**1. Introduction**

In accordance with the report "Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe", in the past few decades we have witnessed the main conceptual and policy developments that have recognized the multiple and valuable benefits that cultural heritage brings to society as a whole [1], making the conservation of cultural heritage a national priority for many countries. At a European Union level, starting from the Faro Convention (2005), there has been a growing awareness of the importance of cultural heritage, recognized as "a strategic resource for a sustainable Europe" (Council of the European Union, 2014 [2]) and "a shared resource and a common good", as in the document "Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe" (European Commission, 2014 [3]). In this document it is also highlighted that the economic value of heritage has recently come into research focus, but only partial estimates of its importance are available.

It is clear that the issue of the evaluation of impacts connected with the valorization of Cultural Heritage has become relevant also in the policy agendas [4]. Most recently, during 2018, the EU has celebrated the importance of Cultural Heritage in Europe with a list of events hosted throughout Europe in order to remind its citizens of the linkage that binds each other and to enhance a common sense of belonging to the European Union (Heritage Hube, 2018). The Davos Declaration 2018, "Towards a high-quality Baukultur for Europe", recognized cultural heritage as "*a crucial component of high-quality Baukultur. The way we use, maintain and protect our cultural heritage today will be crucial for the future development of a high-quality built environment*."

With specific regard to Italy, the State, through the Ministry for Heritage, Cultural Activities and Tourism—MiBACT—is not only responsible for the strategic task involved in the protection of an extremely rich cultural heritage, but has direct responsibility for the management of a huge number of national heritage institutions. Protection and Management is regulated by the Italian Code of the Cultural and Landscape Heritage (Legislative Decree n. 42/2004). Public expenditures, allocated by several levels of government, have traditionally been the primary source in supporting Cultural Heritage; however, they have been progressively reduced, with Italy being, among the EU states, one of those who spends less on culture, despite its extraordinary heritage [5].

As in other European countries, the involvement of private subjects (both profit and non-profit) in the preservation of Cultural Heritage has become a relevant issue. As several studies and reports in the field of Cultural Economics have highlighted for a long time, the traditional approach that considered this heritage as "immutable" has been overcome by an approach that recognizes its vitality or productivity [6], as well as its preservation, and is understood as a "productive" activity carried out for "social use" [7]. It is in this sense that the notion of valorization should be interpreted.

In Italy, the theme of valorization has been particularly debated since there is a "culture of conservation" that prevails and it enforces a very ancient legislative tradition (it starts from the period that precedes the unification of Italy, passing from the 1939 legislation), which must be "proudly" defended, but there was no a "culture of valorization". In other words, the country has invested very little in its cultural heritage. As set out in the Italian Code of the Cultural and Landscape Heritage, valorization (or enhancement) consists of the exercise of the functions and regulation of the activities aimed at promoting knowledge of the cultural heritage as well as ensuring the best conditions for the use and public enjoyment of the heritage. A private subject may concur, co-operate or participate in such activities. Then, in a purely economic interpretation, it is possible to consider valorization as a way for the "entrepreneurial" management of the cultural heritage, capable of producing revenues for its preservation or care [8]. It is important to underline that this interpretation does not aim to increase the market value attributable to cultural asset, but rather to attract resources for financing its conservation and accessibility [9], providing it with the "social plus value" [10].

This obviously represents the economic gain and the social benefit yielded through the conservation, which—as it obtains a greater value—may be also understood as valorization. According to the Council of Europe, "*private management is currently the most interesting area for involving the private sector in protection of the cultural heritage. It can take many forms and extend from management of State property to management of privately owned heritage*" [11]. In this perspective, among the different forms of management of cultural property undertaken by private initiatives introduced by the Italian Code and aimed at the valorization, are Sponsorship and Additional Services; both have been analyzed, highlighting some critical aspects [12,13].

The most recent government reform on the overall system of cultural goods and activities, launched by the MiBACT with an "Art Bonus" Decree (Legislative Decreen. 83/2014 and successive modifications) encourages cash donations for the care of public cultural property, trying to align Italy to others European countries, but not to the USA where the fiscal incentives for the historic preservation are, traditionally, so much more consistent [14]. Together with this innovative form of incentives, the Legislative Decree n. 83/2014 introduces the Strategic Plan for "Major Cultural Patrimony Projects", with the aim of identifying goods or sites of exceptional cultural interest and of national relevance for which it is necessary and urgent to realize organic interventions of conservation, requalification, valorization and cultural promotion for the tourism sector, assigning several resources. Further, in 2012, the Italian Revenue Agency, with Invitalia and ANCI and other institutional subjects, the "Valore Paese-Dimore" program for the valorization of historical–artistic public patrimony was promoted.

