Towards Heritage Community Assessment: Indicators Proposal for the Self-Evaluation in Faro Convention Network Process

Abstract

The Faro Convention introduces an innovative concept of cultural heritage by recognising the importance of the community that is formed around the cultural asset to be enhanced. This concept is consistent with the New European Agenda for Culture, especially the European Year Cultural Heritage (EYCH) Initiative 9 “Heritage for all: citizen participation and social innovation”, that promotes a broader understanding of heritage, placing people and communities at the centre and involving them in making decisions about heritage valorisation. The cultural heritage acquires the meaning of common good and has been configured as “cultural commons”, expression of values shared by the heritage community and of the process activated to enhance it. In this perspective, the paper presents a proposal for the integration of the evaluation process identified by the Faro Convention, explaining the appropriate indicators useful for analysing the specificity of the valorisation processes and making them comparable. The methodological proposal was tested for the experience of the Friends of Molo San Vincenzo Heritage Community, activated in Naples, Italy.

1. Introduction

In the last decades, the notion of cultural heritage preservation [1,2,3,4,5] has evolved significantly, and its importance for local, sustainable development has been increasingly recognised. Cultural heritage is no longer merely understood as a fragile good to be shielded from external threats or as a good separated from its social context [6,7]) but as a means to satisfy the material and immaterial needs of a community. Indeed, cultural heritage is deemed relevant for its role and capacity in building a sense of belonging, of local identity, cohesion [8], and in enabling the creation and strengthening of social capital [9,10,11,12], and also as a fundamental tool for sustainable development [13].

According to perspective opened by international conventions and recommendations on cultural heritage, we intend to explore three main issues related to: the cultural heritage as a common good (i); the importance of democratic participation and citizens’ involvement in the process of its valorisation (ii); and the relevance of the deliberative evaluation processes (iii) for building heritage communities.

In particular, the “Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society” [14] signed in Faro, Portugal in 2005 and entered into force in 2011, stimulates the parties to undertake to “recognise the public interest associated with elements of the cultural heritage in accordance with their importance to society” (art.5) and ”delineates the framework of the rights and responsibilities of citizens in the participation to the cultural heritage and outlines the possible significance of its “value” through a multidimensional approach that reveals the contribution of cultural heritage to the development of human beings and society” [14].

Moreover, in the Communication of the European Council, “Council conclusions on participatory governance of cultural heritage” [15], cultural heritage is defined as “a shared resource, and a common good” (art.1). This subject has been further developed in the International Conference “Heritage Commons. Towards a Participative Heritage Governance in the Third Millennium” [16] organised in 2014, where cultural heritage has been analysed through the “perspective of the common” and has emerged as centrally crucial for the self-management of local resources and the definition of their rules of usage.

At the same time, the “Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the European Cultural Heritage Strategy for the 21st century” [17], recognising the importance and the value of the Faro Convention, specifies that “the European Cultural Heritage Strategy for the 21st century pursues an inclusive approach and involves not only the local, regional, national and European public authorities, but all heritage stakeholders including professionals, (international) non-governmental organisations, the voluntary sector and civil society”. This assumption signals a relevant shift from “cultural heritage” to the “right to cultural heritage”, or interpreted as the collective or individual right to benefit from the heritage [18,19]. Furthermore, the New European Agenda for Culture [20], especially with the European Year Cultural Heritage (EYCH) Initiative 9 “Heritage for all: citizen participation and social innovation”, in the spirit of the Faro Convention, promotes a broader understanding of heritage, placing people and communities at the centre and involving them in making decisions about heritage. Research, experimentation, and practice will engage and empower a large number of actors to care for heritage. New models of participatory governance and management of cultural heritage will be tested, and social innovation and links with other sectors are also being encouraged.

The involvement of local communities, achieved through a networking process and engagement of different institutions interested in that local context, spreads a new awareness on the cultural heritage role for the local and communities development, understood as the ability of citizens to recognise their identity in that heritage as their own, as commons, and consequently to cooperate for its conservation [21,22].

The semantics of the word “commons” [23], initially used to designate natural and traditional resources (water, grazing land, forests, agricultural land, fisheries, etc.) that are managed through communitarian forms and rules [24,25,26] has been broadened to include a large variety of “new commons” [27,28], including cultural heritage [6,21,22,29,30].

Navrud and Ready define and evaluate cultural heritage as a public good [31] and stress the central social values that cultural heritage can generate. Clarck underlines the public value of cultural heritage because “what makes something part of our heritage is not whether it is a building or landscape, but the value that we place on it. Value, therefore, remains at the centre of all heritage practice; it is what justifies legal protection, funding or regulation; it is what inspires people to get involved with heritage” [32].

