1. Introduction
World Heritage (WH) sites are highly valuable assets to humanity because they represent universal value that goes beyond national boundaries [
1,
2,
3]. To maintain the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), as the prerequisite of preserving the WH status of protected sites [
4,
5] and complementary to the daily tasks of conservators, archeologists, academics, and heritage authorities [
6], various technical departments in the municipality, county, and national level need to work together in a coordinated manner to achieve the common goals. In accordance with their primary responsibilities, conservators and cultural heritage authorities tend to prioritize the preservation of historic buildings, monuments, and OUV of heritage sites over providing urban-scale support services [
7,
8]. The delivery of these services is a crucial task that appears not to support conservation efforts directly. However, in order to determine the support services that are required to be provided, it is still crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of the “core business” of the WH site [
6].
In the previous study, the scoping literature review of urban heritage facility management (UHFM) highlighted a few discussions and debates amongst academics and practitioners around urban-scale facility management within urban heritage areas [
9]. The previously examined literature mainly discussed facility management (FM) practices of single heritage buildings or a complex of buildings instead of urban-scale facility management (Urban FM). Meanwhile, works of literature in the Urban FM field did not explicitly address historic districts or urban heritage areas nor their relation to urban-scale conservation practices [
6,
9]. The phenomenon is understandable since Urban FM itself is still a relatively new field in its establishment phase, and it is an expansion of FM discipline within the urban context [
10,
11]. Most of the heritage-related articles from the examined papers refer to the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) approach as the latest holistic approach to managing urban heritage [
9,
12,
13]. Although widely recognized as an avant-garde approach, there are many uncertainties in interpreting the HUL approach’s operable criteria at the regional and local governance levels [
9,
13,
14]. Many aspects of such an approach could be explained and clarified better using FM and Urban FM as more technical disciplines for the technical departments in charge of providing and delivering urban-scale support services [
9].
FM is a branch of management discipline that addresses the tools and services that support the functionality, safety, and sustainability of buildings, grounds, infrastructures, and real estate [
9,
15,
16]. International Facility Management Association (IFMA) also proposed a new definition of FM as a profession, or discipline, that encompasses multiple disciplines to ensure the functionality of the built environment by integrating people, place, process, and technology [
15,
17,
18]. This new definition allowed Urban FM to legitimately become an expansion of the FM discipline since Urban FM is a manifestation of urban-scale facility management. As the definition is applied to a single building, an urban area is also considered a built environment [
6,
19,
20]. The new definition of FM by IFMA also made it possible for the HUL approach, as the latest conservation paradigm, to be incorporated into the Urban FM field since this holistic approach put the people—its main stakeholder—as an important part of the sustainable urban conservation process, especially in reaching consensus on what and how heritage assets should be preserved, within bottom-up heritage policy decision-making [
6,
9].
UHFM emerged from the expansion of the facility management (FM) discipline into urban-scale facility management (Urban FM) within the context of urban-scale heritage areas [
6,
9,
16]. This development coincided with the emergence of a new paradigm in managing urban heritage areas and historic towns, known as the HUL approach, which was recommended by UNESCO in 2011 [
13,
21]. This approach advocates for a more holistic and inclusive strategy in managing heritage, aiming to balance the preservation of historical buildings and monuments with the evolving demands of urban development [
22,
23,
24]. UHFM addresses the complex task of managing urban-scale support services in these unique types of heritage areas. The justification for UHFM establishment is supported by the dual requirement of safeguarding the WH sites’ outstanding universal values while ensuring their sustainable development and stakeholders’ well-being [
6,
9]. The HUL approach is a comprehensive framework highlighting the coexistence of heritage preservation and sustainable urban development [
22,
23]. The HUL approach acknowledged the significance of the historic town as a living environment and dynamic entity. In contrast, the UHFM framework expands on this philosophy by integrating it into the management of urban-scale facilities. WH sites, especially those with urban characteristics, require an advanced approach that goes beyond conventional heritage conservation [
25,
26], as they preserve exceptional cultural heritage values and attributes. UHFM, as an integration of the HUL approach and Urban FM, provides the opportunity to support the preservation of OUV through the excellent delivery of urban heritage-friendly support services.
