**The Analysis of Urban Fluvial Landscapes in the Centre of Spain, Their Characterization, Values and Interventions**


Received: 5 May 2020; Accepted: 29 May 2020; Published: 7 June 2020

**Abstract:** River areas are undoubtedly among the most valuable territorial areas in Europe, not only in terms of their eco-landscape and use but also, culturally. However, there is currently a sharp reduction in the extension and increase of deterioration of riverbanks around the world. A substantial part of losses and deterioration are associated with the artificialization of the territories, derived mainly from a less than respectful urbanization around these landscapes. Urban and peri-urban riverbanks are landscapes in expansion due to the continuous growth of built-up spaces. Therefore, they should be areas of preferential consideration, especially in territories with a marked tendency to dryness, like the centre of the Iberian Peninsula. This article aims to contribute to our understanding of these spaces through the study of four distinct cases in the centre of the peninsula, in particular: the river Manzanares running through the city of Madrid, the river Tagus in Toledo and running through Talavera de la Reina, and the river Henares in Guadalajara. Three of the four urban water courses analyzed are zones of special interest for waterfowl: they sustain a winter population that varies between 745 and 1529 birds and they provide a home to some globally threatened species. The density of the riparian birds is also very high during winter, these values oscillating between a mean of 141.16 and 240.12 birds/10 ha. It should be noted that the diversity of this group of birds in the four regions studies is also high (H > 2.4 nats). The article also examines the interventions and the urban planning criteria applied to these urban and peri-urban river spaces, inferring the need to reassess urban planning in river areas to ensure it is compatible with their operation, values and possible uses.

**Keywords:** urban rivers; urban planning; cultural landscape; natural landscape; waterfowl; riparian birds

#### **1. Introduction**

River landscapes are among those most affected by human intervention around the world [1–4], especially in historically longstanding urban areas where their alteration dates back many centuries [5]. All over the planet, rivers and their associated landscapes have been affected by intense fragmentation processes, which cause significant simplification and a loss of connectivity. This circumstance limits the river's ability to flow uninterrupted and it affects many of their fundamental processes and functions. Accordingly, it produces a rapid decline in biodiversity [6] and in essential ecosystem

services [7]. Moreover, the occupation of areas near riverbanks by infrastructures often intensifies these processes [8].

River areas are very valuable areas in terms of their use and ecology, as well as culturally [9–12]. Indeed, riverbanks are considered to be the most diverse, dynamic, and complex terrestrial habitats on earth [13], and to be true accumulators of history. Like all landscapes, riverbanks are laden with objective and subjective value, derived from the elements they contain and from the cultural references they have accumulated [14]. These values are typical of the most natural spaces that are well-preserved and only sporadically affected by human pressure. However, they are also characteristic of other less well valued river areas, such as those located in areas that have received intense intervention and that have been modified most significantly by human activity, the greatest example of which are probably urban areas.

Urban river spaces, like other green areas and free spaces within cities, sustain species of fauna and flora typical of non-urbanized environments [15], sometimes even rare or globally threatened species [16]. The presence of these elements often reflects the complexity of these spaces, as well as bearing witness to the persistence of natural remnants [17–19] and the density of the vegetation [20]. In terms of biodiversity, riverbanks are areas of particular interest, although except for some groups of vertebrates like birds [21–24], their potential has not been widely explored [25,26]. However, river ecosystems are also very vulnerable to invasion by non-indigenous species [27], the presence of such exotic species generating problems for the conservation of biodiversity [28].

Although rivers and their banks are areas of special value, their proximity or position within the built-up space generates multiple problems and tensions [29], which are generally associated with a reduction in their area and the loss of specific values (environmental, territorial, landscape, and cultural). In particular, the impact of human activities produces a significant homogenization and a reduction of riparian vegetation [30], as well as reducing their possibilities to serve as spaces for public use. Their conservation is justified for diverse reasons, including the preservation of local biodiversity, the creation of transitional territories and areas of extra-urban habitats, or to understand and facilitate responses to climate change [31].

The marked reduction in the extension of riverbanks is a widespread global process and it is evidence of their deterioration. There have been very intense losses of this type of landscape in Europe, with an estimated decrease of 12% (7508 ha) during the period 1987–2000. In Spain, this has affected more than 2 million hectares, which represents approximately 4% of the Spanish territory [32]. A substantial part of these losses are associated with the artificialisation of these territories, mainly derived from disrespectful urbanization of these landscapes [33]. In this sense, urbanization currently represents the most relevant territorial action on the planet. In Europe, where 74% of the population lives in urban areas [34], the extent of urbanization is quite dominant. Indeed, Spain has experienced significant urban concentration in the 20th century [35], generating extensive and dense metropolitan areas such as the administrative region of Madrid. This metropolitan area is the third largest in the European Union in terms of the number of inhabitants, after Paris and London [36,37].

The continuous expansion of urban areas ultimately increases the extension of urban riverbanks. These spaces are in many cases areas of risk that are difficult to integrate into the urban fabric due to their configuration, characteristics, and hydrological and geomorphological nature. They are also commonly areas of marginal use, often occupied by less-favoured social groups, living in substandard houses on the river banks, and they are essentially residual spaces in part due to the threat and risk posed by periods when the rivers are in full flow. In Spain, they have been, and still are, territories separated from urban spaces in our minds, often existing at the limits of those urban spaces and with no specific public use. Thus, they are poorly integrated in the best-case scenario, and often completely abandoned. These circumstances have led to the non-formal occupation of flood plains in urban and peri-urban areas [38], causing a marginal and often private use of these public spaces. In Spain, the limited connection between the cities that border the rivers that flow through them has, in most cases, generated strong social detachment [39]. This phenomenon is almost certainly associated with

the perceived risk traditionally posed by proximity to river courses, which has traditionally manifested itself in neglect and degradation of the fluvial territory, and its poor integration into the urban fabric. To mitigate the impact of this situation, it would be useful to integrate societal considerations into the management models of these spaces, as occurs in some river reserves in Europe and the United States [40].

The tensions and threats that affect these spaces are also related to the profound alteration of river systems, most notably, the poor water quality, the loss of water resources, the morphological alteration of rivers, and modifications to the hydrological and hydraulic characteristics of the river course. Water is the driving force upon which the operation of river systems depends, and the changes to the hydrological and hydraulic behaviour of river courses in central Spain have been quite intense [41]. One example is the River Tagus that passes through the city of Toledo, where the average annual flow contribution at the Toledo gauging station fails to reach 40% of the estimated contribution in a natural regime (3256.93 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup><sup>6</sup> hm<sup>3</sup> ) [32], a value that decreases to 29.1% in the latest available data for the hydrological year 2008–2009 [42].

The reduced flood risk in the centre of Spain has favored occupation of the flood plains associated with river courses in urban areas, as well as the alteration of canals. In general, the environmental and landscape value of these areas has generally diminished [43]. However, river spaces are also areas of clear opportunity that must be properly considered, understood, and managed in urban and territorial planning, both locally and regionally. This is particularly relevant in terms of public use, intervention, landscape recovery, and conservation of environmental diversity. In Spain, fluvial territories in general, and the urban river territory in particular, are largely public land integrated into the Public Hydrological Domain (which governs the public water supply).

Despite the intense occupation of these areas, there are often semi-natural remnants lying between infrastructures that are little occupied. Riverbanks are also key areas for the conservation of environmental and landscape diversity, as indicated by the European Biodiversity Strategy [44] or the European Landscape Convention [45], with significant environmental value and potential and, in general, with a strong potential for regeneration, even in the case of heavily intervened banks. They are undoubtedly key spaces for the recovery of ecological, landscape, and territorial connectivity, in the sense specified in the EU Strategy on Green Infrastructure [46], and they are easy to recover through low-cost interventions. In Spain, urban riverbanks, like all riverbanks, fall under a specific regulatory framework for water courses and fluvial territories [47], which clearly provides legal protection for many actions, especially those carried out under the governance of the Public Hydrological Domain.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

This study analyzes and assesses the treatment given to stretches of four Spanish rivers in four projects that specifically centred on those fluvial territories. An environmental characterization of the study areas was initially performed, considering the value of each area for waterfowl and riparian birds during the winter 2019–2020, and also the general structure of the landscape and the presence of habitats included in Annex I of the Directive 92/43. This characterization allows us to assess the impact of the projects undertaken by applying objective criteria, and to estimate their potential impact while they are still in the design phase.