Mattei highlights how common goods become “the hard core of goods belonging to the whole people who, for deeply axiological reasons, linked to our heritage, to the cultural identity of the nation” and accentuates how cultural heritage has a “value that goes very far beyond the present generation, which indeed extends to future generations, with a transmission from the past to the future that exceeds the duration of human existence, so the logic of law as an institutional structure that deals with the “here and now” is overcome by a vision of law as capable of taking on the interests of future generations as well” [30].

The “common” nature of cultural heritage derives from its being, therefore, strictly connected to the identity, culture, traditions of territory and for its being functional to the development of the life of its communities. Alonso González [22] underlines how understanding cultural heritage as commons can open new epistemological spheres of communication between different knowledge practices and can contribute to filling ontological gaps between the diverse subjects interested in the cultural heritage, such as academics, managers, architects, and local communities.

Cultural heritage can be identified as a specific type of commons, defined “cultural commons” that “refer to culture expressed and shared by a community” [29]. They are characterised by shared values and attitudes that make cooperation possible, expression of the complex social values produced by a cultural community [11]. Cultural processes and the construction of material and immaterial culture are, therefore, no longer a mere prerogative of an elite of experts, but are considered to be part of the civic responsibilities of the community, believing that culture and cultural heritage as commons involves users in their reproduction and transmission to future generations [33].

Indeed, cultural heritage has the potential to contribute to social innovation, social inclusion, social cohesion, and democratic citizenship, and to enhance the quality of life and support sustainable regeneration, but only if it is relevant to its present and is an expression of the community interests.

In this context, the Faro Convention identifies individual and collective responsibilities towards cultural heritage. Communities are expected to play an active role in identifying, studying, interpreting, protecting, preserving, and presenting cultural heritage. At the same time, governments are urged to promote a participative process of cultural regeneration based on the synergy between institutions, citizens, and associations. The latter are defined in art.2 as “heritage communities” made of “people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage which they wish, within the framework of public action, to sustain and to transmit to future generations” [14]. In particular, it is possible to assume that ”the notion of heritage community helps us in better understanding what the “right to cultural heritage” means: not only the right to benefit from the existing heritage but also the right to take part in the selection of new cultural expressions aimed at belonging to the notion of cultural heritage” [34].

Specific attention is paid to communities and their role. It is not just about ensuring preconditions for participation, facilitation, and promotion of cultural life, and access to and preservation of cultural goods [35]. Still, the culture and development actions have to include the community’s participation in all stages of the process where the notion of heritage community helps in better understanding the particular relationships and dynamics. According to the above perspective, the transition is from “participation” to the “engagement” of the community for the construction and management of cultural good as a “common good”.

These constellations raise old questions on the building, use, maintenance, and regulation of common goods. Indeed, recognising cultural heritage as a common therefore paves the way towards the common ground conditions that Ostrom [24] considered essential to create trust, reliability, and reciprocity among the members of a community that individuate shared rules to use the commons. The collaborative and cooperative approach of projects related to cultural heritage allow the inclusion and integration of many different social actors and partners, creating the possibility of starting and maintaining the interactions between the diverse groups within a community (Figure 1).

At the same time, the participatory approach opens exciting perspectives for cultural heritage enhancement if integrated with the study on commons, through collaborative decision-making processes [24,36,37,38,39].

“A community has a set of common goals, engages in interpersonal and collaborative interactions and typically has a network of informal learning and support established in its midst. It usually content-driven and has thus an intrinsic focus on the interest that forms the core of the community—that which drives and motivates its members to act and become part of the community in the first place, and around which the members identify” [40].

Collaborative and cooperative processes can involve the community as a whole (civil, private society, associations, public institutions, research bodies) in the enhancement of cultural heritage, guaranteeing their participation in the different phases of the process: that is, from the recognition of the cultural good to the definition and sharing of rules, objectives and values for its use and conservation, planning of actions, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of results [41].

The Faro Convention can, therefore, be considered an enabling framework that, by recognising cultural heritage as commons and revealing the importance of the participation and involvement of the local community, and the synergy between the different actors involved in the regeneration process, opens innovative scenarios with new actions for the cultural heritage regeneration. These actions aim to support the sustainable development of local territories and their communities, and identify processes and tools able to activate and promote heritage communities.

In the above perspective, deliberative and participatory evaluations [42,43,44,45] are increasingly advocated as a way to include the multidimensionality of value within decision-making processes, considering notions of commons values and collective intentionality, and better managing conflicts over cultural resources, assess the social impacts of policy and develop effective management strategies. This contribution analyses the “Faro Process”, a Faro Convention’s tool, through which heritage communities can affiliate themselves to the “Faro Convention Network”. This analysis has shown the lack of evaluation tools related to the self-management process, that should allow heritage communities to assess their initiatives concerning the principles of the Convention and to trace their improvements over time.

