Availableonlineat
ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com
Case study
Assessing the sustainable development of the historic urban landscape through local indicators. Lessons from a Mexican World Heritage City
Paloma Guzman
NIKU(Norskinstituttforkulturminneforskning),Storgata2,0155Oslo,Norway
a r t i c l e i n f o
Articlehistory:
Received8January2020 Accepted4June2020 Availableonline11July2020
Keywords:
Sustainabledevelopment Culturalheritage Localgovernance Assessmenttool Indicators Systemicapproach Cities
a b s t r a c t
Thisresearchteststheflexibilityandtransferpotentialofamethodologythatidentifiescommonurban indicatorsandassessestheirpotentialtomonitorcorrelationsbetweendevelopmentfactorsandheritage conservation,usingQuerétarocity,Mexico,asthecasestudy.Thisstudyaimstoadvancetheimplemen- tationofSustainableDevelopmentGoalsonurbandevelopment(SDG11)andclimatechange(SDG13).
Thesegoalsstresstheimportanceofadequateoperationaltoolstomonitorprogressandembodyajunc- tureforcoherenceacrossdistinctbutintersectingstrategicareasthatexplicitlyconsidernaturaland culturalheritage.Thethreestepsofanalysisconsistedof:(a)Compilationofalistofcommonlyusedlocal indicatorsforsustainabledevelopment;(b)Semi-automatedsearchforindicatorsasfactorsaffectingthe conservationofaWorldHeritageCitywithinurbanmanagementtoolsimplementedatmetropolitan, municipal,anddistrictlevel;and,(c)Systematicclassificationofidentifiedurbanfactorsasstrengths, weaknesses,opportunities,andthreats(SWOT)totheconservationofahistoricdistrictlistedasUNESCO WorldHeritage.Theanalysisprovedrelevantfortheidentificationof34keydevelopmentareasinwhich synergieswithheritageconservationcanbediscussedasco-benefitsandtrade-offs.Italsorevealed incompatibilitiesondevelopmentvisionsacrosssectorsandmanageriallevels.Conclusionselaborateon thepotentialofindicatorstobridgeontologicalchallengesforthecorrelationofurbanheritagevalues withdevelopmentfactors.Thismethodologycanadvancethestructurationoflocaladaptivegovernance, therefinementofurbanindicatorsinsupportofevidence-basedpolicy-makingandsystemicapproaches forthesustainabledevelopmentofurbanheritage.
©2020TheAuthor.PublishedbyElsevierMassonSAS.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCC BY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction
SustainableDevelopment Goal(SDG) 11 (on urbandevelop- ment)andSDG13(onclimatechange) stresstheimportanceof aligningdevelopmentagendasandsustainabilitygoalsaswellas adequatetoolstomonitorprogressin theurbancontext.These SGDsalsoembodya juncture forcoherence acrossdistinct but intersectingstrategicareas,ajuncturethatexplicitlyconsidersthe sustainabilityofnaturalandculturalheritage.Therecognitionof theearth’sbiophysicalboundaries iscontributingtotheunder- standingofsustainabilityasanabsoluteconcept,whilsteconomic andsocialbenefitsareincreasinglydiscussesasrelativefactors(for discussionseeMori[1]).Particularlyinthelightofclimatechange, environmentalparametersarebecomingfundamentalcriteriain which citiessustainability are criticallydiscussed. Accordingto Mori[1],theminimalrequirementforcitysustainabilityisthateco- nomicandsocialbenefitsneedtobemaximisedinordertoenhance
E-mailaddress:[email protected]
livingstandardasfarasthetargetcityissustainableintermsof environmentallimitationsandsocio-economicequity.Thisimplies that tosteer sustainabledevelopment,governments must have thecapacity to determinetheirrequired balancebetween eco- nomicandsocialdevelopmentwithinthelimitsofenvironmental resources[2].
Assustainability“ismovingfromanabstractconcepttoamea- surable stateof dynamic human-ecologicalsystems” [3]. Much effortiscurrentlyfocusingonmeasuringprogressonsustainable development based on the analysis of the impacts of inter- dependencies [4,5]. Commonly, assessments addressing causal relationshipsbetweengoalsandpoliciesatthelocal/urbanlevel are broadlyexplored though theuse of indices and indicators.
However,thefragmentationof theurbanmanagementpractice acrosssectorsandgovernancelevelsposesconsiderablechallenges tomonitoringandassessingprogressinintegralterms[6].Simi- larly,multidimensionalsystemicheritagepractices,andtoolsfor theassessmentofsynergiesacrosswiderurbansectorsarelacking [7,8].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2020.06.017
1296-2074/©2020TheAuthor.PublishedbyElsevierMassonSAS.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/).