#### *2.1. Study Area*

The four stretches of urban river (Figure 1, Table 1) selected for study were situated in the Tagus Hydrographic Basin on the banks of the rivers Manzanares, Henares, and Tagus, lying in the provinces of Madrid and Castilla-La Mancha (Central Spain). These four river sections were chosen based on our interest in analyzing comparable urban river spaces in similar or assimilable landscape contexts, which are also representative of the characteristic of the urban river landscapes in central Spain (Figure 2). All the cases analyzed are situated in the same climatic (Continental Mediterranean) [48] and

morphostructural context (Tertiary Sedimentary Tagus Basin or Madrid Basin) [49], passing through large (Madrid) or intermediate cities (Guadalajara, Toledo, and Talavera) that are representative of the different urban and demographic configurations and dynamics in Central Spain [50]. The rivers analyzed are courses of different hydrological entities that are subject to disparate regulation at their headwaters, as already indicated, and all are integrated into the Tagus Hydrographic Basin. *Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 32 regulation at their headwaters, as already indicated, and all are integrated into the Tagus Hydrographic Basin.

**Figure 1.** Location of study areas. 1. Henares (Guadalajara); 2. Manzanares (Madrid); 3. Tagus **Figure 1.** Location of study areas. 1. Henares (Guadalajara); 2. Manzanares (Madrid); 3. Tagus (Toledo); and 4. Tagus (Talavera de la Reina).

(Toledo); and 4. Tagus (Talavera de la Reina). **Table 1.** Basic characteristics of the river stretches analyzed. Source: demographic information [51], **Table 1.** Basic characteristics of the river stretches analyzed. Source: demographic information [51], hydrological data [43].


(**a**) (**b**)

**Figure 2.** The rivers analyzed. Upper left, (**a**) *Populus alba* forest on the Henares river (5/12/2017). Upper right (**b**), the Manzanares river channel at the Segovia Bridge (14/1/2020). Lower left (**c**), the Tagus river in Toledo at the level of the "Artilleros" dam (16/1/2018). Lower right (**d**), a mixed forest of *Populus alba* and *Salix alba* on the Tagus river in Talavera de la Reina (25/2/2020). **Figure 2.** The rivers analyzed. Upper left, (**a**) *Populus alba* forest on the Henares river (5/12/2017). Upper right (**b**), the Manzanares river channel at the Segovia Bridge (14/1/2020). Lower left (**c**), the Tagus river in Toledo at the level of the "Artilleros" dam (16/1/2018). Lower right (**d**), a mixed forest of *Populus alba* and *Salix alba* on the Tagus river in Talavera de la Reina (25/2/2020).

#### 2.1.1. River Manzanares in Madrid 2.1.1. River Manzanares in Madrid

The stretch of the river Manzanares chosen for study was a 6.86 km urban section channelled over 5.57 km and limited by a breakwater over 1.29 km after intense intervention from 1946 [52]. Associated with this canalisation, 9 small dams were built that transformed the river into a succession of bound water canals, thereby eliminating sections of rapid-flow. After the opening of the dams, the canalisation of the river course has become the main reason for the loss of its natural aspect, as well as provoking alterations to its hydrological and hydraulic characteristics. The closest gauging station is located 7 km upstream from the starting point of the river stretch studied, where an average annual contribution of 66.92 × 10<sup>6</sup> m<sup>3</sup> was recorded (1987–2008). The last gauging station is situated 19.6 km downstream of the southern limit of the study area, where the Manzanares reaches 410.12 × 10<sup>6</sup> m<sup>3</sup> after receiving only 4.9 × 10<sup>6</sup> m<sup>3</sup> from the "Culebro" stream or arroyo. This increase, six times higher than the contribution of the river in the city of Madrid, is due to water discharge from the city and the sanitation system in its immediate metropolitan area. In the section studied, the river lacks forest and riparian vegetation on its banks as it borders urbanized or landscaped areas. There are also nineteen footbridges and four historical bridges: the Queen Victoria (1908–1909), King's (1815–1816), The stretch of the river Manzanares chosen for study was a 6.86 km urban section channelled over 5.57 km and limited by a breakwater over 1.29 km after intense intervention from 1946 [52]. Associated with this canalisation, 9 small dams were built that transformed the river into a succession of bound water canals, thereby eliminating sections of rapid-flow. After the opening of the dams, the canalisation of the river course has become the main reason for the loss of its natural aspect, as well as provoking alterations to its hydrological and hydraulic characteristics. The closest gauging station is located 7 km upstream from the starting point of the river stretch studied, where an average annual contribution of 66.92 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup><sup>6</sup> <sup>m</sup><sup>3</sup> was recorded (1987–2008). The last gauging station is situated 19.6 km downstream of the southern limit of the study area, where the Manzanares reaches 410.12 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup><sup>6</sup> <sup>m</sup><sup>3</sup> after receiving only 4.9 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup><sup>6</sup> <sup>m</sup><sup>3</sup> from the "Culebro" stream or arroyo. This increase, six times higher than the contribution of the river in the city of Madrid, is due to water discharge from the city and the sanitation system in its immediate metropolitan area. In the section studied, the river lacks forest and riparian vegetation on its banks as it borders urbanized or landscaped areas. There are also nineteen footbridges and four historical bridges: the Queen Victoria (1908–1909), King's (1815–1816), Segovia (1574–1577), and Toledo

Segovia (1574–1577), and Toledo (1715–1722) bridges [53]. After the completion of the "Madrid Río"

landscaping project, the whole section became an area of intense recreational use.

(1715–1722) bridges [53]. After the completion of the "Madrid Río" landscaping project, the whole section became an area of intense recreational use.

#### 2.1.2. River Henares in Guadalajara

A 1.47 km urban stretch of the river Henares in the city of Guadalajara was studied. This section was very well preserved until 2019, protected on its entire left bank by a continuous embankment that separates the free zone of the river from the urban territory. Both riverbanks are occupied by an authentic *Populus alba* forest, a habitat included in Annex I of Directive 92/43/EC. There are no structures spanning this section, which today is an urban park. Unlike the section studied, the river sections located outside the limits of the Guadalajara municipality, upstream and downstream, are included in the ZEC Ribera de Henares ES4240003 [54], all of which share similar values. The average annual contribution at the closest gauging station reaches 29.12 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup><sup>6</sup> <sup>m</sup><sup>3</sup> .

#### 2.1.3. The River Tagus in Toledo

The urban river section studied was a 6.36 km stretch, open in sedimentary materials, and partly embedded in granitoids, leukogranites, and pegmatites (Carboniferous-Paleozoic) [55]. The entire riverbank maintains a narrow and discontinuous canopy of *Populus alba, Populus nigra, Salix alba, Tamarix africana,* and *Tamarix canariensis*, a habitat included in Annex I of Directive 92/43/EC, as well as dense masses of marsh vegetation (*Phragmites australis* and *Typha domingensis*). There are remains of 14 water mills preserved along this section, some originating from the 9th century [56], and seven weirs that reduce the course of the river to a slow flow. There are river islands of great interest downstream of three of the weirs, one a refuge to an interesting heron colony (*Ardea cinerea, Bubulbus ibis,* and *Nycticorax nycticorax*). There are five bridges along this stretch of the river, including the historical bridge of "Alcántara" (of Roman origin but rebuilt in the 10th century) and the bridge of San Martín, for which an exact date of construction has not been established but that was cited as long ago as 1165 [57]. The average annual hydrological contribution in the section is 1126.05 <sup>×</sup> <sup>10</sup><sup>6</sup> <sup>m</sup><sup>3</sup> for the period 1987–2008. The entire stretch analyzed is a space used intensely by the local population for recreational activities and also, by a significant number of visitors since Toledo is a World Heritage City [58] (913,796 overnight stays in 2019) [59].

#### 2.1.4. The River Tagus in Talavera de la Reina

The section studied here is a 4.56 km urban and peri-urban stretch that houses four weirs, which reduce the flow of the river to predominantly slow. The urban façade occupies 2.95 km of the right bank and 565.2 m of the left bank. There is intense recreational activity on both margins, a historic pedestrian bridge (Puente Viejo "the Old Bridge", XIII century) [60], and three bridges for vehicles along this section. The section houses two large islands (47.65 ha, 66.47 ha), on which 35% of their surface area is covered by alluvial forests and mosaic forests, dominated by *Populus alba, Populus nigra, Salix alba, Tamarix africana,* and *Tamarix canariensis*, and structured into three large groves (18.34 ha, 14.98 ha, and 6.8 ha). The remaining 65% (74 ha) is covered by open woodland (tree density ≤25%), pastures of diverse nature, and masses of marsh vegetation. The banks of the bankfull channel maintain a meagre arboreal–arborescent canopy made up of the aforementioned species.

#### *2.2. Data Collection from the Natural Environment*

The analysis of the natural environment provides data from the wintering waterfowl and forest–marsh communities, as well as the basic structure of the vegetation. Monthly censuses were carried out between December 2019 and February 2020 to study the bird communities. The censuses of forest–marsh birds was carried out using "census itineraries" [61], with a main counting strip of 25 + 25 m, the results of which are expressed as global numbers (abundance, a), number of species (richness, r), and birds/10 ha (density, d). Waterfowl censuses are global counts performed in accordance with the "field protocol for water bird counting" [62], expressed as the global figures (abundance a: total number of waterfowl; richness r: number of species) or as birds per km of river (density d: birds/km). The length of the stretches examined did not extend over the entire river sections analyzed, except for the river Manzanares, whereas the waterfowl censuses did cover the entirety of the sections (Table 2). The diversity of the communities is calculated according to the Shannon index [63] (H), using a Napierian logarithm (expressed in nats). The values of abundance and density in the different zones were compared using a Kruskall–Wallis Test (K). To only compare two series of values, a Kolmogorov–Smirnov (D) Test was used in the case of independent samples and a Student *t*-test (t) for paired simples. The Statgraphics Centurion 18© software and Microsoft Excel 2016© were used to manage the data and to perform the aforementioned tests.