The identification of specific indicators explained through an appropriate rating scale, can support an evaluation process, oriented to improve the quality and the effectiveness of the decision-making, and the monitoring of changes over time. At the same time, an evaluative approach can be useful to build an interactive sharing process that facilitates operating the model of “learning organisation”, increasing the level of cultural, creative, and social productivity [46,47]. The methodological approach is tested to evaluate the process started by a heritage community called “Friends of Molo San Vincenzo” (FMSV), activated for the regeneration of the San Vincenzo pier in the port of Naples, Italy.

In the “Materials and methods” Section, the paper describes the Faro process considering the criteria of the Faro Convention and the steps of the Faro Convention Network (FCN) process, and proposed indicators for the self-assessment as evaluation tools for heritage community; in the “Results” Section, the proposal has been tested with a case study of Friends of Molo San Vincenzo; in the “Discussion” Section the potentials of the methodological process have been analysed, identifying possible next steps.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Faro Process

After 2005, to better interpret the policies of the Faro Conventions and to integrate them with the selected priorities, the Council of Europe created a framework with the main principles (included in the “action plan” of Faro) and the criteria, which have evolved with time [48]. The three main principles in line with the Convention are:

1.

connection to a community and territory determines a sense of belonging;

2.

social cohesion is founded on various levels of cooperation and commitment;

3.

democracy is practised by the engagement of civil society in dialogue and action, through shared responsibilities based on capacities.

The development of the Faro Convention owed much of its success to the Faro Convention Network (FCN) that “consists of groups of practitioners and facilitators of community-based actions in towns and territories in the Council of Europe member States who go through a process of valuing their local heritage assets in line with the principles and criteria of the Faro Convention” [49]). Through the “Faro Process”, divided into 15 steps (Figure 2), host communities can, therefore, affiliate themselves to the FCN that supports them with an active dialogue and interest between the members and the Secretariat of the CoE [49].

In this process, the guide for the self-management process [50] is particularly relevant. It includes explanations to the heritage community about the implementation of the self-assessment (step 4) and the following self-monitoring and self-evaluation (Step 8 and 14).

In the self-assessment phase (based on selected principles and criteria), each heritage community should estimate the relation to the required level and its contribution to the elaboration and implementation of the action plan. In the self-monitoring phase, the action plan progress can be evaluated every two years, and self-evaluation of the good practices and Faro Convention action plan are carried out by the heritage community.

This process aims to support the heritage community in the awareness of its accomplished results and to keep track of the improvement of the initiatives during the time, consistent with the principles and criteria of the Faro Convention and “to visualise the baseline measure vs. desired level, and to assist in the drawing up of a Plan of Action for each heritage community” [48].The self-assessment, identified with step n.4 in the Faro Convention Network (FCN) process is based on the 12 criteria [51] defined in the Faro Convention, considering five levels for self-evaluation to compare the baseline measure and the desired level, and to support in the drawing up of a plan of action with attention to the performance of heritage communities, public institutions, private sectors, and facilitators. These criteria are defined to evaluate the collective efforts realised following the principles of the Faro Convention and select three main issues related to “Who?”, “How?” and “What?” (Figure 3).

“Who?” identifies the different typologies of involved actors including the active civil society, the public sector (local, regional, national institutes, and authorities), the private sector (business, non-profit entities, academic, CSOs, NGOs, etc.), and facilitators able to convey the message and activate the process.

“How?” underlines the capacity of the different actors to cooperate and collaborate for implementing shared actions for the enhancement of cultural heritage, even with economic resource mobilisation.

“What?” expresses the availability of the community to be engaged and to promote the process of change and development, based on a democratic socio-economic model, oriented to include all inhabitants.

With a scale from 0 to 5, the self-evaluation of the 12 criteria serves to draw a graph for each of the three main questions: “Who?”, “How?”, and “What?”. These assess respectively the “criteria for the presence and engagement”, the “criteria for implementation”, and “criteria for outcome”. After defining the action plan and the self-monitoring and evaluation, this grid should enable the heritage communities to evaluate their progress every two years and to share them with FCN.

Indeed, in this process, the rating scale from 0 to 5 does not seem to be able to reflect the specificities of the process, considering an overall judgment for the verification of how much the criterion considered is pursued. By taking into account the need to improve the quality of the assessment process in order to analyse the components that characterise the critical aspects and the potentials of a heritage community, a selection of indicators related to the three main criteria was identified.

Each indicator was evaluated through a five-point Likert scale, capable of making explicit the attitude or the behaviour by collecting a high number of statements on the analysed topic/subject. The responses can, therefore, help to identify areas of improvement and understand the crucial components that characterise the observed processes.

