How to Monitor and Evaluate Quality in Adaptive Heritage Reuse Projects from a Well-Being Perspective: A Proposal for a Dashboard Model of Indicators to Support Promoters

Abstract

Among the research discourse concerning cultural heritage in the post-COVID-19phase, a greater awareness of the social value of heritage and its repercussions on collective well-being has emerged. This attention requires overcoming the top-down approach of public policies in favour of public–private partnership tools that are more effective at capturing the multidimensional components of value generated by cultural heritage. However, it is necessary to refine the tools used to evaluate and guide actions towards a perspective capable of integrating the conservation needs of the asset with collective well-being. This contribution investigates the calls for funding and public notices on the architectural heritage in Italy in the period from 2014–2020. In this field, the Third Sector is assuming a crucial role, showing specific attention to the issue of well-being consistent with its social goals. The calls were collected and structured in a database, with a specific focus on the calls aimed at adaptive heritage reuse that were categorised and analysed. Finally, the research proposed an assessment method based on a dashboard model of indicators to evaluate the quality of reuse interventions. The selected indicators consider both the production of plus-value in terms of improving well-being, and the need to bring the interventions on the existing architecture to a procedural circularity in line with the theoretical orientations of restoration.

1. Introduction

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, together with economic, social, and environmental emergencies, has aggravated fragilities already consolidated in the public sphere, including those related to the absence or scarcity of resources. Focussing on the field of cultural heritage in a broad sense as defined by the Faro Convention [1], studies have found that the application of restrictive measures and the need to divert funds to more strategic sectors today have had negative impacts on several areas. In addition to the economic, social, and financial fields impacted, these events had a detrimental effect more specifically on the cultural considerations related to the conservation and use of the sites themselves [2]. The spending review process has affected not only the policies related to tangible heritage (for example, interruption of maintenance and restoration actions [3]), but also the intangible aspects, with limitations imposed on public events and consequent repercussions on social relationships and the use of public spaces [4]. Final reports [5] have also highlighted how the pandemic has put into crisis the cultural and creative sectors, including micro, nonprofit, and creative professionals, revealing the inadequacy of public support programs.

On the one hand, the ongoing pandemic has laid bare the intrinsic fragility of cultural heritage, subject to the need for constant care actions, and the extrinsic, which is linked to the scarcity and volatility of public funding, and to the changing methods of use. On the other hand, the pandemic has been a stimulus that increased the resilience of cultural heritage by activating creative and innovative practices. The introduction of virtual initiatives has helped to transform the narrative of heritage, initiating new forms of cultural experience [6].

Post-COVID-19 research looks at cultural heritage as a strategic factor for recovery according to different survey trajectories [7]. First, the pandemic has shown that it is necessary to invest in digital technologies; the goal is to formulate new ways of using these technologies and new business models, requiring at the same time to address the skills shortage in the sector, to improve digital access outside large metropolitan areas, and to reduce the digital divide in collaborative and inclusive cultural processes [8]. Another research approach implements strategic compatibilities between the artistic/architectural/cultural, education, and health sectors [5]. Finally, it is the need for reflection on the components that contribute to the quality of life as its articulation of economic, social, and environmental indicators [9,10] emerges more robustly; in this sense, the aim is to grasp and measure its impacts as well as to implement a monitoring system [11]. This has resulted in a greater awareness of the social value of cultural heritage and its repercussions in terms of social and psychological well-being [4,6], making it necessary to deepen the relationship between heritage, health, and well-being [12,13]. In this way, heritage can contribute to building new models of development and society, increasing the resources of spaces and local communities, and improving the quality of life and welfare [14]. This vision has brought to the foreground the ethical role of the project, as it represents a tool that can be used to increase the well-being of citizens, and the great potential of the transfer development rights (TDRs) for widespread usage to promote the built heritage conservation and to benefit the community. These programs can play a key role in striking a balance among conservation, development, and property rights, but still require further studies to develop an effective framework for built heritage conservation projects and define the factors that influence their success [15,16]. In terms of evaluation tools, some performance indicators have been even more strategic in monitoring the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals [17,18].

This renewed attention to the dimension of well-being and quality of life calls with greater urgency to overcome the top-down approach of public policies, which are too focussed on the conservation dimension, in favour of more effective tools to capture the multidimensional components of value generated by cultural heritage. As stated by Allegro and Lupu [19], the public–private partnership can represent a third intermediate link between the public and private sectors, but still requires further refinement of methodologies to measure the impact of cultural heritage investment projects.

In Italy, in the context of calls for funding with a view to public–private partnerships, the Third Sector is assuming a growing and crucial role. This sector, recognised as private entities aimed at pursuing civic, solidarity, and social utility purposes, is a field in which innovative partnership models are being tested [20] and in which there is a convergence on the issue of well-being. A report developed at the 2017 Third Sector National Forum, and the subsequent version of 2021, placed nonprofit organisations in close connection with the Sustainable Development Goals [21,22]. This connection has been further strengthened following the pandemic, aspiring to draw up an action plan based on a strategic asset that sees the Third Sector and the social economy as an integral part of the national recovery [23]. The Third Sector in Italy—identified among the ‘intermediate bodies’—is recording a constant numerical growth, counting 375,000 institutions by 2021 and an increase of 25% over the last 10 years [24]; this increase in numbers is accompanied by an increase in social impact investments [25]. As underlined by recent studies [26], the pandemic has favoured a qualitative evolution in public-Third Sector partnership relationships and a resilience of the nonprofit sector. At the same time, there has been an overwhelming perception of these entities as providers of goods or services that private individuals or the state/local authorities have no interest or ability to produce, demonstrating project management skills on cooperation and reciprocity processes [27]; therefore, they are no longer residual entities opposed to the vacancy of the welfare state, but alternative, complementary, or integrative methods of action in various sectors, including that of cultural heritage [28]. In the latter field, the Faro Convention encourages the participation of non-governmental organisations [1]. This awareness of the collective identity value of heritage requires that the need to ensure the preservation of cultural heritage is not the exclusive responsibility of the institutions, but on the contrary, is part of a framework of joint action [29]. In this sense, the Faro Convention recognises that a vision of heritage as a common good requires management practices based on the cooperation/collaboration/coordination of the different entities involved [30].

Aim and Structure of the Paper

This paper presents the first results of a broader study which originates from the ongoing PhD thesis of one of the authors [31] with the aim of analysing the role of architectural heritage as a lever and a factor of well-being. The concept of well-being calls into question a holistic dimension that includes the realisation of the potential of an individual on a physical, psychological, social, spiritual, and economic level, and the fulfillment of one’s expectations in the community of reference [32], also including the aspects related to individual happiness [33]. The relationship between well-being and cultural heritage involves a plurality of areas and scales of analysis, from urban planning to conservation. For the purpose of this research, the study is conducted specifically on the architectural heritage as defined by international conventions [34] and updated in the light of the current scientific debate. The study presented involves architectural restoration and economic evaluation of projects. The research gap that the study aims to address concerns the following questions:

• Regarding the discipline of economic evaluation, is there a set of indicators in the literature to evaluate, ex-post, the interventions of adaptive heritage reuse? Does this set of indicators include the issues of well-being and quality of life that are relevant today to illustrate the effectiveness of interventions in this field? Is it possible to extend the indicators used in public economic planning (in the specific Italian case, the BES index—Benessere Equo e Sostenibile/Equitable and Sustainable Well-being) also to projects developed with a view to public–private partnership?
• Regarding the discipline of architectural restoration, is this set of indicators effective for assessing the compatibility of the reuse intervention with the architectural heritage? Starting from the reflections in progress developed in the scientific debate on the non-conflictual relationship between architectural restoration and well-being, is it possible to update the literature downstream with the case study investigated?

The cultural framework of the research interprets heritage as a catalyst for dimensional value production processes [35] but, at the same time, it itself is a component of well-being. The preservation of the tangible and intangible values of the asset is therefore an indispensable premise for defining paths of economic enhancement, improving community well-being and quality of life from a perspective of sustainability, and transmission of resources. The debate in the field of restoration discipline reiterates that a virtuous process of conservation is necessary that starts with knowledge and continues with technical interventions on the asset; therefore, the phases of reuse and enhancement will achieve an increase in knowledge [36], which translates into the creation of values and plus-values if we look in parallel at the discipline of economic evaluation [37]. Each phase contributes to preserving the good through interventions of a material and immaterial nature; they are aimed at ensuring, on the one hand, the transmission to the future of the physical asset, and on the other, to favour an increase in awareness of its value. This translates into active social protection and responsible behaviour towards the asset itself [38]. A scheme is therefore proposed by the authors (Figure 1) that summarises an exemplary process of intervention on the architectural heritage: it is represented by a circular, linked path of phases, which contributes to an increase in knowledge and, from the point of view of economic evaluation, to the generation of plus-value. In the specific case under investigation, the proposers of the actions on the asset are associated with the Third Sector entities that establish an essential dialogue with institutional actors (society) and local communities.