For each species, its Status and SPEC Category in Europe is indicated, and the categories recognized in the study area were [64]:

European Population Status Category [65]:


The species included in Annex I of the Directive 2009/147/EC (Birds Directive) are also cited [68], "Those that shall be the subject of special conservation measures concerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution." (Article 1.4). To determine the structure of the vegetation and the landscapes, a basic analysis was carried out to identify 16 categories.

	- Sandbanks and water cover.
	- Rockfill/sandbanks with scattered trees.
	- Marsh vegetation: dense masses of *Typha domingensis*, *Phragmites australis*, at times with *Schoenoplectus lacustris*, often accompanied by hygrithrophilous species (*Rumex cristatus*, *Rumex crispus*, *Polygonum persicaria*, and *Polygonum lapathifolium*).
	- Sandbanks with marsh vegetation.
	- Wooded areas: arboreal–arborescent groves and canopies with at least 40% coverage, dominated by *Populus alba*, *Populus nigra*, *Salix alba*, and *Tamarix canariensis*, sometimes with

*Tamarix africana*, *Fraxinus angustifolia, Salix purpurea*, and *Salix salviifolia*. Allochtonous or hybrid elements often appear (*Platanus* × *hybrida*, *Robinia pseudoacacia*, *Gleditsia triacanthos*, *Ailanthus altissima*, *Ulmus pumila*, *Populus* × *canadensis*, and *Eleagnus angustifolia*).


These areas were defined by a buffer of 200 meters on each side of the central axis of the channel, which in the case of a canalized channel was adjusted to the canalised banks (i.e., river Manzanares). Within this buffer the land use was photointerpreted, generally involving the area of the floodplain nearest to the main channel. This process was carried out on the 1:5000 orthophotographs obtained as part of the Spanish National Plan of Aerial Orthophotography by the National Geographic Institute, available in ECW file format from 2012. The information was coded on the basis of the estimated proportion of the covered space dedicated to each use, differentiating a total of 16 categories, where single-use or mosaic polygons were also contemplated. The ArcGis 10.5 © software was used to perform digitization, coding, and topological validation, and to produce the shapefile format for the layer of results obtained (Figures A1–A4).

The habitats included in Annex I of Directive 92/42/EC [69] were also considered for each study area.

### *2.3. Project Reviews*

In the case of the work carried out between 2016 and 2019 on the river Manzanares in Madrid, the plan for Naturalization of the Manzanares as it passes through the city of Madrid was examined [70], while some complementary field work was also carried out. In the case of Toledo, the initial document of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the project to integrate the river Tagus into the city of Toledo was examined [71]. The information analyzed in the study of the River Henares in Guadalajara came from the city's Strategy for Sustainable Urban Development [72], which was complemented by field work as the project is currently being carried out. Finally, for the actions proposed in Talavera de la Reina, the report and plans that form part of the technical proposal that adjudicated the project following the international call for ideas were consulted [73]. In addition, abundant auxiliary information was evaluated, such as news reports in the press, debate forums, consultations with the European Parliament, etc. [74–76]. A synthesis of the collected data is available in Appendix B.

#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. Analysis of the Cases*

In May 2016, the Madrid City Council began to implement the measures included in the "Plan for Renaturalization of the River Manzanares as it passes through the city of Madrid." This was a plan based on the proposal that the group "Ecologists in Action" sent to the City Hall in January of that same year. The measures undertaken did not involve large construction work and no new structures were built (Table A1). The techniques employed in the canals were based on bioengineering principles, which involve using natural materials or those that are biodegradable in the short or mid-term.

The Integrated Strategy for Sustainable Urban Development of the municipality of Guadalajara was approved in December 2016, and it included a set of actions aimed at, "Recovering the land occupied by the right bank of the River Henares from the neighborhood of 'Los Manantiales' to the 'Finca de Castillejos' [72]." Under this undefined objective, "Recovery" work on the right bank of the river Henares, between the "Arab bridge" and the "Julián Basteiro bridge" was proposed and executed. Among the work undertaken, urbanization and gardening actions were implemented under the auspices of the Public Hydrological Domain between October 2018 and May 2019 (Table A2). This work, with a total cost of €1,438,277.90, was 80% co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund. According to various publications in the media, the action implemented is far from that indicated in the application submitted to the European Union for co-financing, in which the main objective was the environmental recovery of the river Henares and the increase in its biodiversity. In this sense, on 25 October 2018, the Equo European parliamentarian, Florent Marcellesi, registered two questions in the European Parliament related to the legitimacy of the actions undertaken with the co-financing of ERDF funds. In December of the same year, the Parliament responded by stating that, "According to the Spanish authorities, the project implemented by the City Council received authorization from the Tagus Hydrographic Confederation, yet it does not currently meet the requirements necessary to obtain EU funding". At the time this response was registered, the works were fully underway, and the site had put up a sign indicating the European co-financing received.

The notification by the Tagus Hydrographic Confederation of the results of the "International Call for Ideas and Projects aimed at integrating the river Tagus into the city of Toledo," presided over by a panel of judges, took place in December 2009 (BOE no. 289, 1 December, 2009). However, it was not until 2014 that the project chosen was released into the public domain [71]. The project proposed an extensive, intense, and ambitious program of actions along 43 km of the river's course as it runs through the municipality of Toledo. However, it is in the urban section of the city of Toledo where the project is most intense, in part due to the profound modifications to the existing configuration of the river's course, considering the implementation of important interventions, such as earth movements and the construction of concrete structures (Table A3).

The final criterion to define the appropriate actions was to protect this space against floods over a 100-year return period, with reference to other considerations like the volume of earth filling required or the degree of transformation of the current environment. Likewise, the landscape relevance in the intervention was prioritized over its integration into the environment, as witnessed by the choice of the geometry of the river walk, which was built using concrete flagstones with an angular broken geometry that will intentionally be perceived as a clearly artificial and autonomous element of the landscape [71]

In January 2018, the Tagus Hydrographic Confederation unveiled the winning proposal in the "International Call for Ideas and Projects aimed at recovering the banks of the rivers Tagus and Alberche in the municipality of Talavera de la Reina." It was the so-called "When the river sounds" ("Cuando el río suena") idea, submitted by a temporary union of three architectural and engineering consultancy companies [73]. The action proposed covers an extended stretch of the river, from the mouth of the river Alberche to the natural site known as the "Charca del Cura", passing through the urban section of the city of Talavera. The actions are quite diverse in nature and scope, depending on the proximity to

the urban nucleus, although in general terms they involve a permeation of flow towards well-preserved *Sustainability* river spaces that are currently di **2020** fficult to access (Figure 3, Table A4). , *12*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 32

**Figure 3.** Interventions proposed in the planned rehabilitation project for the riverbanks and islands of the river Tagus in Talavera de la Reina [73]. **Figure 3.** Interventions proposed in the planned rehabilitation project for the riverbanks and islands of the river Tagus in Talavera de la Reina [73].

#### *3.2. Basic Structure of the Landscape 3.2. Basic Structure of the Landscape*

When the 16 landscape categories identified were considered (Appendix A), the river landscape at the four study areas did not show significant differences (*K* = 4.57*; p* > 0.05). The landscape of the Tagus river bank in Talavera was the most diverse (H = 1.95), followed by that of the river Henares (H = 1.83), of the river Tagus in Toledo (H = 1.59), and finally, that of the river Manzanares (H = 0.83). When the 16 landscape categories identified were considered (Appendix A), the river landscape at the four study areas did not show significant differences (*K* = 4.57; *p* > 0.05). The landscape of the Tagus river bank in Talavera was the most diverse (H = 1.95), followed by that of the river Henares (H = 1.83), of the river Tagus in Toledo (H = 1.59), and finally, that of the river Manzanares (H = 0.83). Nevertheless, all have low values of diversity.

