Post-Conflict Safeguarding of Built Heritage: Content Analysis of the ICOMOS Heritage at Risk Journal, 2000–2019

Abstract

The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) publishes several academic and professional publications, including Heritage at Risk World Reports. These reports examine heritage properties at risk globally, showing the trends and sharing recommendations. The role of local communities (LCs) and local resources (LRs) in safeguarding built heritage in periods following conflict has been highlighted by academics and international organisations. However, there are few research studies examining the indicators of the roles of LCs and LRs, which can depict the priorities in such circumstances. A systematic review (analysis) of this ICOMOS publication in a post-conflict context has yet to be undertaken. This method is utilised to identify key indicators of both elements in the context of post-conflict safeguarding of built heritage. The systematic review using content analysis and keyword frequency classified 69 post-conflict cases (countries) and identified significant LC and LR indicators. The findings reveal that the community’s awareness of built heritage and the availability of local experts are the most significant indicators for the LC and LRs, respectively. Both the LC and LR roles have a strong correlation in periods following conflicts. In addition, within the ICOMOS reports, results show a growing emphasis on post-conflict situations since the first volume. This study contributes to providing a shared vision regarding the roles that LCs and LRs can play in safeguarding built heritage following conflicts. Through analysing related policy documents, future research could investigate a policy-led perspective for safeguarding built heritage following conflicts.

1. Introduction

Built heritage is the legacy of past societies inherited from their predecessors; it contributes to the formulation of a community’s identity which comprises monuments, historic structures and districts [1]. This legacy is supposed to be safeguarded, valued, practiced, enjoyed, and used by current societies and transmitted to future generations [2]. The term ‘Safeguarding’ in this field was first used in relation to armed conflicts in the Hague Convention in 1954 for safeguarding cultural property in times of armed conflict and is defined as taking appropriate measures by authorities and armed forces to safeguard cultural properties. Afterwards, the term was brought forward in a more inclusive context than other conventional terminologies such as preservation, conservation, and restoration. The effective safeguarding of heritage requires local actors’ communication and participation mechanisms to open connection channels between cultural actors and authorities. In this process, the focus should be on locals, allowing them to define their heritage as, according to the “Memory of the World” program of UNESCO, even an individual can initiate a nomination process [3]. Built heritage (immovable heritage) is part of the physical manifestation of cultural heritage, which alongside intangible heritage constitute the cultural heritage that is unique for each society [4]. This uniqueness or authentic vernacular tradition is a product of active local participation, communal engagement and equitable political ideology described by Alsayyad as material culture or the physical evidence of community [5]. Within heritage studies, societies’ participation in heritage-related planning is a crucial topic, as their say is a prerequisite for the success of such a process. This participation is a bottom–up approach or locals’ involvement that may contribute to preparing a long-term process tailored to local needs and conditions. Moreover, local capacities represented by community and resources have a significant role in the nomination process to the World Heritage List (WHL): as such process is either implemented by the government (top–down approach) or (bottom–up approach) through locally engaged actors [6].

During conflicts, the damage or destruction of built heritage is unfortunately common. Enemies/rivals were exploiting built heritage for victory propaganda to show their control and impose their ideologies [7]. Targeting built heritage may be driven by religious conflicts, strategic military benefits, and financial revenues [8]. Conflicts and wars have direct and indirect influences on built heritage. Direct influence is visible destruction. However, the indirect influence is the most complicated, and it is represented by abandonment or neglect, lack of resources and communities weakening their attachment to built heritage. The fact that communities are the owners, producers, and bearers of built heritage makes its safeguard and recovery impossible without them [9]. During and following periods of conflict, the local community (LC) and local resources (LRs) available for safeguard can have a significant role in reducing the amount of damage: since WWII, heritage has become a global interest by international organisations considering the local community as an active partner [10]. For any post-conflict recovery of built heritage to succeed, international organisations should create a continuing dialogue with locals and ensure their participation and ownership over all stages. There is numerous international evidence of the failure of post-conflict recovery of heritage, such as in the Balkans and Afghanistan, where foreign experts’ opinions were prioritised over the locals and consequently failed to meet the intended results. Therefore, locals should be empowered to rebuild their heritage. Otherwise, failing to involve local’ opinions and participation in heritage recovery leaves the locals and their heritage vulnerable to further suffering [11]. Local actors are pillars of heritage recovery following conflicts: cultural heritage initiatives should be built upon works that local actors are doing; in such a situation, cultural heritage schemes should serve as a vital income source for locals, interventions to respect the diverse needs and perspectives of local communities and avoid imposing external concepts such as reconciliation. Thus, the success and sustainability of any heritage intervention requires collaboration with local actors and needs to be rooted in local community work [12]. In the post-conflict recovery of cultural heritage, the “Build back better” principle can be better achieved through locals’ involvement/consultation in all stages. Intervention decisions should be linked to traditional building skills’ transmission between generations. This process is an inter-cultural dialogue requiring a range of stakeholders that can be summarised as the Government, Local community, and International stakeholders, which depends on sharing experiences among National, Local, and International actors to prepare National, Local, and International initiatives. Thus, it is a multistakeholder and multilayered process in which local actors are essential stakeholders in all stages [13].