Culturalheritageasawell-positionedurbandevelopmentsec- tor,haswitnessedtheinclusionofsustainabilityprinciplesthrough alandscapeapproachthatreinforcetheideaofcontext-specificity ofheritageconservationandresourcesmanagement[9–11].Yetthe relationshipbetweenculturalheritageconservationandtheenvi- ronmentaldimensionofsustainabilityhasbeenpoorlyaddressedin thecontextofurbandevelopment[7,12].Thearticulationbetween culturalheritageandclimatechangehasoftenreducedenviron- mental aspects to be consideredas risks [13]. Recentresearch suggeststhatlandscape-basedconservationprinciplessuchas“the upscalingofconservationactivitiesinitswidercontext,andpart- nerships among different sectoral and governance sectors, can benefitfromadditionalexplorationinthecontextofclimatechange solutions”[14].However,thecoordinationandintegrationofall urbansectorsintoclimatechangestrategicactionhasbeenrecog- nizedasachallengetolocalgovernancepractices[15,16].
Toaddress this issue,this research reflectsupon thegover- nancestructuresandtheappropriatenessoftoolsdesignedtodirect thecourseofactiontowardssustainabledevelopmentinacoher- entmanner[6,17].Thisincludesallsectorialstructuressuchas thosetailoredforthemanagementofculturalheritage,todeter- minewhichaspectsoflocalmanagementpracticesareadvancing orconstrainingtheimplementationandmonitoringofsustainabil- itygoals[18].Ratherthancontributingtotheconceptualisationof sustainabledevelopment,thisresearchusesasabasistheprinciple thatacity,tobeconsideredsustainable,shouldbeabletodefine itsownsustainabilityvision[2].Suchvisionshouldbedefinedin policies,sharedandoperationalisedacrosssectorstosteerdevelop- mentactionsthroughappropriatetoolssuchasmanagementplans, whilstprogressandsynergeticimpactsshouldbemonitored,using forinstanceurbanindicators[19].
Researchaims
Thisresearchaimstotesttheflexibilityandtransferpotential ofamethodologydesignedbyGuzmanetal.[20],thatexplores frequentlyusedurbanindicatorsatagloballeveltoidentifyand monitorsystemiccorrelationsbetweendevelopmentfactorsand conservation in World Heritage Cities. The applicability of the methodologyatalocallevelistestedusingQuerétarocity,Mexico asacasestudy.Thisisamedium-sizedcitywheretheimplemen- tationofSDG11andSDG13isforeseeninthelocalagenda.The efficientimplementationofsuchgoalsmust balanceunplanned urbangrowthwiththeconservationofaWorldHeritage(WH)his- toricdistrict.Additionalchallengesarerelatedtoweakgovernance structuresinwhichaccountabilityandpolicyassessmentsarenot commonpractice;but also,tomanageriallimitationsassociated withcutsinlocalbudgetsandalackofpolicyarticulation.
Frequentlyusedindicatorsatthelocallevelareusedtoassess thecoherentalignmentofthecity’ssustainabledevelopmentvision withheritageconservationunderthelensesoftheadaptivegov- ernancetriad.Thisiscomposedbypolicies,management plans, and monitoring tools expected to facilitate managing systemic complexitytowardssustainability[19,21,22].Indicatorsasunits ofmeasure,provideincompletedescriptionsofreality[23].Yet, thesecarrymeaningsandvaluesassignedtodevelopmentvisions acrosssectorswithacontextualdimension.Therefore,indicators areusefulreferencesfortheidentificationofperhapsoverlooked factorsbutthatcreaterelevantdynamicsacrosssectors[20].Results facilitatethesystematicclassificationoffactorshavinganimpact onQueretaro’sWHsite,provideinsightsintogovernancecoher- encebylocalisingmanagerialresponsibilitiesandshedlightonthe extentacoherentsustainabledevelopmentoftheWHhistoriccen- treisoperationalizedacrossmanageriallevelsandsectors.Lessons extractedfromthemethodologytransferabilitycanbenefitwider
WHsitesinemergingurbancontextindifferentpartsoftheworld bydevelopinglocallytailoredassessmentmethodsfortheadap- tivecapacityof governancetools,therevisionoftheircoherent alignmentandtherelevanceofimplementedmonitoringsystems.
Queretaro,Mexico:anemergingWorldHeritageCity
ThecityofQueretaroisoftenrankedamongthecitiesinMex- icowithbettereconomic and socialdevelopment.However,its developmentmodel, which isdriven byindustrial competitive- ness, has been criticised by academics and local practitioners for widening the gap of spatial segregation and insufficiently answeringenvironmentalconcerns [24,25].In Mexico,thecon- ceptofsustainabilityhasbeenadoptedinthepoliticaldiscourse forurbandevelopmentasaresultofnationaleffortstoimplement internationalcommitments [26,27].Althoughsustainability and sustainabledevelopmentareincludedinthegovernancediscourse inMexicancities[26],inpractice,environmentalconservationand climatechangeactionsareabsentfromthestrategicplanningin Mexico’semergingcitiessuchasQueretaro[28].
The culturaland historic values of theold colonial town of Querétaroarebasedontheretentionofthegeometricstreetplanof theSpanishconquerorssidebysidewiththetwistingalleysofthe Indianquarters[29].ThepropertyhasbeeninscribedontheWH Listsince1996.Amanagementplanwasimplementedain2012, togetherwithasetofindicatorstomonitorthestateofconserva- tionoftheproperty.However,localmanagershavebeenunableto solvepublicconcernsovertheheritageintheoldtownbydrawing ontherelevantdevelopmentsectorsandactors[30–32].