UHFM focuses specifically on examining the complex aspects of managing facilities in the context of urban heritage. It acknowledges that the preservation of OUV is not an isolated task but one that requires a coordinated effort in managing various support services crucial for the daily operation of these areas. Thus, UHFM bridges the gap between preserving cultural heritage, ensuring urban functionality, and promoting collaboration among stakeholders. It offers a detailed and practical framework for effectively organizing support services on a large scale in urban areas. Implementing UHFM into the management of historic towns has the potential to complement the conventional conservation measures undertaken by conservators and heritage authorities at various levels, nationally, regionally, and locally. This integration may deliver urban-scale support services that are in compliance with the preservation of OUV as part of the holistic approach recommended by UNESCO through the HUL approach [
9,
21].
The UNESCO recommendation proposed a paradigm shift in the preservation of historic buildings. Instead of solely focusing on the physical preservation of buildings and monuments, it suggests a broader approach that considers the entire human environment, including both tangible and intangible aspects, such as increased attention to the well-being of the dwellers in urban heritage areas [
12,
13,
26]. This shift in paradigm, together with the emerging concepts of Urban FM as a people-oriented discipline, resulted in an adjustment of the provision of urban-scale support services in establishing a balance between the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery while simultaneously preserving the heritage integrity and OUV of WH sites. Therefore, there is a necessity for a framework to implement urban heritage facility management that is capable of adapting to the dynamic characteristics of urban environments. This framework is essential for achieving a balance between preserving heritage values and meeting the demands and standards of modern society. By taking into account the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders, technical departments, and governance structures, the UHFM framework serves as a tool that allows the involvement of urban-scale support services to contribute and align with the protection of the WH status of the areas under study.
Urban heritage facility managers’ tasks extend beyond the routine tasks of conservators and heritage authorities. Support services that may not appear directly connected to historical aspects, in practical terms, might have significant impacts on the visual esthetics, cultural value, and the OUV of protected heritage sites. Tasks such as placing waste containers, choosing between cobblestone or asphalt for road construction, conducting excavation work for underground infrastructure, and installing street furniture in the protected core area of WH sites can present significant complexities. These challenges necessitate both heritage and technical skilled and knowledgeable human resources, which can be managed within the proposed UHFM framework in this study. The UHFM provides clear guidance for support service providers and technical departments, overcoming the difficulty of interpreting the HUL approach, which often showed itself to be confusing at the tactical and operational levels. UHFM operates at the intersection of heritage conservation, urban-scale facility management, and collaboration among stakeholders.
This study examines the complexities of UHFM by analyzing information gathered from three Norwegian World Heritage sites: Røros, Rjukan, and Notodden. The study takes a comprehensive approach, integrating insights obtained from interviews and correspondence with key individuals responsible for managing certain aspects of the studied World Heritage sites, including officials from technical departments, heritage authorities, and governmental bodies at the local, regional, and national levels. Document studies were conducted as an additional source to supplement the interviews and correspondences. The information collected provides valuable qualitative data, insights into challenges, achievements, and collaborative efforts related to managing urban-scale support services in urban heritage areas.
The primary objective of this study is to propose a conceptual framework for UHFM that effectively addresses the complexities of organizing urban-scale support services in World Heritage sites. In order to achieve this, this study aimed to address two research questions: (RQ1) “How can urban-scale support services be efficiently organized in an urban heritage area or World Heritage site by technical departments and other stakeholders, without compromising the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), visual quality, authenticity, and significance of the protected heritage site?” and (RQ2) “How do the processes and coordination functions of urban-scale facility management support services contribute to preserving the World Heritage status of a protected urban heritage area, considering the roles of multiple layers of governance, technical departments, stakeholders, and feedback mechanisms for continuous improvement?”.
This study investigated the urban heritage facility management practices in the three Norwegian world heritage sites as the case study to validate the theoretical keypoints on how to conduct urban-scale facility management within urban heritage areas.
4. Discussion
The ambition of the discussion section was to elaborate the findings from the results section by addressing the research questions regarding the efficient organization of urban-scale support services in an urban heritage area, as well as the processes and coordination functions of the six clusters of UHFM technical departments in preserving the World Heritage status of the studied sites following the proposed UHFM steps as the structure (
Table 3 and
Figure 4).