Starting from this premise, the aim of the study is to define an assessment method based on a dashboard model of indicators aimed at evaluating the quality of adaptive heritage reuse interventions financed by promoters. The selected indicators consider both the production of plus-value in terms of improving well-being and quality of life, and the need to bring interventions on architectural heritage to a procedural circularity consistent with the cultural premises of the research.

The study aims to formulate a monitoring and evaluation model, applicable in an international perspective to projects with a view to public–private partnership. To achieve this goal, we used the theme of calls for funding on architectural heritage in Italy as a case study, in which the scientific debate and policies around the theme of conservation and enhancement have a consolidated background, and the Third Sector has an innovative role.

Section 2 contains a literature review: specifically, it explores the concept of well-being in relation to the disciplines of architectural restoration and economic evaluation of projects, reconnecting it to the components of ethics and responsibility on which both disciplines converge. Studies on the Third Sector in Italy in relation to interventions on the architectural heritage are also analysed. Section 3 focuses on the case study. Section 4 specifically presents the methodology developed, and the structure followed. Section 5 and Section 6 explain and discuss the results of the research. Section 7 offers a conclusion, introducing the possibilities for future research developments.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Well-Being and Architectural Restoration

The literature on architectural restoration has so far not explicitly addressed the theme of its relationship with well-being. However, this problem is inherent in the discipline and stems from a deep interest in the ethical component of the project. This component has always been linked to restoration for the purpose of preserving historical assets that have value in people’s lives. If that relationship is intrinsic to the discipline [39], it is possible to note from the literature review that this relationship is not conflictual but must nevertheless be further deepened by studying how it translates from theory to the practice of interventions on the architectural heritage. For the purpose of this survey, the literature review field of analysis is restricted to the Italian debate within the discipline since the 1990s: the reference framework is characterised by a crisis of aesthetic values [40,41] and by the emergence of critical-conservative positions that recognise the need to transfer the good to future generations in the best possible condition, without excluding the contention between the historical and aesthetic instances [42].

In this cultural context, Dezzi Bardeschi [43] addresses the theme of the reuse of architectural heritage, stating that without reuse, any conservation project would be senseless. He draws attention to the social utility of the project and to the fact that the real objective of the intervention is to relate to the active subjects of the built heritage, that is, the people of today and tomorrow who benefit from it.

In the same period, Fancelli [44] underlines how restoration is aimed at conservation, which in turn constitutes a means towards the goal, embodied by the ethical enrichment of man. This enrichment is pursued by protecting and relaying to the future the testimonies of the past. He concludes by affirming that it is therefore the duty of society to pass on monuments to future generations, while maintaining their integrity and authenticity, and using suitable and coherent tools and methods with respect to their pre-established purposes. The central point of his reflection remains, in this case, the comparison and the possibility of balancing between historical and aesthetic features.

Even G. Pane [45] recognises that restoration is the only activity that brings the architect’s work back to the scope of ethically responsible decisions, even before establishing a methodology of intervention. He emphasises that the moral instance must guide the work in search of a compatible solution, and in any case hopes that a reimagining of the moral and aesthetic qualities can be understood as interdependent.

In 1997, Bellini [46] called for a transition from aesthetics to ethics, emphasising that aesthetic judgment has undergone a progressive weakening in disciplinary reflections. This judgment, by nature, cannot provide any guidance tools for operation. On the contrary, the selective parameters that inform the transformations are not primarily factors of a historical-critical nature but are instances of a moral nature that consider the material and use needs, an aspect that is not at all secondary to others.

The considerations of the ethical role of restoration and the social utility of the interventions on the buildings inform the internal reflections of the discipline even in the 21st century [47,48], inserting itself into the European reference framework that promotes the value of cultural heritage for society. The Faro Convention, in fact, recognises ‘the need to put people and human values at the centre of an enlarged and cross-disciplinary concept of cultural heritage’ [1], thus shifting the center of gravity of ethical issues towards the right to cultural heritage [49,50].

In this direction, according to Prescia [51], the ethics of responsibility must guide the path to rethinking the discipline. This revision includes first a new idea of a project that is no longer an autonomous and self-celebratory act, but a process that establishes an open dialogue with its object and with the community to which it is addressed. At the same time, in a holistic vision, she hopes for a new idea of economy that aims to make economic well-being coincide with human well-being, according to a position that sees Ruskin as a precise point of reference [52].

In investigating restoration in relation to ethics, A. Pane [39] interprets the latter both as a set of precepts aimed at ensuring the conservation of goods, and in terms of qualities of a broader nature that are linked to the transmission of past testimonies for their symbolic and universal value. This duplicity leads to the formulation of two lines of questioning: the first, ‘How to preserve’, and the second, ‘Why and for whom to preserve’. Precisely this last line of questioning shifts attention to the goal of restoration intervention and its repercussions on human life.

The concept of social utility is also at the centre of Napoleone’s reflection [53], which underlines how the economic vision, which understands the user as a pure stakeholder, is not the only one able to explain the concepts of need, good, fruition, or utility. In this way, she proposes a revision of the concept of ‘user’ to describe a person with needs, among which includes access to cultural heritage. In a context of weakening value judgments, the legitimacy of conservation is based not so much on the qualities of the building itself, but on the right of the community to be able to enjoy it. In this way, exploring the idea of cultural heritage as a human right provides an opportunity to evaluate heritage from a social justice and well-being perspective [54]. Social justice is also a crucial criterion in transfer development rights. As highlighted by Hou et al. [55], this aspect has great importance in the success of the TDR programs. This factor aims to ensure that the stakeholders involved in the process have an equal access and use of TDR and helps minimise conflicts in the development project.

From this perspective, conservation is no longer analysed within traditional disciplinary boundaries but investigates how to contribute to the economy and society. Studies extend to explore the link between restoration and urban development and regeneration strategies [56], providing collaborative decision support tools for sustainable urban regeneration [57,58].

It is possible to recognise, therefore, an expansion of the ethical questions connected to the intervention on existing buildings, moving increasingly more from considerations on the authenticity of the asset to questions related to the social utility that it can generate. This path leads to an increasing attention on the well-being of the communities, in the light of a vision of heritage as a collective recognition of socially shared values. If the ethics of restoration, as mentioned above, brings into play the question, ‘for whom to preserve’, this last question needs to be addressed under a double temporal dimension. First, it involves the future, as it is linked to the transfer of historical evidence to the next generations; however, it also concerns the present dimension, as it can contribute to the improvement in the quality of life for communities through an ethically responsible project. This dialectical relationship between the two time horizons makes it necessary to seek a constant balance between the needs of present well-being and the sustainability of the interventions. The objective to be achieved is, therefore, to define a project that is not only socially useful but is first compatible with the asset and responds to a principle of integrated conservation.

2.2. Well-Being and Economic Evaluation of Projects

The notion of ethics and responsibility of a project is crucial also from the perspective of the economic evaluation of projects, which offers a point of view that does not conflict with that of architectural restoration. This notion can be found in the idea of complex social value (CSV) [37,59,60]; CSV integrates the concept of total economic value with an ethical component (intrinsic value), which is the essential value of a place or landscape as recognised by local communities [61]. In this way, the CSV responds to a broader interpretation of the value that considers the repercussions for the community. This concept is particularly valid in the case of cultural items, the value of which do not depend on the process of production or exchange, as they are non-reproducible goods, but on their ability to affect the collective well-being; it follows that such goods have a social use value, which is derived from the ability to satisfy a collective utility.

The definition of intrinsic value, by nature, requires the involvement of the local community [60,62]. Evaluation models must therefore be people-oriented and must consider the variation in well-being produced for the different social actors according to a multidimensional orientation [63].