Methodology
Systemic and dynamic approaches to heritage conservation practicesarescarce;andtheexistingfewhavemainlyfocusedon heritage-ledurbanregeneration[7,33].Thisresearchexploressuch approachestroughthelensesofgovernanceadaptivecapacityto unveilthesustainabilityanddevelopmentvaluesinwhichurban heritageiscontextualized.Byusingcommonindicatorsacrosssec- tors,differentvaluesystemsinacityareexpectedtobeexposed aswellastheinteractionstheycreatebetweenculturalheritage management andwider sectors. Thismethodologyanalysesthe state-of-the-practicewhilstadaptingthethreestagesmethodolog- icalapproach by Guzmanetal. [20] toassessthealignment of operationalgovernancetoolsinthecasestudy.Stage1.Identifi- cation ofavailablegovernancetoolsimplemented inthecityof Queretaro.Stage2.Identificationofavailablemonitoringtoolsand extractionofcommonlyusedmonitoringindicatorsacrosssectors interactinginthecasestudy.Stage3.Systematicidentificationand classificationofsynergiesbetweenurbandevelopmentandclimate action(ledbyfrequentlyusedindicators)asstrengths,weaknesses, threats,andopportunitiestotheconservationofculturalheritage.
Identificationofstrategicgovernancetoolsimplementedinthe cityofQueretaro
FouroperationaltoolswereidentifiedrepresentingQueretaro’s urbandevelopment,urbanmanagement,culturalheritagemanage- mentandculturalheritagedevelopment.Thetoolscorresponding tothreescalesofurbanmanagement(metropolitan,municipal,dis- trict)aredescribedinaimsandcontentsinTable1.Nogovernance toolonclimateactionwasavailableinthecityofQueretarobythe timethisresearchwascarriedout.However,referencestoSDGsand theSendaiFrameworkforClimateActionaswellasaspectsneeded fortheirimplementationarementionedingovernancetoolsatthe metropolitanlevel(hereafterQ500).
Table1
Localgovernancetoolsanalysed.
Governancesource ABB Aim #Indicators
Metropolitanlevel TerritorialisationStrategyoftheUrban ProsperityIndexinQuerétaro2018–2031
Q500 Toprovidearoadmapfortheimplementation ofsustainabilityprinciplesthroughtheSDGsof the2030Agenda.
87
Municipallevel Queretaro’sMunicipalDevelopmentPlan 2015–2018
QMDP Toachieveurbandevelopmentthrough5 guidingaxes:HumanCity;SafeCity;Compact City;CitywithDevelopment;Government Openness.
None
WHPropertylevel ManagementplanforQueretaro’sHistoric MonumentZoneandTraditional Neighbourhoods,2011
MP Toidentifythevaluesandattributesthat sustainthepatrimonialsite;recognitionofthe conservationstatusoftheseattributesandthe variablesinvolvedintheirdynamics.
20
UrbandevelopmentplanforQueretaro’s HistoricMonumentZoneandTraditional Neighbourhoods2007
DP Todefinelanduses,policies,andstrategiesto ensuretheconservationoftheurbanstructure.
None
Atthemunicipallevel,thecity’sdevelopmentplan(hereafter QMDP)isincludedinthisanalysis,despiteitsexpirationin2018, becausethere is no othertool replacing the highest-levelgov- ernmentaltoolforurbanplanninginwhichlocaleffortstowards sustainabledevelopment are expressed. Additionally, the Q500 makes several references to the QMDP and its fulfilment. The ManagementPlanfortheWHdistrict(hereafterMP)andthedevel- opmentplanforQueretaro’sHistoricMonumentZone(hereafter DP)representgovernance toolsforthedistrictlevel,covering a widerangeofurbanfactorsinrelationtotheconservationofWorld Heritagepropertiesandtheirbufferzone.Neitherofthesehavean expirationdatenorprovideindicationsofupdates,revisions,and/or amendmentssincethetimeoftheirimplementation.
Fromallidentified tools,only theQ500 andthe MPinclude alistofindicators; however,thesehavedifferentpurposes.The Q500appliesthestandardizedCityProsperityIndexdevelopedby UNHABITATtoassesshowlocalpoliciesaffecttheprosperityofthe city.TheMPproposes20indicatorstomonitorthestateofconser- vationofthehistoricdistrict,thus,itistheonlymonitoringtool tailoredtothecasestudy.
Compilationofalistoffrequentlyusedindicatorsinthecityof Queretaro
Thepurposeofthisstageistorevealcommonurbanphenomena being frequently monitored across sectors and local manage- riallevels.Consideringthatlocalgovernancetoolsdonotmatch therequirementofprovidingmonitoringtools,themethodology proceededtoselectavailablemonitoringframeworksappliedto thecase study following Guzman [20] based onTanguay [34].