This section explores various aspects and components of urban heritage facility management (UHFM) using the HUL approach’s six critical steps, as reviewed and theoretically studied previously [
9], which resulted in 33 UHFM keypoints. Adapting these steps allows for the recognition, identification, and formulation of urban-scale support services in the urban heritage area, which is the focus of this research study. The section is divided into seven main sections to ensure a systematic discussion according to the UHFM steps (
Figure 3). Based on the research interviews and the model developed for potential urban-scale support services [
6], a comparison is made among three Norwegian World Heritage (WH) sites with urban characteristics, which are Røros Bergstaden—the core city in Røros mining town and its surroundings—The Company Town in Rjukan, and the Notodden Industrial Heritage area in Notodden (see
Appendix A). This comparison provides an overall illustration of the UHFM process and its management within the context of good governance in Norway in terms of providing people-oriented urban-scale support services within urban-scale heritage areas without compromising the protected sites’ OUV.
As discussed through interviews and correspondence, the conditions shed light on the daily practice of providing urban-scale support services at the three Norwegian World Heritage (WH) sites. Criticisms and potential improvements regarding the provision and delivery of services, as well as coordination between agencies and technical departments, were also explored. Notably, the dynamics and mechanisms of the relationship between public authorities (public), dwellers, citizens, inhabitants, visitors (people), and the private sector (private) emerged as significant aspects in the realm of UHFM.
4.1. Mapping Resources for UHFM
Mapping resources, as the first step in the UHFM steps, serves as a critical foundation for informed decision-making and coordinated efforts across various technical departments. This step involves the accurate mapping of topographical features and heritage assets to create comprehensive base maps for all departments involved in urban management. The cluster of planning and zoning departments ensures precision in mapping land use, development zones, population density, and building types, laying the groundwork for comprehensive urban development. The public works and infrastructure department cluster focuses on mapping vital infrastructure elements such as roads, bridges, utility networks, and other urban facilities. This type of mapping is crucial for the daily practice of infrastructure development and maintenance. The Tourism department’s cluster mainly mapped the visitor facilities, public spaces, and the tourism movement to ensure sustainable tourism planning and to avoid overtourism, thus safeguarding a balance between visitor experience and heritage preservation. The conservation and cultural heritage department’s cluster provides detailed maps of the WH sites’ core and buffer zones, which is essential for heritage conservation, future adaptive reuse strategies, and general conservation initiatives. The environment and sustainability department cluster contributed to mapping green spaces, energy consumption patterns, waste management facilities, and other environment-related tasks. This mapping integrated sustainable practices into urban planning, promoting environmental health and the dweller’s well-being. Based on the raw maps provided by the planning and zoning departments, the cluster of urban safety and security departments mapped the vital infrastructure, emergency services locations, and potential natural disaster zones such as flooding, landslides, and fire hazards. This type of mapping is crucial for enhancing public safety measures, emergency response planning, and safeguarding heritage assets from potential threats. The interconnection between these technical departments ensures a holistic approach to managing the studied WH sites.
The unavailability of utilization of the BIM-based tools to map existing resources and mapping partnerships in the urban-scale support services of the three studied Norwegian World Heritage sites—Røros, Rjukan, and Notodden—during the data collection process can be attributed to various factors, such as the limited technological adoption within the technical departments. Moreover, an inadequate level of awareness regarding the potential advantages of utilizing BIM-based tools to map current resources and partnerships could be a contributing factor. The studied WH sites were also a part of national regulatory and policy frameworks that do not explicitly require or incentivize integrating BIM technologies in managing historic towns in Norway.
4.2. Reaching Consensus on What and How Urban-Scale Support Services Should Be Provided
Throughout the reaching-consensus step, each cluster of technical departments adjusted their specific tasks in providing urban-scale support services to be aligned with the WH mission in maintaining OUV as the prerequisite of the WH status. Collaborative decision-making in the cluster of planning and zoning departments relies on the incorporation of citizen awareness, participatory planning, and consensus-building, which highlighted the significance of integrating the citizens’ opinions into the city planning and master plan to guarantee their compatibility with the preference of the WH site’s inhabitants.