This multidimensional approach, interpreted in light of the concept of sustainable development, is the basis of an interest in extra-economic components that supersede a vision linked exclusively to market values [64]. In this way, studies increasingly focus on the goal of measuring collective well-being and quality of life. Limiting the scope of investigation to studies published since the last decade, the report by Stiglitz et al. [65] states that it is necessary to shift the focus from measuring economic production to determining people’s well-being, emphasising the importance of selecting a plurality of indicators capable of describing the phenomenon.

In addition, the research carried out by the OECD [66,67] concentrates on measuring quality of life. Specifically, the conceptual framework they developed states that human well-being is based on individual well-being (which includes material conditions of life and quality of life) and on the sustainability of resources in the long run (economic, social, natural, and human capital). Guidelines for measuring subjective well-being, which include life evaluation, health, and eudaimonia, are also provided by the OECD [68].

Scott [69] starts with the reflection that well-being and sustainable development are central objectives of policy programming; however, she identifies a conflicting scenario between the two concepts and between the individual and social notion of well-being, hoping for an approach based on the recognition of this dichotomy.

Studies on the multidimensional value of well-being are conducted by Haq and Zia [63], which identify a set of objective and subjective indicators to evaluate human well-being according to four different domains (education, health, living conditions, and economic situation).

Franciosa [70] analyses the concept of human well-being, emphasising that this is the goal of sustainable development. He also delineates a comparison of the indices of well-being in the literature, verifying whether they include economic, social, ecological, and cultural components.

In Italy, an interesting study on the theme of collective well-being is given by the BES (Benessere Equo e Sostenibile/Equitable and Sustainable Well-being) report [71], drawn up by ISTAT and now included among the national economic planning tools [72]. The study was created with the aim of measuring the well-being of society not only from an economic point of view but also from a social and environmental perspective. This tool identifies 12 aspects of well-being, among which the landscape and cultural heritage also appear.

ESPON’s study, ‘Cultural Heritage as a Source of Societal Well-being in European Regions’ [73], aims to measure on a European territorial scale the impacts generated by cultural heritage (tangible and intangible) on the sphere of societal well-being, articulated in material living conditions, quality of life and social cohesion. It also contains a review of existing frameworks for measuring societal well-being. The study also points out that most of the research carried out does not consider cultural heritage as a factor capable of affecting collective well-being.

2.3. Third Sector and Architectural Heritage

In the panorama of studies on the Third Sector in Italy and its role in the field of architectural heritage, specific research on the theme of the reuse of disused assets and on the compatibility of the interventions with the historical buildings are still lacking. Some contributions focus on the legal aspects of public–private agreements. Specifically, Musco [74] analyses the relationships between public bodies and nonprofit organisations in the field of public goods. He starts from the consideration on the one hand that the public sector shows difficulties in ensuring the proper conservation of public heritage with its own resources; on the other hand, that the nonprofit sector is increasingly active in this field. In particular, he illustrates the special forms of public–private partnership introduced by Legislative Decree 50/2016 (Codice dei Contratti Pubblici). In this same line of research, Composta [75] analyses the instruments for the concession of public goods from local authorities to Third Sector organisations starting from the reform of Title V of the Constitution and the so-called state property federalism. The analysis also goes so far as to consider concrete cases based on the application of specific municipal regulations.

Other studies focus on the components of social innovation applied to asset management. In particular, Consiglio et al. [76] analyse cases of social innovation in southern Italy. The study identifies a series of good practices that can regenerate social relationships and determine responsible conduct in the use of common goods, in reference to the economic-financial sustainability of the proposed management models. Starting from the statements of the Faro Convention, Volpe [50] investigates a series of bottom-up initiatives in the management of cultural heritage, within which the world of associations plays an important role. He underlines how the crisis of the welfare state can be countered with social innovation. He also states that the Third Sector and social entrepreneurship can take advantage of the vacancy of the public state. A large group of studies focus on the processes of urban regeneration, analysing the contribution of Third Sector bodies on the subject. For example, Cottino and Zandonai [77] focus attention on the role of social enterprises in the processes of renovating community assets, emphasising the convergence of social enterprises and public policies. Ostanel [78] analyses a series of reactivated spaces and notes how these spaces can establish relationships with the local fabric and generate a strong social impact.

Venturi and Zandonai [79] focus attention on places understood as a dimension of social, economic, and cultural life. They start from the observation that an increasing number of abandoned or underused spaces are the subject of transformative practices and new uses that are more responsive to current social challenges [80]. In research, the location identity is related to the entrepreneurial success of such reuse practices and requires redefining the value chain in a more shared view. From this perspective, the Third Sector and social entrepreneurship play an important role in the processes of regenerating spaces.

Starting from the experience of the Culturability call, Franceschinelli [81] analyses the new cultural spaces and their role of hybrid character. The study investigates their contribution to generative welfare, focussing more on the contents than on the container. Finally, she notes how these regeneration processes are characterised by new partnerships between public/private/Third Sector/citizens to revitalise the common good.

The survey of the Centro Studi Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Cuneo (CRC), in collaboration with Fondazione Fitzcarraldo [82], focuses on the regeneration of spaces for culture, using the province of Cuneo as a field of investigation, and on the role of Third Sector bodies in this process. According to an operational approach, the study identifies critical nodes and proposes viable alternatives to support the design of reuse interventions.

If the studies mentioned so far focus on the legal, managerial, and social innovation aspects, Bartolozzi et al. [83] shift the focus to aspects attributable to the discipline of architectural restoration. The projects initiated by the Third Sector are analysed in light of their compatibility with the architectural heritage and with the needs of the conservation of material assets. The scope of study is limited to the architectural heritage of religious interest in the Turin area.

3. Case Study: Funding Calls on Architectural Heritage and the Third Sector in Italy

In the context of calls for funding and public notices aimed at the architectural heritage in Italy, the Third Sector is taking on a leading and supporting role with respect to the public sphere, with a strong focus on the issues of social economy and well-being. As pointed out by Salamon and Sokolowski [84], this framework is in contrast with what happens in the Anglo-Saxon countries, where charitable objectives, volunteering, and constraints of non-distribution of profits prevail. This sector has also become a protagonist in the actions of reuse of architectural heritage since the second half of the 1990s was based on the strong impulse of public bodies, and was due to the support of new regulatory instruments. Some of these instruments are mentioned, relevant to the objectives of this research.

Following the petition of Libera in 1995 relating to the reuse of assets confiscated from the mafia for social purposes, we arrive at Law 109/1996, which introduces important issues to the debate around the reuse of disused heritage, from social utility to collective repercussions, to the vision of heritage not as exclusive property but as a common and shared good [85].

The 2000s marked a further advance in the concession for nonprofit organisations to utilise State assets, aimed at management and enhancement of the assets. In this direction, we are witnessing a greater structuring of the relationship between public and private entities, as evidenced by Presidential Decree 296/2005, which provides for the possibility that nonprofit organisations could pay a subsidised fee. New impetus to the role of the Third Sector derives in the following decade from state property federalism (Legislative Decree 85/2010), which allows the transfer of state-owned assets to local authorities. In the process of reuse resulting from alienation, public authorities may create agreements with private entities, associations, or other relevant subjects.

The recent Legislative Decree 117/2017 (Codice del Terzo Settore) further strengthens the role of these entities in the field of disused assets. In fact, it establishes the possibility for public bodies to grant loan state-owned movable and immovable property to Third Sector entities. At the same time, immovable cultural property owned by public bodies can also be given in concession to these realities; they can be subjected to redevelopment and reconversion through recovery, restoration, restructuring, and reuse. The Decree introduces new forms of collaboration between the Third Sector and the public administration that include co-programming and co-design, thus favouring the qualitative evolution of the relationship between the two subjects in terms of public–private partnership.

The possibilities for using public goods are therefore intensified, also assuming interventions for their reuse, as further reiterated by memoranda of understanding and strategies for the reuse of architectural heritage for the efficient management of unused public immovable property, and movable and immovable property confiscated from organised crime. These proposals put forward go in the direction of consolidating the role of the Third Sector in public–private partnerships [86,87].

In this context, there are also other entities that assume a leading role in directing interventions on cultural heritage and who interface with the Third Sector: the private nonprofit sector, consisting primarily of foundations with banking origins, today represents an alternative or integrative way of financing interventions on the architectural heritage [88,89,90,91]. These entities assume a profile of responsibility in the actions on the assets by grant-making, that is, activating specific calls for financing. The calls are central levers for directing actions on heritage and for building real cultural policies.