Instead,therequirementsforselectionareasfollows:(1)indica- torsframeworksshouldbeappliedtotheMexicanurbancontext thatincludedthecityofQueretaro;(2)frameworksshouldinclude awiderangeofurbantopicsaspossible,toensureabettercover- ageoftothethreeclassiccomponentsofsustainabledevelopment (social,economicandenvironmental).Resultingfromathorough onlinesearch,eightreportsandassessmentstudieswereselected (Table2).Fournationalindicatorframeworkswereincluded,from these,threewererankingreportsonurbancompetitivityelabo- ratedbynon-governmentalinstitutions[35–37];andonefederal reportonurbandevelopment[38].Fourindicatorframeworkswere foundtailoredforthecasestudy.Theseincludedtwoassessment methodologiesforurbanmanagementdevelopedbyUNagencies [39,40];andthetwogovernanceframeworksforterritorialplan- ningandheritageconservation[41,42]identifiedinstep1.From theseframeworks,atotalof435indicatorsweregathered,from which indicatorswiththe highest number ofrepetitions found acrosssourceswereextracted. Frequentlyused indicatorswere
shortlistedthroughqueriesquantifyingthefrequencyofkeywords aswellastheirrelationshiptodimensionsof sustainability,i.e.
social,economic,andenvironmentalremainingasfaithfulaspos- sibletotheirrationale.Theoverlap betweenthedimensionsof sustainability,wasclassifiedasfollows:equitability(socialandeco- nomic),viability(economicandenvironmental),liveability(social andenvironmental)and sustainability(overlappingofthethree dimensions)[34].
Systematicidentificationandclassificationofsynergiesbetween urbanfactorsandheritageconservation
Shortlisted indicators (Table 2) were refined into keywords relatedtolocalcustomaryterms,forinstance,naturaldisasteras wasfoundasgenericindicator,whereasatthelocallevel,floods and stormsare more likely to replacethis indicatorrelating to themostcommonnaturalphenomena.Thisfacilitatesthedirected contentanalysisandidentificationofurbanfactorsreferencedas havingan impact onthe culturalheritage withinthe 4 gover- nancetoolsidentifiedinstage1(table1).Mentionstokeywords weregatheredandcodedinthesoftwareAccessfortheirclassi- ficationasfactorsaffectingtheconservationofculturalheritage following three post-coding dimensions by Guzmanet al. [43].
Dimension1:Managementsituationanalysis:asexternalorinter- naltothemanagementoftheWorldHeritageproperty.Dimension 2: Impact analysis: as negativeor positive (intended and unin- tended) causal effects of dynamics among sectors. Dimension 3:Sustainabilitydimensions; thissecond classificationmaintains dimensionsdefinedinoriginalssourcesoffrequentlyusedindi- cators(stage1),andaddsdimensionsifafactorisfoundcomplying withthesustainabilitydimensionsproposedbyUNESCO’scultural statistics [44].A SWOT analysisof factorshavinganimpact on theWH district resultsfrom a summative analysisof relation- shipsbetweenpost-codingdimensions1and2:Strengthsarethose urbanfactorshavingapositiveimpactandarecompetencesofthe heritagemanagement. Weaknessesrepresenturbanfactorsthat have a negative impactonthe conservationof World Heritage historicdistrict,and are actionsdirectlyrelated totheheritage management.Opportunitiesrepresenturbanfactorsthat havea positiveimpactontheconservationofWorldHeritageproperty butofexternalcompetencestotheheritagemanagement.Threats areurbanfactorshavinganegativeimpactontheconservation ofthehistoricdistrictthatareexternalcompetencestolocalher- itagemanagement.Consideringthatthecoverageofsustainability dimensionsisoftenneglectedinindicatorstudies,dimension3fos- tersasystemicapproachinwhichimplicationsacrossthedifferent dimensionsareassessedbut alsoexpandstheunderstandingof urbandevelopmentvaluesthoughaculturaldimension.
Table2
IndicatorframeworksappliedtoQueretarocity.
Typesofsources Aimsandfocus Indicators
Nationallevel 1.ÍndicedeCompetitividadUrbana2018 (IMCO,2018)
Itmeasuresthecompetitivenessofcities,theirabilitytoattractand retaintalentandinvestments,whichtranslatestogreaterproductivity andwell-beingfortheirinhabitants.
120indicators
2.Mexico’sStatesofOpportunity,2012 RanksMexicanstatesbasedontheirurbancompetitiveness. 64indicators 3.Ciudadescompetitivas,ciudades
cooperativas
Revisesurbancompetitiveindexesandelaboratesamethodologyfora competitiveindexforMexicancities.
36indicators 4.NationalUrbanSystemCatalogue2012 Atoolforplanning,decision-making,andanalysisoftheurban
dynamicsinMexicousefulforthegovernment,academia,andthe privatesector.
24indicators
Locallevel 5.ObservatorioUrbanoLocalDelMunicipioDe Querétaro(IMPLANQueretaro,2008)
Acomprehensiveanalysisofpublicpoliciesassessmenttoaddress urbanpoverty.
42indicators 6.GEOZonaMetropolitanaQuerétaro
(GobiernodelEstadodeQueretaro,2008)
Analyticaltoolonurbanfactorsandtheireffectsontheenvironment, humanhealth,andactionsthatmustbedevelopedtomitigatethe consequencesofhumanactivities,basedonpressure,state,impact, response(PSIR)andscenarioanalysisandproposals.