The cluster of planning and zoning departments, together with public works and infrastructure departments, actively sought public input and collaborated with private developers to establish the land use, planning, and zoning decisions that should be aligned with community goals and preservation of OUV. Meanwhile, the tourism departments’ cluster involves stakeholders in the tourism planning process by acknowledging the importance of including local communities and businesses during the reaching-consensus step. By adopting such a collaborative approach, tourism initiatives can be aligned with local interests and positively contribute to the community, thus increasing the sustainability of the WH sites economically, socially, and environmentally. The conservation and cultural heritage department cluster engaged in collaborative efforts with heritage experts, academics, and local communities to develop a strategic heritage management plan, focusing on historical education and the advancement of heritage knowledge, which showed a long-term strategy towards conserving heritage. The environment and sustainability department cluster works with environmental advocates and citizens who are interested in promoting sustainable practices in the WH sites. The urban safety and security department cluster prioritizes cooperation with law enforcement and the dwellers to identify potential risks and improve safety and security protocols to protect the integrity of WH assets as a collective duty to guarantee a safe and protected urban heritage setting.
The presence of all necessary theoretical keypoints obtained from the scoping literature review process in the reaching consensus step within the three studied cases of Røros, Rjukan, and Notodden indicated that these sites have effectively implemented comprehensive strategies for engaging the community and building consensus in the delivery of urban-scale support services. As mandated by the Nordic model, the three sites’ authorities have placed citizen awareness as their primary concern, actively engaging in efforts to proactively inform the public about current and future development and urban-scale support services. Consensus-building is a commonly accepted practice in Nordic countries, including Norway, that involves collaborative efforts in planning and decision-making processes. The municipalities in charge of managing these studied WH sites have adopted a participatory planning approach, enabling local communities, developers, and other relevant stakeholders to be involved. Furthermore, the emphasis on developing heritage technical knowledge and heritage interpretation indicates a commitment to open and transparent communication among the stakeholders.
The absence of missing theoretical keypoints in the reaching-consensus step suggests successfully integrated community-centric approaches in managing urban-scale support services within the studied Norwegian WH sites in Røros, Rjukan, and Notodden. The Nordic model, characterized by a trusting community and a commitment to equality, serves a significant role in this step. However, a further study of community involvement approaches and decision-making processes would be required to validate these interpretations.
4.3. Assessing the Vulnerabilities of the WH Sites and Their Relationships with UHFM
An assessment step is necessary to address the potential risks and challenges of delivering urban-scale support services within the context of the studied WH sites in Norway. The assessment of vulnerabilities of the WH sites necessitates a comprehensive assessment of various vulnerabilities tailored to the specific functions of each technical department in providing the required urban-scale support services. This is particularly important for addressing the socio-economic pressures and impacts of climate change, besides the strict compliance to the conservation regulations.
Vulnerability assessment in the cluster of planning and zoning focuses on land use, zoning decisions, and socio-economic factors, which suggests acknowledging the commitment to mitigating potential vulnerabilities that may arise from these decisions. The municipal and county authorities must work together to harmonize zoning regulations in broader urban development initiatives. In the meantime, the assessment of infrastructure vulnerabilities has become an important task performed by the cluster of public works and infrastructure departments. Urban-scale utility and maintenance assessments are conducted to identify vulnerabilities and potential hazards in the urban infrastructure, necessitating the cooperation of various technical departments in the local government to work together within more extensive urban development strategies and ensure the infrastructure’s long-term functionality. The cluster of tourism departments assessed the impact of tourism to identify particular vulnerabilities in tourist destinations. This approach acknowledges the importance of tourism in World Heritage sites while aiming to minimize any possible adverse effects on the WH assets. Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) are essential in assessing the vulnerabilities of heritage sites for the conservation and cultural heritage department cluster. This action shows a commitment to protecting WH sites’ cultural and historical significance. Collaboration with heritage experts, academics, and national heritage authorities is important to ensure the precision and efficacy of these assessments. The environment and sustainability department cluster assessed the vulnerabilities related to climate change in the studied WH sites by carrying out Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). Effective vulnerability assessment requires collaboration with environmental advocacy groups and national environmental authorities. Last, the urban safety and security department cluster emphasized the importance of conducting comprehensive risk assessments to identify any vulnerabilities related to the safety and security of residents and visitors, which includes cooperating with law enforcement agencies, emergency services, and community groups. Working with local, regional, and national authorities helps ensure that urban safety and security measures align with broader urban development and heritage preservation objectives.