2.2. Evaluation Tools for Heritage Community: Indicators Proposal for the Self-Assessment

This study proposes a reflection on the indicators and the related assessment scale to clarify and describe the selected criteria and make the self-evaluation process apt at measuring the variations over time and compare the different processes starting from an objective point of view. The use of indicators supports the comprehension of the criterion and produces comparable data [43]. An analysis of the relevant indicators developed for the selected criteria can integrate the self-assessment grid. At the same time, for each indicator, a description of the performance, expression of a semantic definition, has been associated to each point of the Likert scale, making the self-assessment easily applicable and direct, consistent with the spirit of the Convention (Figure 4).

In particular, for the criteria related to “Who?” (

Table 1. Indicators for the criteria related to “Who?”.

Criteria: “Who?”
Indicators	Value
1. Presence of an active civil society (heritage community) that has a common interest in a specific heritage. A heritage community consists of people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage which they wish, within the framework of public action, to sustain and transmit to future generations.
No presence	1
Presence from 1 to 5 persons	2
Presence of more persons and stakeholders (entrepreneurs, associations, etc.) or academics	3
Constitution of an association with a formal process that include these actors	4
Affiliation to the Faro Convention Network	5
2. Presence of people who can convey the message (facilitators)
No presence	1
1 facilitator	2
More facilitators	3
Presence of a multidisciplinary group of facilitators that take care of the regeneration of the specific cultural heritage	4
Presence of a group of facilitators that is formally responsible for the regeneration of the specific cultural heritage	5
3. Engaged and supportive political players in the public sector (local, regional, national institutes, and authorities)
No presence	1
Only 1 of these political players: local, regional, national institutes, and authorities	2
Only 2 of these political players: local, regional, national institutes, and authorities	3
Only 3 of these political players: local, regional, national institutes, and authorities	4
All of these political players: local, regional, national institutes, and authorities, and subscription to a protocol agreement/memorandum of understanding for the regeneration	5
Note: political players must be actively involved (e.g., municipality, region, local state authority, holding institutions (national or regional level), CoE, etc.).
4. Engaged and supportive stakeholders in the private sector (businesses, non-profit entities, academia, CSOs, NGOs, etc.)
No presence	1
Only 1 of these stakeholders: businesses, non-profit entities, academia, CSOs, and NGOs	2
Only 2 of these stakeholders: businesses, non-profit entities, academia, CSOs, and NGOs	3
Only 3 of these stakeholders: businesses, non-profit entities, academia, CSOs, and NGOs	4
Subscription to a memorandum of understanding for the regeneration between businesses, non-profit entities, academia, CSOs, and NGOs	5
Note: private stakeholders must be actively engaged.

), the scale from 1 to 5 has been associated with a subdivision made based on the quantity and typology of the actors in the following four categories: heritage community, public institutions, private sector, and facilitator. “Value 1” is always associated with the presence of no participants, while “value 5” is always associated with the presence of a protocol or other formal agreements.

For the “How?” and “What?” criteria, the report “Council of Europe framework convention on the value of cultural heritage for society—The Faro action plan 2016–2017 for information and action” (Steering Committee for Culture 2016) proposes 5 criteria (

Table 2. Values and semantic definitions for “How?” and “What?” criteria.

Values	Semantic Definition
1	No action
2	Realisation of and/or participation in events, meetings, initiatives, etc.
3	Signing of memorandum of understanding, manifestos, etc., on a shared vision for action
4	Approval of shared projects and/or action of enhancement
5	Realisation of shared projects and/or actions of enhancement

).

On this basis, the indicators to evaluate the performance of heritage community (HC), public institutions (PI), and private sector (PS) have been built. For the assessment, “value 1” indicates “no action”, and “value 2” expresses the realisation of and/or the participation in initiatives of knowledge and confrontation of the different actors, in single forms or coordinated to clarify “acknowledgment and understanding of the existence of diverse narratives on a given heritage asset” [51]. In this case, the identified indicator is realisation of and/or participation to events, meetings, initiatives, etc. “Value 3” indicates the participation in events and initiatives to build a “shared vision for action”, i.e., the search of a common thread to develop a shared vision on cultural heritage, with particular attention to narratives, the search for a common thread to develop a shared vision on the heritage asset in focus [51].

The chosen indicator is: signing of a memorandum of understanding, manifestos, etc., for a shared vision for action. “Value 4” indicates the participation in the construction of a “common point of action-projects” through the joint presentation of regeneration projects (conservation, fruition, knowledge) developed by the members of the community, together with the community members, elaborate specific projects to be implemented by the community members, with a particular emphasis on social inclusion, education, local economic development, and anti-discrimination measures [51]. The chosen indicator is: approval of shared projects and/or action of enhancement. “Value 5” expresses the realisation of shared projects and/or actions of enhancement by the heritage community.