42indicators
7.EstrategiadeTerriotorializacióndelÍndice deProsperidadUrbanaenQuerétaro,Q500 2018−2031
LocallyadaptstheCityProsperityIndexdevelopedbyUNHABITATand measurestheextentinwhichpoliciesaffecttheprosperityofthecity, atthesametimestrengtheningthemonitoringandreporting capacitiesofthemunicipalentities.
87indicators
8.ManagementplanforQueretaroHistoric MonumentZone,2011
Establishesthedegreeofprogressand/orsetbackintheareasof performance:economic,social,tourism,infrastructure,andprovision ofservices
20indicators
Resultsanddiscussion
Identificationofstrategicgovernancetoolsimplementedinthe cityofQueretaro
Resultsfromthisstagehighlighttheconsolidationoftheher- itage conservation as an urban sector supported by a strong governancestructureinthecasestudy.Thehistoricdistrictwas foundas theonlyurban scale complyingwitha triad ofadap- tivegovernancetools.Theseincludeanationalculturalheritage policyandthemanagementplanincludingasetofindicators.How- ever,thelackofrevisionswithinaspecifictimeframeofwanted andunwantedresultsconstrainsthesector’sadaptivecapacities towardssustainablepractices.
Withingovernancetools(showninTable1),thetermsustain- abilityandsustainabledevelopmentwasfoundusedinterchangeably asabalancingexerciseofthethreesustainabilitydimensions.The city’sapproachtosustainabledevelopmentwasfoundmention- ingtheregulationofactivitieswithnegativeimpactonthenatural environment.Thesemainlyfocusoncontrollingurbangrowthand thepreservationofnaturalresourcesthatguaranteetheharmo- niousdevelopmentofpeoplewiththeirenvironment.However, suchresourcesarenotidentifiednortheirlimits.Thelackofactions linkedtoaccountablegoalscontributestothelackofknowledge ontheefficiencyofpoliciesandstrategiestodefineandassessthe sustainabilityofpracticesinthecasestudy.
Compilationofalistoffrequentlyusedindicatorsinthecityof Queretaro
The lackof monitoring toolstailored tothe case study was resolvedbyincludingwiderindicatorframeworks,suchasthose usedatnationallevel.Thisdecisionprovedpertinentfortheiden- tificationofurbanthemesfrequentlymonitoredinthecasestudy.
A total of36 indicators werefoundfrequently usedin a range from4to3timesacrosstheanalysedframeworks(Table3).The categorizationofindicatorsacrosssustainabilitydimensionscor- respondedtotherationalereflectedintheiroriginalsources.As such,mostindicatorsrationaleswerefoundreferencingsocialand economicdevelopment,mainlyintheiroverlap,thus,represent- ingtheequitabledimension.Indicatorscategorizedascoveringthe sustainabledimensionwerefoundmainlydiscussedasenviron-
Table3
Listoffrequentlyusedlocalindicators.
Indicator Dimension
1.UrbanSize Sustainable
2.ProtectedAreas Environmental
3.%ofGreenAreas–RecreationalParks Livable
4.No.ofPublicLibraries Equitable
5.No.ofTheatresandMusicHalls Equitable
6.FestivalsandReligiousParties Social
7.No.ofMuseums Social
8.RoadNetwork Equitable
9.PopulationDensity Equitable
10.LiteracyRate Equitable
11.AirPollution Livable
12.Accessibility(RiverArea) Livable
13.Housing Equitable
14.Deteriorationphenomena(builtenvironment) Equitable
15.MarginalisationRate(Low) Equitable
16.CommunityInvolvementinDecision-MakingProcesses Social 17.%PopulationwithAccesstoHealthcare Equitable
18.ResearchandDevelopment Equitable
19.FinancialOrganisation Economic
20.No.ofPolice Equitable
21.NaturalRisk Sustainable
22.No.ofAutomobiles–RoadTraffic Sustainable
23.CrimeLevel(Robbery) Equitable
24.NewConstructions/%ofNewBuildings(OnVirginLand) Equitable
24.No.ofSchools Equitable
26.No.ofMarkets Equitable
27.ProductiveSectors(agricultural,industrialandservices) Equitable
28.Recreational-SportAreas Equitable
29.Electricity(LightInfrastructure) Equitable
30.WaterSupply Sustainable
31.Telephone(Access,VisualDisruption) Equitable
32.InvestmentforIntervention Equitable
33.ModesofTransport Equitable
34.AccesstoSewageSystem Equitable
35.PopulationwithUniversityDegree Equitable
36.No.ofHotels Equitable
mental,economic,andsocialconcerns.Environmentalindicators and assessments are scarcein the monitoring tools applied to theMexicanurbancontexts.Thisscenarioconfirmsthateconomic growthandthecity’scompetitivenesstoattractglobalinvestment areleadingthemesforassessingdevelopmentintheMexicancon- text.Themesonurbanmanagementefficiency,well-being,culture,
Fig.1.Distributionofmanagementsituationanalysisandimpactanalysis.
andenvironmentalconservationarelessrepresentedintheassess- mentofsocialandenvironmentaldevelopmentinMexicancities.
