Urban Heritage Facility Management: A Scoping Review

Abstract

This review examines current discussions from the cross-section study between urban heritage conservation and urban facility management fields in the academic literature from 2011–2020. The purpose is to identify the gaps within the examined papers to reveal the challenges and opportunities in the combined fields using the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s recommendation of the historic urban landscape (HUL) approach. The scoping review procedure was followed. The six critical steps and four supporting tools of the HUL approach were used to analyze the examined papers. Most aspects of urban heritage management within the body of literature were directly related to urban-scale facility management. The potential usage of building information modelling became one of the most discussed technological aspects. The expansion of the public–private partnership model into the public–private–people partnership is considered as a new potential business model. At the same time, the adaptive reuse approach is deemed to be the most sustainable method of managing heritage areas. This scoping review identified the financial tools as the most under-researched urban heritage facility management component. Therefore, it needs to be endorsed among the scientific communities to improve the knowledge and provide operable guidelines for the authorities and practitioners in the urban heritage field.

A Scoping Review on Environmental, Economic, and Social Impacts of the Gasification Processes

“…There is a contrast between systematic and scoping reviews [65]. In the systematic review, the main concern is based on a well-defined research question with a relatively narrow range for answers, while a scoping review addresses broader questions and topics [63].…”

Sustainable decision-making game for the next generation of smart citizens

“…In order to make an effective contribution in the planning process, citizens need to have an understanding of the big picture and the long-term vision for the development of their city [16]. This implies juggling with complex matters and concepts that are often confined to experts or highly educated citizens, thereby excluding a large portion of the population from entering the discussion and reaching consensus [17]. In traditional participatory methods such as citizen panels, participants are randomly selected and invited to contribute to a specific aspect of a project or a plan.…”

Supporting policymakers by Integrated Social Sustainability Assessments (ISSA) - case study of Furuset area in Oslo

“…The age-friendly environments concept developed and launched by the World Health Organization in 2007 illustrates that health and well-being are not only determined by our genes and personal characteristics but also by our physical and social environments; thus, the concept of age-friendly buildings, neighborhoods, cities, and communities was embedded [17]. Through motivational and sociopsychological theory, neighborhoods can increase people's willingness to change their behavior by working as a collaborative community to improve livability issues [18]. The public participation is one of the key elements of "smart cities," and local governments have worked to provide opportunities for citizens to participate.…”