Sustainable Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage: The Route from Discovery to Engagement—Open Issues in the Mediterranean

Abstract

Fatal events taking place in World War (WW) I and II have left behind important historical evidence as an underwater cultural heritage (UCH) (e.g., shipwrecks, submerged aircraft, war artifacts), lying in peace at the bottom of, among others, the Mediterranean Sea. The article aims at exploring the challenges for UCH protection/preservation and sustainable exploitation with emphasis on this sea. UCH is so far dealt with in a “silo” approach by marine archaeologists or heritage professionals, who often ignore its potential for serving local sustainable development goals. The paper elaborates on the value, but also the complexity, multi- and inter-disciplinary as well as multi-actors’ nature of UCH management and sustainable exploitation, perceiving these as a “wicked” planning problem. It attempts to illuminate various important dimensions of this problem, such as its glocal (global/local) context; the conflicting and, in certain cases, inconsistent UCH legal protection framework, touching upon a variety of spatial scales; the contemporary policy frameworks favoring UCH management; etc. Exploration of these dimensions reveals open issues or gaps that need to be filled, and sets the ground for a more holistic and integrated UCH research and management approach for building up the yet largely untold, Mediterranean WW I and II UCH narrative; and shifting this area from a sea graveyard to a place of memory and cultural enrichment.

Landscape as Connecting Link of Nature and Culture: Spatial Planning Policy Implications in Greece

“…However, further adaptations are needed, namely the emphasis on the idea to further reconnect natural and cultural capital which is also an already manifested European policy [50], directly related with contemporary conservation and landscape trends which may be essential for the shift from a normative planning to a visionary, forward-thinking, resilient, ecosystem-based and adaptive management-based spatial planning, both on land and on sea. In this sense, the new-generation spatial planning tools (Regional Spatial Plans, RSPs, Special Spatial Plans, SSPs, see Figure 4) and the recent law 4546/2018 for Maritime Spatial Planning should seriously take into account the landscape either terrestrial or marine or even underwater [51], thus ultimately creating the dynamic for a change in the philosophy, inspiration and vision of planning in the country, incorporating its evolutionary perspective and as a consequence an evolutionary perspective for landscape itself, viewed as a complex social-ecological system. Nowadays, Regional Spatial Planning Frameworks remain the sole spatial planning tools with extensive reference to landscape management issues.…”

Aegean Sea—Challenges and Dilemmas in Management and Planning for Local Development in Fragmented Insular Regions

“…Under the conditions of the digital revolution, modern technology and geo-information media (headed by geographical data systems and digital analysis systems) constitute a basic mechanism to approach the manifold dimensions of space and to comprehend the trends, prospects and risks within the framework of urban, regional and environmental planning and urban synthesis/design being attempted. Digital media allow us to depict segments of the surface of the land and marine space in two or three dimensions by adopting a variety of methods [28,29]. The practical interest in their use lies in the variety of approaches and mapping they provide, which allow researchers and planners to create and process themed and analytical maps "visualising" the data available.…”

“…The practical interest in their use lies in the variety of approaches and mapping they provide, which allow researchers and planners to create and process themed and analytical maps "visualising" the data available. The advantages of their use mainly include: (i) Measurement, comparison, correlation of quantitative and qualitative indices, mapping and monitoring over time; (ii) recording, evaluation and projection of experiences; (iii) access to difficult-to-access segments of space [28,29]; (iv) (re)production of various conceptual images/simulations; (v) setting up spatial/sectoral/societal networks of collaboration/communication [13][14][15]; and (vi) organising structures to provide information, institute democratic discussion, and interactive participation [20,21]. However: On what terms and to whose benefit?…”

“…As a living social phenomenon, intangible heritage cannot be safeguarded and refreshed in a museum manner 3 . This is the reason why management of cultural heritage should be based on practices of physical planning targeting the introduction of its elements (tangible and intangible) into space, but also the everyday reality of residents and visitors [5,[13][14][15]18,29].…”

“…The ongoing research in the Aegean Sea has been functioned as fruitful ground to re-exam "open" issues which have to become part of the Greek insular policy. Towards that direction, at this stage of investigation, the certain research underlines the importance of: (i) Highlighting the necessity of preserving and disseminating local traditions and know how as a means of modernization and restarting local economies and as a mechanism of island recover [5,13,15,16,19,23,28,29], (ii) marking out the power of dialogue and confirmed that many difficulties could be overcome when we work on common goals within a spirit of friendship and cooperation [4,7,20,21,32], (iii) confirming that we are moving towards new "developmental paths" which underline not only the importance of establishing creative crossboarder cooperation among island and island regions but also its preservation in time [4,5,8,11,13,27], (iv) recalling the "deficit" namely the lack of an "island policy", part of which should be a "management strategy" of cultural heritage and human resources [2,3,6,10,12,22,24,25].…”