Nevertheless, all have low values of diversity. Due to its structure and composition, the landscape of the river Manzanares as a whole differs from the other river landscapes analyzed, with the proximity between the two sections of the river Tagus representing the maximum. In the river Henares, landscaped and artificial surfaces occupy a large area (49%), along with wooded areas (20%). The wooded areas, in their different categories, are precisely the larger areas in the two sections of the river Tagus analyzed. The river Manzanares is quite different to the other river courses in terms of landscape. This is largely due to the dominance of the categories, "Sandbank and water cover" (>60%) and "Sandbanks with marsh vegetation" (>25%), that developed on the canalised river bed after the opening of the nine dams that exist in the Due to its structure and composition, the landscape of the river Manzanares as a whole differs from the other river landscapes analyzed, with the proximity between the two sections of the river Tagus representing the maximum. In the river Henares, landscaped and artificial surfaces occupy a large area (49%), along with wooded areas (20%). The wooded areas, in their different categories, are precisely the larger areas in the two sections of the river Tagus analyzed. The river Manzanares is quite different to the other river courses in terms of landscape. This is largely due to the dominance of the categories, "Sandbank and water cover" (>60%) and "Sandbanks with marsh vegetation" (>25%), that developed on the canalised river bed after the opening of the nine dams that exist in the section analyzed.

#### section analyzed. *3.3. Waterfowl and Riparian Birds*

the Tagus analyzed (D = 0.25; p = 0.2710).

*3.3. Waterfowl and Riparian Birds*  The three study areas are not equally important to waterfowl, as reflected in the significant differences between the mean values of abundance (K = 36.20; *p* < 0.005) and density (K = 31.09; *p* < 0.005). The Manzanares river maintains the largest (a = 1528.00 ± 523.51) and most dense (d = 222.7 ± 94.94) wintering population of waterfowl, followed by the river Tagus in Talavera (a = 1131 ± 859.53; d = 178.85 ± 86.10) and in Toledo (a = 745.33 ± 358.04; d = 178.29 ± 56.12). The river Henares was always the river course with the lowest waterfowl values, with very low global figures below 20 birds. As expected, there were no significant differences in the wintering populations at the two stretches of The three study areas are not equally important to waterfowl, as reflected in the significant differences between the mean values of abundance (K = 36.20; *p* < 0.005) and density (K = 31.09; *p* < 0.005). The Manzanares river maintains the largest (a = 1528.00 ± 523.51) and most dense (d = 222.7 ± 94.94) wintering population of waterfowl, followed by the river Tagus in Talavera (a = 1131 ± 859.53; d = 178.85 ± 86.10) and in Toledo (a = 745.33 ± 358.04; d = 178.29 ± 56.12). The river Henares was always the river course with the lowest waterfowl values, with very low global figures below 20 birds. As expected, there were no significant differences in the wintering populations at the two stretches of the Tagus analyzed (D = 0.25; p = 0.2710).

highest global figures were always obtained in January: 1915 birds for the Manzanzares, 1110 birds

There was a marked variability in the density and abundance values (see Tables A5–A7). This is because the values for the month of February, quite late in winter, were included in the analysis. The highest global figures were always obtained in January: 1915 birds for the Manzanzares, 1110 birds for the Tagus in Talavera, and 915 birds for the Tagus in Toledo. The values for the river Henares are irrelevant as they never exceeded 55 birds a month.

The mean richness values were high for the river Tagus in Talavera (r = 19.67 ± 1.53) and Toledo (r = 19.00 ± 2.65), they were in the mid-range for the river Manzanares (r = 10.67 ± 2.52), and very low for the river Henares (r < 4). This distribution approximates very well to the H diversity index, although in this case the river Tagus is the river registering the highest values (H = 2.06 ± 0.24), which are very close to those of the river Tagus in Talavera (H = 2.03 ± 0.14). There is a very strong positive correlation between richness and diversity (r<sup>s</sup> = 0.99; p < 0.05), and a moderate positive correlation between density and diversity (r<sup>s</sup> = 0.59; p < 0.05). For the river Manzanares, the high density (birds/km) of *Chroicocephalus ridibundus* (d = 99.95 ± 60.03), *Anas platyrhynchos* (d = 40.38 ± 4.40), *Gallinula chloropus* (d = 20.85 ± 6.35), and *Larus fuscus* (d = 54.86 ± 43.69) was particularly notable. For the river Tagus in Toledo, *Fulica atra* (d = 17.92 ± 14.38), *Anas platyrhynchos* (d = 17.61 ± 11.87), *Chroicocephalus ridibundus* (d = 16.77 ± 14.95), and *Phalacrocorax carbo* (d = 16.93 ± 6.49) were dominant. For the river Tagus in Talavera, the dominant species were *Fulica atra* (d = 45.10 ± 31.49), *Phalacrocorax carbo* (d = 34.87 ± 14.67), *Anas platyrhynchos* (d = 26.32 ± 16.86), and *Chroicocephalus ridibundus* (d = 60,67 sd > X).

The natural and semi-natural spaces of the four fluvial territories studied host important populations of forest and marsh birds. Unlike waterfowl, there were no significant differences in the abundances of these species (K = 1331; p > 0.05). The maximum density values (birds/10 ha) were registered on the banks of the river Tagus in Talavera (d = 240.12 ± 80.88), followed by those on the banks of the river Manzanares (d = 172.64 ± 27.11), the river Henares (d = 151.02 ± 27.18), and the river Tagus in Toledo (d = 141.16 ± 27.11). The richness values range from a maximum of 28.33 species (Toledo) to a minimum of 21 species (Henares). In terms of diversity, the maximum was recorded in Talavera (H = 2.9) and the minimum in the river Manzanares (H = 2.44). These values were on the whole strongly positively correlated with the structural diversity in the areas studied (r<sup>s</sup> = 0.87; p < 0.05). The dominant species on the banks of the river Henares were *Columba palumbus* (d = 31.29 ± 8.92), *Turdus merula* (d = 11.34 ± 3.42), *Erithacus rubecula* (d = 11.34 ± 1.57), and *Aegithalos caudatus* (d = 11.79 ± 5.66). Those on the banks of the river Manzanares were *Columba livia domestica* (d = 52.75 ± 11.73), *Passer domesticus* (d = 27.79 ± 8.67), *Sturnus unicolor* (d = 9.72 ± 6.35), and *Pica pica* (d = 7.58 ± 4.31). On the banks of the river Tagus in Toledo, *Columba livia domestica* (d = 20.79 ± 5.73), *Columba palumbus* (d = 16.38 ± 2.43), *Passer domesticus* (d = 13.07 ± 0.98), and *Phylloscopus collybita* (d = 11.97 ± 1.44). On the Tagus river banks in Talavera, *Passer montanus* (d = 30.41 ± 9.96), *Columba palumbus* (d = 20.87 ± 11.91), *Passer domesticus* (d = 19.68 ± 1.79), and *Sturnus unicolor* (d = 19.08 ± 16.91). In general, these are species typical of humanized environments, except for those on the banks of the Henares where forestry elements dominate.

#### *3.4. Sensitive Species and Habitats Included in Annex I of the Habitat Directive*

Sensitive species, according to the Annex I of the Birds Directive, represented 17.01% of the 21 species identified in the four study areas, which fall within the unfavorable or threatened SPEC category in Europe (Table 3). In addition, seven habitats were recognized as corresponding to those in Annex I of the Habitat Directive, although only three were cited in the official cartography of the Spanish Inventory of Terrestrial Habitats [77] (Table 4).


**Table 3.** Protected, threatened, or declining bird species in the study areas during 2019–2020 wintering: (1) Annex I Bird Directive; (2) Status in Europe—VU Vulnerable, D Declining, and NT Near Threatened; and (3) SPEC (Species of European Conservation Concern).

**Table 4.** Habitat of Annex I of the Habitat Directive and communities: [EUc] Habitat code of the European Union [69], (Sc) Spanish habitat code [77]. HRN, Henares river; MNZ, Manzanares river; TTO, Tagus river in Toledo; and TTA, Tagus river in Talavera (\*) [78].

[EUc 3250] Constantly flowing Mediterranean rivers with *Glaucium flavum* (Sc 225011) *Andryaletum ragusinae* Br.-Bl. & O. Bolòs 1958: HNR, TTO, TTA.

[EUc 3280] Constantly flowing Mediterranean rivers with *Paspalo-Agrostidion* species and hanging curtains of *Salix* and *Populus alba*

(Sc 228012) *Ranunculo scelerati-Paspaletum paspalodis* Rivas Goday 1964 corr. Peinado, Bartolomé, Martínez-Parras & Ollala 1988: HNR, MNZ, TTO, TTA.

[EUc 7210] Calcareous fens with *Cladium mariscus* and species of the *Caricion davallianae* (Sc 621123) Reedbeds with *Schoenoplectus lacustris*: HNR, TTO (\*), TTA.

[EUc 92A0] *Salix alba, Salix* sp. *and Populus alba galleries* (Sc 82A056) *Salicetum salviifoliae* Oberdorfer and Tüxen in Tüxen and Oberdorfer 1958: MNZ. (Sc) *Salicion salviifoliae* Rivas-Martínez, T.E. Díaz, F. Prieto, Loidi & Penas 1984: HNR.

[EUc 92D0] Mediterranean riparian galleries (*Nerio-Tamariceteae*) and south-west Iberian Peninsula riparian galleries (*Securinegion tinctoriae*)

(Sc 82D013) *Tamarix canariensis*, *Tamarix gallica* and *Tamarix africana* Grove: HNR\*, TTO (\*), TTA.