Shortlistedindicatorsrepresentfrequentlymonitoredfactors havingastronginfluenceinsteeringlocaldevelopmentandpolicy- making.Theroleofexternalcompetitiverankingsareparticularly mentionedinQMDP [[45],p.130].Inthecase studyeconomic parametersarepredominantwhereasenvironmentalissues and otherfactorshavinganimpactonclimatechangearelargelydisre- garded.
Systematicidentificationandclassificationofsynergiesbetween urbanfactorsandheritageconservation
Acommontraitamongurbangovernancetoolsisthat,rather thanquantifiableshort,medium,andlong-termoperationalobjec- tives,sectionsforstrategies and objectivesaremostly redacted in the form of recommendations to further develop sectorial strategiesandrespectivemonitoringtools.Thegovernancetools analysedincludeadescriptivecontentabouttherequirementsand limitationstoadaptglobalconcernssuchassustainability,climate change,and heritage conservationas a formof diagnostic dis- cussion.Managementplanstendtodiscussdevelopmentfactors prioritisedthroughtime andwhat hasbeenconsideredaspos- itiveand negative consequences ofpolicies andstrategies. This descriptivecontentwasusefulfortheanalysisofindicatorsaskey- wordsthatcanbetracedacrossseveraltoolsandsectorsaswell asfordeterminingprobablesystem-wideimpactsandconnections ofdifferentstrategicpriorities.Thus,theanalysisofinteractions amongurbandevelopmentfactorswaspossibleacrossthreeurban scales:metropolitan(conurbationarea),municipality,andhistoric district;andamongurbandevelopmentandculturalheritagecon- servationasgovernancesectors.
Thesearchforfrequentlyusedindicatorsasfactorsshowingsyn- ergieswithheritageconservationrevealedthatmostinteractions arediscussedforhavingadetrimentalimpactontheconservation ofthehistoricdistrict,andasinternalissuestothemanagementof theWHproperty(Fig.1).Whenanalysingthecoherentalignment offactorsacrossgovernancetools,itwaspossibletoidentifyanew categoryof10conflictivefactors(28%)thatdidnotcomplywithsuch anormativecharacter.Suchfactorsshoweddiscrepanciesinthe categorisationaccordingtotheImpactanalysis.Thus,documents showed incompatible descriptions of development interactions acrossmanagementlevelsintextssources.Conflictivefactorsindi- catethosesectorssusceptibletotherevisionoftrade-offsaswell ascoherentalignmentofsustainabilityvisionsacrossmanagerial levels.Thesearefurtherdiscussedinthenextsection.Resultsfrom theanalysisofgovernancetoolsrevealedthatthehighestnum- beroffactorsarediscussedatthedistrictlevel,followedbythe metropolitanlevel(Q500),andlastlyatthemunicipallevel(QMDP) (seeFig.2).
Fig.2.SWOTanalysisacrossgovernancelevels.
Fig.3.CoverageofsustainabilitydimensionsinSWOT.
Theanalysisonthecoverageofsustainabilitydimensionsfrom development factors having an impact on the historic district showedthattheequitabledimensionislargelyoperationalised(see Fig.3).Correspondenceswiththeculturalheritagesectoraremade throughaccesstoeducation,health,marginalisationratesofinhab- itants,andhousing.Thesocialdimensionaloneisoftencorrelated withculturalheritage throughthemes ondemographyand life quality,whichconsidertheconsumptionofculturalresourcesas wellassocialinclusioninpublicspaceswithintheheritageprop- erty.Urbandevelopmentfactorsrelatedtourbansize,protected andgreenareas,aswellasaspectsrelatedtothemanagementof environmentalresourcesarecategorisedassustainableinFig.3 (seealsoTable4).Environmentalrelatedindicators werefound fromtheheritagesectordiscussingthecity’sefficiencyandperfor- manceintermsoftheresourcemanagementofwaterandwaste.
Aspectsrelatedtoclimatechangeanditsimpactsinthecasestudy werefocusedonCO2emissions,airquality,andfloodingasthemain localissuesandimpacts.However,bothenvironmentalandclimate changethemeswerenotfoundreferencedequallyorinacoherent manneracrossurbangovernancetools.
Theculturalheritagesectorwasfoundlinkingtheenvironmen- taldimensionwithurbansettingsinwhichnatureandheritage interact(riverbanks,gardens,andparks)anddirectinginvestment andactionsoftheirmaintenanceandimprovement.Climateaction aspectswerefoundrelatingconservationactionssuchasthecre- ationofpedestrianareas,theintroductionofbikelanes,andthe limitationoftrafficwithintheprotectedurbanareawiththemit- igationofCO2emissionsbylimitingthetransitofautomobileand transportationsystems.Airpollutionwasalsofoundmentionedas detrimentaltoheritage’sbuildingmaterials.However,conflictive actionswerefoundcommonlyprioritizingcontradictoryactionsat higherurbanlevels.Forinstance,urbangovernancetoolstendto perpetuatethewideningandconstructionofroadsperipheralto thehistoricdistrictorwithintraditionalneighbourhoods(buffer zone).Fromtheculturalheritagesector,thesesamestrategiesare referencedaschallengesfortheaccessibilityandconnectionofthe propertywiththerestofthecity.