From this premise, it emerges that the tool of calls for funding and public notices is an interesting source to investigate the ongoing interventions on the architectural heritage by the Third Sector and monitor its outcomes. The theme of programming and funding is a subject of growing interest in the discipline of restoration, expanding the scope of reflection to the conditions that determine the actions on cultural heritage. As pointed out by Della Torre [92], the operating conditions of restoration are closely linked to the ways in which funding programs are built and regulated.

The case study in question therefore aims to shed light on the calls for funding addressed to the Third Sector bodies, as proponents of actions on the architectural heritage, and on the promoters of these projects. The survey lens adopted is based on the analysis of funding calls and public notices published in Italy in the years 2014–2020. Through the filter of the loans disbursed, it is interesting to analyse the role and strategies of the actors involved in directing the reuse actions in a context of the growing importance of Third Sector entities. On the one hand, the present research questions the compatibility of the actions promoted with the principles of restoration; on the other hand, it intends to provide evaluation tools capable of measuring the expected impacts on the growth of collective well-being.

The data were collected and subsequently compiled in a database aimed at data entry, data processing, and analysis. With a subsequent focus, the database built in the first phase of the investigation was queried and filtered with the aim of analysing in more detail the calls for financing the reuse of the architectural heritage. The goal of the research was to investigate not only the structuring of the calls, but also the results achieved in terms of interventions on architectural heritage and to reveal any critical issues. These critical factors have been identified considering their compatibility with the principles of restoration and their attention to the theme of well-being. The indicators used by the promoters consulted to monitor the launched projects have been implemented on the basis of the existing literature on the indicators and the BES index. The indicators collected were then placed in a database and organised according to the 12 dimensions of well-being identified in this index. Finally, the research proposed a dashboard model of indicators to evaluate and monitor the quality of reuse interventions, considering both the social impact of the project and its compatibility with the asset.

The structuring and methodology of the research phases, the sources investigated, and the expected outcomes for each phase are illustrated in Section 4.

4. Materials and Methods

As anticipated in Section 3, the proposed survey methodology is based on the organisation of data into a multilevel database from a sample of observed architectural heritage projects financed by tenders and public notices in Italy. From this database, specific analyses have been developed in order to formulate a dashboard model of indicators for an evaluation, both ex-post of the reuse interventions and to support the selection of future projects eligible for funding.

The survey was structured in three phases (Figure 2). First, a census of funding calls and public notices addressed to Third Sector bodies in Italy in relation to architectural heritage was developed. The period investigated is from 2014–2020. The sources used for the construction of the database were: websites of public bodies; websites of bodies and associations in support of Third Sector bodies; sites containing databases of calls for funding aimed at private companies, nonprofit organisations, and public bodies (Section 4.1). This survey made it possible to organise the information in a database of more than 350 calls/records. The outcome of this first phase made it possible to identify the actors and financiers of the actions on the architectural heritage, the percentage of calls, and the weighted percentage of the resources disbursed, divided by promoters, by categories of architectural heritage, and by thematic areas. This information architecture was developed with a GIS, with which it was possible to geolocate the lenders and the distribution of the approved calls at national level.

In the second phase, a focus was carried out on the category of calls for reuse, which in turn were divided into three clusters (A. ‘Heritage to be reactivated without restoration’, B. ‘Heritage for development’, and C. ‘Heritage as a common good’) based on the actions envisaged on the assets and the expected results (Section 4.2). A sample of 15 calls was chosen and analysed in more depth through semi-structured interviews with representatives of the promoters. The objective was to detect the strengths and weaknesses of the calls in terms of projects developed and impacts generated. In addition, during this phase, the sets of indicators used by the promoters in the monitoring phase were acquired and were subjected to an in-depth analysis. These indicators were studied critically in light of the gaps that the research aims to address. Firstly, we analysed whether these indicators consider the aspects of well-being and quality of life; secondly, we verified whether they are effective in evaluating the compatibility of the reuse intervention with the architectural heritage.

In the third and final phase of the research, a methodological framework was built to evaluate the quality of projects from a well-being perspective. The indicators used by the promoters we consulted have been integrated with the indicators identified in the literature and with the BES index [71] (Section 4.3). Sources of the referenced literature include studies on these issues:

• Impact of cultural heritage on the perspective of sustainable development [93] and the circular economy [94];
• Social impact of the Third Sector [95] and the restoration of the architectural heritage [96].

More than 700 indicators were collected and divided according to the 12 dimensions defined by the BES index (economic well-being; work and work/life balance; environment; subjective well-being; innovation, research, and creativity; education and training; landscape and cultural heritage; quality of services; health; safety; social connections; politics and institutions). In conclusion, we present the methodological proposal formulated based on a critical synthesis of the identified indicators and structured according to a dashboard model (Figure 3).

Referring to previous research studies developed on the theme of adaptive heritage reuse at the European level [97,98], the assessment method was developed starting from the ex-post evaluation of reuse interventions already completed (phase 1 and 2). The third phase proposes outcomes that can be applied in the ex-post phase (evaluating), but also in the ex-ante phase of constructing the calls (design and planning) and in the ongoing phase of monitoring the calls themselves. Since this is an ongoing study, it is the intention of the authors to refine the proposed method in the future by testing it on a specific application case.

4.1. Phase 1: Census of Calls for Funding (2014–2020)

A database of the actions on the architectural heritage promoted by the Third Sector bodies was built with the drafting of a census of funding calls and public notices.

The sources of the survey were search engines containing calls or public notices concerning actions on the architectural heritage. Based on the nature and purpose of the sites investigated, it is possible to divide them into three categories:

• Websites of public bodies. These institutions can be classified into central governments (Ministero della Cultura [99], Direzione Generale Arte e Architettura contemporanee e Periferie urbane [100], Osservatorio Riuso [101], Portale Agenzia del Demanio [102]) and local (regional) agencies.
• Websites of entities and associations in support of Third Sector bodies. They are configured as dissemination portals that have the objective of training and informing nonprofit organisations, making the legislation accessible and facilitating its application, identifying opportunities for support: Associazione Nazionale dei Centri di servizio per il volontariato CSVnet [103], Forum Nazionale del Terzo settore [104], Cantiere Terzo Settore [105], Italia non-profit [106], and association LABSUS—Laboratorio per la sussidiarietà [107].
• Sites containing databases of calls for funding aimed at private companies, nonprofit organisations, public bodies (benefit company Excursus) [108].

The 2014–2020 time frame has been assumed as the scope of the investigation. Funding has been restricted to the field of architectural heritage and nonprofit organisations.

Each identified call, which constitutes a unique identification record, is structured according to the fields indicated in

Table 1. Database structuring for call census.

Field Name	Field Type	Description
Call name	Qualitative	Name of the call
Promoter name	Qualitative	Name of the promoter
Promoter category	Qualitative	Legal status of the promoter (public, private, private nonprofit, mixed public private, etc.)
Promoter subcategory	Qualitative	Specific classification of the promoter (central administration, local administration, foundation of banking origin, business foundation, etc.)
Promoter geographical location	Quantitative	Registered office of the promoter
Latitude, longitude	Quantitative	Geographical coordinates of promoter’s registered office
Deadline for call	Qualitative	Maximum deadline for submission of applications for proposing entities
Recipient category	Qualitative	Legal status of the recipient of the call (public, nonprofit, private, etc.)
Type: geographical scope of validity	Qualitative	Geographical scope of application of the call (national, regional, provincial, etc.)
Name: geographical scope of validity	Qualitative	Name of geographical scope of application of the call
Overall budget	Quantitative	Maximum amount made available by the promoter (EUR)
Budget per project	Quantitative	Amount made available by the promoter for each project (EUR)
Architectural heritage categories	Qualitative	Categories of architectural heritage of the call (religious architectural heritage, rural, etc.)
Thematic areas	Qualitative	Actions on the architectural heritage financed by the call (conservation, reuse, enhancement, etc.) as defined by current legislation [109] and existing literature [110]
Brief description	Qualitative	Call description, evaluation criteria of the proposers and expected impacts

Source: elaboration by the authors.

.

At the same time, through the help of open-source GIS software, we proceeded to geolocate records/calls to be subsequently questioned and displayed. The cartographic support adopted is the Openstreetmap map. ISTAT data in shapefile format were also used in the WGS84 reference system relating to the boundaries of administrative units (hierarchical levels of regions and provinces) [111]. For the purposes of the analysis, given the scope of application of the calls, the provincial/metropolitan city was assumed as the minimum reference unit.