[EUc 6420] Mediterranean tall humid grasslands of the *Molinio-Holoschoenion*

(Sc 542015) *Holoschoenetum vulgaris* Br.-Bl. ex Tchou 1948: HNR, TTO, TTA.

(Sc 54201P) *Trifolio resupinati-Holoschoenetum* Rivas Goday 1964: MZN.

[EUc 6430] Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine level (Sc 543135) *Myrrhoidi nodosae-Alliarietum petiolatae* Rivas-Martínez & Mayor ex V. Fuente 1986. HNR, TTO, TTA. (Sc 543110) *Convolvulion sepium* Tüxen 1947: HRN, TTO, TTA.

#### **4. Discussion**

The recovery of river spaces in urban areas is one of the most useful tools for the conservation of biodiversity [79], particularly due to their intrinsic value and importance as a functional connector between residual natural elements. However, the treatment given to urban riverbanks, frequently proposed in terms of "restoration", does not usually consider the intrinsic value of these areas, their characteristics or their singularities. While the environmental and socio-economic objectives of any such intervention should be mutually beneficial [38], they are often disconnected.

Three of the four cases considered here are good examples of this, as they cause or will cause a high degree of artificialization and an objective loss of value in the affected river territories. Like other far-reaching interventions [80,81], these have completely ignored the local river landscape, its value, dynamics, and its ecoterritorial and landscape context. Indeed, as indicated in various studies [8–84], the concept of "river restoration" is used to refer to projects of a quite diverse nature, and not always focused on their protection and improvement.

The same is true for the projects proposed for the banks of the river Henares or those of the river Tagus in Toledo and Talavera de la Reina. It is not possible that, "Respect for the natural values of the river, its fauna and flora, with the aim of safeguarding existing ecosystems and bringing them closer to their status prior to the negative man-made alterations" [85] is among the project's objectives in the case of the river Tagus in Talavera. Indeed, a substantial part of the actions considered will cause the destruction of one of the most valuable river landscapes in the centre of the Iberian Peninsula if implemented under the terms established in the proposal. Thus, as indicated previously, it is fundamental that these projects, whose principles and effects are contrary to the recovery and integration of river areas, are not formally presented as such.

The most expensive projects usually incorporate a good number of elements linked to structures that make the riverbanks and flood plains resilient and waterproof. This is the case for the "Salón fluvial", proposed for the banks of the river Tagus in Toledo, which is nothing but concrete terraces, like tiered seating, that artificially modifies the original morphology of that stretch of the river considerably. On the other hand, the four projects analyzed have the common and legitimate objective of permitting the use and enjoyment of riparian spaces by citizens. However, these projects make the conservation of space subject to this consideration, without differentiating valuable spaces that should remain inaccessible or with limited accessibility. In particular, the river Tagus projects in Talavera and Toledo serve to "thematise" the river space, with a variety of construction proposals that will stimulate activities that induce a greater influx of people, including a hostel and a restaurant in a flood zone in the case of the river Tagus in Talavera. The opening of multiple trails and of dog parks, in hitherto well-preserved river spaces, increases the risk of their degradation due to the problems derived from affluence, such as noise, garbage, and direct predation in the case of pets running around leash-free, etc.

The projects studied did not analyse or consider the value of river spaces in terms of diversity. How is it possible that projects of high environmental impact are implemented without previously determining the value of the territory affected? The sections of the river Tagus analyzed in Toledo and Talavera are areas of great interest for wintering water birds, with average densities above 140 and 240 birds/km, respectively, and with high values of diversity (H > 2). The value of the community parameters for passerine species and related communities is also very high, especially the diversity values (H > 2.8). Both riverbanks also maintain a good number of habitats included in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, as well as rare, threatened, or sharply declining species in Europe (Figure 4), in particular *Circus aeroginosus*, *Nycticorax nycticorax*, *Ixobrychus minutus*, *Passer montanus* or *Picus sharpei*.

*Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 32

(**a**) (**b**) (**c**)

(**d**) (**e**)

**Figure 4.** Some sensitive species. Above, *Lymnocryptes minimus* (**a**) (river Manzanares, 5/12/2019), *Alcedo atthis* (**b**) (river Manzanares, 26/12/2019), *Nycticorax nycticorax* (**c**) (river Tagus in Toledo, 27/2/2020). Below, *Picus sharpei* (**d**) (river Manzanares, 28/2/2020), *Passer montanus* (**e**) (river **Figure 4.** Some sensitive species. Above, *Lymnocryptes minimus* (**a**) (river Manzanares, 5/12/2019), *Alcedo atthis* (**b**) (river Manzanares, 26/12/2019), *Nycticorax nycticorax* (**c**) (river Tagus in Toledo, 27/2/2020). Below, *Picus sharpei* (**d**) (river Manzanares, 28/2/2020), *Passer montanus*(**e**) (river Manzanares, 26/12/2019).

Manzanares, 26/12/2019). In the specific case of the project developed on the banks of the river Henares (Figure 5), we were able to verify the extent of the damage caused by the implementation of the project supposedly aimed at achieving the "Recovery of the right bank of the Henares river, between the Arab bridge and the Julián Besteiro bridge", 80% co-financed, to the tune of €1,150,622, by the European Regional Development Fund under the "Operational Program for Sustainable Growth 2014–2020" [86]. Indeed, the average density values for the forest–marsh bird communities in the winter of 2019–2020 were significantly lower than those in the winter of 2013–2014, with a 45% decrease of the average values in the winter of 2019–2020. Diversity values also fell, although they were only 2.5% lower in 2019– 2020 than in 2013–2014. In terms of waterfowl, despite the limited interest of this group of birds in this stretch of the river, the 60.4% drop in the figures for 2019–2020 relative to those registered in 2013–2014 is particularly striking. In the specific case of the project developed on the banks of the river Henares (Figure 5), we were able to verify the extent of the damage caused by the implementation of the project supposedly aimed at achieving the "Recovery of the right bank of the Henares river, between the Arab bridge and the Julián Besteiro bridge", 80% co-financed, to the tune of €1,150,622, by the European Regional Development Fund under the "Operational Program for Sustainable Growth 2014–2020" [86]. Indeed, the average density values for the forest–marsh bird communities in the winter of 2019–2020 were significantly lower than those in the winter of 2013–2014, with a 45% decrease of the average values in the winter of 2019–2020. Diversity values also fell, although they were only 2.5% lower in 2019–2020 than in 2013–2014. In terms of waterfowl, despite the limited interest of this group of birds in this stretch of the river, the 60.4% drop in the figures for 2019–2020 relative to those registered in 2013–2014 is particularly striking.

**Figure 5.** Bank of the river Henares before (**a**) (10/5/2014) and after (**b**) (29/10/2019) the implementation of the project over a small area of activity. **Figure 5.** Bank of the river Henares before (**a**) (10/5/2014) and after (**b**) (29/10/2019) the implementation of the project over a small area of activity.

(**a**) (**b**)

Any project whose objective is the recovery of river spaces in urban or peri-urban areas must initially locate the remnants of any existing natural landscape. The priority should be to protect these areas in order to try to extend these habitats [87], not least as they are source areas and host habitats of great value to wildlife [88]. Indeed, the rapid recovery of the river Manzanares in the city of Madrid can be largely attributed to the existence of upstream river spaces currently undergoing restoration that maintain extensive natural remnants [89]. Furthermore, the planning of this space was based on criteria of diversity, coherence, and continuity, which are basic elements to guarantee the quality of the landscape [90]. As such, a space of great value in terms of biodiversity has been created within an intensely urbanized area ex novo, and following a behavior observed in other river areas [22,91,92]. Any project whose objective is the recovery of river spaces in urban or peri-urban areas must initially locate the remnants of any existing natural landscape. The priority should be to protect these areas in order to try to extend these habitats [87], not least as they are source areas and host habitats of great value to wildlife [88]. Indeed, the rapid recovery of the river Manzanares in the city of Madrid can be largely attributed to the existence of upstream river spaces currently undergoing restoration that maintain extensive natural remnants [89]. Furthermore, the planning of this space was based on criteria of diversity, coherence, and continuity, which are basic elements to guarantee the quality of the landscape [90]. As such, a space of great value in terms of biodiversity has been created within an intensely urbanized area ex novo, and following a behavior observed in other river areas [22,91,92].

Of the four projects analyzed, only the re-naturalization of the river Manzanares meets one of the basic requirements of the Water Framework Directive: to situate environmental concerns at the centre of any interventions [93]. Of all the cases studied, this is the one that started from a more precarious environmental situation and with limitations in terms of the scope of the actions undertaken, particularly due to the physical constriction of the river space and its disconnection with its former banks and its hyporheic medium, the latter due to the burying and waterproofing of the circular M-30 urban motorway. In absolute terms, even after the re-naturalization intervention, the urban section of the river Manzanares exhibits environmental values lower than those of the other sections, which can be attributed to the limitations described above, limitations that hinder the full development of the river's natural behavior. However, the intervention has explored and taken advantage of the margins for improvement provided by this stretch of the river, resulting in an exponential increase in riparian quality. All this has been achieved at low cost and of the four actions analyzed, this action has exhibited the lowest cost per linear meter. Of the four projects analyzed, only the re-naturalization of the river Manzanares meets one of the basic requirements of the Water Framework Directive: to situate environmental concerns at the centre of any interventions [93]. Of all the cases studied, this is the one that started from a more precarious environmental situation and with limitations in terms of the scope of the actions undertaken, particularly due to the physical constriction of the river space and its disconnection with its former banks and its hyporheic medium, the latter due to the burying and waterproofing of the circular M-30 urban motorway. In absolute terms, even after the re-naturalization intervention, the urban section of the river Manzanares exhibits environmental values lower than those of the other sections, which can be attributed to the limitations described above, limitations that hinder the full development of the river's natural behavior. However, the intervention has explored and taken advantage of the margins for improvement provided by this stretch of the river, resulting in an exponential increase in riparian quality. All this has been achieved at low cost and of the four actions analyzed, this action has exhibited the lowest cost per linear meter.

At present, the average wintering values of waterfowl exceed 1500 individuals and the average density of passerine and related species is 220 birds/10 ha. Both are dominant generalist species, but they also include rare, threatened, or declining common species such as the *Porzana porzana, Lymnocryptes minimus* or *Passer montanus* species. This is without doubt a good example of how an urban sector of a river of no value has become a valuable space within a city for both the birds in the river area and for ecological diversity in general, contributing to the permeation of a high-density urban space and promoting regional connectivity. Moreover, the restoration measures applied were low impact, causing a re-naturalization of a river course highly valued by society. In this respect, it is interesting to note that rivers where only mild restoration measures have been implemented and that maintain clear features of their natural state are socially more valued than artificialized rivers [94]. Furthermore, the bond established between the resident population and the restored space has a positive effect on the valuation of the new river landscape, as reported previously [95]. This may At present, the average wintering values of waterfowl exceed 1500 individuals and the average density of passerine and related species is 220 birds/10 ha. Both are dominant generalist species, but they also include rare, threatened, or declining common species such as the *Porzana porzana, Lymnocryptes minimus* or *Passer montanus* species. This is without doubt a good example of how an urban sector of a river of no value has become a valuable space within a city for both the birds in the river area and for ecological diversity in general, contributing to the permeation of a high-density urban space and promoting regional connectivity. Moreover, the restoration measures applied were low impact, causing a re-naturalization of a river course highly valued by society. In this respect, it is interesting to note that rivers where only mild restoration measures have been implemented and that maintain clear features of their natural state are socially more valued than artificialized rivers [94]. Furthermore, the bond established between the resident population and the restored space has a positive effect on the valuation of the new river landscape, as reported previously [95]. This may have

occurred because thanks to its re-naturalization, this space provides new possibilities of use, as has been the case with other rivers located in high-density urban areas [96].

Another major problem with most interventions in river spaces is the consideration of these spaces as independent sectors [97]. Like all river spaces, urban river spaces must be considered as part of a complex system of interconnected units that have to be managed at both the river and drainage network level [98]. Furthermore, urban and peri-urban river landscapes can be internalised and understood as "Third Landscapes" [99]: residual spaces of high value in terms of environmental and landscape diversity, the evolution—and disappearance—of which is usually associated with urban planning and development. For this reason, it is important to highlight the need to consider principles, values, criteria, objectives, and actions that differ considerably from those usually contemplated. That is, the essence of urban and peri-urban river landscapes must be founded on an understanding of its value, dynamics, and possibilities of use. A major challenge for the conservation of urban green spaces—including river spaces—is perhaps understanding how they can be developed, remodelled or restored whilst favoring natural processes, and conserving functional ecosystems [21]. That would enhance models of intervention that often do not consider environmental improvements [100].

In the current climatic scenario, with a clear tendency towards aridity, there is a clear increase in the value of river areas as "environmental corridors". The importance of river corridors as priority elements within the "European Green Infrastructures" must also be taken into account [101]. The European proposal points out the need to improve the connectivity between natural areas, using river corridors to counteract the effects of fragmentation of these territories. In particular, there is a growing importance placed on rivers in urban and peri-urban areas to maintain biodiversity due to the steady increase in the extension of these spaces [102–104].

#### **5. Conclusions**

Before undertaking any actions involving urban river courses, it is essential to understand the environmental and landscape interest of the spaces under consideration. This is especially important when these interventions highlight sustainability among their objectives, and they establish "activities of environmental recovery or integration". At three of the sites analyzed in this study interventions were presented that will cause important modifications, yet the environmental interest of the areas in which they will be carried out was not analyzed. Nor was their capacity to integrate into the urban landscape evaluated. These are expensive projects, with costs lying between 900,000 and €2 million per linear km. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that of the cases analyzed, the project that best integrated the river into the city, respecting and potentiating its natural value and interest as a landscape, is that which cost the least money: €162,000 per linear km. Specifically, we refer to the project to recover the natural habitat of the river Manzanares in Madrid. This project set out to convert this urban fluvial stretch into an area of interest for wintering aquatic birds. It also hosts some globally threatened species and it maintains habitats that are included in Annex I of the Habitats Directive. In addition, it is also a highly valued social and leisure area for the local population.

**Author Contributions:** P.M.H. and A.-B.B.M.: devised the ideas for this study, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote the original manuscript; L.J.R. contributed to developing the original idea of the study and reviewed the manuscript; and F.A.Á. assisted in the data collection and analysis, and reviewed the associated literature. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by Erasmus+ Project RailtoLand (Grant agreement: 2019-1-ES01-KA203-065554 - Erasmus+ Programme of the Europe Union).

**Acknowledgments:** We thank Tomás Velasco and Íñigo Vicente for their participation in the waterfowl census.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

#### **Appendix A Appendix A**

*Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 32

**Figure A1.** Landscape units for the river Henares. **Figure A1.** Landscape units for the river Henares. *Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 32

(**a**)

**Figure A2.** *Cont*.

(**b**)

**Figure A2.** Landscape units for the river Manzanares (**a**,**b**).

(**a**)

*Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 32

**Figure A2.** Landscape units for the river Manzanares (**a**,**b**). *Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 32

**Figure A3.** Landscape units for the river Tagus in Toledo. **Figure A3.** Landscape units for the river Tagus in Toledo.

**Figure A4.** Landscape units for the Tagus river in Talavera de la Reina.

**Figure A3.** Landscape units for the river Tagus in Toledo.

*Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 32

**Figure A4. Figure A4.** Landscape units for the Tagus river in Talavera de la Reina. Landscape units for the Tagus river in Talavera de la Reina.

#### **Appendix B**


**Overall aim of the action**

The plan aims to recover and preserve, to the extent possible, the functions of the ecological corridor that the river Manzanares defines as it passes through Madrid relative to the upper and lower sections, and to manifest its value within the urban environment, in line with the guidelines set out in the relevant European legislation (Water Framework Directive) and the National Strategy for River Restoration.

#### **Actions with an impact on the hydrological regime and their e**ff**ects**

#### **Actions:**

• Opening of all the gates that regulate the water flow along the section stipulated.

#### **E**ff**ects:**


#### **Actions and E**ff**ects on the morphology of the channel and its bank**

#### **Actions:**


#### **E**ff**ects:**


#### **Actions and E**ff**ects on vegetation and fauna**

#### **Actions:**


**E**ff**ects:**

• Increase in biodiversity as a consequence of the improvements of the riparian habitat for many species of fauna, especially birds, but also for other relevant elements like otters (*Lutra lutra*).



#### **Overall aim of the action**

The overall objectives included in the Strategy for the Sustainable Urban Development of Guadalajara were the:


**Actions with an impact on the hydrological regime and their e**ff**ects**

**Actions:** Non-existent

#### **E**ff**ects: -**

**Actions and E**ff**ects on the morphology of the channel and its bank**

#### **Actions:**


#### **E**ff**ects:**


#### **Actions and e**ff**ects on vegetation and fauna**

#### **Actions:**


#### **E**ff**ects:**



**Table A3.** Analysis of the actions on the Tagus river in the city of Toledo.

#### **Overall aim of the action**

According to the call for tenders, the overall objective was the harmonization of the urban environment of Toledo with the river environment, recovering the riverbanks and its adjacent spaces, as well as improving pedestrian connections between the city and the river.

#### **Actions with an impact on the hydrological regime and their e**ff**ects**

#### **Actions:**

• Rehabilitation of historical hydraulic infrastructures.

#### **E**ff**ects:**


#### **Actions and E**ff**ects on the morphology of the channel and its bank**

#### **Actions:**


#### **E**ff**ects:**


#### **Actions and e**ff**ects on vegetation and fauna**

#### **Actions:**

• Night lighting.