The damage that occurs as a result of armed conflicts and wars in societies is substantial in different sectors. Cultural heritage is among the most vulnerable fields as, in many cases, the damage is irreversible [14,15,16]. Following conflicts, reconstruction strategies of built heritage are used by the international community as a mechanism for supporting the growth of local stability, helping reduce poverty/unemployment in war-affected areas and embracing built heritage as a means to a larger end, within a comprehensive post-conflict recovery, which is contrary to the assumption that the safeguarding of built heritage is a priority of elite classes and unaffordable [9]. Thus, safeguarding built heritage is far beyond the protection of historic structures or ruins: it is the safeguarding of society’s identity, legacy, culture, and existence, but it is vulnerable and at risk in periods following conflicts. The role of the LC as an active partner, true owner, and protector of their heritage through LRs, if employed properly, could facilitate the safeguarding process.

1.1. Objectives of This Research

• To determine indicators of local communities’ role in safeguarding built heritage following conflicts.
• To determine indicators of local resources’ role in safeguarding built heritage following conflicts.

1.2. Research Questions

• What is the major concern when it comes to the role of local communities in safeguarding built heritage in post-conflict situations?
• What is the major concern when it comes to the role of local resources in safeguarding built heritage in post-conflict situations?

1.3. Research Hypothesis

Many locally available means can contribute to safeguarding and preventing further damage to built heritage in post-conflict recovery. However, there are priorities or prerequisites: increased public awareness and availability of local experts/specialists are the most influential factors in safeguarding built heritage following conflicts.

2. Literature Review

The context of safeguarding built heritage in post-conflict situations has captured the interest of scholars, universities and international organisations globally through various practices and activities such as: academic conferences by universities such as Catastrophe and Challenge: Cultural Heritage in Post-Conflict Recovery (2016 proceedings) by Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus, Germany; meetings, guidelines and declarations by international organisations such as the Dresden Declaration (1982) and Post-Trauma guidance (2017) by ICOMOS; and academics and researchers from worldwide universities. However, as it will be shown in the coming paragraphs, two commonalities have been detected within the reviewed literature: a need for a comprehensive post-conflict recovery plan of built heritage and the centrality of the role of local actors.

After conducting an extensive search of the relevant literature, utilising the keywords “post-conflict” and “built heritage”, several studies were identified that comprehensively explore this topic from various perspectives (

Table 1. Similar studies and policy documents addressing post-conflict safeguarding built heritage.

	Highlights	Context	LC	LR	Other Issues	Ref
Similar studies	Need for a policy framework to guide post-conflict sustainable reconciliation	Post-conflict Syria	Continuity of heritage asset in community’s life		Policy inconsistency	[17]
	Minimum resources both human and financial	Post-conflict Croatia	Local community’s support	Local architects and restorers	Survival of monuments	[18]
	Challenges of safeguarding built heritage (urbanisation versus built heritage)	Post-conflict Afghanistan	Lack of awareness	Lack of policy and resources		[19]
	Presenting some observations regarding post-conflict recovery procedures	Post-conflict Libya/Egypt	Local community’s inclusion	Lack of resources (financial and staff)	Identifying pre-conflict measures	[20]
	Sustainable development via safeguarding heritage	Post-conflict Afghanistan	Awareness Social cohesion	Seminars and workshops	Peace building	[21]
	Deliberate destruction of World Heritage sites	Post-conflict (Nigeria)	Social duty Community participation	Technical feasibility Risk study	Alleviating poverty	[22]
	The Effect of war on cultural heritage	Post-conflict (Iraq)	Social and cultural continuity	Regeneration	Conflict resolution	[23]
	Deliberate destruction of tangible heritage Analysis of human rights concept in UNESCO documents	Post conflict (Global) Humanitarian priorities	Locals’ contribution and accountability	Protection measures Inclusive decision making	Targeting identity and existence	[24]
	Assessment of intervention efforts	Post-conflict (Kosovo)	Local participation	Craftsmanship development	Multiplicity of agendas	[25]
	A guide for post-conflict (case study: single monument)	Post-conflict Cyprus	Active civil society Social recovery	Economic recovery	Peace building	[26]
	Heritage recovery, an excuse for locals’ emotional, cultural, and economic healing	Post-conflict Rwanda and Uganda	Social process		Post-conflict renewal	[27]
	Imperative need for a holistic strategy for post-conflict recovery of built heritage	Post-conflict Middle East	Communities to be the focus of any heritage recovery	Development/ Institutional resources	Loss of some values, birth of others	[9]
	Militarisation/securitisation of conservation (reclaim power)	Post-conflict (Nepal)	Disciplinary society		Investors are politicians	[28]
	Integrated approach for safeguarding heritage (culture and development)	Post-conflict (Middle east)	Local community’s needs	Trained and knowledgeable teams	Planners’ role	[29]
Policy documents	(Dresden Declaration) by ICOMOS 1982 Post-war reconstruction	Post-conflict (11 European countries)	Social development, tie between people and land	Government and people	Reconstruction/ archiving	[30]
	Hague convention 2nd protocol 1999 (UNESCO).	Wars (133 countries)		Protection authorities, list	Instructions for army	[31]
	UNESCO report for reconstruction (2015) Reflection on the topic	Post-conflict (Syria)	Awareness raising	Lack of experts and qualified workers	Remote monitoring/recovery action	[32]
	Meeting (COE 2015) Cultural heritage in post crise	Post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina	Community involvement	Local heritage plan, capacity building	Depoliticisation of heritage recovery	[33]
	Post-Trauma guidance by ICOMOS 2017	Natural disasters and armed conflicts	Local communities and property owners	Institutional preparation Displaced professionals	Integrated response local national and international	[34]

). Topics include the functional continuity of heritage in a community’s life and policy deficiency [17]; the lack of human/financial resources and a shared vision, requiring communities as the focus; a need for more flexible intervention measures, development opportunities and the birth of new values [9,18]; urbanisation versus heritage, lack of awareness, resources and efficient policy [19]; the local community’s inclusion and staff shortage, social cohesion and peacebuilding; the social responsibility and technical feasibility [20,21]; deliberate destruction, community involvement, social and cultural continuity versus regeneration [22,23,24]; other human rights rather than cultural rights, locals contribution, improvement of local craftmanship, targeting societies existence and identity [24,25]; heritage as a tool for emotional/cultural healing and socio-economic recovery [26,27]; militarisation of heritage and disciplinary society [28]; community’s needs and the need for trained teams [29]. Nevertheless, local communities and resources remain the predominant theme within the vast majority of these studies.

On the other hand, policy deficiency or a need for post-conflict policy framework, and a need for integrated approach or holistic strategy [9,17,29,30] is quite obvious from the available international policy document (Table 1). The Dresden meeting declaration [30] considered the role of locals and their awareness alongside reconstruction (modern architecture) and the safeguarding of built heritage as a single entity, highlighting the significance of traditional use (especially residential) of built heritage as an accelerator for the restoration process, safeguarding vernacular and traditional buildings that bond societies to their land, and the flexibility of intervention measures especially in severely damaged properties. The Hague Convention of 1954 and its later protocol in 1999 [31] constitute the only international convention which deals with safeguarding cultural properties during an armed conflict period ratified by 133 states, which includes instructions for authorities and armed forces prior to and within the period of conflicts. The third document examined the case of Aleppo, Syria, and was local [32], examining post-conflict reconstruction, but built heritage was not the major concern which highlighted the multi-dimensional nature of the situation including political, socio-economic, symbolic, technical and financial challenges. The fourth document by the Council of Europe (COE) is a meeting report released in 2015 [33]. It focused on the de-politicisation of cultural heritage, inventory and damage assessment and described post-conflict as a long-term process for safeguarding built heritage and the need to include it in the initial steps of recovery. The last document by ICOMOS that offered post-conflict guidance could be considered a response to the imperative need for providing a clear guideline for built heritage preservation following conflicts [31]. However, the latter was a working document, and it was stated on its title page that it remained to be tested, reviewed and refined. It was tailored for Listed heritage property (on the WHL), and it was not specific to post-conflict situations as is clear from the title, which includes the wording post-trauma, meaning that it combines natural disasters and armed conflicts. Thus, the currently available policy documents globally are either short documents, local to a specific context, examining reconstruction, or technical instructions (Hague Convention), and general guidance for post-trauma.

The post-conflict period is portrayed as a challenging task for the safeguarding of built heritage by many scholars and is even considered an unaffordable or luxurious process, as there are other more pressing concerns to overcome. During conflicts, peoples’ life matters the most. After the end of armed conflict, other priorities arise, such as food, well-being and shelter. However, people’s ability to recover psychologically from such a situation is another crucial aspect, which is referred to as the continuity (recovering disrupted daily life) or restoring the familiar in periods following the violence. Cultural heritage recovery is essential to this healing, which can play a positive role in social reconstruction. Therefore, primary heritage recovery initiatives are essential to be incorporated within a comprehensive post-conflict recovery plan. While as a practice, it is more effective/applicable at least ten years following the end of active combat [20,35,36]. According to [35], in post-conflict recovery, local human and institutional capacities are significant actors to be developed, as they are not lost but in a state of readapting or coping with post-conflict conditions. Furthermore, he depicted that safeguarding cultural heritage following conflicts is a long, complex/arduous process with no quick fixes; each situation is unique and requires localised participatory solutions with locally generated approaches conceptualised in the active involvement of affected communities and not top–down or imported solutions.