The records contained in the database of calls for funding were reported on .csv files and added as a delimited text layer on the GIS software. Similarly, the data relating to the number of calls divided by province and by thematic area in .csv format were uploaded to the software and merged with the shapefile provided by ISTAT to georeference the data. The results of this process are explained in Section 5.

4.2. Phase 2: Funding Calls on Adaptive Heritage Reuse

Starting from the construction of the database, a subsequent in-depth analysis was developed by selecting the calls falling within the thematic area of reuse, redevelopment, and regeneration. Attention was focussed on calls that included, among the interventions that could be financed, actions for the reuse of the architectural heritage and that declared, among the purposes of the call, a social impact on quality of life and well-being of the community. The selection and analysis of the calls allowed a subdivision into three clusters based on the structuring, the interventions admitted on the assets, and the expected results.

For each cluster, therefore, a subsequent selection of some significant case studies was carried out. The chosen calls have been identified with the aim of having an overview of the actions in progress on the national territory and of the funding subjects involved, considering that some geographical areas are now more active if we look at the resources provided, and the projects started.

The in-depth analysis was conducted through semi-structured interviews with the individual promoters of the selected calls (foundations, central and local administrations). The topics involved the ex-ante phase of the call (construction of the call, participation of the proposers, and selection of the winning subjects), ongoing (realisation of the intervention by the winning subject), and ex-post (compatibility of the intervention with the asset, monitoring of the intervention, and the impacts generated) (Figure 4).

4.3. Phase 3: Dashboard Model of Indicators

The objective of the third phase of the work was the construction of a methodological frame to measure the multidimensional impact on the well-being of the community due to the interventions by the Third Sector on the architectural heritage. Assessing the well-being and quality of life of the community has led to an impact-oriented social approach [95,112]. Based on the multiple definitions of social impact, here we have referred to it as the effects generated in the medium-to-long term by an intervention on the individual and collective sphere as defined by Coscia and Rubino [18]. As recognised in the literature, social impact is a multilevel and multidimensional concept [113]: this evaluation is a complex area that must consider the specific characteristics of each intervention; therefore, standardised approaches are difficult to apply [114].

Starting with the literature on the subject and drawing from the existing application examples [95,96], the models mentioned have been further refined in light of the specific case investigated. The case study highlighted the need to adopt a hybrid model that considers qualitative and quantitative variables that contribute to the construction of a dashboard model of indicators. This model is recognised as particularly suitable in the case of projects that intend to produce strong positive externalities, as noted by Camoletto et al. [115].

The operation of selecting indicators is a complex process and the definition of indicator is not always unambiguous. In this research we have used the definition adopted by Fusco Girard et al. [94] as ‘a quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure achievement, to reflect changes connected to an intervention, or to help assess the performance of a development actor’. When it comes to indicators related to cultural heritage, it is necessary to identify more indicators that can reflect the multidimensional impacts of the actions carried out [93].

In the present research, we initially built a database of well-being indicators that aim to measure the progress of a society through an inclusive approach that involves not only the economic aspect, but also the environmental and social aspects (such as quality of life and social connections). These indicators were organised according to specific fields (

Table 2. Database structuring for indicators.

Field Name	Description
Macro-dimension	Macro-category of impact of the indicator (material living condition/quality of life/social cohesion)
Micro-dimension	Micro-category of impact of the indicator (BES)
Indicator	Description of the indicator
Output/outcome	Time dimension of the expected results
Typology	Nature of the indicator (qualitative if based on subjective and unquantifiable aspects and quantitative if based on precisely measurable aspects)
Stakeholder	Beneficiary of the expected results
Source	Literary source of the indicator

Source: elaboration by the authors.

). As anticipated in Section 2.2, the starting point consisted of the indicators used by the promoters to monitor the financed projects. These indicators have been grouped into 12 categories that correspond to the dimensions in which well-being can be broken down according to the structuring of the BES index. The list of indicators used by promoters has been further expanded to include the indicators identified in the BES itself; in this sense, BES indicators have been interpreted here not as input data but as output of an action/program/activity/project as already requested in the field of public planning of interventions [116]. The 12 dimensions have been further regrouped into three macro-dimensions, identified by crossing the indications of the practices in progress with those of the scientific community in terms of well-being [73]. The three categories identified for the macro-dimension are: material living conditions, quality of life, and social cohesion. The first category refers to the conditions that ‘shape people’s economic options’ [67] and is related to both the individual and collective spheres; the second concerns the individual sphere of life, and the third involves a collective perspective.

Finally, the set of indicators has been expanded from the existing literature. Specifically, indicators were selected starting from studies on the impact of cultural heritage in the perspective of sustainable development and the circular economy [93,94]. To these, studies were added on the measurement of the social impact of the Third Sector [95] and the social impact of heritage restoration [96].

The indicators were classified based on their qualitative or quantitative nature and the forecast duration (output/outcome). For the definition of output/outcome, we have referred to the definition provided by OECD [117]. In this sense, the outputs evaluate the quantity and quality of the goods and services offered, considering the results of the action undertaken without contemplating the effectiveness of the intervention. On the contrary, the outcomes consider the results in the medium and long term, extending beyond the sphere of the single action taken; they are influenced by external components and considering the economic, social, and cultural situation of the beneficiaries [115].

The collection of indicators has been integrated with a phase of analysis and identification of stakeholders, starting from the assumption that it is necessary to evaluate the impact on the various subjects involved. In this phase, the study referred to the structure of the CIA (Community Impact Analysis) for the mapping of stakeholders, as already applied by De Filippi et al. [8]. It is an effective tool to evaluate the ex-post effects on the territory and on the subjects in terms of not only monetary but also qualitative–descriptive effects. The CIA in this sense responds to the need to define qualitative indicators for weighing the positive or negative effects of the process, differentiating them by scales of measurement consistent with the nature of the impact being evaluated. In the present case, the community was therefore segregated by interest groups. For each indicator, the stakeholder to whom the benefit refers has been identified. Please refer to Section 5.3 this articulation by interest groups.

5. Results

5.1. Results of Phase 1

Starting from the sources analysed, it was possible to identify more than 300 calls addressed to the Third Sector on the theme of architectural heritage, on which statistical analysis was carried out. These actions are mainly supported by the nonprofit private sector: foundations of banking origin; community foundations; business foundations; and other bodies, including foundations, social enterprises, and voluntary service centers.

As shown in Figure 5a from the analysis of the number of calls per promoter in the period 2014–2020, it emerges that 79% of the funding proposals come from the nonprofit sector, compared to 13% from the public sector. There are also calls from mixed public/private entities (e.g., Gruppo di Azione Locale—GAL) equal to 7%. A minimum percentage of calls is promoted by the private mutual sector (cooperatives, ethical banking, etc.). Within the private nonprofit sector, an almost identical number of calls are promoted by community foundations and foundations of banking origin (respectively 33% and 30% of the calls). In contrast, a smaller percentage sees the simultaneous involvement of both entities (9%) and corporate foundations (3%). In the public sphere, local governments (11%) are more prominent than central ones (2%).

Figure 5b analyses the percentage weight of the resources disbursed per promoter: the leading role of nonprofit organisations in financing actions on assets is confirmed (64%), compared to 33% coming from the public sector. Within nonprofit organisations, the calls financed by foundations of banking origin are more economically conspicuous than those promoted by community foundations; the latter, in fact, are part of a smaller area of competence and limited to the province/metropolitan city, in the face of a validity of the calls for tenders of the foundations of banking origin on a supra-provincial scale. The weight of the resources disbursed by the foundations of banking origin reaches 38% of the resources disbursed in favour of the proposing entities, while the community foundations reach only 10%.

Figure 6a analyses the categories of architectural heritage covered by the calls for funding: it is possible to note that in fact most of the calls do not address a specific type of heritage (79%). Asset classes are therefore not a single criterion based on which to establish financing policies. Among the calls addressed to a specific category, the prevailing one refers to heritage as a ‘common good’: in this sense it is possible to read a strong emphasis on the use value of goods and their collective use. A limited number of calls are aimed at rural heritage (the subject of funding initiatives mainly by GAL) and religious heritage.

With reference to the percentage weight of the thematic areas on the total number of calls for tenders (Figure 6b), it emerges that the most significant themes of the calls include joint conservation and enhancement actions. It is possible to recognise a general interest, therefore, towards strategies aimed not only at simple conservation but at the repercussions in terms of development of the territory, and promotion of access to goods. A smaller number of calls are aimed at actions more related to economic enhancement through reuse/redevelopment and regeneration actions. Few calls instead make explicit reference to the management aspects on the care and maintenance of the asset. Finally, there is also a limited series of proposals that encourage the planned conservation of heritage, mostly found in the Lombardy area and attributable to the action of Fondazione Cariplo.

From the GIS themes (Figure 7) we can see interesting data regarding the geographical location of the promoters of the calls surveyed. They are not evenly distributed along the peninsula but have a strong concentration in the Piedmont and Lombardy area, in the face above all the initiatives of the foundations of banking origin (among them, Fondazione Cariplo and Fondazione Compagnia di San Paolo) and community foundations.

The themes shown in Figure 8a,b represent the geographical distribution of the calls funded by province and have been built by identifying natural breaks with Jenks’ method of optimisation. The results reveal an equally uneven situation: the presence of a high number of calls for tenders in favour of the Third Sector in the north-western area is confirmed. Within this area, the differences are linked to the possibility for individual provinces to intercept the funding of different banking foundations. It is therefore possible to deduce how some territories prove to be more strategic for the purposes of access to funding (e.g., Verbano Cusio Ossola). At the same time, it is also possible to find a significant presence of financing interventions aimed at the south of Italy, which is a testament to the support for social infrastructure in the region, beginning from the first decade of this century [76]. This trend in the distribution of calls can be found by analysing both the funding notices without subdivision by thematic areas, and the calls for reuse.

5.2. Results of Phase 2

From the analysis carried out on the calls surveyed, it emerges that reuse is not configured as the ultimate objective of the actions financed but is rather one of the possible strategies introduced to promote the production of economic and social value from disused or underused goods. Based on the amounts disbursed for each project, the types of intervention envisaged and the expected results, it is possible, however, to carry out a further classification in three clusters: A. ‘Heritage to be reactivated without restoration’, B. ‘Heritage for development’, and C. ‘Heritage as a common good’.

Table 3. Summary of the data structure database calls for tenders ‘reuse of architectural heritage’ (cluster A: ‘Heritage to be reactivated without restoration’; cluster B: ‘Heritage for development’; cluster C: ‘Heritage as a common good’).

Cluster	Call Name	Name of the Promoter	Call Editions	Recipient Entity Category	Name Geographical Scope of Validity	Overall Budget	Budget per Project	n. Funded Projects
A	Culturability	Fondazione Unipolis	2014–2015	Nonprofit	Italy	360,000 EUR	60,000. EUR	6
A	Culturability	Fondazione Unipolis	2016	Nonprofit	Italy	400,000 EUR	50,000 EUR	5
A	Culturability	Fondazione Unipolis	2017	Nonprofit	Italy	400,000 EUR	50,000 EUR	5
A	Culturability	Fondazione Unipolis	2018	Nonprofit	Italy	300,000 EUR	50,000 EUR	6
A	Culturability	Fondazione Unipolis	2020	Nonprofit	Italy	600,000 EUR	145,000 EUR	4
A	Luoghi comuni. Diamo spazio ai giovani	Regione Puglia	2018–2020	Public/nonprofit	Apulia	7,000,000 EUR	40,000 EUR	19
B	Valore Paese—Cammini e Percorsi	Agenzia del demanio	2017	Profit/nonprofit	Italy	0.00 EUR [109]	0.00 EUR	13
B	Beni aperti	Fondazione Cariplo	2018	Public/nonprofit	Lombardy/Verbano Cusio Ossola/Novara	6,000,000 EUR	500,000 EUR	17
B	Beni aperti	Fondazione Cariplo	2019	Public/nonprofit	Lombardy/Verbano Cusio Ossola/Novara	6,000,000 EUR	500,000 EUR	14
C	Emblematici Provinciali—focus “Beni comuni”	Fondazione Cariplo and Fondazioni di Comunità	2016	Nonprofit	Lombardy/Verbano Cusio Ossola/Novara	not specified	min 50,000 EUR (minimum project cost 100,000 EUR)	8
C	Emblematici Provinciali—focus “Beni comuni”	Fondazione Cariplo and Fondazioni di Comunità	2017	Nonprofit	Lombardy/Verbano Cusio Ossola/Novara	not specified	min 50,000 EUR (minimum project cost 100,000 EUR)	7
C	Emblematici Provinciali—focus “Beni comuni”	Fondazione Cariplo and Fondazioni di Comunità	2018	Nonprofit	Lombardy/Verbano Cusio Ossola/ Novara	not specified	min 50,000 € (minimum project cost 100,000 EUR)	7
C	“Il bene torna comune”	Fondazione con il Sud	2014	Nonprofit	Basilicata/Calabria/Campania/ Apulia/Sardinia/Sicily	4,000,000 EUR	500,000 EUR	7
C	“Il bene torna comune”	Fondazione con il Sud	2017	Nonprofit	Basilicata/Calabria/Campania/Apulia/Sardinia/Sicily	4,000,000 EUR	500,000 EUR	7
C	Santuari e Comunità. Storie che si incontrano	Fondazione CRT	2018–2020	Ecclesiastical body/partnership with nonprofit	Piedmont/Valle D’Aosta	4,000,000 EUR	250,000 EUR	16

Source: elaboration by the authors.

shows the information relating to the calls (input data), divided by cluster, which have been the subject of further study through semi-structured interviews with the auctioneers. This classification does not represent a rigid division; on the contrary, the repetition of the same calls over the years and the feedback received from previous editions represent an opportunity for revisions and improvements, thus orienting the same call towards a different structuring. The calls were issued by different subjects; therefore, the methods of allocating funding for each project may differ depending on the approach of the call. The data were collected from the reports published by the promoters; in the event that the institution has deemed it appropriate not to disclose information relating to the overall budget, we have indicated in the table ‘not specified’.

The first category of calls (A) is labelled, ‘Heritage to be reactivated without restoration’. These calls are characterised by the short time frame in which the intervention is realised, due to the acceleration of the execution phase to allow for the immediate return of the asset. The need for an immediate return to public use guides, therefore, the projects on the goods. Regarding the assets subject to intervention, it is possible to outline two categories: on the one hand, these are buildings for which traditional contracts have shown their inadequacy in the development of the bureaucratic and administrative process and in the subsequent management phase, with the consequence of reaching an empty container. On the other hand, these are spaces that have not yet been restored, but which need minimal maintenance and redevelopment, as evidenced by the low budgets based on the tender. In the latter case, the interventions go in the direction of supporting mostly an idea of counter-preservation [118], accepting controlled decay as a component of the project.

In this first cluster, the building itself is not the subject of the call, as the focus is mainly on the production of economic and social value starting with reuse. A fundamental aspect is then the fragmentation of the process of the restoration intervention, traditionally understood as a sequence of operations of knowledge, restoration, and refunctionalisation under the guidance of the restoration architect [119]. In this case, on the contrary, we go in the direction of a process strongly focussed on refunctionalisation without restoration, and on the management aspects of the space. The same maintenance practices provided for by the tenders are not part of a planned conservation of the asset but are more configurable as maintenance for damage or neglect.

The impact indicators related to these calls focus on the well-being produced by the heritage as a development factor. They rely on the ability to activate forms of circular economy, in terms of reinvesting profits into regions and communities of reference, but also on the exchange of skills and the creation of collaborative networks of mutual aid and training. Finally, a suitable aspect is given by the ability to involve the community, overcoming a model of mere fruition in favour of co-design, co-promotion, and co-management practices.

The second category of calls (B) is labelled as ‘Heritage for development’. The object of intervention is the architectural heritage of historical-artistic interest and the widespread architectural heritage of community interest, understood as a factor of local development.

The type of interventions envisaged varies according to the conservational state of the assets, with a prevalence of restoration/recovery and refunctionalisation interventions. Unlike the previous category, more substantial interventions on heritage are promoted. They are characterised by a balance between material recovery and the management phase. The projects are aimed at the reuse of goods with a strong focus on the impact generated on the region in terms of development. As concluded from the comparison with the promoters, induced innovation was found to be more linked to the creation of economic and social value than to the actual project interventions carried out.

Compared to the components of well-being identified in the literature, these interventions mainly affect aspects related to inclusive development and quality of life. Significant impact indicators relate to the creation of economic and social growth; the improvement in the public usability of the asset, in terms of accessibility and development of proposals by the subjects of the region; the collaborative approach and the construction of networks; and environmental sustainability and energy efficiency.

Finally, the third category of calls can be labelled as ‘Heritage as a common good’. The object of intervention is the architectural heritage of historical, artistic, and community interest; it is above all interpreted as a catalyst for cohesion processes, therefore oriented on the component of well-being linked to social aspects.

The type of interventions envisaged depends on the state of conservation of the assets, with a prevalence of restoration/recovery and refunctionalisation interventions. These interventions can also involve large assets, but in this case the intervention lots provide for a fragmentation of the complex itself, for the identification of contractable and economically sustainable lots.

The interventions financed by this third type provide for a strong integration between restoration and enhancement, with a great emphasis on the local community and bottom-up processes, and with an opening to partnerships with local associations. Specifically, the partnership is placed within the requirements of the call itself. A strong component of the project is then linked to the theme of collective memories, and the immaterial aspects conveyed by architecture are a tool to promote civic pride and the sense of belonging to the places, in line with the objectives of the call.

The indicators identified for these cases consider the creation of forms of social entrepreneurship, local development, and the employment inclusion of disadvantaged groups, the active involvement of local communities and the return to the community of restored heritage for renewed use.

5.3. Results of Phase 3

From the results of phases one and two, a methodological framework was developed to measure the collective well-being generated by reuse. This framework is the foundation for a dashboard model of indicators articulated according to three macro-dimensions (material living conditions, quality of life, and social cohesion). Within the three macro-dimensions, micro-dimensions corresponding to the BES categories have been identified. According to this methodological approach, cultural heritage appears among the subdomains of the macro-dimension ‘quality of life’; in this sense cultural heritage can represent a factor of well-being both in terms of impacts generated and as a component of well-being itself.

Overall, 36 indicators were identified to measure the impacts generated by the reuse intervention (

Table 4. Evaluation framework and well-being indicators for adaptive heritage reuse.

Macro-Dimension	Micro-Dimension	Stakeholder	Indicator	Rating Scale *
Material living conditions	Economic well-being	Public producers on-site/Private producers on-site	Economic/financial self-sustainability of the asset	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Material living conditions	Economic well-being	Private producers on-site	Attraction of funding sources (private capital, crowdfunding, and tax credit)	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Material living conditions	Economic well-being	Private producers on-site	Attraction of investments at the local level (local banks, ethical banks, and foundations)	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Material living conditions	Economic well-being	Public producers off-site/Private producers off-site/Consumers off-site	Reinvestment of profits in social impact actions	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Material living conditions	Economic well-being	Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Increase in the number of visitors/tourists	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Material living conditions	Economic well-being	Consumers off-site	Increase in real estate values in the area	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Material living conditions	Economic well-being	Private producers on-site/Private producers off-site	Increase in revenues from activities in the area (construction, culture and creativity, tourism, trade, education and training, research and innovation, etc.)	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Material living conditions	Economic well-being	Private producers on-site/Private producers off-site	Establishment of new activities in the area (culture and creativity, tourism, trade, etc.)	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Material living conditions	Economic well-being	Consumers off-site	Increase in the number of residents in the area	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Material living conditions	Work and work/life balance	Private producers on-site/Private producers off-site/Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Creation of new jobs (direct, indirect and induced)	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Environment	Private producers on-site/Private producers off-site/Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Use of bio-eco-compatible materials (materials with a high content of recycled components, local materials, materials of natural origin, certified materials), bioclimatic techniques and devices, and use of greenery	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Environment	Private producers on-site/Private producers off-site/Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Sustainable management of the construction site (use of dry technologies, reuse of waste materials, reduction of waste disposal in landfills, containment of noise and air pollution)	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Environment	Private producers on-site/Private producers off-site/Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Energy saving (improvement of energy class, use of renewable energy sources, energy-saving systems, systems and plants with improved characteristics compared to current legislation)	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Subjective well-being	Private producers on-site/Private producers off-site/Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Increase in subjective well-being connected to the reuse of the good and the preservation of the spirit of the place	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Innovation, research and creativity	Private producers on-site	Activation of new projects in the spaces following the reuse of the asset	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Innovation, research and creativity	Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Increase in cultural activities and events offered	−2,−1,0,+1,+2
Quality of life	Education and training	Public producers on-site/Private producers on-site/Public producers off-site/Private producers off-site	Increase of intellectual capital through the activation/strengthening of skills, innovation and participation	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Education and training	Public producers on-site/Private producers on-site/Public producers off-site/Private producers off-site	Communication, dissemination and transfer of design and managerial skills	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Education and training	Consumers on-site	Improvement of the level of education and training of users/visitors	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Landscape and cultural heritage	Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Increased awareness of the architectural heritage and active social protection (percentage (or number) of users/visitors who express willingness to pay for the conservation of the asset)	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Landscape and cultural heritage	Public producers on-site/Public producers off-site	Inclusion of the property in the lists of assets bound in accordance with current protection legislation (Legislative Decree 42/2004, Regional Landscape Plan, local legislation, etc.)	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Landscape and cultural heritage	Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Promotion of actions aimed at fostering the conservation of the asset according to a processuality of the intervention phases (knowledge, maintenance/restoration/prevention, reuse, and enhancement)	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Landscape and cultural heritage	Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Compatibility of reuse with the preservation of tangible and intangible values of the asset	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Landscape and cultural heritage	Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Promotion of actions aimed at fostering the planned conservation of the asset	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Landscape and cultural heritage	Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Promotion of actions to improve access to tangible and intangible resources	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Landscape and cultural heritage	Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Promotion of actions aimed at fostering the social recognition of new assets	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Quality of services	Consumers off-site	Increase in services in the area (avoiding gentrification, touristification, and congestion)	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Health	Consumers off-site	Increased cleanliness and healthiness of the area	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Safety	Consumers off-site	Increased area security	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Quality of life	Safety	Consumers off-site	Increased perception of security in the area	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Social cohesion	Social connections	Private producers on-site/Private producers off-site	Construction of a network (national/international) with other private profit or nonprofit organisations for the co-design and co-creation of activities and for the exchange of good practices, knowledge, and innovative approaches	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Social cohesion	Social connections	Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Increase in social inclusion (minorities, migrants and other disadvantaged groups) through the activation of new employment contracts and participation in initiatives and projects of social utility	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Social cohesion	Social connections	Consumers on-site/Consumers off-site	Increase civic pride, sense of belonging, and awareness of heritage	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Social cohesion	Social connections	Private producers on-site/Private producers off-site	Activation/strengthening of an active civil society (heritage community) that shares a common interest in the good	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Social cohesion	Politics and institutions	Public producers on-site/Public producers off-site	Activation/strengthening of collaborations/partnerships/conventions with public institutions for the care of the asset	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2
Social cohesion	Politics and institutions	Public producers on-site/Public producers off-site	Economic savings for public institutions related to reuse and planned conservation of the asset	−2, −1, 0, +1, +2

* Rating scale of indicators: −2 substantial level of decrease; −1 moderate level of decrease; 0 no increase or decrease; +1 moderate level of increase +2 substantial level of increase. Source: elaboration by the authors.

). The choice of these indicators was the result of a cross section between indicators used by the promoters, literature review, and the BES index. In the specific case of the item, ‘landscape and cultural heritage’, the selection of indicators was particularly delicate and responded to the desire to measure actions aimed on the one hand at increasing awareness of the heritage and facilitating access to local communities, and on the other hand to re-establish a circularity of conservation interventions. The objective is therefore to promote a processing of the phases of knowledge, intervention, reuse, and enhancement.

The selected indicators are multidimensional in nature and are explained through a rating scale that can be nominal–descriptive or cardinal. Each indicator is then measured and translated into a rating scale articulated in a score ranging from −2 to +2. Scales are intended as levels of achievement that must be read and contextualised for each indicator formulated. For each indicator, the categories of stakeholders to which they refer have been identified. These stakeholders are to be understood as beneficiaries of the identified impact (Figure 9).

The method of assigning a score to each indicator leads to obtaining a total score that represents the overall generated by the intervention. At the same time, the score can also be evaluated for individual dimensions or for individual categories of stakeholders, in relation to the need to meet specific objectives.

6. Discussion

From the literature review, it emerged that the concept of well-being is not in conflict with the disciplines of architectural restoration and economic evaluation of projects. On the contrary, both are united by a convergence on this issue related to an ethical component that characterises the interventions on existing buildings. At the same time, it has been noted that this relationship has not been sufficiently investigated in terms of the repercussions on the architectural heritage moving from theory to practice.

The analyses carried out in the study also showed that, although numerous sets of indicators have been developed to assess well-being and quality of life, most research has not considered cultural heritage as a factor capable of generating well-being for the community. Although the concept of well-being is taking on an increasing role in research and policy, current efforts to evaluate the concept are still lacking. It was also found that a set of specific indicators for the reuse of disused architectural heritage from a well-being perspective does not yet exist. In this case, the BES index, although included in Italy among the economic planning tools, is now used only in the public sector and has not yet been applied in the investment sector with a view to public–private partnerships. On the contrary, it was pointed out that the latter area requires further refinement of methodologies to measure the impact of projects on cultural heritage.

It also emerged that the Third Sector, which now has a growing role in calls for funding from a public–private perspective, has not been sufficiently investigated regarding its role in interventions on the architectural heritage. In particular, the compatibility of the reuse interventions initiated by these bodies has not been analysed in detail.

From the study conducted on calls for funding in Italy aimed at Third Sector entities (Phase 1), the weight of foundations of banking origin and their decisive role in directing interventions on assets emerged. These organisations exercise a relevant action of support for the public body, exceeding it both in terms of the number of calls promoted and the resources disbursed. They are therefore confirmed as activators of social, human, and cultural capital [121] and play a key role in influencing the operation of choices on the architectural heritage. The role of foundations of banking origin was also evident in the geographical distribution of the calls for funding and the disbursed resources that reflect the location of these entities. In this sense, from the GIS analysis we found that this uneven distribution benefits the territories located within the geographical coverage area of the foundations and which are, for this reason, more strategic. It therefore follows that it is particularly crucial to assess how their calls for funding are structured, what the expected results are, and how to monitor the calls in order to make them more effective.

In Phase 2, the analysis of a significant sample of calls for funding aimed at reuse allowed for more in-depth considerations on the compatibility of the financed interventions. From the analysis of the identified clusters, we found that the activation of projects characterised by a strong social value is not sufficient to guarantee compatibility with the asset. From the calls examined, a strong imbalance emerged towards the aspects of the production of economic and social value starting with reuse, rather than towards the material conservation of the asset. In this sense the calls respond to a vision of heritage more as an accelerator of production processes of multidimensional value than as a factor of well-being in itself. Analysing the projects in the light of the scheme elaborated in Figure 1, we have identified a recurring trend of fragmenting interventions. This fragmentation primarily concerns the circularity of the phases, which do not respond to a concatenation of knowledge, restoration, reuse, and enhancement. Secondly, it involves the architectural scale of the asset since the financed intervention goes in the direction of reactivating and refunctionalising limited and independent parts but does not require a broader and longer-lasting vision for the asset itself. It was also noted that the calls for proposals do not provide funding for planned conservation, which is now strategic to ensure the preservation of the architectural heritage [122].

From Phase 3, the specific analysis carried out on the monitoring tools and indicators used by the promoters reflects a heterogeneous situation depending on the entities that were analysed. In some cases, there was a lack of specific tools for monitoring from a multidimensional perspective. In fact, we found that the method employed by the promoters responds to a perspective of reporting on the disbursed investments and to the correspondence of the project to the proposal presented during the application phase. There is therefore a lack of specific models used to monitor and evaluate ex-post the interventions that were financed. In other cases, we found ongoing experiments to overcome a standard reporting logic and to measure the social innovation generated by the interventions. In some cases, however, such methods still need to be refined and tested. It is also possible to see how these models can be further improved by expanding the proposed set of indicators and by further analysing interventions from a well-being perspective. The interventions funded by the calls address the scale of the architectural asset with the goal of generating positive externalities on the contexts, and the aim of Third Sector involvement moves towards this direction. However, the monitoring tools used by promoters do not consider spillovers at a larger scale in terms of urban regeneration. Although several authors have stressed the importance of adaptive reuse for urban regeneration [123,124], few indicators are used to assess effects at this scale. It is also possible to highlight that the mission of the entities also includes funding projects where the human rights parameter is not explicit but found in the objectives of assessing impacts and inclusiveness.

Among the difficulties highlighted by the promoters, it is necessary to first underline that these monitoring tools are burdensome, and this prevents a concrete application from further development. In addition, we learned that the Third Sector is often unprepared to support such an operation, and it still must acquire specific skills on the subject.

With reference to the discipline of architectural restoration, it emerged that the indicators used by the promoters do not fully consider or are insufficient to evaluate the quality and compatibility of reuse interventions. The latter are unbalanced more on the dimension of the social impact generated by the intervention than on the repercussions in terms of the material conservation of the asset itself.

In this sense, the proposal developed in this study for a dashboard model of indicators moves towards integrating and refining the sets of indicators investigated, linking the monitoring actions carried out in the analysed calls with the theoretical-scientific debate in progress. The aim is also to formulate an evaluation method capable of extending the application of the BES index from the field of public planning to the reuse of the architectural heritage from a perspective of public–private partnership. The choice of a dashboard model has made it possible to capture, in a multidimensional perspective, the value components generated by the reuse of the architectural heritage, and to establish a more inclusive approach by introducing the stakeholders involved in the intervention. Although the proposal was formulated from the concrete monitoring experiences carried out by the promoters, further studies are needed to test and refine it by applying it to a concrete case.

7. Conclusions

The objective of this paper was to shed light on the actions of reuse of disused assets by the Third Sector from a perspective of community well-being and to propose a framework to evaluate interventions, encourage the measurement of impacts and trigger a monitoring process.

The proposal is innovative because it attempts to use the BES index, used today in Italy as an economic planning tool, and to expand its application, adapting it to the reuse of heritage in an original perspective.

The results achieved in the three phases of the research process highlight, on the one hand, the active role of Third Sector entities in the calls for funding on architectural heritage; on the other hand, the results confirm the importance of financing instruments as an action driver for these practices. The analyses carried out also indicate a misalignment in financial contributions. In fact, an important role for nonprofit organisations as financiers of these initiatives emerges in the face of a secondary commitment exercised by the public. In this sense, the nonprofit can be considered as a real third way to implement policies of transformation on heritage. There is also a geography of funding that is not homogeneous, but strongly influenced by the territoriality of the institutions and their local strategies.

The analyses carried out underline how the actions promoted by the calls are not identical but respond to specific missions and visions, strongly conditioning the expected result. It was also highlighted that these projects also present critical factors if compared to the theoretical approaches of the discipline. The weaknesses that emerged include: the polarisation between refunctionalisation and management to the disadvantage of the aspects related to the knowledge of the asset; the absence of planned conservation strategies; more attention to social innovation than to design quality; the fragmentation of the good that is often not subject to an overall vision.

Finally, as an outcome, a method was proposed to evaluate the quality of adaptive heritage reuse projects through the selection and proposal of specific indicators. It was noted that even in this field, it is necessary to follow a multidimensional approach in the face of the holistic nature of the concept of well-being.

The end of the study clarifies the need to further deepen the investigation from different points of view. First, from the point of view of architectural restoration, it is necessary to deepen the guidelines identified in the calls for funding to provide operational indications able to solve the critical issues that emerged during the analysis phase. In this sense, it seems necessary to reaffirm the centrality of heritage not only as a factor capable of generating well-being, but as a component of well-being itself. It is therefore necessary to promote actions that favour procedural interventions on the asset according to a circular vision; on the contrary, it is important to avoid an interpretation of heritage as a simple space to be transformed through a design with a strong social impact. From the point of view of economic evaluation, there is a need to explain the rating scales for each indicator identified, and to apply the proposed method to a case study to calibrate it and test its validity, considering the impacts for the different stakeholders. Another future research development to be pursued is to better explore the relationship between well-being and urban planning by identifying the impact generated by funded interventions in terms of urban regeneration and reducing inequalities.

The proposed tool has been designed for ex-post evaluating of the interventions carried out. However, it can also be developed and refined for the ex-ante phase (design and planning) and the ongoing phase (monitoring); in this sense, the tool can be used in the construction phase of calls for funding and selection of tenders, with the aim of improving the quality of the decision-making process and the attractiveness and effectiveness of the proposals submitted. We also believe that this method, developed starting from the specific case of calls for funding in Italy addressed to Third Sector entities, can be applied in a broader context, and extended to financing interventions on the architectural heritage with a view to public–private partnerships.