Indicators for Sustainable Redevelopment of Cultural Landscapes — Huangpu Veterans Quarter in Taiwan

Abstract

Overdeveloped land, misused resources, limited and fast development landscape in urban Taiwan, are problems and challenges government continuously facing and avoiding; Re-utilizing underdeveloped and limited landscape in Taiwan is an important subject. Taiwan Kaohsiung obtains and preserves the largest Military Dependents’ Village (MDV) landscape in Taiwan; an important, unique, and valuable historic cultural landscape affiliate historical, military and ethnic group living culture village. This study reviewed sustainable development and village preserve literature, and propose re-development structural framework of MDV through two-stage experts’ questionnaire survey. The first stage utilized the Fuzzy Delphi Method, which focuses on impact factors, and the second, the AHP Method, deals with performance factors. The results indicate that the key impacts on the cultural landscape sustainability redevelopment strategies for Huangpu MDV were its cultural value, historic site, and maintenance management.

A systematic review of indicators for sustainability of urban heritage sites

“…Whereas, economic, environment, or social can combine with another one dimension for indicators as they are the core components from Venn diagram in Sustainable Development: economic-environment (n 5 1, 5%), economic-social (n 5 1, 5%), environment-governance (n 5 1, 5%) and environment-social (n 5 1, 5%). Generally, although there are five articles (25%) integrated all the four dimensions, the discussions are still based on individual solutions without implementing the aspects of cultural significance or future adaptations (Gravagnuolo et al, 2019;Guzman, 2020;Hsu et al, 2021;Lerario and di Turi, 2018;Muminovi c et al, 2020).…”

“…possible to utilize existing heritage assets for cultural crafting workshops, exhibitions, or related events to attract outsiders for investments or business trading (Alana et al, 2019;Kou et al, 2018;Leus and Verhelst, 2018;Nocca, 2017;Nocca and Fusco Girard, 2018). Also, regenerating local resources for revenue, such as renting for homestay or co-living in shophouses, can reduce the financial burden while creating unique experience (Cattaneo et al, 2020;Hsu et al, 2021;Lerario and di Turi, 2018). Nevertheless, cultural assets should be a medium to promote knowledge and skills inherited from the past and the possible future, but not be constrained as income generators only.…”

“…However, there can be some challenges in implementing the circular paradigm that users find difficult to justify or control. The efficiency of policy, difficulties of suitable materials, various living lifestyles, homogenisation of business, or monotonous activities could be the reasons for resource depletion (Guzman, 2020;Hsu et al, 2021;Kou et al, 2018).…”

“…The government has the power to make proper relocation strategies that preserve the local identities and values over time; in consideration of population changes, health, safety, or fire control through financial or physical support (Cattaneo et al, 2020;Hsu et al, 2021;Kou et al, 2018;Muminovi c et al, 2020). Improper heritage refurbishments may lead to abandonment, unused land and buildings that decrease the livability of the heritage district.…”

“…A balance between the social, environmental and economic dimensions in urban heritage sites is needed to recognise the urban development challenges (Battis-Schinker et al, 2021;Hsu et al, 2021). Yet, it is not limited to physical conservation (Alana et al, 2019), governance (Guzman, 2020), cultural (Cattaneo et al, 2020;Chahardowli et al, 2020), policy (Battis-Schinker et al, 2021) and patrimony (Leus and Verhelst, 2018).…”