The semantic definitions expressed by the five values described (Table 2) can be identified for each indicator and represent the basis for the assessments of the eight criteria related to “How?” and “What?” (

Table 3. Indicators for criteria related to “How?”.

Criteria: “How?”
5. Consensus on an expanded common vision of heritage
Semantic definition	HC	PI	PS
No consensus	1	1	1
Participation in events to clarify the different visions on the CH	2	2	2
Signing of memorandum of understanding on common heritage visions	3	3	3
Approval of projects or actions of shared regeneration of the CH	4	4	4
Implementation of actions or shared projects	5	5	5
6. Willingness of all stakeholders to cooperate (local authorities and civil society)
Semantic definition	HC	PI	PS
No cooperation	1	1	1
Cooperation limited to the realisation of joint events	2	2	2
Signing of memorandum of understanding, manifestos, etc..	3	3	3
Cooperation to define projects or actions of shared regeneration of the CH	4	4	4
Cooperation to implement the project or actions of regeneration of the CH	5	5	5
7. A defined common interest of a heritage-led action
Semantic definition	HC	PI	PS
No interest	1	1	1
Participation in events to present the different visions on heritage-led development actions	2	2	2
Signing of memorandum of understanding, manifestos on a common vision on heritage-led development actions	3	3	3
Participation in the definition of actions, policies, or projects of heritage-led regeneration actions	4	4	4
Implementation of actions, policies, or projects of heritage-led regeneration actions	5	5	5
8. Commitment and capacity for resource mobilisation
Semantic definition	HC	PI	PS
No engagement or capability	1	1	1
	No engagement or capability	No engagement or capability	No engagement or capability
Provision of funds, knowledge, experience and skills	2	2	2
	Volunteering for events and exhibitions	Economic or logistical support for events and exhibitions	Economic support, knowledge, experience and skills for events and exhibitions
Definition of or participation in fundraising for conservation of the CH	3	3	3
	Initiation of crowdfunding initiatives for the conservation of the CH	Tax reduction, (lottery for monuments, Sisal betting) or similar for the conservation of the CH	Economic support, knowledge, experience and skills for the conservation of the CH
Definition of and participation in funds for actions and projects of CH regeneration	4	4	4
	Initiation of crowdfunding initiatives for the regeneration of the CH	Granting of long-term funding for regeneration actions and projects	Economic support/knowledge, experience and skills for regeneration actions and projects
Development of a common strategy to mobilise resources for heritage regeneration experience and skills	5	5	5
	Involvement of experts with significant experiences and different skills	Involvement of experts with significant experiences and different skills	Involvement of experts with significant experiences and different skills
Cultural Heritage [CH]; Heritage Community [HC]; Public Institution [PI}; Private Sector [PS]

and

Table 4. Indicators for criteria related to “What?”.

Criteria: “What?”
9. Readiness of the group to engage in the process of developing diverse narratives based on the people and places
Semantic definition	HC	PI	PS
No involvement	1	1	1
Organisation of events to present diverse narratives based on the people and places	2	2	2
Definition of reports, research, etc. to clarify the diverse narratives based on the people and places and identify the shared vision	3	3	3
Approval of shared regeneration projects (action projects) based on shared vision and narratives based on the people and places	4	4	4
Implementation of shared regeneration projects (action projects), based on the shared vision and narratives based on the people and places	5	5	5
10. Aspirations towards a more democratic socio-economic model
Semantic definition	HC	PI	PS
No aspiration	1	1	1
Participation in meetings aimed at increasing inclusion and participation in the relevant choices	2	2	2
Definition of protocols articulating the requests expressed by the whole community and the sustainable economic models	3	3	3
Definition of projects that respect the requests expressed by the whole community and the sustainable economic models	4	4	4
Implementation of projects that respect the requests expressed by the whole community and the sustainable economic models	5	5	5
11. Commitment to human rights principles in local development processes (respect for dignity and multiple identities)
Semantic definition	HC	PI	PS
No action	1	1	1
Organisation of, or participation in, events to develop knowledge of the cultural heritage of all cultural communities	2	2	2
Definition of memorandum of understanding, manifestos, etc., that consider all the relevant knowledge and viewpoints	3	3	3
Definition of shared projects that include all the knowledge and viewpoints represented.	4	4	4
Implementation of shared projects that include all the knowledge and viewpoints represented.	5	5	5
12. Improved democratic participation and social inclusion of all inhabitants
Semantic definition	HC	PI	PS
No action	1	1	1
Organisation of, or participation in, campaigns, events, or actions for the involvement of all inhabitants	2	3	2
Definition of memorandum of understanding, manifestos, etc., that express the shared vision for action built on the social inclusion of all inhabitants	3	3	3
Definition of projects that express the shared vision for action built on the social inclusion of all inhabitants	4	4	4
Implementation of regeneration projects that express the shared vision for action built on the social inclusion of all inhabitants	5	5	5
Heritage Community [HC]; Public Institution [PI}; Private Sector [PS]

).