The missing theoretical keypoint found in this step during the data collection is the lack of a mechanism to assess citizen satisfaction and stakeholder feedback. Including citizen feedback in vulnerability assessments could provide valuable insights regarding the effectiveness of urban-scale support services from the end-user’s perspective. The operational level of the UHFM team may also provide useful inputs for improving support service delivery in this step. Implementing digital assessment tools and information modeling tools has the potential to bridge this gap, thus improving the overall vulnerability assessment step.
4.4. Integrating Values and Vulnerabilities
Heritage authorities and technical departments employ various measurements to incorporate heritage sites’ significance and susceptibilities. One approach involves employing a SWOT analysis, which examines strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. This analysis allows for the development of strategies by simulating different potential scenarios and determining appropriate solutions. The Verdensarvkoordinator and Riksantikvar, who are responsible for heritage preservation, can effectively collaborate with the technical departments overseeing road and bridge construction at the local, regional, and national levels. The UHFM organizational framework, obtained from the interview and exchanging correspondence, includes a complex strategy that integrates heritage preservation and urban development. Each technical department serves a distinctive function in this integration, showcasing an awareness of the complex inter-relationship between outstanding universal values and vulnerabilities in WH site management.
The primary responsibility of the cluster of planning and zoning departments is to align land use and zoning regulations with preserving the protected heritage area. This integration acknowledges the importance of land use and zoning decisions in shaping the physical and cultural environment within the core area, buffer zone, and broader urban development. Therefore, the governing stakeholders must work together to ensure that zoning regulations align with the heritage conservation objectives. The cluster of public works and infrastructure departments contributes to urban heritage areas’ functional, visual, and historical aspects by integrating infrastructure and physical development vulnerabilities to align with the WH sites’ cultural and historical value. The cluster of tourism departments acknowledges that involving the community in tourism planning improves the relationship between tourism initiatives and broader heritage conservation goals to ensure that heritage tourism policies have beneficial impacts on the stakeholders’ and citizens’ well-being. The cluster of conservation and cultural heritage departments has the role of integrating cultural heritage into development plans and implementing adaptive reuse strategies, thus requiring certain degrees of flexibility in the decision-making process. The flexible approach emphasizes the dynamic nature of conserving cultural heritage, with adaptive reuse being an important strategy. These strategies may ensure alignment with national and international conservation objectives by working closely with heritage experts, academics, and national heritage authorities. Incorporating sustainable practices and green infrastructure into urban planning by the cluster of environment and sustainability departments is essential for promoting the dwellers’ health and well-being. This step illustrates an acknowledgment of the mutual reliance between preserving the environment and safeguarding cultural heritage. Coordination with environmental advocacy groups and relevant authorities guarantees the successful incorporation of sustainable practices. The cluster of urban safety and security departments integrates safety and security measures with heritage conservation to protect cultural and historical resources while simultaneously ensuring the well-being, safety, and security of inhabitants and tourists. Coordination with national law enforcement and emergency services is essential to ensure that the safety and security measures align with urban development and heritage preservation strategies.
The keypoint lacking in this step is the systematic integration of information modeling tools or other digital asset management tools to improve efficiency in the integration process. Utilizing digital tools may improve the process of integrating values and identifying vulnerabilities, leading to a more organized and data-driven approach. Incorporating information modeling tools at this step can optimize the overall integration process.
4.5. Prioritizing UHFM Actions
Through the data collection, the respondents were asked about the important factors that need to be taken into account when providing urban-scale support services. Furthermore, they were requested to determine the urban-scale support services that should be prioritized to maintain the WH sites’ OUV, heritage significance, authenticity, and visual quality. The respondents from various clusters, in general, emphasized prioritizing maintaining the urban infrastructure, physical urban fabric, accessibility and mobility, and environmental sustainability when planning and implementing urban-scale support services within the realm of UHFM. Several other respondents raised other issues to be prioritized, including matters related to interpretation and education, cleanliness, and waste management.
During the prioritizing actions step, each technical department cluster strategically targets specific aspects that align with their domain as the cluster’s priority. The planning and zoning department cluster prioritizes ensuring adherence to zoning regulations and providing guidance for development. This necessitates a robust focus on guaranteeing that development complies with the established regulations and contributes to preserving the urban heritage areas. Effective implementation of zoning regulations requires intensive coordination with other municipal and county sections and bodies.
