framework for the incorporation of new cases in the future. The use of the Toolkit has raised a variety of practical questions that are a fundamental part of current discussions: (1) The need for a regulatory system, as current municipal regulations are insufficient to contribute to urban regeneration, (2) The need for a paradigm shift, from a technical definition of planning to political and social planning. (3) The development of financial incentives that may motivate the interests of the private sector, therefore, limiting the burden on the public sector. (4) To define adequate channels for community participation in decision making and find innovative means to foster engagement with urban heritage conservation. For the most part, we consider that all these difficulties result from short-sighted visions regarding the transformative power of heritage and culture, reducing its consideration to a mere economic benefit. It is our contention that only with a full understanding of HUL and its authenticity as a commitment to a modern, transformative International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 project for urban societies, will the potentials of a landscape approach effectively be put into practice. Conclusion The HUL is the most complex and encompassing of all heritage concepts defined up to now, potentially becoming an effective support for all kinds of heritage. According to the Recommendation, the HUL is not a heritage category but is a tool for heritage management, which is slowly achieving recognition thanks to UNESCO’s efforts for its dissemination. Our analysis shows how a growing number of cities have begun to show interest in this new tool, finding support from scholars and citizens alongside other stakeholders in civil society. However, the effectiveness of the changes that the HUL may promote is still questionable, especially considering that its implementation methods fundamentally contradict the tendencies of municipal governments worldwide to foster urban regeneration through massive investments (Greffe 2004). Since heritage started to play an important role in urban economies in the 1970s, the production of heritage (also known as heritagisation) and the aim of placing culture at the forefront of urban development have both been evaluated as a social conquest with emancipating consequences, and criticised for enabling its potential commodification (D. C. Harvey 2001). The formula for success is yet to be discovered, but on the contrary to what the HUL Recommendation implicitly acknowledges, authenticity is an unavoidable prerequisite. Our new framework for the definition of authenticity aims to bring this concept to the forefront of management, carrying out decision-making processes according to its complex contemporary character, encompassing participation and the International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 Rey-Pérez , Julia , and Sebastián Astudillo . 2016. “La Construcción del Paisaje desde una mirada interdisciplinar y ciudadana. El caso de Cuenca, Ecuador.” In Actas Conferencia Visionaria. El Paisaje Urbano como soporte del Patrimonio Cultural y Natural de Cuenca en debate. Una Mirada Ciudadana de Cuenca hacia el futuro de la ciudad, edited by Soledad Moscoso , 57–68. Cuenca: Universidad de Cuenca. https://gohulsite.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/proceedings-conferencia- visionaria_com.pdf. Rey-Pérez , Julia , Sebastián Astudillo , María Eugenia Siguencia , Juliana Forero , and Silvia Auquilla . 2017. La aplicación de la Recomendación sobre el Paisaje Urbano Histórico (PUH) En Cuenca – Ecuador. Una nueva aproximación al patrimonio cultural y natural [The Application of the Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) in Cuenca – Ecuador. A New Approach to Cultural and Natural Heritage]. Edited by Julia Rey Pérez . Cuenca: Universidad de Cuenca. https://historicurbanlandscape.com/index.php?classid=5356. Rivas Sanz , Juan Luis de las , and Gregorio Vázquez Justel . 2011. “El Paisaje Urbano Histórico de la ‘Ciudad Vieja’ de Salamanca, Claves Para Un Plan de Gestión.” Ciudades: Revista del Instituto Universitario de Urbanística de La Universidad de Valladolid 14: 57–80. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/extart? codigo=3720340\nhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3720340.pdf. Shao , Y. 2017. “Conservation and Sustainable Development of Human–inhabited World Heritage Site – Case of World Heritage Lijiang Old Town.” Built Heritage 2: 43–54. Siguencia Ávila , Maria Eugenia , and Julia Rey-Pérez . 2016. “Heritage Values Protection, from the Monument to the Urban Dimension. Case Study: The Historic International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 Centre of Santa Ana de Los Ríos de Cuenca.” The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice 7 (2): 164–176. doi:10.1080/17567505.2016.1172785. Silverman , H. 2015. “Heritage and Authenticity.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research, edited by E. Waterton and S. Watson , 69–88. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Smith , Laurajane . 