#### **E**ff**ects:**

• Increase in nocturnal illumination affecting the riparian fauna.


#### **Table A4.** Analysis of the actions on the Tagus river in Talavera de la Reina.

#### **Overall aim of the action**

• To respect the natural values of the river, its fauna and flora, with the aim of safeguarding existing ecosystems and bringing them closer to their status prior to negative man-made alterations.

• To recognise the historical value of the heritage and constructions in order to avoid their deterioration through functional rehabilitation, either for their original uses or for other uses that guarantee their adequate conservation.

• To perform interventions on the banks and islands aimed at promoting the use and the enjoyment of the river, making recreational and cultural activities compatible with its natural life. A proposal for preventive measures to ensure that river does not pose a natural barrier to communications and the functioning of the city, and to mitigate the negative effects of these activities on the existing ecosystems.

• Control the flooding of various streams that are tributaries of the river Tagus.

#### **Actions with an impact on the hydrological regime and their e**ff**ects**

#### **Actions:**

• Functional rehabilitation of weirs and canals associated with hydroelectric plants.

**E**ff**ects:**


#### **Actions and E**ff**ects on the morphology of the channel and its bank**

#### **Actions:**


#### **E**ff**ects:**


#### **Actions and e**ff**ects on vegetation and fauna**

#### **Actions:**


#### **E**ff**ects:**


### **Appendix C**

**Table A5.** Average Waterfowl Abundance (± SD): HRN, River Henares; MNZ, River Manzanares; TTO, River Tagus in Toledo; and TTA, River Tagus in Talavera.


(\*) Standard deviation (SD) higher than the average values (X).



(\*) Standard deviation (SD) higher than the average values (X).




**Table A7.** *Cont.*

(\*) Standard deviation (SD) higher than the average values (X).

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### *Article* **Decolonizing Pathways to Sustainability: Lessons Learned from Three Inuit Communities in NunatuKavut, Canada**

#### **Amy Hudson \* and Kelly Vodden**

Environmental Policy Institute, Grenfell Campus, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Corner Brook, NL A2H 5G5, Canada; kvodden@grenfell.mun.ca

**\*** Correspondence: ahudson@mun.ca

Received: 28 April 2020; Accepted: 25 May 2020; Published: 28 May 2020

**Abstract:** Community led planning is necessary for Inuit to self-determine on their lands and to ensure the preservation of cultural landscapes and the sustainability of social-ecological systems that they are a part of. The sustainability efforts of three Inuit communities in Labrador during a Community Governance and Sustainability Initiative were guided by a decolonized and strength-based planning framework, including the values of Inuit in this study. This paper demonstrates that Inuit led planning efforts can strengthen community sustainability planning interests and potential. We situate the experiences of NunatuKavut Inuit within, and contribute to, the existing body of scholarly decolonization and sustainability literature. For many Indigenous people, including Inuit, decolonization is connected to inherent rights to self-determination. The findings suggest that decolonizing efforts must be understood and actualized within an Indigenous led research and sustainability planning paradigm that facilitates autonomous decision making and that is place based. Further, this study illustrates five predominant results regarding Inuit in planning for community sustainability that support sustainable self-determination. These include: inter and cross community sharing; identification of community strengths; strengthened community capacity; re-connection to community and culture; and the possibility for identification of sustainability goals to begin implementation through community led governance and planning processes.

**Keywords:** Inuit; sustainability; decolonization; self-determination; community planning

#### **1. Introduction**

Sustainability planning is necessary for community and cultural survival in remote Indigenous regions, like those in NunatuKavut (coastal Labrador). There is increasing recognition within the sustainability science literature of the need for place-based sustainability goals in Arctic communities that align with Arctic needs, based on the fact that these needs may in fact differ from global responses and efforts [1]. The literature reveals that both Indigenous and sustainability sciences contribute to the sustainability of "resilient landscapes", and to our understanding of them [2,3] (p. 1). This recognition further validates the need to work with Indigenous peoples in planning, by doing planning and sustainability scholarship differently. Sustainability science has been disconnected from Indigenous science and this has meant that Indigenous rights and knowledge have not been adequately engaged or privileged by Western scientific enquiry [3]. The participation of Indigenous peoples in planning processes have also been notably marginalized in Canada and around the world [4], with outside planning actors participating in the dispossession and marginalization of Indigenous peoples in the planning process [5]. This is despite the fact that "Indigenous peoples possess deep connections to place and knowledge of the land upon which they have lived for thousands of years" [6] (p. 428) and that planning is a vital aspect of governance, including Indigenous forms of governance that have also endured marginalization resulting from colonization [7]. Planners must be cognizant of this colonial history as "state-based planning has provided the conceptual and practical apparatus for institutionalizing marginalization" [8] (p. 643).

Sustainability work in rural and remote Indigenous communities offers important contributions to the sustainability science knowledge base. Recent collaborative, community-based research in the area of renewable energy in Labrador, for example, demonstrates that the voice of Inuit and their active participation in decision making is an integral part of process and outcome, building on the strengths and knowledge of Inuit themselves while reinforcing their role as decision makers and experts on their lands [9]. Land-use planning in the Nunatsiavut region of Labrador offers further insight into Indigenous planning in Labrador and the North. The land use plan of the Nunatsiavut government has been designed to "respond, first and foremost, to Inuit environmental, social, cultural, and economic interest" [10] (p. 438). Earlier research related to the process of mine development in Voisey's Bay, Labrador cited the apparent success of agreements reached between Indigenous and non-Indigenous parties that was based on "sustainability centered decision making" [11] (p. 343). Yet, O'Faircheallaigh [12] illustrates the tensions and complexities involved in the Voisey's development. The Province of Newfoundland (at the time), committed to advancing the development of the mine as expeditiously as possible, left the Innu and Inuit (the latter group represented by the LIA-Labrador Inuit Association) emphatic about their inclusion and participation in negotiations and reaching satisfactory agreements. The Innu were opposed to development early on but felt (along with the Inuit represented by LIA) that they had no choice but to seek inclusion as the development was set to proceed [12]. Moreover, Archibald and Crnkovich [13] point to a lack of Inuit women's representation and voice in the Voisey's Bay development, adding that analysis into the differential impacts on Inuit women were lacking in this development.

Indigenous planning has been broadly defined as a process whereby Indigenous people make their own decisions on their lands, and drawing upon the knowledge, values and principles within themselves to "define and progress their present and future social, cultural, environmental and economic aspirations" [8] (p. 642). To date, planning in practice has yielded limited opportunities to share and exercise principles and practices of Indigenous planning, particularly in the context of sovereign nations [7]. Indigenous planning has been identified as an approach that respects Indigenous sovereignty and worldviews [14], requiring sustainability planning approaches in Indigenous communities that are cognizant of inherent and sovereign rights to land and culture.

Indigenous peoples assert jurisdiction over their lands and within their communities in various ways (e.g., land claims, advocacy, agreements with the state, planning efforts). Most Inuit groups in Canada have settled land claims agreements with the state [15]. Inuit in NunatuKavut have not yet settled a final land claim agreement. However, they have a long history of asserting their rights on their land. Most recently, Canada has accepted the NunatuKavut Community Council (NCC), a governing organization that represents the Indigenous rights of NunatuKavut Inuit, into a Recognition of Indigenous Rights and Self-Determination (RIRSD) process to negotiate on matters of mutual interest between NunatuKavut Inuit and Canada [15]. Today, NunatuKavut Inuit continue to assert their rights on their land to ensure the future of their people and communities. Community-led sustainability planning during a Community Governance and Sustainability Initiative (CGSI) in NunatuKavut should be understood within a rights-based paradigm.

The CGSI (described in more detail below), was piloted in three select Inuit communities in NunatuKavut during 2017 and 2018 to facilitate opportunities for those communities to think about the future from the perspective of sustainability, grounded in their rights as Inuit belonging to their ancestral lands, and to plan accordingly. Baxter and Purcell [16] define Integrated Community Sustainability Planning (ICSP) as "a high-level overarching document for a community that is informed by sustainability principles and guides the community into the future" (p. 35). ICSPs are one example of a model of sustainability planning that have been employed across Canada, including the

province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) [17]. This paper presents an alternative Indigenous sustainability planning perspective and approach, particularly one that is grounded in the efforts of Inuit in NunatuKavut through a community led, decolonized and strength-based planning framework. This study builds upon normative ideas of community sustainability planning, like ICSP, at the same time as privileging Inuit knowledge, expertise and values that are vital to the planning process within Inuit territories.