TheSWOTanalysisoffactorshavinganimpactontheWHdistrict TheSWOT analysisrevealedthat weaknesses werediscussed withthegreatestfrequencybutunevenlyacrossthetools.Incon- trast,strengths,threatsandopportunitiesshowedarelativelyeven
Table4
SWOTanalysisoffrequentlyusedindicatorsappliedtoQueretarocity.
Indicators Dimensions Q500 QMDP MP DP Stateofconservationindicators
Strengths 1.UrbanSize Sustainability √ √ √ √
None
2.ProtectedAreas Sustainability √ √ √ √
Cataloguedhistoricalmonumentsontotal buildings
Cataloguedhistoricalmonumentsontotal historicalbuildings
3.%ofGreenAreas- RecreationalParks
Sustainability √ √ √ √
None
4.No.ofPublicLibraries Equitability √ √ √ √
None 5.No.ofTheatresand
MusicHalls
Equitability √ √ √ √
None 6.FestivalsandReligious
Parties
Social – √ √ √
None
7.No.ofMuseums Social – – √ √
None
Weaknesses 8.RoadNetwork Equitability √ √ √ √
None
9.PopulationDensity Equitability √ √ √ √
%Populationwithdisabilities
Populationbyagegroup(%elderpopulation, students)
Populationbygender
10.LiteracyRate Equitability √ √ √ √
Literacyrate(loweducationlevelinhistoric neighbourhoods)
11.AirPollution Sustainability √ √ √ √
None 12.Accessibility(River
Area)
Sustainability √ √ √ √
None
13.Housing Equitability √ – √ √
Propertieswithresidentialuseonthetotalof buildingsintheHistoricCentre
Propertiescataloguedwithresidentialuseon thetotalcataloguedbuildingsintheHistoric Centre
Privateownedcataloguedproperties 14.Deterioration
phenomena(built environment)
Equitability √ – √ √
%ofdeteriorated-ruinousbuildings(20%) No.ofcataloguedhistoricalmonuments abandonedtototalcataloguedbuildings HistoricalCentre
No.ofpropertieswithvisualdisruptionsonthe totalcataloguedbuildingsintheHistoric Centre
15.MarginalisationRate (Low)
Equitability √
– √
– None
16.Community Involvementin
Decision-makingProcesses
Social – – √ √
None
17.%Populationwith AccesstoHealthcare
Equitability – – √
– None
OPP. 18.Researchand
Development
Equitability √ √ √ √
None
19.FinancialOrganisation Economic √ √ √ √
None
20.No.ofPolice Equitability √ √ √
– None
Threats 21.NaturalRisk Sustainability √ √ √ √
None 22.No.ofAutomobiles–
RoadTraffic
Sustainability √ √ √ √
None
23.CrimeLevel(Robbery) Equitability √ √ √
– None
24.NewConstructions/%of NewBuildings(OnVirgin Land)
Equitability √ √ √
– None
Conflictive factors
25.No.ofSchools Equitability √ √
X X None
26.No.ofMarkets Equitability √ √
X X None
27.ProductiveSectors (agricultural,industrialand services)
Equitability √ √
X X Distributionofproductiveactivityaccordingto thecorrespondinggroupinthetertiarysector, thosepropertieswithmixeduse:
commercial/housingandhousing/services Distributionoftheeconomicallyactiveand employedpopulationaccordingtothe productivesectorsbygender Historicmonumentswithtertiaryuses Cataloguedpropertieswithtouristuseonthe totalofcataloguedbuildingswithtertiaryuse inthehistoriccentre
Propertieswithtertiaryusesonthetotalof buildingsinthehistoriccentre
Propertieswithtouristicuseonthetotalof buildingswithtertiaryuseinthehistorical centre
Table4(Continued)
Indicators Dimensions Q500 QMDP MP DP Stateofconservationindicators
28.Recreational-Sport Areas
Equitability √ √
X X None
29.Electricity(Light Infrastructure)
Sustainability – √
X X None
30.WaterSupply Sustainability √ √
X – Gradeofwaterpressure
31.Telephone(Access, VisualDisruption)
Equitability – √
X X None
32.Investmentfor Intervention
Equitability √ √
X X Cataloguedhistoricalmonumentsabandoned tototalcataloguedbuildingshistoricalcentre
33.ModesofTransport Equitability √ √
X X None
34.AccesstoSewage System
Sustainability √
– X X None
NI 35.Populationwith UniversityDegree
Equitability – – – – None
36.No.ofHotels Equitability – – – – None
None Environmental – – √
– Wastewatertreatment
None Environmental – – √
– Percapitagenerationofsolidwaste
distribution.Conflictivefactorsevidenceddisagreementmainlyin factorsseenas opportunitiesat themetropolitan andmunicipal levelsbut seenasthreatsorweaknessesatthedistrictlevel.For instance,theinfrastructuresectorisshowcasedasastrengthforthe urbandevelopmentsectorbasedonthefullcoverageoftheservices withinthehistoricdistrict.However,atthedistrictlevel,failures, anddamagesduetoaginginfrastructureareindicatedaspriorities forrenovations(weaknesses).Similarly,thediversityof(traditional) functionsandmixedusesthatthehistoricdistrictoffersisacknowl- edgedasastrengthfromtheurbandevelopmentperspective(Q500 andQMDP).Yet,strategiesandactionsatthosesamelevelswere foundprioritizinginterventionsthatfostertourismdevelopment andthus,highlyinfluencing thechangeof urbanfunctions.The SWOT analysis explores the qualitative aspects of the cultural dimensionthatisoftenunderexploredinmonitoringpracticesfrom theurbandevelopmentdiscipline.