The identification of locally available resources in such circumstances could be an important step for preventing further damage to built heritage. The acknowledgement of the role of local communities along with authorities and experts in safeguarding built heritage is significant, as built heritage derives its meaning from its interaction with locals through an approach that embraces societal coordination instead of a top–down approach or imposed mechanisms by authorities [37,38]. The contemporary perception of cultural heritage is today more comprehensive than the traditional concept of safeguarding built heritage, no longer separating it from the day-to-day life of their communities [39]. Since the Venice Charter in 1965, ICOMOS brought attention to local communities and their interaction with cultural heritage through the concept of the “socially useful function” of cultural heritage, which could be considered as a shift in perspective. This was subsequently further emphasised by Article 5 of UNESCO’s Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which states the following:

As appropriate for each country to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes.

[40] (p. 3)

Furthermore, bringing forward a people-centred approach in conservation through the Living Heritage Program by the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property ICCROM since the 2000s, which aimed at the implementation of a new approach in conservation at an international level that focuses on recovering the living dimension of built heritage, recognises communities as true owners of built heritage and emphasises the need to increase their contribution to heritage management and conservation processes [41], providing more evidence for the centrality of the role of local communities and resources. Thus, through analysing international post-conflict cases within ICOMOS Heritage at Risk World Reports, this paper contributes to providing a shared vision regarding the priorities in the roles of the LC and LRs, being influential stakeholders for any post-conflict recovery scheme of built heritage. Furthermore, the rationale of this study in selecting these World Reports rather than similar studies (Table 1) examining the same topic can be summarised as follows:

• Each volume of this publication examines several post-conflict cases comprehensively and does not specify papers/reports for a specific theme (such as lack of human or financial resources, staff shortage, communities’ participation) as depicted earlier.
• ICOMOS is an international non-governmental organisation dedicated to safeguarding heritage (monuments and sites), and its publications are prepared by international professionals and academics in this field.
• Inclusion of a considerable number of global cases, providing a holistic vision for post-conflict recovery regarding the necessary local potentials and obstacles.
• Majority of the reports of each volume include more than one case study, which can provide an overview of the ongoing situation, such as the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, (2000) volume; Iraq, (2004–2005) volume; and Yugoslavia, (2001–2002) volume.

Therefore, even if there is growing research on post-conflict recovery and the safeguarding of built heritage in particular, a policy framework that could be implemented globally is missing, and there is an imperative need for establishing a holistic strategy for the post-conflict recovery of built heritage [9,17,18]. The centrality of the role of the LC and LRs is evident in the reviewed literature (Table 1), emphasising their role from different perspectives. However, the prioritisation or identification of key indicators (potentials and obstacles) in their roles, which is an imperative tool for any post-conflict recovery of built heritage [29], has generated little attention within the literature.

3. Data and Methods

To explore the role of the LC and LRs in safeguarding built heritage following conflicts through content analysis, this study examined all “ICOMOS Heritage at Risk” World Reports since 2000 (first volume). This journal published a total of 11 volumes that examined different types of heritage at risk globally, and it is openly accessible. Two special editions (2006 and 2007) were excluded for not including built heritage (

Table 2. Identifying papers that examine built heritage following conflicts. Source: author.

Volume	Articles	Built Heritage at Risk	Following Conflict	Built Heritage Following Conflicts	%
2000	60	54	11	10 (16%)	15.7%
2001–2002	67	56	16	9 (13.4%)
2003	53	43	16	11 (20%)
2004–2005	44	37	8	7 (15.9%)
2006	Special edition (Underwater cultural heritage)
2006–2007	40	34	6	6 (15%)
2007	Special edition (Natural disasters)
2008–2010	41	31	5	5 (12%)
2011–2013	33	26	8	7 (21%)	%26.9
2014–2015	23	22	9	8 + 1 (39%)
2016–2019	22	20	5	5 (25%)
Total	383 (100%)	323 (84%)	84 (21%)	69 (18%)

). These volumes were used to collect data regarding the indicators of roles of LC and LR.

The data collection method used in this study was a mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques, focusing on content analysis (keyword frequency) [42]. After starting with a keyword analysis, which helped with the rapid identification of important segments within manuscripts, we conducted a detailed analysis through content analysis [43]. Content analysis is a type of quantitative analysis through which different types of manuscripts are examined based on the phenomena, subjects, topics and issues that can be counted within these texts. This counting of keywords gauges the significance of each phenomenon by indicating its frequency among the examined manuscripts. The objectivity and generalisability of this method of data collection in research depend on careful sampling and categorisation to obtain representative findings [44]. As mentioned earlier, nine volumes of Heritage at Risk reports were selected through a journal run in which the researcher indicated a relevant journal to the study area, examined all volumes and indicated the relevant (post-conflict/built heritage) papers within the volumes [45]. The selected (9) volumes included (383) papers. To identify the cases of built heritage preservation following conflicts, two themes (built heritage and post-conflict) were applied. Within all volumes, 323 articles examined built heritage, and 84 articles were cases of post-conflict heritage preservation. Among these 84 papers, 68 were downloaded from the ICOMOS website which includes 69 cases (as 2014–2015 volume included Syria and Iraq within one paper): those examined safeguarding built heritage following conflicts and wars.

