Table 1 Comparison of approaches to heritage-based urban development, resilience, urban regeneration, and heritage-based urban recovery
Concept | Heritage-based urban development | Resilience | Urban regeneration | Heritage-based urban recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Objective | Improvement of quality of life | Stimulate adaptability | Area-based improvement of quality of life | Return to the quality of life before the disaster/crisis |
Key parameters | Positivistic perspective | Enable systems to deal with changes/challenges | Improve the situation, usually in a defined area based on the identification of challenges/problems | Improve the situation to the original state and ‘build back better’ |
Conceptual context | SDGs/sustainable development paradigm | Models of resilience (e.g., from SHELTERb, Fig. 1) | Redevelopment to address urban decay, social policy, integrative strategies, improvement of specific areas, adaptive reuse | Integrated conservation, heritage valorisation, strategic development, disaster risk management, damage assessment, sustainable development |
Complexity of the system | High | High | Fair (due to limited area) | High |
Level of (desired) cross-sectoral integration | High | High | Fair (due to limited area) | High |
Time scale | Long-term | Infinite | Defined time frame often determined by funding programme | Defined time frame |
Starting point | Always possible | Continuous | Project-related | After crisis/disaster |
Urgency | Low | Medium | Medium (based on identified challenges/problems) | High |
Context of international policies | SDGsa, Urban Agendac | Habitat III: The New Urban Agendad, The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reductione 2015-2030, The Hangzhou Declaration (2013)f, OECD Principles on Urban Policyg | New Leipzig Charterh, EU Cohesion Policy beyond 2020i | Habitat IIId |