Theidentificationoftwentyindicatorsformingtheculturalher- itagesectorcorrespondingtowiderdevelopmentfactorssuggests prospectsforthesectortoprovidefeedbackonwidergovernance andsectorialstructurestowardscoherentpolicies.Identifiedurban themespredominantlyfocusonthesocialandeconomicdimen- sions,whereasfactorscovering thesustainabledimensionwere foundtohavelessfrequentcorrelationwithindicatorsfromthe heritagesector.Additionally,synergiesbetweenheritageandenvi- ronmentalconservationwerefoundabsentinavailablemonitoring systems.Table4showsthelistoffrequentlyusedindicators,their categorisationasSWOTandtheirlocalizationacrossgovernance tools.Thelast columnshows currentindicatorsfor thestateof conservationofthepropertythatcanbecorrelatedwithidentified developmentsectors.Thiscomparisonnotonlyhelpsinthevisu- alisationofculturalvaluesacrossurbansectorsandsustainability dimensions,butalsoshowshowurbansectorsexemplifydifferent valuesofanurban,cultural,andhistoricnatureacrossthedifferent urbanscales.
AsshowninTable4,factorsclassifiedasSWOTidentifyareas inwhichlocalgovernancecannotonlyre-assessitsgoalsforsus- tainabilitybutalsoimproveitsmanagerialefficiency.InQueretaro city,aspectsrelatedtochangesinlanduseandtraditionalfunctions wereidentifiedascriticalareasforstrategicplanning.Aspartofthe historicandculturalvalues,amulti-functionalhistoricdistrictis valuedacrossurbangovernancelevels.However,themaintenance ofsuchcharacterischallengedbythelackofcoherentdevelopment betweenthehistoriccoreandtherestofthecity.Acrossgover- nancetoolsitis acknowledgedthatanunplannedurbansprawl andthelackofefficienttransportsystemshasledthehistoriccen- tretoconcentratemostoftheurbanequipmentinthecity(seen asstrengths).This,however,remainshighlyinsufficienttosatisfy
contemporaryrequirementsofametropolitancity(seenasweak- nesses).Consequently,aviciouscyclehasledtodifferentfunctions abandoningthehistoricquarter(seenasthreats).Newusesforhis- toricbuildings,however,prioritisetouristicactivitiesratherthan balancingurbanequipmentandservicesforthelocalpopulation (conflictivefactors)orerenewexistingones(weaknesses).
Conclusions
Thispaperusedaninnovativemethodologyforthesystemic analysisofsynergiesofurbanfactorsandheritageconservationin theWorldHeritageCityofQueretaro,Mexicotocontributetheo- reticallytotheprospectsoflandscape-basedconservationtolink results-basedmanagementwithincitiesascomplexsystems.By usinggovernanceasanalyticallensandcoherencyasthenorma- tivecharacterthisresearchassessedlocalconceptualisationsfor sustainabledevelopment,climateaction,andheritageconserva- tionintheiralignmentacrossoperationalandmonitoringtools.The methodologyprovedtransfervaluebyprovidingrelevantinsights onlocalgovernancecapacities to(1) alignacommonvisionfor sustainabledevelopment,and(2)tocoherentlyintegrateheritage conservation,acrosslevelsandsectors.Theanalyticalframework provedusefulfortheidentificationofbalancesandimbalancesin strategicactionsin cities,andthus intheurbansystem.In this wat,frequentlyusedindicatorsamongdifferentsectorsappliedto aspecificurbancontexthaveprovenbeneficialfordeepeningthe understandingof(andevidence)urbanvaluessystemsinwhich heritageconservationisembeddedbutalsoplaysanactiverole.
LessonsfromtheMexicancasestudysuggestthatthesustain- abledevelopmentoftheWordHeritagecityischallengedwithan adhocprioritisationofdevelopmentfactorsthatleadtoabiasin theoperationalisationofstrategiestowardstheinterestsofpoli- cymakersonthecity’seconomiccompetitiveness.Frequentlyused indicatorstailoredtotheassessmentofthecasestudy’sdevelop- mentprovedrelevant fortheanalysisof urbanfactorsaffecting theconservationofaWorldHeritageproperty.Atotalof36fac- torswereidentifiedhavingsynergiccorrespondencesasSWOTto themanagementoftheWHdistrictfromwhich10factorsshowed incompatibilitiesandcontradictionsacrosssectorsandmanagerial levels.Theanalysisofindicatorsunveiledconsiderablelimitations ontheconceptualizationofenvironmentalsustainability,butalso ontheoperationalizationofclimateactions.Althoughgovernance tools for heritage management tend to make stronger connec- tionsbetweenenvironmental,social,andeconomicdimensionin strategicplanning,considerablechallengestoimplementefficient actionsremainthelackofasharedstrategicvisionaccompaniedby quantitativetargets.