The analysis started by classifying all 69 cases according to their context (built heritage, post-conflict, location) and the volume year (Appendix A and Table 2). All documents were saved in PDF format. Then, through a simple search for keywords in the PDF, a comprehensive content analysis was utilised. According to [17], when keywords and phrases are complicated due to their context in content analysis, a PDF search can be used.

Thus, through a content analysis of these 69 cases, the most frequent indicators of LC and LR were identified. For LC, in addition to the word local, these keywords were identified: awareness, community, participation, growth, protest, owner/inhabitant, destruction, craftsmanship, well-being, tradition, access, restoration and development; for LR, these words were identified in addition to the word local: resources, funds, charity, experts/professionals, legislation, research, priority list/listing, media, institution, authority, investor and coordination. Then, the strength of each indicator was determined through keyword frequency.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Case Classification and Keyword Frequency

These 69 cases (68 reports) were classified into five groups according to the times the case (country) was examined. Only Iraq was included five times (Figure 1). In addition, cases were distributed as follows: 20 cases (19 reports), the Middle East; 19 cases, southeast Europe; 11 cases, Asia; 7 cases, equally for each Central Europe and Africa; 5 cases in Latin America. Thus, the maximum share of post-conflict cases was in the Middle East, which was followed by southeast Europe. Therefore, when it comes to safeguarding built heritage following conflicts, the Middle East could be a worrying scenario.

During the first decade of the ICOMOS Heritage at Risk journal (2000–2010), 49 papers (15.7%) examined post-conflict cases, while from 2010 to 2019, 21 (26.9%) were post-conflict cases (Table 2). Thus, despite the decline in the number of articles published in the second decade, more emphasis was given to conflict areas.

Content analysis identified the most frequent indicators for the LC and LRs (

Table 3. Identification of LC and LR indicators and their keyword frequency. Source: author.

Indicators	Heritage at Risk Journal Volumes (2000–2019)
LC Indicators	2000	2001–2002	2003	2004–2005	2006–2007	2008–2010	2011–2013	2014–2015	2016–2019	Total Frequency
Awareness	4	3	4	4	2	2	3	4	3	32
Depopulation	2	2	1	1	1	-	-	1	1	9
Population growth	2	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3
Public protest	1	1	-	2	2	1	2	3	2	14
Property owner/inhabitant	2	2	-	4	-	-	2	3	2	15
Destruction by locals	1	1	1	1	2	1	-	-	-	7
Locals’ qualified craftsmanship	2	1	2	-	-	-	-	2	2	9
Locals’ wellbeing	2	3	4	2	-	1	-	-	1	13
Community’s tradition	1	2	2	-	1	-	1	-	1	8
Public access	1	1	-	2	1	1	-	-	1	7
Restoration by community	-	2	3	1	1	2	1	2	3	15
Communal development	1	3	2		1	2	2	2	3	16
Total	19	22	19	17	11	10	11	17	19	Mean = 16.1
Indicators of Local Resources	2000	2001–2002	2003	2004–2005	2006–2007	2008–2010	2011–2013	2014–2015	2016–2019
Academic research	2	2	1	-	1	-	1	2	1	10
Local institutions	4	3	4	2	4	2	2	2	3	26
Traditional materials and skills	2	3	2	3	3	1	1	1	1	17
Legal protection	2	3	4	2	1	2	2	4	2	22
Local experts	4	2	4	3	2	3	3	5	4	30
Local financial resources	3	2	2	3	-	-	1	3	-	14
Media and social media	1	1	1	2	-	-	2	2	2	11
Local authority	2	4	4	1	2	1	1	6	2	23
Private sector investor	3	1	1	1	-	-	1	2	1	10
Local institutions’ coordination		3	3	1	-	1	-	2	1	11
Priority list		1	1	1	2	-	2	-	-	7
Total	23	25	27	19	15	10	16	29	17	Mean = 20.1

). The LRs frequency mean is higher at M = 20.1: the post-conflict period is characterised as the period of institutional collapse or fragile institutional capacities [9,35]. Hence, more emphasis is given to institutional issues represented in LR indicators such as local experts, institutions, authorities and financial resources.

Statistical analysis through the correlation coefficient of indicators’ frequency over the period depicted that both the LC and LR roles have similar trends (Figure 2), with a high positive correlation coefficient of 0.741. The 2008–2010 volume of the journal recorded the lowest keyword frequency for LC and LR. The latter could reflect the intense global conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, and Serbia, which can be defined as a state of “non-conservation” for built heritage [46,47].