The self-assessment, built taking into account the described indicators, responds to the 12 criteria according to common parameters and can be objectively represented in three graphs, that express the performance related to: “Criteria for presence and engagement”, “Criteria for implementation”, and “Criteria for outcome”.

3. Results

3.1. The Case Study: Friends of Molo San Vincenzo

In 2005 the association Friends of Molo San Vincenzo (FMSV) started an initiative for the upgrading of the San Vincenzo pier in the port of Naples (Figure 5), in the South of Italy [52].

The Molo San Vincenzo is the leading external defence site of the port of Naples. Despite its historical, cultural, and architectural value, it has remained closed and abandoned due to the presence of the Navy Command, which practically restricts the access to the area. The FMSV association was formed with the aim of returning this cultural heritage, previously abandoned and inaccessible, to the urban community. The pier is the expression of a conflict between the institutions that manage the possible uses, hindering the opportunity of making it commons. Indeed, the Molo San Vincenzo is divided into two parts. One end of the dock is owned by the Navy Command, which has had a contradictory approach to the management of the area, alternating phases of total openness and availability to allocate different public and private uses, to moments of strict closure during which occasional visits or specific initiatives were possible only with permission. From the heliport on, the dock is owned and managed by the Port Authority.

The main aim of the FMSV is to create along the pier a public space and to favour access to the sea, giving citizens the opportunity to frequent it and make it an attractive place. The reactivation and requalification of the site have been promoted in cooperation with the institutions, the urban community, and entrepreneurs of the maritime sector [53], trying to involve stakeholders sensitive to the culture-led regeneration of the pier [54]. In the past years, the Molo San Vincenzo has been addressed by diverse projects that unfortunately were not completed, probably due to their inability to include the different objectives and interests, beginning with partial interpretations of the issue at hand [41].

The description of the case study unfolds through the three questions “Who?”, “How?”, and “What?” to highlight the process and the actions implemented for the regeneration of the site. In 2012, the conference “The Sea and the city”, organised by the research group of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development of the National Research Council of Italy [CNR IRISS] in Naples, highlighted the issue of Molo San Vincenzo and the struggle of the Propeller Club Port of Naples to return the dock to its port uses and other functions. To support the Propeller Club, the CNR IRISS and the Community Psychology Lab of the University Federico II adopted the case of the Molo San Vincenzo as a research case study implementing an action research approach, also known as participatory action research, combining community-based study, cooperative enquiry, action science, and action learning [55,56,57], and taking into account the results of previous studies that the research team of CNR had conducted on the interaction between urban planning and community-based psychology.

Participatory action research has identified three main steps [58]. The first-one step is the formation of an “action arena”, that is of all the actors who, by participating or activating actions of knowledge, conservation and use of the pier, recognise it as a “common good”. This collaboration with a common intent can transform them from individual actors into a heritage community. From this arises the next step to construction, through a “commons action plan”, a common vision in which the values, objectives, and rules for the use and respect of the pier will be defined. In the third step, it is possible to carry out the “collaborative valorisation projects”.

The Aniai Campania, the association of engineers and architects, later joined the struggle for the Molo of San Vincenzo, founding the Friends of Molo San Vincenzo group, which echoes back to Friends of High Line, the New York group of social actors that turned a disused train station into a public park (https://www.thehighline.org/about/). In the past years, different organisations and associations (such as the Lega Navale, Vivoanapoli, CdO Campania, Fondazione San Gennaro, etc.) have joined the cause, as well as the responsible institutions (the Navy Command, the Municipality of Naples, the Port Authority). Despite their initial prudence or scepticism, the latter eventually became partners of the project, getting involved in the realisation of events and initiatives. In spring 2017, the Navy Command declared its willingness to allow the transit of public transport to reach port areas during the weekends, while, at the beginning of 2018, the Port Authority implemented a set of security measures to allow the use of the area.

The idea of transforming the dock into a commons for the city of Naples therefore made possible the cooperation of researchers, architects, associations, psychologists that worked together for its valorisation.The activities implemented have contributed to making the pier known to the urban community, involving possible actors active in the regeneration process. For this reason, it has been necessary to identify and engage the “heritage actors”—institutions, stakeholders, researchers, and citizens—to set up a cooperation network and motivate them to take an active part in the process of urban upgrading. This result was made possible by organising workshops of collaborative planning, seminars, conferences, cultural events (Figure 6), meetings with the different stakeholders (citizens, institutions, associations), exhibitions, social networks, images, videos, and the production of informative and cultural materials.