2006. Uses of Heritage. New York: Routledge. Su , Xiaobo . 2011. “Heritage Production and Urban Locational Policy in Lijiang, China.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 35: 1118–1132. Taylor , K. 2016. “The Historic Urban Landscape Paradigm and Cities as Cultural Landscapes. Challenging Orthodoxy in Urban Conservation.” Landscape Research 41 (4): 471–480. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01426397.2016.1156066. UNESCO. 1972. “Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.” https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext. UNESCO. 1976. “Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas.” https://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php- URL_ID=13133&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. UNESCO. 2005. “VIENNA MEMORANDUM on ‘World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing the Historic Urban Landscape’.” https://whc.unesco.org/document/6814. UNESCO. 2011a. “Proposals Concerning the Desirability of a Standard-setting Instrument on Historic Urban Landscapes (36C/23).” París. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002110/211094s.pdf. UNESCO. 2011b. “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, including a Glossary of Definitions.” https://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php- URL_ID=48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 UNESCO. 2013. “Report on the International World Heritage Expert Meeting on the Mainstreaming of the Methodological Approach Related to the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape in the Operational Guidelines.” Río de Janeiro. https://www.historicurbanlandscape.com/themes/196/userfiles/download/2015/3/25/p4i dwdghqhgxyia.pdf. UNESCO. 2015. “Hangzhou Outcomes. International Conference ‘Culture for Sustainable Cities’.” https://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/culture-and- development/culture-for-sustainable-cities/. UNESCO. 2017. “World Heritage Cities Programme.” Accessed May 25 . https://whc.unesco.org/en/cities UNESCO. 2020. “36.” París. https://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/638/. United Nations. 2015. “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1).” New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication. Van Oers , Ron , and Sachiko Haraguchi . 2010. “Managing Cities and the Historic Urban Landscape Initiative – An Introduction.” In WHC – World Heritage Papers No27 – Managing Historic Cities, edited by Ron Van Oers and Sachiko Haraguchi . París: Unesco World Heritage Center. Van Oers , Ron , and Ana Pereira Roders . 2013. “Road Map for Application of the HUL Approach in China.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 3 (1): 4–17. doi:10.1108/JCHMSD-01-2013-0002. Veldpaus , Loes . 2015. “Historic Urban Landscapes. Framing the Integration of Urban and Heritage Planning in Multilevel Governance.” Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 Veldpaus , Loes , and Ana Pereira Roders . 2013. “Historic Urban Landscapes: An Assessment Framework, Part I.” In 33RD Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA13) Impact Assessment: The Next Generation. Calgary, Canada: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven. https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3548644/38758630197256.pdf. Veldpaus , Loes , and Ana Pereira Roders . 2014. “Learning from a Legacy: Venice to Valletta.” Change over Time 4 (2): 244–263. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/557037/summary. Veldpaus , Loes , Ana Pereira Roders , and Bernard J. F. Colenbrander . 2013. “Urban Heritage: Putting the Past into the Future.” The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 4 (1): 3–18. doi:10.1179/1756750513Z.00000000022. Walter , N. 2014. “From Values to Narrative: A New Foundation for the Conservation of Historic Buildings.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 20 (6): 634–650. WHITRAP, and City of Ballarat. 2016. “The HUL Guidebook. Managing Heritage in Dynamic and Constantly Changing Urban Environments.” https://www.historicurbanlandscape.com/index.php?classid=5355&id=170&t=show. WHITRAP, and UNESCO. 2017. “World Heritage Institute of Training and Research for the Asia and the Pacific Region under the Auspices of UNESCO.” Accessed June 18 . https://www.whitr-ap.org/index.php?classid=1459 WHITRAP, The World Heritage Institute of Training, and Research for the Asia and the Pacific Region. 2016. “The Historic Urban Landscape.” Accessed August 4 . https://www.historicurbanlandscape.com/index.php?classid=6043 Wilkinson , Adam . 2015. “Integrating Engagement: Heritage as a Tool for Strengthening Society.” In Conferencia Visionaria, edited by Soledad Moscoso Cordero, 45–56. Cuenca: Universidad de Cuenca. International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 https://gohulsite.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/proceedings-conferencia- visionaria_com.pdf. Zukin , Sharon . 2010. Naked City. The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. New York: Oxford University. View publication stats