The public works and infrastructure department cluster prioritizes routine maintenance, development, and preventive infrastructure maintenance. Collaborating with other relevant departments guarantees that infrastructure developments align with the overarching goals of urban-scale heritage preservation. The cluster of tourism departments’ priorities are establishing sustainable tourism, enhancing visitor experiences, interpreting cultural heritage, preserving cultural identity, and promoting citizen participation. This comprehensive strategy acknowledges the impact of tourism in shaping the perception and experience of visitors and dwellers of WH sites. The conservation and cultural heritage department cluster prioritizes heritage conservation, adaptive reuse, preventive maintenance, preservation of cultural value, and promoting citizen participation. This comprehensive approach acknowledges the dynamic nature of conserving cultural heritage, integrating preventative measures and strategies for adaptive reuse. Working in collaboration with heritage experts and actively involving the local community in the decision-making related to WH sites ensures a comprehensive approach to preserving urban heritage areas. The priority of the environment and sustainability department cluster is to protect the urban environment within the vicinity of WH sites, improve physical and social well-being, and promote citizen engagement in participating in sustainable heritage practices. The cluster of urban safety and security departments responded with the statement that their priorities are to ensure public safety, security, emergency response, preventive maintenance, and the protection of heritage sites from potential threats. This approach also highlights the commitment to ensuring residents’ and visitors’ safety and security while protecting valuable heritage assets. Collaboration with national law enforcement and emergency services is necessary for integrating safety measures with broader urban development and heritage preservation strategies.
The keypoint lacking in this step is the intentional incorporation of information modeling tools (such as BIM/HBIM/CIM) into the integration approach to improve efficiency and prioritize actions. Utilizing digital tools could optimize the decision-making and prioritization process, ensuring a more systematic and data-driven approach. Integrating information modeling at this step has the potential to enhance the overall efficiency of prioritizing actions by improving coordination and communication among technical departments and other stakeholders.
4.6. Establishing Partnerships and Frameworks for Each Support Service and Technical Department’s Cluster
Throughout the establishing partnerships step, the majority of respondents from each technical department cluster acknowledges the significance of collaborative governance and establishes strategic partnerships to improve the provision of urban-scale support services in urban heritage areas.
The planning and zoning departments cluster plays a crucial role in establishing partnerships with stakeholders, specialists, local businesses, and community groups. This collaborative approach ensures that zoning decisions and urban planning are in accordance with the diverse needs and viewpoints of the community and other stakeholders. The public works and infrastructure departments cluster establishes partnerships with urban planners, community stakeholders, and private developers. This collaborative effort ensures that the construction of infrastructure is aligned with the visual quality of urban heritage areas, historical context, and the preservation of OUV as the core business of WH sites. The cluster of tourism departments establishes partnerships with contractors, utility providers, and community groups through implementing the PPP scheme. The necessary framework for each partnership was developed accordingly to promote sustainable tourism. Effective communication with a wide range of stakeholders, including local communities and businesses, is crucial for successfully implementing tourism initiatives. The conservation and cultural heritage department cluster establishes PPP specifically focused on preserving heritage through collaboration with heritage organizations, local businesses, and tourism boards. However, the respondents did not mention any form of public–private–people partnership (PPPP) practices in the studied WH sites Røros, Rjukan, and Notodden. This collaborative activity ensures that conservation strategies, adaptive reuse programs, and preventive maintenance are in harmony with the objectives of safeguarding cultural heritage. Coordination with heritage organizations enhances the specialized knowledge contributed to conservation initiatives. The environment and sustainability department cluster forms partnerships with environmental organizations and sustainable businesses, participating in PPP to advocate for sustainable practices. The collaborative approach integrates ecological infrastructure into urban heritage development. The urban safety and security departments cluster establish partnerships and coordination with law enforcement, emergency services, and community groups to improve safety measures. The collective endeavor guarantees incorporating safety and security factors into urban design and historic preservation guidelines.
The crucial aspect not found throughout the interviews and correspondence process in this step is the intentional incorporation of digital information modeling optimization and automation to improve the effectiveness of forming partnerships. Incorporating information modeling tools at this step could improve the overall efficiency of collaborative governance, ensuring a more systematic approach to establishing partnerships and developing a framework with a broader city management plan.