The program aims to develop and put at work publicly owned properties for tourist accommodation that are of particular historic and artistic merit and located in sites of significance in terms of the environment and landscape. Among several properties that fall under the portfolio of immovable cultural properties of the "Valore Paese-Dimore" program, there is the bourbon Villa Favorita in Ercolano, in the metropolitan city of Naples and in the territorial development system "Miglio d'Oro—Area Torrese Stabiese", the object of analysis in the next paragraphs.

If all these recent institutional initiatives regard the cultural property owned by the Italian State, the question of financing the valorization of cultural property owned by private subjects is far more delicate and complex. Private cultural properties have a normative treatment that is different from the other private goods, since they are of public relevance. In fact, private subjects, owners of historic proprieties (historical villas, castles, palace, etc.) are obliged, by law (Legislative Decree n. 42/2004), to conserve and maintain their properties. The ministry may contribute to the expenses, both with capital grants and interest subsidies.

The owners who have received contributions are obliged to make the property accessible to the public, according to the modalities fixed, case by case, by special conventions. For each kind of intervention, there is a need for authorization from the competent authority and for the sale of the property the state has the power to purchase it by pre-emption. Against conservation obligations, for which the private subject must maintain the property at its own expense and under its responsibility (also penal), traditionally the state reserves to the private owner a less burdensome tax regime, a sort of "compensation". Nevertheless, in the last years, private cultural properties are facing a number of important challenges to survive.

Specifically, the property tax of listed buildings, which in the past was calculated on the basis of a symbolic value, the so called "figurative rent" from 2012 with the "Salva Italia" Decree, has been increased dramatically, making the taxable income the effective rent. This increase of the tax burden on the historical properties, conjointly with the forthcoming cadastral reform and the many bureaucratic bonds, are making the maintenance and valorization of the cultural property owned by private entities even more difficult. Thus, the ADSI ("Associazione Dimore Storiche Italiane" or Italian Association of Historical Houses) proposal presented to the government in 2015 is particularly efficacious.

It consists of the reduction by 30% of the property tax (the IUC—"Imposta Comunale Unica" or Municipal Single Tax—introduced in 2014 by Italian Stability Law) for owners of historic properties under the condition that they have to invest not only into the restoration but also in the valorization of properties, improving the services for their enjoyment, setting up a network with other realties in the territory and promotional activities.

This means that all "additional services" according to the analysis could generate a VAT revenue capable of compensating for the reduction of the property tax, but also, in the best case, further revenues for the state to re-invest in activities of valorization, communication and education for the enjoyment of the cultural heritage, in the form of multiplier effects [15].

However in Italy, where the private cultural properties are consistent (only the Italian Historic Houses, monitored by ADSI, are estimated to be around 45–50 thousand and diffused on all the national territory), the listed buildings are not all valuable historical mansions, localized in the central areas of the cities. Many listed buildings are located in secondary villages, in rural areas or in small municipalities in each part of the country. If they are of historic and cultural interest, they are degraded and of scarce economic and income value, as is the system of Vesuvian Villas, in the metropolitan area of Naples (Campania region). The opportunity to deepen some aspects regarding the care of private cultural property [15] derives from the participation in the Campus Project "Urban Ecotourism for the sustainable use of cultural heritage in Campania" (in implementation of the Operational Program ERDF Campania 2007/2013), managed by the Regional Center of Competence Benecon (Cultural Heritage, Ecology, Economics), of which one of the partners is the University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli. The project in fact involves the development system "Miglio d'Oro—Area Torrese Stabiese", with 12 municipalities that constitute a "landscape–cultural mosaic" of considerable interest, where there are concentrated not only goods of "outstanding universal value" (the UNESCO sites of the archeological areas of Pompei, Ercolano and Torre Annunziata), but also immovable goods of notable cultural interest, both public and private, such as the historic houses (villas and mansions) with gardens annexed, some designed and realized by famous architects (Vanvitelli, Sanfelice, Fuga, Vaccaro etc.) and an expression of one of the most florid Neapolitan periods (the Bourbon age).

Some of these historic houses are part of Authority for Vesuvian Villas (now a Foundation) instituted with state Law no. 578/1971 that provides to conserve, restore and valorize them. In 1976, with the Ministerial Decree of constrain, the work of the authority started for the preservation of the 122 monumental buildings in the territory of the municipalities of Naples, San Giorgio a Cremano, Portici, Ercolano and Torre del Greco. Only a restricted number of these historical buildings have been restored and valorized, or are under transformation, as Villa Favorita in Ercolano thanks to the "Valore Paese-Dimore" program. Many others are in a serious condition, with physical and functional obsolescence or have been abandoned.

The case showed in this article was developed by the authors on the base of the application made by D'Alpaos et al., concerning the possibility of the reconversion of the historic Venetian villas as museums [16].

### **2. Multicriteria Decision Making**

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), developed by Saaty at the end of the 1970s, makes it possible to prioritize a series of alternative decisions or to relate criteria characterized by qualitative and quantitative evaluations (not directly comparable) combining multidimensional measure scales in a single scale of priorities [17].

The method is based on paired comparisons between the criteria, giving them a score of relative importance and ends with the assignment of a percentage weight.

The scores to be used for each comparison are arbitrary (random) and correspond to the number of quality levels to be considered during the pairwise comparisons.

The AHP uses an evaluation scale ranging from 1 to 9, where each ordinal number corresponds to the following values:


The same is for the inverse comparisons. The evaluation process is divided into phases:


The hierarchical organization of the AHP method allows a detailed decomposition of the problem in more levels.

The goal is set at the upper level of the structure; at the second level there are the objectives that specify the contents and meanings of the goal, factors, criteria or attributes that contribute to the result. Each of these can be subdivided into more specific elements. The actions to evaluate are located at the lowest level of the hierarchy.

The subdivision of the problem in successive phases permits to define a series of sub-problems with reduced dimensions and complexity.

Each problem is explained by the compilation of a matrix of comparison in pairs that identify the level of convenience and importance of the same criteria.

The matrix is made up of as many rows as there are actions and columns corresponding to the significant attributes for the solution of the problem.

The comparisons are formulated by a verbal judgment, which is associated with a corresponding numerical value. From all these comparisons it is possible to obtain a result. The "best" is the one characterized by the highest level of convenience.

To detect the consistence of the matrix it is possible to calculate an "index of inconsistency" that shows the divergence of the judgments expressed with respect to an ideal situation where the consistence is perfect.

Saaty defines the "index of inconsistency" as

$$II. = \frac{\lambda I - n}{n - I},$$

in which the term λ*l* is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix A and represents the size of the same matrix. Saaty has shown that the pairwise comparison matrix is perfectly consistent when I. I. is equal to 0; the same matrix is perfectly inconsistent when I.I. is equal to 1. Generally, the acceptability threshold of the index of inconsistency is 10%.

### **3. Vesuvian Villas and Model Application**

The study aims to assess the vocationality of the Vesuvian Villas chosen for conservative and economic reuse, using a set of indicators explaining the state of fact of the buildings and their location.

The heterogeneous nature of the criteria considered (technical, economic or social) makes useful the application of an evaluation method of multi-criteria analysis that allows to summarize and analyze at best such complex information.

This method is applied to five villas not managed by the Fondazione Ente Ville Vesuviane, chosen because they have fewer owners.

The villas are all built along Resina Street, the main street of Ercolano that houses most of the eighteenth-century villas. Their distance from the highway exit of Ercolano ranges from 950 m from Villa Giulio de la Ville to 1150 m from Villa Lucia. The villas are far from the archaeological site of Herculaneum, 500 m minimum, 1100 m maximum.

The five villas studied are


The number of owners of such dwellings varies from one to eleven.

### *3.1. The Vesuvian Villas System*

The Vesuvian Villas system is a symbol of richness of the eighteenth century.

They are in the Ercolano municipality, known in the 18th century as the "Golden Mile". It dates back to 1738, when Charles Bourbon decided to move his residence from Naples to Portici (a municipality without interruption of its continuity with Ercolano). Antonio Canevari and Antonio Medrano were the architects who built the Royal Palace of Portici. During all of the eighteenth century the area knew the greatest splendor, with new luxurious buildings and farms.

After the Second World War, the villas lost their main characteristics due to heavy urbanization. However, these buildings represent a unique concentrate, that can still be recognized today. The Vesuvian Villas are characterized by a central structure and a "double L" plan. Behind them, there are open spaces that define the atriums, the courtyards and the farms. The main façade can be oriented to the street (Golden Mile), to the sea, the Vesuvius or the countryside.

The villas have spectacular parks, with kiosks, fountains, seats and marble busts.

Inside the residences there are sculptures and frescoes with mythological and allegorical scenes. Unfortunately, in the nineteenth century a series of events changed the configuration of the Vesuvian Villas System a lot.

In 1844 the railway was built; in 1904 and 1925 the Circumvesuviana railway and highway constructions broke down the gardens of the most recent villas.

Now the buildings do not have the function for which they were built; most of them are used as rustic houses, warehouses, restaurants or museums.

Some of these are now managed by the Fondazione Ente Ville Vesuviane, established on 29 July 1971 with Law n. 578/1971. This foundation was created to list, safeguard and enhance the conspicuous artistic and architectural heritage of the 122 Vesuvian Villas located between Naples and the province along the Golden Mile.