The 2006–2007 volume also recorded low frequencies. Iraq was one of the cases described as the death of history. This “Disastrous status” was represented by locals’ systematic participation in the destruction, looting, and vandalism of historical places. People were trained on how to find precious items worth looting. In this destruction, communities were not the only actors, as the authorities’ deliberate use of historical sites as military bases was another concern [48]. This status could be interpreted by Iraq’s frequency (repetition) in five volumes (Figure 1 and Appendix A).

4.2. Content Analysis Results

4.2.1. Local Communities’ Indicators

Public awareness is regarded as a prerequisite for safeguarding built heritage following conflicts, and it is conceptualised as locals’ commitment to the intangible/ethical and tangible/physical preservation objectives. It is directly affected by conflicts and wars, especially long-standing periods of conflicts which produce public apathy and a lack of public awareness towards built heritage: in the case of Iraq, there are evidences of deliberate destruction and professional looting for making profit by locals [48,49]. In describing the situation of the Saray Administrative Complex, which includes five buildings (four built by Ottoman Empire and the fifth is British Colonial style) following the invasion of Baghdad in 2003 by coalition forces, Fethi states the following:

[e]very one of these buildings was plundered, at least one was bombed and several were set on fire. During 12 weeks, gangs of looters emptied all the five buildings of furniture, equipment, fixtures and fittings, doors, windows, wall panelling and floor tiles. In some buildings even the steel floor beams were removed.

[49] (p. 120)

Following conflicts, the community’s awareness of built heritage can be regarded as a prerequisite for safeguarding built heritage. Otherwise, the result will be the physical damage of built heritage and cultural loss [50]. Keyword frequency (Figure 3) shows that the community’s awareness of built heritage is the most frequent keyword among the analysed papers.

The second indicator is communal development when the society is secular or a civil society that prohibits ethnic conflict or revenge. This indicator is similar to the first one but is more general and not cultural heritage specific. However, it has a significant impact on safeguarding heritage of any kind. In 2004, within a few days of riots, Serbian heritage suffered massive harm by Kosovo-Albanian groups [51].

“In countries where different groups are fighting on the basis of ethnicity, heritage can become a weapon and a provocation. Many of the region’s museums, libraries, religious buildings, archaeological sites, and the like, have been destroyed in the former Yugoslavia during the last fifteen years to oppress these cultures and people connected to them.”

[51] (p. 161)

Following conflicts, professionals and unions should play a vital role in lobbying: in Iraq, NGOs, associations, academics, historians and archaeologists have yet to show much interest in advocating for safeguarding Iraqi heritage following conflicts. In contrast, they should lead the charge in lobbying and public participation [49]. The community’s participation and owners’/inhabitants’ participation in restoring built heritage are two other indicators with a similar keyword frequency. The community’s participation in preservation is mainly related to these traditional buildings’ function in their day-to-day life. Minor modifications to make a traditional building compatible with modern living standards, provide financial support not only for heritage sites but single traditional residences, and provide the owners with necessary incentives such as tax exemption/reduction may encourage communities to keep these areas in use and, consequently, preserved [51,52].

The post-conflict period is characterised by rapid urbanisation and population growth in which historic sites/monuments are usually overlooked [53]. In developed countries, such as Germany, by organising campaigns and protests, the locals actively participated in re-directing post-war schemes’ attention historic sites and monuments. In addition, following conflicts, it is necessary to include old sectors of cities alongside other sectors in a comprehensive recovery plan that considers locals’ well-being to provide necessary facilities that serve the local community. It is worth mentioning that in Germany, heritage preservation is considered a political matter, and it is consequently given high priority [54,55]. On the other hand, in developing countries, the depopulation of historic neighbourhoods (particularly city centres) is a common practice in many post-conflict cases (Figure 4) [49,53].

The Erbil Citadel (Figure 4), a World Heritage Property since 2014, is a prime example: 97.5% of its 320 buildings were in critical condition, and this vast harm, according to the nomination document of the Citadel, occurred as a result of a lack of maintenance, as the Citadel’s inhabitants displaced since 2006. Some properties on the Citadel’s main axis (main street) are preserved, while most inner area buildings are in poor condition, and damage can be seen everywhere [56].

Another indicator is traditional craftsmanship since, due to immigration or displacement in periods following conflicts, there are usually shortages in personnel [51]. In Russia, the availability of local traditional craftsmanship was a privilege for initiating low-cost restoration projects [57]. Following conflicts, traditional buildings could be a target for rebels [51], as was the case in Mali in 2012, in which extremist rebels destroyed the majority of mausoleums to destroy the tradition, history and identity of the people of Mali. Built heritage preservation empowers the communities to recover national unity [58]. Thus, safeguarding a community’s tradition (another indicator) and, especially, built heritage can be better facilitated through local traditional craftsmanship through restoring monuments and historical sites and incorporating/mixing old elements and techniques into modern architecture [52].

Access to historic sites and monuments (integration of these areas with their surroundings through pedestrians, walkways, buses, and train to provide day-to-day local benefit) is another indicator. Access to historic sites and monuments returns these places to their role as communal spaces through which these areas can be enlivened and minimum cash flow provided, as no access means no cash flow [54,55,59]. Audefroy and Serrano referred to this accessibility as follows:

“Flows that will enable the social and environmental reconstruction of the community.”

[59] (p. 93)

On the other hand, not recovering this relation might be one of the reasons behind misuse and public apathetic behaviours, such as vandalism or the deliberate destruction of built heritage by locals [48,58] which is another indicator. There is considerable evidence globally exemplifying the deliberate destruction of built heritage in post-conflict periods, such as Iraq, Tajikistan, Kosovo, Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eretria, Mali, Croatia and Palestine, for different reasons, such as religious/ethnic conflict, revenge, financial revenue, refugee shelter and rapid urbanisation to solve housing shortages caused by war destruction as a result of population growth [53], which is the last indicator for local communities.

Therefore, it is evident that the LC’s role following conflicts is multi-dimensional. Safeguarding built heritage following conflicts is a challenging task that needs proper mechanisms starting from awareness raising, prohibiting ethnic conflicts, empowering locals and owners of traditional buildings to have a role in restoration and decision making, and considering locals’ well-being in any recovery plan. Common post-conflict practices, such as the depopulation or evacuation of historic areas, are sensitive and require rigorous study. Traditional craftsmanship needs to be improved to protect locals’ tradition, proper access to these areas means better protection from destruction, and rapid urbanisation or population growth (following conflicts) should be addressed separately from historic areas.

4.2.2. Local Resource Indicators

Following conflicts, LRs for safeguarding built heritage have two crucial dimensions: human capacities (experts, academics, private sector investors) and institutional capacities (local authority, conservation institutions, media, legislation, and local financial resources). Both dimensions are dramatically affected by conflicts and wars, sometimes reaching a state of collapse [22,35]. The most frequent indicator for LRs was local experts in the field of heritage conservation (Figure 5). In the post-conflict period, the shortage of qualified personnel in general, including heritage experts, is a chronic issue in all conflict-affected areas [60] and is seen as a problem whose solution is implausible. In some cases like Kosovo, this action was systematic, which was referred to as Serb specialist migration from a Kosovo heritage institution to make these institutions dysfunctional [51]. This shortage is associated with the duration and intensity of the armed conflict: countries such as Kosovo (a decade), Lebanon (two decades), and Iraq (three decades) are evidence of dysfunctional heritage institutions caused by the shortage of experts. Therefore, recently in Syria, international organisations initiated remote e-learning courses for local managers, students, researchers and architects to provide necessary, affordable and urgent actions to safeguard their cultural heritage, which was suffering from the direct and indirect effects of war [49,51,61].

There are many tasks that local experts can accomplish including training, fundraising, inventory, documentation, and finding proper solutions/uses [62]. However, all these can be smoothly organised through local conservation institutions (second indicator) by gathering the remaining professionals following conflicts to support the local authorities in heritage-related decisions [63,64]. The local authority as the third indicator and an operator/organiser of the previously mentioned indicators can play a positive or negative role: Demolition through neglect is a common post-conflict practice in the built heritage field that poses a considerable threat to its existence and continuity, and it is usually justified by a lack of funds [65]. This could be the most straightforward negative role of the local authorities. Regarding positive roles, reducing bureaucracy in obtaining legal protection [57] (fourth indicator) is an important step forward. Despite being the central government’s responsibility, legal protection starts with the local authorities’ appeal as the first responsible body to nominate a heritage site/building for legal protection.

The fifth indicator is traditional materials and techniques, which is the core of all built-heritage-related discourses referred to as authenticity through restoration, conservation and, in some cases, reconstruction. The vulnerability of these buildings is not only related to their old and weak structure but also the use of improper materials, which results in a loss of historic character. In addition, different types of traditional materials have different levels of durability such as the case of earthen architecture, which is at risk of extinction as a result of lack of interest of people in such buildings since they are considered unstable and unhealthy: this is an issue which requires specific attention through developing traditional material and techniques to comply with contemporary living standards [65,66]. Most heritage monuments/sites are located in inner areas of cities with a high land value, where, in many cases, conscious neglect aiming at the demolition of old buildings, the construction of new buildings and the use of improper materials or techniques (faster and cheaper) are evident [67]. This process can be eased through local financial resources (sixth indicator) that aim at the conservation and re-use of built heritage. Locally, these funds can be obtained through municipalities, religious followers (for religious buildings), charities and fundraising campaigns, donations or investments from local businesspeople, and local NGOs’ calls for international organisations. However, local financial resources are usually very limited, but local resources usually initiate the majority of heritage-related activities [65].

Institutional coordination and media (seventh and eighth indicators) can play an exceptional role in facilitating conservation efforts. The former includes coordinating all related institutions, such as authorities/municipalities, universities, local NGOs, and conservation institutions. In some cases, the lack of this coordination resulted in practices for which no one was held responsible [55]. This coordination supports decision-makers in selecting the proper mechanisms for the benefit of built heritage and the local community. This cooperation may result in better partnerships between the public and private sectors, financing sources, and heritage professionals [64,68]. The media/social media can significantly raise the local population’s awareness through supporting campaigns and organising fundraising events.:

“The media often influences how the general public perceives issues in cultural heritage conservation.”

[68] (p. 204)

Local private sector investors (ninth indicator), if provided with incentives such as tax exemption, selling listed buildings for half of their estimated price, and ownership, may invest in such properties. However, there must be obligations for permanent maintenance and public access. Local investors are preferred, as in some cases, selling historic buildings to foreign investors resulted in the loss of authentic qualities [54,69].

The tenth indicator (universities and academic institutions), through research, regular conferences and courses, can improve and strengthen the overall heritage education as a strategic portion within the national education system, establishing a scientific relation with international heritage institutions and promoting academic studies related to preservation [51,53,70]. Usually, in developed countries, the initial step prior to any practical preservation step is to provide funding for scientific research upon which planning, interventions and conservation schemes depend. The eleventh indicator was listing (priority list/ endangered list), which is an essential mechanism that, regardless of whether the built heritage is a heritage site or a single/small vernacular building, attracts the attention of the relevant actors [71]. These two indicators are interrelated and are among the very initial steps through which surveys, documentations, inventories and statistics are prepared. Local listing is the first step, which is followed by a national or international protection list [69].

Thus, significant indicators for LRs according to keyword frequency are: the availability of local experts and local preservation institutions; local authorities and their role in providing a priority list, legal protection, coordination among related institutions, and financial resources; media and social media; local private sector investors; and local academic institutions through research.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Throughout the analysed reports, each examining a specific post-conflict case, the centrality of the role of the LC and LRs is evident. There is a growing emphasis on safeguarding built heritage in post-conflict situations within ICOMOS Heritage at Risk volumes, as the number of post-conflict cases has increased over time. In Europe, countries such as Germany and the Netherlands have not been in any wars since the Second World War. However, post-war schemes still operate to safeguard built heritage: this demonstrates this process may last for generations. Regarding the start of this process, as there are other pressing concerns in the immediate post-conflict period, it is recommended to include primary heritage recovery plans within a comprehensive post-conflict recovery plan. As a concept, its practice is more appropriate for nearly one decade following the end of armed conflicts. The Middle East has the maximum number of post-conflict cases, which is followed by southeast Europe. Some types of built heritage, such as earthen architecture, require specific attention by conservation authorities, scholars and professionals as being more vulnerable than other traditional architecture, which is evident in many cases in the Arab world.

The content analysis depicted that indicators of the LC and LRs roles have similar trends in post-conflict situations (high positive correlation), and the intensity and duration of conflict adversely affect both. Keyword frequency showed that the LR role is more emphasised, as fragile institutional capacities characterise such periods.

The indicators of the roles of LC identified are shown in Figure 3. It is depicted that local communities’ awareness of built heritage has the highest keyword frequency among all analysed documents: the community’s appreciation for built heritage and their commitment to safeguarding it in the post-conflict period are regarded as prerequisites. Because conflicts and wars directly affect this commitment, which produces public apathy and a lack of awareness of built heritage, the situation worsens as the period of wars and conflicts prolongs. Common post-conflict practices such as displacing inhabitants of traditional areas as an excuse for more protection, resettling refugees in traditional neighbourhoods, and using heritage sites as military bases further sever the tie between communities and their historical monuments and sites. On the other hand, indicators of LR roles and their frequency are shown in Figure 5. Local built heritage experts/professionals have the highest keyword frequency: lack of human capacities or qualified personnel is an expected outcome of conflicts which in some cases may reach the state of collapse along with institutional capacities.

There are a few limitations to this research worth mentioning. First, this study analysed only ICOMOS Heritage at Risk World Reports. Consequently, sample selection depended on cases within this publication. There might be numerous post-conflict cases globally before and during this publication, but they are not covered in this journal and accordingly are not included in the analysis. Second, this paper examined safeguarding built heritage following conflicts. However, other types of heritage (movable/immovable) are also at risk following conflicts, which can be covered in future studies.

The ICOMOS Heritage at Risk World Reports provides massive data and research regarding heritage at risk globally. However, published volumes declined during the publications’ second decade. Therefore, the continuity of this publication is essential, and it is recommended that special editions be devoted to the post-conflict recovery of built heritage (similar to the 2006 and 2007 special editions that examined underwater cultural heritage and natural disasters), which could be a step forward towards providing a holistic post-conflict recovery of built heritage. Ongoing conflicts, such as the situation in Ukraine, demonstrate the significance of such studies to build on its analysis following the conflicts. Despite the progress and advancements of modern times, our global community remains susceptible to the widespread destruction caused by armed conflicts and warfare. Future research could investigate a policy-led perspective for post-conflict situations through analysing related policy documents.