The fruition of the dock took place with numerous guided tours (first from the sea, then by walking through the Navy Command base), and with sports and cultural events. In September 2017 and April 2018, there were two “heritage walks” [59], one of the tools promoted by the Faro Convention, in the Molo San Vincenzo and in the nearby Bacino di Raddobbo Borbonico, a historical dry dock [60]. This event has been supported by the Council of Europe and the European Commission since 1991 and has been organised in Italy by the Ministry of Culture. These different initiatives have been encouraged and implemented to mediate the conflicting positions and facilitate the interaction among stakeholders, decision-makers, associations and citizens [41]; at the same time, they have been useful for soliciting the attention of citizens and actively involving them, helping to build a heritage community.

3.2. The Heritage Community of Friends of Molo San Vincenzo: Testing the Methodology

The process of the Molo San Vincenzo regeneration, activated by the heritage community of FMSV, has been analysed considering the “step 4 self-assessment” of the “Faro Convention Network self-management process”. This research seeks, therefore, to: evaluate the selected indicators implemented for the case study, assessing the process of regeneration of the dock under the 12 criteria of the Faro Convention.

Taking into account the first question, related to “Who? Presence and engagement”, the self-evaluation produced the following results (Figure 7): the heritage community, the facilitators, the stakeholders, and the private sector were evaluated as “good”, while the public institution was assessed as “medium”.

The involvement of the public sector is still occasional: although the Navy Command, the municipality of Naples and the Port Authority have started to cooperate actively, and the local authority for cultural heritage has been involved, there is no agreement yet on the definition of a regeneration plan. The good position obtained by the stakeholders is due to the presence of research institutions, private actors, and involved associations, as well as of facilitators that created and kept alive a network between the different actors.

A crucial aspect and, at the same time, a potential weakness is that the “presence and engagement” of the FMSV has been positively evaluated for the following reasons: the FMSV association represents the heritage community; CNR IRISS and Community Psychology Lab of the University Federico II played the role of facilitators; and the Propeller Club Port of Naples, CNR IRISS, Community Psychology Lab, and Aniai Campania association played an active role as engaged and supportive stakeholders in the private sector.

This result shows that the role of the FMSV association is to involve different subjects and the urban community, promoting a dynamic and continuous engagement in the process of valorisation. This consideration implies that the FMSV association must open itself, developing new ways to involve citizens and keep the attention on Molo San Vincenzo alive, to increase the opportunities for new useful actions to promote cooperation and improve the level of awareness of the role that cultural heritage can play for the city. With regard to the second question “How? Criteria for implementation” (Figure 8), the evaluation shows that low scores are related to the absence of a coordinated program of events and activities, as well as to the lack of a common vision of heritage. The assessment of cooperation related to criterion 6 also refers to this kind of action and this kind of result (“fair”).

The private sector was evaluated as “good” because of the signing of an agreement with the Navy Command, that allows the circulation of public transport services in military areas. For criterion 7 “a defined common interest of a heritage-led action”, heritage community, public institution and private sector have not realised any action. Heritage community and private sector have so far provided their funds, knowledge, experience, and skills. The Port Authority has also provided funds for the improvement of safety standards of the dock. This is described in: “ability to mobilise resources” (criterion 8). It can be said that the private sector has obtained a better performance because—supported by public opinion—it has enacted its first steps by providing funds for the dock regeneration and by defining agreements that can allow the use of the dock concerning the security measures required by the presence of a military base. It is necessary to continue in this direction by individuating common rules and objectives upon which regeneration projects can be built.

Regarding the third issue “What? Criteria for implementation” (Figure 9), the evaluation shows that for the criterion “Readiness of the group to develop diverse narratives based on the people and places”, the heritage community (“fair”) and the private sector (“good”) have a better rating than the public institution (“none”). This is because the first two actors have organised different initiatives with the production of reports and studies—thanks to CNR IRISS and Community Psychology Lab of the University Federico II—while the public institution has put no visible effort into developing diverse narratives based on the people and places interactions.

For “Aspirations towards a more democratic socio-economic model”, the heritage community and the private sector (“fair”) have a better position than the public institution, for having organised several opportunities for meetings, and urging discussion and confrontation to overcome the various obstacles and manage conflicts.

For the criterion “Commitment to human rights principles in local development processes (respect for the dignity and multiple identities)”, heritage community, public institution and private sector have a performance “fair”, connected to the organisation of events. For “Improved democratic participation and social inclusion of all inhabitants”, the three actors have reached the result of “none”. Briefly, it can be said that the heritage community, public institution and private sector have not obtained good performances, and should improve their work concerning these last four criteria.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Based on the analysis of the literature and of recent European documents that identify cultural heritage as “cultural commons”, and recognising the decisive role of the Faro Convention and its tools for the promotion and participation of the community in cultural heritage valorisation [58], this study contributes to integrating the tool of self-management processes developing specific indicators.