4.7. Monitoring and Evaluation
Within the monitoring and evaluation step, as the proposed additional step differs from the HUL approach, each cluster of technical departments has a crucial role in monitoring and evaluating the efficiency of their specific tasks in providing urban-scale support services to ensure continuous improvement and compliance with heritage preservation goals.
The responsibility of the planning and zoning department cluster is to monitor and evaluate the impact of urban development surrounding WH sites and ensure compliance with zoning and land use regulations, especially in the protected sites’ core area and buffer zone, which includes evaluating the impacts of zoning decisions on the broader urban development, including their impact on the urban heritage area. The public works and infrastructure department cluster primarily monitors and evaluates urban infrastructure’s performance, maintenance, and functionality, including roads, streets, bridges, and other infrastructures. Through real-time monitoring, these departments might identify specific areas and objects requiring maintenance or improvement, ensuring that the infrastructure works comply with the WH sites’ heritage conservation regulations and guidances. The cluster of tourism departments monitors and evaluates tourism patterns, providing visitor satisfaction and preventing overtourism that might compromise the preservation of WH sites. The cluster of conservation and cultural heritage departments primarily conducts the monitoring and evaluation of the maintenance of WH status and the preservation, reconstruction, restoration, and adaptive reuse of cultural heritage. The environment and sustainability departments monitor and evaluate energy consumption, air and water quality, environmental conditions, and waste management strategies. The urban safety and security departments monitor and evaluate the efficacy of emergency preparedness and surveillance measures. However, none of the respondents mentioned using an urban command center to conduct surveillance and real-time monitoring to improve the safety of the dwellers and visitors, not to mention the security of the protected assets from vandalism and irresponsible tourist activity. The urban safety and security department cluster monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of emergency preparedness and surveillance measures. This comprehensive approach ensures continuous improvement in managing urban heritage areas and WH sites.
The absence of theoretical keypoints in the UHFM scoping literature review process, specifically regarding the “monitoring and evaluation” step in the management practices of Norwegian World Heritage sites, although being mentioned repeatedly by the respondents during data collection, suggests three possible circumstances during the conception of UHFM keypoints. Firstly, it is possible that academic discussions on the “monitoring and evaluation” step were not identified during the scoping literature review process. Secondly, the absence of this important step in the discussion may be attributed to its unintentional oversight during the scoping literature review, which follows a rigorous protocol incorporating the HUL approach as one of the search criteria for filtering relevant literature. Lastly, the process of conducting a scoping literature review might include adding and classifying “monitoring and evaluation” in academic discussions within the category of “assessment”, the third critical step of the HUL approach. Subsequently, during the data collection phase, the respondents, through interviews and correspondences, placed particular emphasis on “monitoring and evaluation” in providing urban-scale support services to ensure continuous improvement in service delivery. Assessments are typically conducted at the beginning to determine the type and manner in which support services will be provided. Meanwhile, “monitoring and evaluation” is usually carried out during the operational phase, where inputs, problems, difficulties, and challenges in the provision of urban-scale support services begin to be discovered. Monitoring occurs at the tactical and operational levels, whereas evaluation is carried out at the tactical and strategic levels of UHFM. The majority of respondents’ understanding of the differences between assessment, monitoring, and evaluation suggests that they are highly aware of and committed to flexible and adaptive urban heritage facility management practices. It is presumed that these respondents and their institutions have included monitoring and evaluation in their daily practices, thereby improving the general efficiency of urban-scale support services in preserving the OUV and integrity of the WH sites from time to time.
5. Conclusions
The urban heritage facility management (UHFM) framework reveals a deep comprehension of the complex dynamics that govern the delivery of support services on a large scale in WH sites. The exploration, driven by the two research questions on the efficient organization of these services and the role of coordination functions in maintaining the WH status, has resulted in detailed observations from three Norwegian World Heritage Sites: Røros, Rjukan, and Notodden. The UHFM framework contains the primary information obtained from interviews and exchanging correspondence with key stakeholders. The cross-sectional table between the seven UHFM steps and the six technical department clusters serves as a navigational tool, streamlining the intricate interactions and responsibilities in managing urban-scale support services. This matrix functions both as a visual representation and a condensed narrative, revealing the complexities of stakeholder engagements and the coordination of support services. The detection of crucial elements absent in the UHFM framework serves as a reflection of the difficulties and gaps in the delivery of support services. The gaps between the theoretical keypoints from the scoping literature review process and the conceptual framework obtained from the studied cases reflect the challenges encountered when trying to balance heritage preservation, authenticity, and modern development. The lack of integration of information modeling tools throughout several UHFM steps is particularly interesting, emphasizing the need for improvement and efficiency in future implementations.
