The current Italian legislation emphasizes the role of regular maintenance (D. Lgs 42/2004, art. 29), understood as a precondition for conserving built cultural heritage (BCH) and stresses the need for a coherent management of the different conservation activities (such as restoration, monitoring, study and, of course, maintenance). Setting a precise <<maintenance plan>> is therefore an essential step but, because of the specific features that make historical heritage different from the current building stock, it is necessary to act with some caution and develop specific lexicon, approaches and tools. Since 2001 the <<conservation plan>> (CP) has been established for BCH within the studies about Preventive and Planned conservation (see “Linee Guida per la redazione del piano di conservazione e del consuntivo scientifico” the UNESCO Chair and the PRECOM3OS network on Preventive Conservation, Monitoring and Maintenance of Monuments and Sites), since thinking in terms of PPC means implementing a careful planning of uses, resources, information management, regular maintenance and control of environmental factors. In a that perspective, the CP gives priority to - Knowledge. Since each element has specific characteristics and issues, knowledge plays a crucial role in BCH conservation. The CP has to be conceived as an information platform, which allows an accurate description of each architectural element of the building, its use and conservation and describes the links between them. - Extensive VS performance evaluations. A strict performance based approach, when applied to historic buildings, could lead to gradual replacement and/or unfair assessments, which would lead to categorize as anomalies to be corrected the characteristic features of the building, and underestimate the qualities acquired over time. On the contrary, when drafting a CP the assessment needs to be conducted in terms of management of compatibility rather than through a list of performances to be fulfilled, and each element should be evaluated in terms of <<issues>> (risks, vulnerabilities, potential), defined in relation to the use of the building. - Assessment/ prediction The capability to shift from condition assessment (that means an accurate description of the state of conservation as in CEN/ TC 346 WI 346013 Conservation of cultural property — Condition survey of immovable heritage) to a comprehensive evaluation of risks and intervention priorities is the “key point” in the preparation of the CP. Nevertheless, prediction still is a controversial point due to the unpredictable behaviour of complex systems. There are no databases or statistics that can predict what will happen in terms of building pathology and defects or where the damage will occur, but some important “clues” can emerge from a thorough knowledge of the building, a constant monitoring of his condition and weighing its vulnerability compared to the intended use. - Updating. The CP is <<always in progress>>, since it cannot be conceived as a sequence of repeated interventions as in a new building maintenance plan: after any inspection new or different actions could be inserted, according to the results of the inspection (i.e. higher rate of inspection, alert, new monitoring techniques and tools, etc). Starting from analysis of the most common cognitive biases, the paper presents some significant experiences in which the problem of building reliable scenarios in a context of uncertainty has been addressed, and presents strengths and faults of the experienced methodologies.

Managing Built Cultural Heritage, from condition assessment to risk assessment

BORGARINO, MARIA PAOLA
2015-01-01

Abstract

The current Italian legislation emphasizes the role of regular maintenance (D. Lgs 42/2004, art. 29), understood as a precondition for conserving built cultural heritage (BCH) and stresses the need for a coherent management of the different conservation activities (such as restoration, monitoring, study and, of course, maintenance). Setting a precise <> is therefore an essential step but, because of the specific features that make historical heritage different from the current building stock, it is necessary to act with some caution and develop specific lexicon, approaches and tools. Since 2001 the <> (CP) has been established for BCH within the studies about Preventive and Planned conservation (see “Linee Guida per la redazione del piano di conservazione e del consuntivo scientifico” the UNESCO Chair and the PRECOM3OS network on Preventive Conservation, Monitoring and Maintenance of Monuments and Sites), since thinking in terms of PPC means implementing a careful planning of uses, resources, information management, regular maintenance and control of environmental factors. In a that perspective, the CP gives priority to - Knowledge. Since each element has specific characteristics and issues, knowledge plays a crucial role in BCH conservation. The CP has to be conceived as an information platform, which allows an accurate description of each architectural element of the building, its use and conservation and describes the links between them. - Extensive VS performance evaluations. A strict performance based approach, when applied to historic buildings, could lead to gradual replacement and/or unfair assessments, which would lead to categorize as anomalies to be corrected the characteristic features of the building, and underestimate the qualities acquired over time. On the contrary, when drafting a CP the assessment needs to be conducted in terms of management of compatibility rather than through a list of performances to be fulfilled, and each element should be evaluated in terms of <> (risks, vulnerabilities, potential), defined in relation to the use of the building. - Assessment/ prediction The capability to shift from condition assessment (that means an accurate description of the state of conservation as in CEN/ TC 346 WI 346013 Conservation of cultural property — Condition survey of immovable heritage) to a comprehensive evaluation of risks and intervention priorities is the “key point” in the preparation of the CP. Nevertheless, prediction still is a controversial point due to the unpredictable behaviour of complex systems. There are no databases or statistics that can predict what will happen in terms of building pathology and defects or where the damage will occur, but some important “clues” can emerge from a thorough knowledge of the building, a constant monitoring of his condition and weighing its vulnerability compared to the intended use. - Updating. The CP is <>, since it cannot be conceived as a sequence of repeated interventions as in a new building maintenance plan: after any inspection new or different actions could be inserted, according to the results of the inspection (i.e. higher rate of inspection, alert, new monitoring techniques and tools, etc). Starting from analysis of the most common cognitive biases, the paper presents some significant experiences in which the problem of building reliable scenarios in a context of uncertainty has been addressed, and presents strengths and faults of the experienced methodologies.
2015
Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Building Pathology ISBP-2015
978-972-752-175-3
Preventive and planned conservation, built cultural heritage, conservation plan, heritage management, maintenance plan.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
BORGARINO_ISBP2015.pdf

Accesso riservato

: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 168.7 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
168.7 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/978181
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact