“Sustainable Integrated and Planned Conservation
of Built Environment and Architectural Heritage:
Principles of dynamic management of modern assets and their care
General perspectives based on experience from Sweden”
Presented at “Planned Conservation of XX Century Architectural Heritage: A review of Policies and Practices”,
DOCOMOMO International Conference, Como, Italy, 30-31.10 2009. Printed in: Conserving Architecture. Planned
Conservation of XX Century Architectural Heritage / Conservare l´achitettura. Conservazione programmata per il
patrimonio archittetonico del XX secolo, (ed) Andrea Canzani. Electa, Milano 2009. ISBN 978-88-370-7384-8
pp.172-183, references pp.404.
Nanne Engelbrektsson
Associate professor emerita
Department of Conservation
University of Gothenburg
Jan Rosvall, Ph.D. Professor emeritus
GMV Centre of Environment and Sustainability
Chalmers University of Technology and
University of Gothenburg
Topics of the Conference
As a starting point, an observation may be made, concerning the conceptual framework of the
themes covered by the present conference and its organising scheme and background, as well as by
general views presented by the participants in their papers.
The scholarly-scientific-professional substance of this specific KBS obviously is focused on
two main areas. At one hand, evidently concerning the actual historic monuments referred to - either
with support of interpretative history, anthropology and other disciplines in humanities, the arts and
social sciences - or by analytical scientific-technical explanation of the matters of which the historic
structures have been composed and constructed, with addition to their continuing changes. The
other side of the conference topic obviously is concentrated on various kinds of views and methods
for handling and technical interventions in, and on behalf of the matters and monuments of concern.
In sum, this situation certainly provides excellent opportunities for problem-oriented considerations
concerning inter- and trans-disciplinary research, methods and sets of operations, especially on
modelling and meta modelling levels.
In the following a short presentation is given to characterise the shift inside the professional
community of conservation and planning, relating to overarching international goals of
sustainability, democratisation and poverty eradication according to Agenda 21 and Habitat
Agenda. (UNCD (1992), UN Habitat: Istanbul (1996), New York (2001), Johannesburg (2005).
This situation opens for long-term creative visions of maintenance and care of historic architecture,
as well as of ordinary landscapes and built up environments.
From Architectural Restoration and Historic Preservation:
Towards Integrated and Planned Conservation
Successively, during the last decades, the concept of conservation has changed from
traditional restoration and preservation of selected objects referred to as cultural heritage, towards
the considerably expanded scope of integrated and planned conservation (or rather its original
concept ´conservazione programmata´); (see: Ceschi1970; Fielden 1982/2003; Canziani 2008, s.a.;
Della Torre 20). This fundamental professional development - prepared for long-term technical
maintenance, use and management of ordinary buildings and environment - obviously to a larger
extent encompassing contemporary architecture, ´ordinary landscapes´ and ´anonymous´ built up
environments from 20th century. Continuing epistemological considerations, striving to elaborate a
combined analytical ground - at one hand concerning the discourse of preventive and integrated
conservation since long existing - at the other the discourse of sustainability developed during the
last decade – still need to be systematically delineated and analyzed (Gustafsson & Rosvall
2008).Particularly as these in many respects closely intertwined professional systems of ideas, in
instrumental and societal respects, often operate on different levels and with somewhat various
overtones and significations (Zancheti (ed.) 1999; Fusco Girard & Forte 2000; Avrami 2004;
Cerreta 2005; Loulanski 2006).
However, in general terms, these multi-facetted scientific and professional constructs
gradually have resulted in rather changed attitudes towards historic buildings, industrial compounds
and old townships. The comprehensive global goals of sustainability in the formula of Agenda 21
have meant a lot as a driving force giving increased evidence and legitimacy to the cultural heritage
sector and its interests, notably during the last years, historic architecture as well as ordinary built
environments from the 20th century, successively are perceived and treated as cultural resources
representing cultural capital - indicating significant foundations for new kinds of creative
development and solutions at local and regional level - instead of being classified as obstacles for
planning measures, as earlier often was the case (National Heritage Board of Sweden 2001;
Lowenthal 2000; Avrami 2004; Rosvall et al 2004; Gustafsson 2007, 2009; Canziani 2008).
Even if perspectives of long-term maintenance and sustainability nowadays generally are
relatively well established within planning bodies, e.g. in the Nordic countries, the discourse of
integrated conservation definitely needs to be more manifest and overtly organised, not just mainly
on municipality and regional levels (Sandercock 1997; Boverket 1999, 2001; Nyström & Fudge
1999). Nowadays successively changed planning attitudes to architectural heritage in the formula of
sustainable development – likewise underlining democratic planning processes – also have opened
up for necessary corresponding academic training, encompassing a broad scope of relevant
anthropological and sociological perspectives and analytical instruments (Engelbrektsson 2009). As
a consequence, well trained and updated professional scholars in the field of integrated conservation
nowadays normally possess a much broader requisite of aspects and analytic instrument. Awareness
of this kind of considerably widened interdisciplinary perspectives and skills of well trained
academics unfortunately still often is lacking from the side of general planning bodies. This must be
seen as an urgent matter of information activities from the side of the cultural heritage sector, as
well as related educational bodies.
Increased Attention to Social and Intangible Dimensions
Especially during the last decade a lot of international seminars and conferences in the field of
conservation and planning have highlighted social and cultural dimensions – according to Burra
Charter (1999) and Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UN
2003), beside Agenda 21 and Habitat Agenda (Ahmad 2006).
As an example the ICOMOS Seminar on 20th Heritage (1996) can be mentioned, of direct
relevance for the theme of this conference, summarising issues and problems of specific concern for
protection of contemporary architectural heritage. Like in many other international documents
during the last decade some general conclusions are made, especially underlining the importance of
social and intangible dimensions:
 “Attention focused on 20th century heritage considered as the material base of social life,
itself related to intangible heritage” (Point 1.3)
 “Constructed heritage must be considered conjointly with memory and the collective
imaginaries, and related to the use of spaces and social phenomena … “ (Point 2.1.4)
 “The authenticity to be maintained must be tantamount to its significance in terms of the
community; and it refers to its social use and its context, as well as to its materiality”
(Point 2.3.3).
Studies concentrating on perspectives demanded above have turned out to be of great value in
planning situations, especially in projects encompassing larger areas or parts of townships.
Approaches of this kind imply anthropological /ethnological /sociological perspectives based on a
pronounced ´emic- perspective, referring to individuals or groups of concerned citizens.
Intrinsic qualitative studies of local modes of life, daily habits and urban performances have given
evidence for an understanding of contemporary use and comprehension of areas of concern, as well
as for inhabitants’ special assessments and estimations of elements in their built environment
(Jacobs 1961; Engelbrektsson 1982; Cerreta 2005; Di Girasole 2005; Martins Holmberg 2006;
Waterton et al. 2006).
In connection to urban rehabilitation programs, studies of this kind are necessary instruments,
especially if they are consciously modelled in relation to specific problems and conceptualized
methodological framings. In urban settings, such as working class districts, industrial environments
or metropolitan suburban post-war dwellings, they can contribute to consciousness of richly varied
and multifaceted resources of social networks, as well as multiplicity of life modes and cultural
identities (Leontidou 1996). Systematic spatial interpretations of the interplay between different
groups of inhabitants, their use and appreciation of specific elements in an area, can be mentioned
as another example of rewarding studies in this context - as well as methods of photo
documentation based on strategic thematic interpretations.
Attempts to elaborate ´handy´ - but at the same time many-sided and effective methodologies
of socio-cultural local analyses adjusted to planning procedures - are presented by anthropologists
at the Getty Institute under the heading of “Rapid Ethnographic Assessment” (REAP). Methods
referred to are e.g. “Expert interviews”, “Physical traces mapping”, “Behavioural mapping”,
“Transect walks”, “Individual interviews”, “Group interviews”, “Focus groups”, “Participant
observation” and “Historic and archival documents” (Low 2002).
Material cultural heritage can be regarded as a representation of beliefs of mankind, about
ourselves and our communities, on individual and societal level (Pearce 2000). Anthropological indepth studies, paying attention to specific intangible dimensions, e.g. experiences of local belonging
and identity related to specific signs and symbols, based on space-oriented collective memory and
´story-telling´ in urban settings have given evidence for the very rich complexity of multifunctional
urban areas (Giddens 1991; Martins Holmberg 2006). In these context significance of symbolic
meaning of architecture, and its semiotic systems, is of profound importance to clarify (Norberg
Schulz 1974/75; Nordbladh & Rosvall 1978; Landzelius 1999).
Furthermore, the principles of “planning from below” can convey deeper insights in the broad
varieties of preferences that often are at hand, related to varying groups of stakeholders and tenants
based on experiences of lived life, often referring to quite different vocabularies and views of life
(Castells 1983; Gjesdal Christensen 1984; Zancheti 1999; Engelbrektsson 1987, 2003; Fusco Girard
1993). Understanding of general aspects of territoriality (Baerenholdt 2001), giving insights in
local hierarchies, power relations and struggles of space related to varying priorities among
different groups of inhabitants, must be seen to be of vital importance in planning situations
(Ashworth 2001; Harvey 2003). Experiences of this kind also can mean increased consciousness of
the authority of own planning perspectives and strategies, leading to radical reflections of basic
ethical planning principles, rethinking the own role in the spatial process, more as participators in a
learning process, perceiving themselves as mediators among other actors (Malbert 1999; Hodges &
Watson 2000; Hambleton 2005;. Piccinato 2005; Waterton et al. 2006).
Planning Processes characterized by Dynamic and Heuristic Approaches
The presented comprehensive shift of goals, perspectives and planning models, to a certain
extent seems to have been implemented in various ways in different countries and regions, due to
actual economic-social-geographic backgrounds, as well as to existing professional planning
procedures. This situation implies a growing demand of cross-disciplinary professional and
scholarly development of theoretical synthesis, and of adjusted problem-oriented holistic
approaches and related planning models.
In this context, it is necessary to indicate that integrated and planned conservation never can
be a matter of ´fix models´ - but rather a very conscious selection of relevant perspectives and
methodological approaches - always emanating from decisive initial analyses of the object per se,
as well as its actual conditions and planning circumstances. Hence, all projects may start with
sessions of broad creative common analyses concerning specific complex of planning problems that
can be identified – to be discussed by representatives from all involved professions in the planning
group. If possible, representatives of stakeholders, as well as of different groups of inhabitants,
should be included in these initial discussions.
Problem-oriented analyses of this kind have to be understood as a common base and a vital
instrument for a conscious focusing of priorities of specific issues in actual projects. If this mode of
operating structure initially can be arranged, it is often of great interest for all participants included
in the teams to be able to take part of successive results of integrated conservation achievements.
Especially this is valid, if working meetings regularly are held, summing up current results and
interpretations of general interest for intended working procedures. Furthermore, this kind of
deepened analyses can serve as an instrument to identify and be aware of complementary issues of
specific importance that have been discovered – sometimes in some respects offering a cause to
reconsider stipulated project plans. A dynamic open-minded management of this kind, oriented
towards heuristic planning processes involving democratic inquiring approaches, must be seen as
especially important in the complex field of integrated and planned conservation, comprising
technical and material aspects, as well as multifaceted economic, social and cultural dimensions.
In this context it must be underlined that professionals representing the field of integrated
conservation, already in the initial phase - when goals and approaches are to be formulated - are
anticipated to play an active and crucial role in multi-professional working teams. Otherwise, there
is an evident risk that conservation interests in a broad sense, even henceforth, will be looked upon
and carried out just as isolated expert activities - taking place only at special occasions in the
planning process - often only when specific questions like technical and/or aesthetic aspects of
architectural heritage issues need to be interpreted by conservation consultants (Engman 2008;
Gustafsson & Rosvall 2008).
Demolishing 19th and 20th Century Urban Areas in the 60s and 70s in Sweden
The exceptionally booming economy of the 1960´s and the 70´s in Sweden combined with the
strongly developed domestic welfare model and modernism in architecture and planning, at a
society level lead to general political consensus for removing major parts of historic remains of
existing urban districts and their architectural components. This process happened considerably
earlier, and to a relatively larger extent than in most other comparable countries, partly depending
on favourable economic and social conditions. It has to be recognized, that Sweden had not been
involved in wars for two centuries, and in main permanent parts of the country even longer,
corresponding to geo-political situations and a long lasting policy of non-alignment and neutrality.
(Rosvall1999). As a consequence, a large amount of urban historic districts were meticulously
aimed to be rapidly exchanged by new architectural structures pretended to be adequate in all
respects.
It was not long before many concerned voices were raised to protect vital parts of the
architectural and urban resources at stake, mainly from the period of modernism and its immediate
predecessors (Lindahl 1965). However, much of those efforts were mobilised far too late and had
no capacity to hinder the on-going destructive planning processes. As an effect those groups
concerned early started to develop various strategies, in principle like similar movements in some
cities in Western Europe and North America.
Obviously, some of the most important initiatives for long-term strategies of prevailing
planning, at one hand were to organize NGO-based policy movements, at the other to counteract the
lack of competent professionals by developing new kinds of interdisciplinary academic education.
Mainly this happened in schools of architecture at university level. In reality however, most of these
initiatives were of relatively short duration and of restricted importance concerning their capacity to
change the direction of the modern planning schemes (Engelbrektsson 1987; Rosvall et al. 1999;
Wetterberg (ed) 2000; Gustafsson & Rosvall 2008b; Johansson 2009; Rosvall 2007).
Below some general educational perspectives are discussed, illustrated by a presentation of
experiences from Sweden during the period from the 70´s until recently.
Cross-disciplinary Research and Educational Programs in Integrated Conservation
For the academic circles the planning processes described above meant quite a considerable
challenge - at one hand to instigate and develop new constellations of relevant inter- and transdisciplinary networks and research groups. At the other it was a pressing requirement to meet
corresponding needs of relevant academic education by generating new kinds of comprehensive
multi-professional programs in the fields of scholarly-scientific conservation and planning.
The instigation in 1978 of a full professional university program in Integrated Conservation of
Built Environments at University of Gothenburg, after already a decade of preliminary courses, can
be mentioned as one of few enduring initiatives. (´Göteborg Model´ Rosvall et al.1999).
Successively this interdisciplinary program was organized from Bachelor’s level, ending in a
Master’s program according to the evolving Bologna formula, with various possibilities of adding
new specialities. From 1985 on, an equivalent Master’s program in Conservation of Cultural
Property gradually was established, implying certain advantages of co-ordination of courses, as
well as of new fields of knowledge of common interest. In 1991 a postgraduate Ph.D. program
ultimately was established involving permanent research resources in Conservation as a new
discipline on its own. This structure was not depending on other academic disciplines, however
constructively relying on well organised co-operation with other relevant disciplines in a flexible
and open network, notably at international level already from start. In the present context, a
considerable number of courses at various levels have been performed, generally on a permanent
basis. With regard to interpretation and conservation of modern architecture, including
´monuments´ as well as ´ordinary´ built up environments from the 20th century - to an increasing
extent on issues concerning the booming period referred to above - a number of research
publications and Ph.D. dissertations have been printed. (In the academic series: Gothenburg Studies
in Conservation, publ. by Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis; see Editors Preface in Johansson
2008).
An important effect of establishing an academic compound like this has been that the evolving
process, not only has resulted in continuously growing general respect and concern for the area of
Conservation per se. In addition, profound curiosity and interest for developing new knowledge of
common concern also has been an important outcome, demonstrated from a vast number of
disciplines, professions, external public organisations, NGO´s and private enterprises, as well as
from society at large – for natural reasons at close range but also in distant locations. The outcome
of this new discipline has manifested the creation of a co-operative spirit, in order to enhance the
topics at focus, especially those generated from the side of conservation, which otherwise
supposedly would not have been accomplished - at least not continuously and to the actual extent.
Before this academic structure was instigated in the last 70s, a set of strategic measures and broad
analyses were performed, paying attention e.g. to achievements in the heritage sector related to the
contemporary planning situation, characterised by the huge eradication of ordinary built
environments from the 19th and 20th centuries mentioned above.
Corresponding analyses of the academic educational situation in relevant areas of studies,
professions and disciplines were conducted. Evident needs were identified of multi-dimensional
academic programs, preparing for broad competencies in conservation and long-term maintenance
of historic architecture and ordinary built-up environments, notably from the modern period. The
theoretical framework was mainly based on profound humanistic perspectives, successively
incorporating necessary fields of knowledge and skills from natural and social sciences,
professional planning, as well as technical, economic and epistemological issues (Johansson 2008).
Some of the main objectives for this academic interdisciplinary construct are presented below:








A strategy for developing integrated conservation as a professional academic field aiming at
widening the heritage sector to be an integrated part of overall planning, based on humanistic
and holistic perspectives,
An ideology of care, based on multidimensional analyses, characterised by a pronounced
preventive attitude of long-term maintenance and active management,
Special attention and awareness concerning the interaction between needs of preservation and
needs of renewal in all urban processes (Janson 1974; Appleyard 1975).
All tangible material assets involved, such as artefacts, buildings and cultural landscapes are to
be interpreted and understood as socio-substance relating to humans, to be studied as reciprocal
and dynamic processes of construction and de-construction of meanings, signs, symbols,
identities etc.
Development of contextual broad understanding of historic architecture, ´ordinary landscapes´
and ´anonymous´ contemporary built up environments, generating a multi-dimensional interdisciplinary platform of structural and process- oriented general knowledge - primarily based
on identified evident needs from the side of the heritage sector and concerned planning bodies,
Developing perspectives and methodologies of democratic and public-oriented heritage
planning,
Ethics of learning based on holistic understanding, involving a necessary interplay between
theory and praxis oriented towards field studies (Engelbrektsson 1987).
Developing an epistemological platform for critical, analytic and problem-oriented professional
and independent attitudes.
Expanding - from Local Academic Education - to European Conservation Research
Consortium
After the instigation of this educational program had been introduced and positively accepted
in general, new initiatives were taken. The first phase of widening the links with partners in addition
to the own institution, were found within academic institutions as well as by relevant public bodies
at all levels from governments and their ministerial extensions reaching distant local communities,
and notably within the cultural heritage sector in Sweden and beyond. Next phase of expansion was
focused at finding relevant means for a much wider platform of co-operation, problem-orientation
and application-based modelling. In these respects it was perfectly adequate to organise the
following period based on partnerships with private enterprises and organisations, especially in a
flexible and complex master-plan, according to the principles of triple helix-oriented conceptual
frameworks, between well selected partners, in the private sector, and with public organisations, all
linked in a consortium-formation together with the own institution and other complementary
academic entities, in Sweden and elsewhere.
As an introduction to this kind of application-oriented joint ventures, minor projects at various
locations in Sweden already early were organised in a modest scale, to enhance the students´
capacity to understand their professional roles and links with representatives from public and
private sectors, and jointly to conduct generic studies together with local inhabitants in their
authentic ambiences, as for example post-modern suburban habitats, or modern industrial buildings
(Engelbrektsson 1987).
The following step was intended to accomplish a set of conservation-science studies, based
on a meta-level modelling, concerning effects of air pollution induced deterioration mechanisms of
façade materials of architectural monuments. This international project was performed jointly with
Volvo Car Corporation and Swedish Institute in Rome, together with a considerable number of
university departments, public organisations and private companies from the heritage sector in
selected countries, including ICCROM (Rosvall 1988).
Based on this project, emanating from Department of Conservation at University of
Gothenburg, the EUROCARE “umbrella” program was developed during the 80s and 90s within
the EUREKA mechanism, directly implying a strict triple helix formation of a number of RTD
components, ranging from multi-national corporations to local SME’s around Europe, focused on
conservation needs on the market, concerning material requirements and other prompting needs –
much in favour of modern architecture at risk of dilapidation.
When the EUROCARE program was concluded, it was more than obvious, that major needs
within the heritage sector at large, observable at local venues - and often even more evident in
international contexts - not were sufficiently covered by adequate handling supported by
professional competencies or by focused problem-oriented research. A pressing need could
especially be indentified in the important field of sufficient availability of industrial production of
feasible and reliable materials, components, systems, and relevant standards (Meijling 2006;
Rosvall 2006). One of the main areas of operations “anywhere”, where these kinds of observations
might be made, certainly relates to the huge and rapidly expanding needs of maintenance,
conservation and rehabilitation of the vast global assets of modern, post-modern and post-postmodern habitats, and other constructions classified as “architecture” or just as “buildings”.
(Meijling 2007,2009). Only a small fraction of these huge material resources have been defined as
“monuments” and “cultural heritage”, even if much of these assets are sharing more or less the
same problems, as well as characteristics, qualities, material elements and their “inherent”
intangible dimensions.
Preparatory Study for a Triple Helix Organisation
The conditions for continued and expanded development of the KBS in conservation became
clear, when components presented above were combined into a proposal for a strategically
structured system of joint operations. Provided that an optimum mixed set of these kinds of
organisational resources were made available in a “cooperative package” that would fit the needs, it
seemed possible to establish a problem-solving mechanism to the benefit of dynamic management
of conservation and maintenance. It was understood that such supportive measures would have to
be strengthened by methods to be developed for material heritage and other tangible assets in the
built environment, including their correlated intangible characteristics. Their necessarily required
auxiliary professional structures and systems would have to be organised, such as documentation,
monitoring, standards definitions, evaluation models, and a multi-dimensional education system
still not existing, and therefore needed to be developed together with partners involved.
Without any doubt, the objectives briefly stated, required a considerable preparatory study,
leading to recommendations for a problem-oriented structuring model that would comprise many of
those issues presented above. The result was a multi-disciplinary research program aiming at
producing a cohort of Ph.D. / Tech.D. researchers that were anticipated to pay attention to such
trans-disciplinary problems that were launched by the enterprising partners composing the evolving
triple helix consortium. After preliminary conclusions, it was possible to start negotiating contacts
with KKS, one of the major financing Swedish complex of foundations for innovative and transdisciplinary RTD, directed to support triple helix research consortia of strong relevance for industry
and society as well as having profoundly well organised research management, incorporating
academic competence of high calibre, of theoretical capacity, as well as application-oriented
experiences of relevance.
These background factors enabled the complex consortium that was organised for solving a
set of carefully prepared application-oriented research problems of multi-disciplinary nature and of
joint interest for the partners involved, to invest necessary monetary and “in kind” resources to be
matched with the same amount of financial resources from KKS (a total budget of SEK 60mio has
been allocated, including all costs for the sub-projects, with competitive salaries for doctoral
candidates, their mentoring and supervision, project management, laboratory equipments,
international travels, various expenditures, OH taxation).
Establishment of NMK Postgraduate Enterprising Research School in Conservation
Conclusions from the preparatory considerations have lead to the establishment of a so called
Postgraduate Enterprising Research School, named “NMK – Natural Materials in Environmental
Sciences and Cultural Conservation”, jointly organised at the Göteborg Centre for Environment
and Sustainability. This consortium was formed by the two collaborating main universities,
(Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg), and by two regional university
colleges (Dalarna & Gotland), comprising a set of core conservation and environmental disciplines
in an international network. The university side was established in collaboration with a considerable
number of private corporations and SME´s, jointly with relevant public agencies, mainly in the
sectors of construction companies, building materials, estate management, high tech monitoring,
and land surveying, and consultancies for these conservation-oriented operations. During its period
of c.8 years of research program NMK has produced a group of c. 20 postgraduate doctoral
candidates, fulfilling their studies and research with the dissemination of individual Ph.D.
dissertations. The research was based on the problems stated by the collaborating and financing
companies, and eventually accomplished in close collaboration with their representatives, and
responsible senior academic advisors. In total, the group of senior experts reached about one
hundred qualified experts, in addition to a multitude of collaborative partner representatives at
various levels.
These dissertations have been produced, examined and distributed according to high quality
standards referring to academic, industry and public sector requirements, especially from the side of
conservation representatives. The publications have been delivered publicly, in order to highlight
the originally stated problems, to large extent prevailing in modern housing and constructions,
including heritage assets. Based on the outcome, these results in several cases have initiated a
second step of further development, often at a more generalising research level, implying that the
original meta-level ambitions gradually were accomplished by new RTD modelling. Also
continuing research has been established within the financing partner organisations, as an important
spin-off effect of importance for the future, providing new grounds for potential new collaboration,
not much seen before. This innovative mentality in the majority of consortium partners can be
interpreted as an evident sign of growing understanding of the profound needs for conservation and
maintenance measures, and how to incorporate them together with evolving capacity to observe
needs of relevant research, and to commission and finance such projects to be accomplished
together with competent RTD institutions.
Abstract
Urban restructuring and changed conditions for planning activities during the last part of the
20 century are briefly outlined, mainly based on experiences from Sweden. The exceptionally
booming economy of the 60´s and the 70´s combined with the domestic welfare model and
modernism in architecture and planning lead to political consensus for removing substantial parts
of remaining historic architecture and ordinary built up environments and urban structures.
It was not long before many voices were raised to protect the architectural and urban resources
at stake, much from the period of modernism. As a result, those groups concerned early started to
develop various strategies for long-term effects of strengthening prevailing planning strategies.
NGO-based policy movements were organized, as well as instigation of new kinds of academic
training systems. Some general educational perspectives are discussed, illustrated by a presentation
of experiences from the successively developed ´Göteborg Model´, and its interdisciplinary Master
program in “Integrated Conservation of Built Environments” at University of Gothenburg, starting
successively from the 70´s. Postgraduate Ph.D. program involving permanent research resources in
th
Conservation as a new discipline ultimately was established, which continuously has grown and
still is expanding.
The productive results of relevance and quality have been demonstrated, for the organisation
of trans-disciplinary interaction, based on triple helix co-operation between university research in
the Conservation discipline, and its related academic interdisciplinary partners, together with
concerned companies in the private sector, and adequate public agencies. The resulting NMK Postgraduate Enterprising Research School in Sustainability and Cultural Conservation has managed to
accomplish such a RTD program, attractive for all partners involved.
A general shift in basic world-view and pragmatic attitudes, in many respects relating to
global acceptance of sustainable planning ethics, has contributed to strengthen the arguments and
legitimacy in the field of heritage preservation and integrated conservation. This fundamental
professional development, to a higher degree adjusted to long-term technical maintenance, use and
management, also aiming at social welfare, has lead to increased awareness also of contemporary
architecture, ´ordinary landscapes´ and ´anonymous´ built up environments from 20th century. As a
consequence, architectural heritage nowadays more often is interpreted as cultural resources and
cultural capital, and not as an obstacle, but primarily as a platform for creative local and regional
development.
Due to a corresponding enhanced attention to democratic and heuristic planning processes,
there is a profound and steadily growing interest to incorporate social and intangible dimensions,
developing relevant approaches and methods. This situation has lead to evident needs of
interdisciplinary research, based on anthropological and humanities-oriented perspectives and
methodologies, in addition to science, technology and crafts. Advantages as well as hindrances are
discussed, for incorporating and implementing perspectives and approaches of integrated
conservation of this kind of planning processes.
Nowadays, a phase of ambiguity and re-orientation is possible to be identified in the
heritage sector, as well as generally in official planning bodies. In sum, new tendencies of
transparency among planning professionals may be seen as a great advantage, and a positive
challenge for sustainable integrated and planned conservation directed to modern architectural
heritage.
References
Ahmad, Y. (2006) ”The Scope and Definitions of Heritage: From Tangible to Intangible”
In: International Journal of Heritage Studies Vol.12, No. 3, pp.292-300.
Appleyard, D. (1979) The Conservation of European Cities. Cambridge and London.
Ashworth, G. (2001) ”Thoughts on the political uses of the past”. In: Industrial Heritage as
Force in the Democratic Society. pp.24-37. Conference May 2001. Keynote lecture:
Democracy, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm.
Avrami E. C. (2004) ”Cultural Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Building:
Converging Agendas”. In: Industrial Ecology, Dec 2004, pp.1-15.
Baerenholdt J.O. (2001) ”Territorialitet, mobilitet og mestringsstrategier”. In: Praxis, rum og mobilitet
(ed) J.O. Bærenholdt & K. Simonsen), Copenhagen 2001.
Boverket, Karlskrona, Sweden:
(1999) En stad är mer än sina hus. Hållbar utveckling av städer och samhällen.
(2001) En stad är mer än sina hus. Hur arbetar kommunen med hållbar utveckling?
Canziani, A. (2008) Being and Becoming of Modern heritage. The Challenge of Planned Conservation
(pre-printed paper presented at the DOCOMOMO conference in Rotterdam, September 2008).
Canziani, A. (s.a.) Research Unit Cultural Heritage Planned Conservation. (PP presentation.)
BEST Department, Politecnico di Milano.
Castells, M. (1983) The city and the grassroots: a cross-cultural theory of urban social movements.
London: Edward Arnold.
Castells, M. (2004) The Information age: economy, society and culture. The power of identity.
Vol 2. Malden. Mass.: Blackwell.
Cerreta, M. (2005) “Permanent Temporariness: Temporary Uses as Urban Catalyst”. In:
Life in the Urban Landscape. International Conference for Integrating Urban Knowledge
& Practice, Gothenburg, May-June 2005.
Ceschi, C. (1970) Teoria e storia del restauro. Bulzoni, Rome.
Council of Europe: (1975) “Amsterdam Declaration”. The European Charter of the Architectural
Heritage.
Crippa, M. A., Pietraroia, P. et al. (2007) Il restaoro del grattacielo Pirelli. / From emerging to
Restoration: The exemplary nature of a project process. Regione Lombardia / Skira, Milano.
Della Torre, S. et al. (2003) La conservazione programmata del patrimonio storico architettonico.
Linee guida per il piano di manutenzione e il consuntivo scientifico.Regione Lombardia, Milano.
Della Torre, S. (2005) Planned Conservation: Policy Models and New Italian Developments.
(PP presentation) “Göteborg Workshop, 24/25 October 2005. Dipartimento BEST, Polimi.
Della Torre, S. et al. (2007) Villa Bernasconi, Cernubbio. Storia e restaoro. Como.
Della Torre, S. (s.a..) L’Innovazione di processo nella conservazione del patrimonio architettonico.
Sperimentazione su Palazzo Te in Mantova e altri casi studio. / Process Innovation in
Preservation of Built Environment: Test on Palazzo Te in Mantova. (pp. 8-11)
de la Torre, M. & Mason R. (1999) “Economics and Heritage Conservation: Issues and Ideas on
Valuing Heritage”. Paper presented at the US / ICOMOS International Symposium on Culture,
Environment and Heritage. Washington, March 1999. 12p.
di Girasole, E. (2005) “Sustainable upgrading of suburban areas. Multiculturalism and immigrants
integration”. In: Life in the Urban Landscape. International Conference for Integrating Urban
Knowledge & Practice, Gothenburg, May-June 2005.
Engman, J. (2007) ”Bevarande genom utveckling – den antikvariska yrkesrollen vid stadsförnyelseoch samhällsutvecklingsprojekt” . Thesis for Master of Science degree in Integrated Conservation
of Built Environments. Gothenburg: Department of Conservation, University of Gothenburg.
Engelbrektsson, N. (1982 / 1993) Landala. Stadsdel och livsform som försvann. Etnologiska
institutionen, Göteborgs universitet, Göteborg.
Engelbrektsson, N. (1987) “Integrated Conservation – Research and Student Projects in Swedish
Communities”. In: Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Architectural Conservation
and Town Planning, Heritage Trust, London.
Engelbrektsson, N. &. Rosvall, J. (2003) ”Integrated Conservation and Environmental Challenge.
Reflections on the Swedish Case of Habitat”. In: (eds.) Luigi Fusco Girard et al.
The Human Sustainable City. Challenges and Perspectives from the Habitat Agenda.
Ashgate Publishers, London. pp.429-456.
Engelbrektsson, N. (2005) “Tendencies to a Shift in Attitudes to Cultural Heritage - a Survey”.
Paper presented at the International Seminar “Cultural Heritage: Use, Maintenance and Long-term
Development” Workshop III: “Value aspects and economic perspectives”, Nov 2005, University of
Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology. 13pp. Publ.: see Engelbrektsson, N. (2009).
Engelbrektsson, N. (2009) “Il Patrimonio Culturale: Verso un Cambiamento degli Approcci:
una Analisi”. In: Conservazione Integrata del Patrimonio Architettonico Urbano ed
Ambientale, pp.103-116. (ed.) Lucio Morrica. Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II.
Neapel 2009. ISBN 978-88-8497-198-2.
Feilden, B.M. (1982 / 2003) Conservation of Historic Buildings. London, Butterworths.
Fudge, C. & Rowe, J. (2000) Implementing Sustainable Futures in Sweden. Byggforskningsrådet T19:2000. Stockholm.
Fusco Girard, L. & Nijkamp, P. (1997) Le valutazioni per lo sviluppo sostenibile della città e del
territorio, Angeli, Milan.
Fusco Girard, L. (1998) “Cultural Sustainable Development for the Humanization of the City”.
In: The European Society for Ecological Economics, Newsletter: 4.
Fusco Girard, L. & Forte, B. (eds.) (2000), Città sostenibile e sviluppo umano. Angeli, Milan.
Giaccardi, E. & Palen, L. (2008)”The Social Production of Heritage through Cross-media Interaction:
Making Place for Place-making”. In: International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 14, No.3, pp.
281-297.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Gjesdal Christensen, A.L.G.(1984) “Inner City Area in Transition: Consequences of Product-oriented
Planning in Oslo”. In: Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research. 1984: No I: pp. 15-26.
Gustafsson, C. & Rosvall, J. (2008a) “´The Halland Model´ and the ´Gothenburg Model´: a quest
towards Integrated Sustainable Conservation” In: City and Time. Vol. 4, No 1 2008. CECI,
Centro de Estudos Avançados da Conseraçāo Integrada. Pernambuco. pp.15-30.
Gustafsson, C. & Rosvall, J. (2008b) “Development of Management skills within Cultural Heritage
Administrations”. In: M. Quagliuolo, (ed.) Classifying monuments open to the public. DRI –
Fondazione Enotaria ONLUS. Roma. pp.28-47.
Gustafsson, C. (2009) The Halland Model. A Trading Zone for Building Conservation concerted
with Labour Market Policy and Construction Industry, aiming at Regional Sustainable Development.
Diss. Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology.
Hambleton, R. (2005) ”New leadership for democratic urban space”. In: Life in the Urban Landscape,
International Conference for Integrating Urban Knowledge & Practice. Gothenburg,
May-June 2005.
Harvey, D. (2003) ”City and Justice: Social Movements in the City”. In: Luigi Fusco Girard et al.
(eds.) The Human Sustainable City. Challenges and Perspectives from the Habitat Agenda.
Ashgate Publishers, London. pp.235-254.
Hodges, A. & Watson, S. (2000) ”Community-based Heritage Management: A case study and
agenda for research”. In: International Journal of Heritage Studies Vol.6, No. 3, pp.231-243.
ICOMOS:
(1964) The Charter of Venice, International charter for the conservation and restoration of
monuments and sites, Venice.
(1981), “The Cultural Heritage in Sweden”, In: ICOMOS Bulletin, no. 6.
(1986) “Seminar on 20th Heritage”, Mexico City, June 1996.
(2002-03) 20th Century Heritage: Recognition, protection and practical challenges, 9pp.
Jacobs, J. (1961, 1992) The death and life of great American cities. New York.
Janson, S. (1974) Kulturvård och samhällsbildning, Nordiska Museets Handlingar, no. 83,
Stockholm.
Johansson, E. (2004) “Ph. D. Research in Sweden: Expanding the Frontiers of Conservation
Knowledge”. In: APT Communiqué, Vol. 33: 3 (cover article).
Johansson, E. (2008) House Master School: Career Model for Education and Training in
Integrated and Sustainable Conservation of Built Environments. Diss. Göteborg Studies
in Conservation, No. 22, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Johansson, E. (2009) “Architectural Conservation and Sustainable Building: A trans-disciplinary
Sector Learning Model”(unpubl. paper). Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology.
Landzelius, M. (1999) Dis(re)membering Spaces. Swedish Modernism in Law Courts Controversy.
Diss., University of Gothenburg, Department of Conservation.
Leontidou, L. (1996) “Alternatives to Modernism in (Southern) Urban Theory: Exploring inbetween Spaces” In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 20.
Lindahl, G. (1965) ”Omvandlingen i städernas mitt”. In: Arkitektur, Vol. 5, pp.152-159.
Loulanski, T. (2006) “Cultural heritage and sustainable development: exploring a common ground”.
In: The Journal of International Media, Communication, and Tourism Studies, No.5, pp37-58.
Low, S. M. (2002) “Anthropological-Ethnographic Methods for the Assessment of Cultural
Values in Heritage Conservation”. In: Marta de la Torre (ed.) Assessing the Values of
Cultural Heritage. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. pp.31-50.
Malbert, B. (1999) ”Urban Planning Participation. Discussion on the Roles of Planners”.
In: Det nya stadslandskapet – texter om kultur, arkitektur och planering. Institutionen
för Stadsbyggnad, Arkitektur, Göteborg: Chalmers tekniska högskola.
Martins Holmberg, I. (2006) On the Urban Surface: Historicizations of Haga, Sweden 1860-1985.
University of Gothenburg,: Diss. Department of Conservation, Gothenburg.
Mason, R. (ed.) (1999) Economics and heritage Conservation. A Meeting organized by the
Getty Conservation Institute. Los Angeles.
Mason, R. (2002) ”Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices”.
In: Marta de la Torre (ed.) Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage. The Getty
Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. pp.5-13.
Meiling, P. et al. (2006) ”Conservation and Maintenance of Modern Urban Architecture. The need for
long-term maintenance and sustainable management of metropolitan housing areas”.
Paper delivered to “Sustainable Resource Management-Raw Materials Security, Factor-X Resource
Productivity: Tools for Delivering Sustainable Growth in the European Union”.Dec 2006, Bruges.
Meiling, P. et al. (2007) “A Model Proposal for Documentation, Monitoring and Analyses of Building
Façades”. In: A. Grühn & H. Kahmlen (eds.) Proceedings Optical 3D Measurement Techniques
VIII, ETH, Zürich. July 2007, pp.371-377.
Meiling, P. (2009) Documentation and Maintenance Planning Model – DoMaP. A response to the
need for conservation and long-term maintenance of façades of modern generic multiapartment buildings. Based on case studies in Göteborg in Sweden. Diss. Göteborg: Chalmers
University of Technology.
Mourato, S. & Mazzanti, M. (2002) “Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage: Evidence and
Prospects”. In: Marta de la Torre (ed.), Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage.
The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, pp.51-54.
Naples Declaration (2000) Humankind and the City. Towards a Human and Sustainable
Development. Naples, Sept. 2000.
Nara Document on Authenticity 1994. Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World
Heritage Convention. Nara,. Nov. 1994.
National Heritage Board / Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm, Sweden http://www.raa.se
(2001) The Cultural Heritage in Society. Stockholm.
(2001) Large town´s architecture and cultural environment, Report 1999-2001.
(2004) Agenda kulturarvs programförklaring, Människan i centrum. Stockholm.
(2004) N. Samuelsson (ed.) Modify with care – guidance for structural changes to
the record years of building.
(2006) Modern society´s cultural heritage Business area. Program for a business area.
Norberg-Schulz, Ch. (1974/75) Meaning in Western Architecture. Milano / London, Studio Vista.
Nyström, L. & Fudge, C. (1999) City and Culture. Cultural processes and urban sustainability.
Boverket. Stockholm.
Piccinato, G. (2005) 20th century planning heritage: theories and ugly practices. I: The European Journal
of Planning, SICI: 1723-0093.
Rosvall, J. & Nordbladh, J. (1978) ”Det kommunikativa rummet” (pp. 83–139). In:
Vad sägs? Nio uppsatser om kommunikation. (ed.) B. Karlsson, Lund.
Rosvall, J. (ed.) (1988) Air Pollution and Conservation. Safeguarding Our Heritage. Elsevier Science
Publishers. Amsterdam -New York -Tokyo.
Rosvall, J. (1991) “Education and training in and for conservation”. Paper presented at the conference
Education and Training in Conservation at International Level - Past Experiences and Future Needs.
Ferrara, Nov. 1991.
Rosvall, J. (1993) “Education of conservationists and museologists in Sweden”. Paper presented at the
conference La Formation des Conservateurs de Biens Culturels an Europe. Ecolé Nationale du
Patriomoine. Paris, Dec. 1993.
Rosvall, J. et al. (1999) “International Perspectives on Strategic Planning for Research and Education in
Conservation”. In: La cultura del restauro, tutela e conservazione delle opere d’arte. Bolletino d’Arte,
supp. No. 98, pp.177-188. Bergamo, March 1995.
Rosvall, J. (1999) “Göteborg, an Example of Integrated Conservation in European Historic City Centres”
In: Restauro, No. 149, pp. 66-96.
Rosvall, J. et al. (2004) “The Göteborg Model”. In: Proceedings from 4th Meeting Working Group on EU
Directives and Cultural Heritage. Milan, Nov. 2004.
Rosvall, J. (2005) “Overview of trades education in Sweden in the field of vocational training and
professional education of relevance to preservation and conservation of cultural heritage”.
Keynote presented at The 2005 International Trades Education Symposium. Belmont Technical
College. Ohio, Oct 2005.
Rosvall, J. et al. (2006) “Towards Sustainable Conservation for the Production and use of Materials in Built
Environments”. In: Forescene: Sustainable Use of Materials. Vienna, Oct. 2006 (web publication).
Rosvall, J. (2007) “Sustainable Education and Integrated Conservation of the Built Environment”.
Paper presented at the International Trades Education Symposium and International
Preservations Trades Workshop, Tällberg, Sweden. May 2007. (unpubl.).
Rosvall, J. & Gustafsson, C. (2008) “´The Halland Model´ and the ´Gothenburg Model´: a quest
towards Integrated Sustainable Conservation.” In: City and Time. Vol. 4, No 1 2008. CECI,
Centro de Estudos Avançados da Conseraçāo Integrada. Pernambuco. pp.15-30.
Sandercock, L. Cities of (In)Difference and the Challenge for Planning. DISP. pp.7-15.
Swedish planning. Towards sustainable development. (1997) Föreningen för samhällsplanering,
Stockholm.
UN:
(1987) Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report), World Commission on Environment
and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
(2001) The Habitat Agenda. Implementation of Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements.
(UN, Habitat, Istanbul 1996, Implementation: New York, June 2001).
(2002) UN Decade for Education for Sustainable Development.
(2003) Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. General Conference,
32nd Session, Oct. 2003.
UNESCO:
(2004) Social Sustainability in Historic Districts Human Settlements and Socio-Cultural
Environment. Paris.
Urry, J. (1999) “Gazing on history. Representing the past as heritage and its consumption”.
In: D. Boswell & J. Evans. (eds.) Representing the Nation. Histories, Heritage and Museums.
London, New York. pp.208-232.
Waterton, E. et al. (2006) “The Utility of Discourse Analysis to Heritage Studies: The Burra
Charter and Social Inclusion”. In: International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 12, pp.339-355.
Ventura, P. (1995) Town Planning, Design and Conservation in Italy. Faculty of Architecture,
Florence: University of Florence.
Wetterberg, O. (ed.) (2000), Det nya stadslandskapet. Texter om kultur, arkitektur, planering
Göteborg: Chalmers Tekniska Högskola.
Zancheti, S.M. (ed.) (1999) Conservation and Urban Sustainable Development. A Theoretical
Framework, CECI. Centro de Conservaao Integrada Urbana e Territorial. Pernambuco:
Federal University of Pernambuco,