The additional step, monitoring and evaluation, allows the UHFM framework to become a powerful and flexible tool adaptable to all possible social, economic, and environmental changes. The ability of this asset to capture the complex connections among technical departments, governance structures, and stakeholders in providing urban-scale support services while maintaining the OUV, visual quality, authenticity, and significance of the studied WH sites makes it a valuable tool in heritage management, alongside the original HUL approach and other existing heritage conservation frameworks addressing the core business of WH sites. The importance of a collaborative and unified strategy, which involves the integration of heritage preservation, management of urban-scale facilities, and collaboration with stakeholders, is emphasized by this study. The UHFM framework effectively tackles both present challenges and serves as a basis for ongoing enhancement and adaptable strategies in the constantly changing field of urban heritage preservation.
The UHFM organizational framework addresses the challenges of managing facilities and how to effectively organize urban-scale support services in an urban heritage area or World Heritage site. The framework highlights the necessity of simplifying stakeholder interactions between UHFM stakeholders by placing heritage values at the center of urban heritage conservation while providing urban-scale service delivery. Within the World Heritage context, the OUV serves as the foundation for inscribing cultural heritage, making its preservation non-negotiable and must not be compromised for the sake of efficiency, budget, or traditional understandings of effectiveness in facility management. The proposed UHFM framework provides insights into coordinating and orchestrating all urban-scale support services in the urban heritage district. In the newly proposed urban heritage facility management field, the UHFM process flowchart provides the workflow steps that must be taken one after another and the decisions that must be made when providing support services on an urban scale inside heritage areas. The perpetual cycle of monitoring and evaluation enables the necessary modifications predicated on input, guaranteeing the continuous improvement of urban-scale service delivery provision.
The proposed UHFM framework plays a role in engaging and benefiting stakeholders and users by fostering a collaborative and informed approach to urban heritage facility management. The framework’s capacity to streamline coordination, improve communication channels, and offer a structured comprehension of urban-scale support services will be beneficial to stakeholders, including the public, private sector, and governing authorities. The clarity offered by the framework ensures that stakeholders can actively contribute to the preservation of heritage values while aligning with contemporary needs. Users, including heritage professionals, municipal authorities, and the community, will benefit from a user-friendly and adaptable tool that facilitates efficient decision-making, resource allocation, and strategic planning. The UHFM framework that enables efficient decision-making, resource allocation, and strategic planning will benefit various stakeholders, such as heritage authorities, technical departments, and the community. The UHFM framework promotes a sense of responsibility for the sustainable management of urban heritage areas by highlighting the importance of heritage significance, authenticity, and visual quality.
This study does not intend to make broad generalizations that can be applicable to all types of technical departments, support services, and different types of World Heritage sites outside of Norway. This study was designed to be an initial umbrella study of urban-scale heritage facility management using Norwegian WH sites as a context, which provides the basis for further research in the realm of Urban FM, urban heritage conservation, and detailed parts of UHFM. Various terms in this study are used interchangeably in English and the Norwegian version due to technical and practical reasons. This study represents a progression in the domain of urban heritage management and Urban FM by introducing a framework that addresses the complexity associated with managing urban heritage facilities, specifically focusing on the Norwegian WH sites, which is in contrast to previous studies that typically examined specific aspects of heritage conservation or facility management of protected buildings only. Furthermore, this study offers a conceptual framework that can be applied to various contexts worldwide. This study serves as an invitation for further academic discussion, research, and implementation of the UHFM framework in order to shape sustainable, resilient, and culturally vibrant urban environments for future generations. The results and findings of this study pave the way for future research to replicate similar studies in other non-WH historic towns and urban heritage districts in Norway, as well as in urban heritage areas and WH sites outside of Norway. This will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of facility management at an urban scale in urban heritage areas.