The following aspects are highlighted by considering cultural heritage as commons:

• The first aspect underlines that the term “cultural commons” can combine the concepts of cultural heritage and the common good, expression of the interplay relationship between the culture of communities and their shared values.
• The second aspect, complementary to the first one, highlights the concept of “heritage community” [51]) and its definition, developed by the Faro Convention and interpreted as a group of persons that recognise the value of the cultural heritage and that aims to support it and transmit it to future generations. The heritage community is formed during the process of involvement and enhancement of cultural heritage. It is the result of a process of sharing values and experiences, which contributes to generating the bonds that structure a community.

Therefore, a new approach to the regeneration of cultural heritage is based on the active participation of the heritage community, that recognises the cultural heritage itself as “cultural commons”. The study of culture and, more specifically, of cultural heritage as common good benefits from less extensive literature compared to the more comprehensive studies on common natural goods. However, this concept has asserted itself in conventions and recommendations on cultural heritage adopted in the last years by the Council of Europe. To obtain a deeper understanding of these “new commons”, it is necessary to develop further insights to investigate their specificities, to understand trends, vulnerabilities, and resilience better, and be prepared to safeguard our cultural commons [61]). Indeed, the consideration of cultural heritage as cultural commons has revealed the importance of the Faro Convention and of its tools to promote the community participation to the cultural heritage regeneration. In this context, we can point out that:

• The Faro Convention is an important reference as it provides principles, criteria, and tools (the affiliation process with the self-management grid and the Faro action plan) and is the support to the heritage communities (Faro Convention Network), leaving them free to define and experiment new patterns of urban regeneration.
• The in-depth analysis of the Faro Convention tools has revealed the necessity to structure the evaluation of these processes based on clearly defined indicators to compare the different experiences, and to understand and to interpret the progressive results.

In this direction, through an exchange with the Council of Europe Programme Office in Venice and Council of Europe Culture and Cultural Heritage Division, initiated with the writing of this article, the different points of debate that emerged can be summarised:

• The hypothesis of the indicators seems promising to guarantee the required objectivity. However, the process has been built as a learning tool and as a platform for dialogue. Therefore, defining precise options could reduce its learning value.
• The self-evaluation process is relevant to redefine and redesign the relations between actors working on the heritage and between those who are involved in its governance.
• The tool of the self-management process is, therefore, of fundamental importance, since it supports the ex-ante and ex-post phases of the evaluation. It is also a potent tool through which the community may reflect on the project, sharing the results with other stakeholders.

The identification of specific indicators for the self-management process makes the initial evaluation less subjective and more effective. As argued above, they are beneficial to assess its variations in time. The evaluation is indeed not only necessary to “measure” but also to learn from experiences: a useful tool to build an interactive process of mutual learning and sharing. In this sense, the choice of elaborating some indicators can be a starting point for achieving a common understanding, suitable for a deliberative dialogue and confrontation among different perspectives [62], possibly also through the support of ICT technologies integrated into open innovation approaches [44]. They can represent tools intended to enable the activation, management, and implementation of collaborative enhancement processes. ICT may have particular relevance in the relations between institutions and citizens, as they can bring out objectives, problems, and ideas, and participate in their organisation and management, simplifying the collaborative process [63] This means allowing citizens to cooperate for purposes of general interest, addressing citizens’ everyday problems and obstacles, gathering ideas or looking after the common good.

The use of indicators from the heritage community could also help the “Review by the Secretariat and the FCN” to produce more precise feedback and recommendations for the development of an action plan for the heritage communities. At the same time, testing the proposal of indicators on the case of the FMSV has shown their usability and allowed the progress analysis of the project and the elaboration of critical suggestions for future actions of the FMSV. The case study also suggested a tool that should be the object of further confrontation and discussion. The “Self-Assessment” understands the following actors: businesses, non-profit entities, academia, CSOs, NGOs, as private sector. The test of the indicators on the FMSV has shown how this category could lead to a falsely high value due to the presence of many different actors. Additionally, this category is of dubious validity since, for example, approaches differ between businesses and academics. These should be evaluated separately to recognise the different contribution that each one has given or can give in the different phases.

Another issue is probably the concept of “heritage community” introduced by the Convention. The point of departure of the Faro Process is the existence of a heritage community who have to build an action plan. Its implementation, however, is not easy and should not be taken for granted. It would be interesting to investigate and to define possible tools that could support the construction and activation of the heritage community and of its will to recognise the cultural heritage as cultural commons.

In the future development of the research, the proposal of the methodological process should be shared with the CoE. It should be further tested by other heritage communities to compare different experiences and improve the quality of the decision-making and results.

This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, and their interpretation, as well as the empirical conclusions that can be drawn.