Throughout this paper, we draw upon and situate Inuit planning within the overarching concept of decolonization, while building on the work of Indigenous scholars who have informed our analysis such as Jeff Corntassel [18], Pam Palmater [19], Linda Smith [20], and Shawn Wilson [21]. In NunatuKavut, where Inuit are planning for sustainable communities and futures, planning efforts invoke a necessary and simultaneous process of self-decolonization. The decolonizing of the self is integral to a larger order of decolonization and to anti-colonial sustainability efforts that connect both theory and practice. The concept of "sustainable self-determination," a term coined by Indigenous scholar Jeff Corntassel [18], is useful for understanding Inuit planning in NunatuKavut as a pathway to decolonized self-determination. In the context of NunatuKavut Inuit, we argue that Inuit led, decolonized and strength-based planning, can strengthen community sustainability planning interest and overall potential. The results of this process give rise to sustainable self-determination that contribute to the preservation of cultural landscapes and the sustainability of social-ecological systems that make up Inuit society.

#### *1.1. Decolonization and Sustainable Self-Determination*

Community sustainability planning approaches designed and developed by and for Indigenous peoples are integral to Indigenous self-determination efforts. Indigenous governance practices and methods, including planning efforts, can be conducive to the creation of societies that are more sustainable [22]. Recent research with First Nations in Saskatchewan, for example, point to the success of Indigenous planning when the approach results in trust relationships between the First Nation community, other participants and university researchers and community capacity is strengthened [23]. The ability of communities to self-determine in ways that reflect Indigenous ways of knowing and being is in part, contingent upon Indigenous autonomy and control of decision making about the future. Yet, Indigenous community planning and approaches to planning have often been marginalized by external decision makers [4]. Externally controlled community development and planning processes are indicative of colonial ideas and mentalities that undermine Indigenous knowledge and expertise in favor of Western European knowledge in deciding matters for the future of Inuit and their lands. Therefore, any approach to decolonized community planning must be cognizant of historic and modern impacts of colonization.

Indigenous scholar, lawyer and advocate Pamela Palmater defines colonization as a process by which "a state or colony attempts to dispossess and subjugate the original Indigenous peoples of the land," [19] (p. 3) and she maintains that colonization, in this form, has not ended for Indigenous peoples. Corntassel [24] portrays colonization as a dysfunctional force that disconnects peoples from their home, land and culture. He maintains that Indigenous resurgence is about connecting to home, land and culture, a central feature of decolonization.

Decolonization has been defined and drawn upon by academia, institutions and governments. Leading Indigenous scholars like Linda Smith [20] and Margaret Kovach [25] have engaged decolonization discourse, enlightening a world that resonates for many Indigenous peoples and offering insights into how to think about and do research differently. Conceptually and practically, decolonization is a necessary and integral step towards acknowledging and confronting the legacy of colonization (past and ongoing). Decolonizing work is an ever evolving, dynamic and site-specific process. Decolonization and decolonized planning can be further linked to Corntassel's key concept of sustainable self-determination, with a view towards privileging and bringing attention to Inuit efforts to self-determine that may otherwise go unnoticed by outside decision makers or planners.

We engage decolonization as a process that sets the foundation for everyday acts of resurgence, including Indigenous-led planning. Corntassel [24] recalled pathways to decolonization that are and can be realized through Indigenous led self-determination efforts. Learning from Fanon [26], we are alert to the reality that decolonization implies a commitment to embracing differing worldviews and perspectives, and the tensions that are inherent in this process. This entails moving beyond European norms and ways of thinking. Decolonization must be a unique and context specific process that includes individual and collective acts of resurgence, revitalization and determination contingent upon time and place, in Indigenous peoples' pursuit of self-determination. We argue that a decolonial approach to community sustainability planning in NunatuKavut is integral to ensuring that the sustainability goals identified and the planning process itself is embedded in a vision for the future that is self-determined by Inuit in their time and place and reflective of Inuit values and ways of knowing and being. In this way planning can, in turn, further sustainable self-determination and create the pathways to decolonization observed and called for by Corntassel and others.

#### *1.2. Grounding Decolonization: Recognizing the Role of Indigenous Peoples and Their Communities*

The participation of planning actors in the "dispossession, oppression and marginalization of Indigenous peoples has implications for the field" [5] (p. 403). Recognizing colonial realities allows for the challenging of western, well intentioned, and persistent assumptions imbued in planning that seek to "better the world" [5] (p. 403). Indigenous claims to self-determination, land restitution, etc., make the need to challenge planning assumptions evident and timely. When Indigenous people question ongoing normative assumptions and practices by privileging their own ways of knowing and being, opportunities arise to plan for a future that is shaped by their own worldview(s). The ability to inform planning approaches from one's own space (values, goals, etc.), as opposed to outside perceptions of what is good or necessary, is optimal for decolonizing planning processes that are Indigenous designed and led.

In many cases, Indigenous peoples, communities, nations and governments continue to work towards building a future and a path that is reflective of their values, perspectives and worldviews, despite ongoing colonial interference. Indigenous peoples have been finding opportunities to revitalize as nations, while making small movements towards reclamation—whether that be of culture, language, education, political society, etc. [20,24]. We contend that acts of resistance and resurgence in these forms are a necessary part of the process of decolonization and are necessarily linked to community planning, yet they often go unrecognized as a source of knowledge or expertise integral to planning work by outsiders. Additionally, these acts are rarely upheld or highlighted as integral and tangible decolonizing work, particularly by states and/or institutions who often set the standard for how reconciliation and/or decolonization is to be approached in Canada and within institutions (i.e., academia). This provides evidence that as a society we are still unwilling to really learn or accept the knowledge and expertise of Indigenous peoples in their place and as autonomous rights holders on their lands. Realities like these are well established and have been demonstrated over time as the courts have consistently failed to consider Indigenous people's perspectives in law and legal analysis [27,28]. This too has implications for the field of Indigenous sustainability planning.

The idea that the state and its government know best is an age-old way of thinking and doing and is perpetuated in relations with Indigenous peoples, and even in times of good will and positive intention. Eisenberg, Webber, and Coulthard [29] maintain that Indigenous peoples and communities themselves are the sole agents with the power to recognize and give expression to the knowledge that make up who they are. When Indigenous peoples, organizations, and communities take on the arduous tasks of reclamation through tangible and practical everyday acts on their lands and in their communities, they are in fact pursuing and leading decolonizing work that lends toward self-determination.

A strength-based approach to community sustainability planning, that rested on the values, hopes and goals of Inuit in this study, guided the approach of the CGSI. This work exists as an example of a community based and community driven approach to decolonization, grounded in

and guided by connection to home, values and individual and collective determination to ensure the survival and preservation of community and culture. In what follows, we describe and interpret acts of resurgence, revitalization and sustainable self-determination in three Inuit communities within community sustainability planning efforts as part of, and emblematic of, a larger process of decolonization.

#### **2. Methodology**

This research was guided by Indigenous and qualitative research methodologies. Indigenous research methodology is integral to understanding and making space for sustainable self-determination in Indigenous communities. The ability to share, learn and listen through stories is fundamental to understanding Indigenous worldviews and perspectives and storytelling is an integral and valued method and approach [30]. This research seeks to ensure that the voice and knowledge of Inuit are privileged and drive the findings of this paper. A culturally relevant research paradigm (as employed in this research), ensures that Indigenous methods are validated and used [21], contributing to decolonization and supporting the assertion of rights and sovereignty. Research within this paradigm remains cognizant of a history of colonially rooted research practices (including a tradition that privileges research practices that are value neutral), while remaining committed to research that seeks to better the well-being of Indigenous peoples as per their ways of being and knowing [20]. Booth and Muir [31] understand Indigenous planning as an attempt to "recognize the unique and specific legal, political, historical, cultural and social circumstances in which the world's Indigenous peoples find themselves" (p. 422). It can be argued that this is also the case for the Inuit of NunatuKavut and their representative governing organization the NunatuKavut Community Council (NCC), as they seek to enhance capacity and knowledge for planning that is specific to their needs, interests, and historical and modern realities and as they engage in culturally relevant planning to advance self-determination efforts. This research initiated and facilitated community capacity strengthening efforts so that community members and leaders are better equipped to effectively engage in the planning of their communities for the future and validated in doing so.

#### *2.1. Community Governance and Sustainability Initiative (CGSI): A Framework for Designing and Implementing Community Led and Responsive Research and Planning Practices*

There is a growing interest in planning that is adaptable to uncertain conditions and realities [32]. Adaptability is a central feature of Inuit societies. Cognizant of the social and political history of the Inuit communities in NunatuKavut, and moreover, a legacy of research on and within Indigenous communities broadly, the overall approach to this research was to work with NunatuKavut Inuit and to locate positive attributes of their communities, and to privilege Inuit worldviews and perspectives in the process. We collaboratively identified approaches and ways of doing based on what has worked well in the past, locating expertise and assets within communities themselves, all to further strengthen and benefit from the adaptive capacities required to vision and plan for a positive and vibrant future that is relevant to Inuit themselves.

We examined contributions in NunatuKavut in the areas of self-determination, decolonization, resurgence and rights that are Indigenous led and inspired, building upon scholarly literature in discussions surrounding decolonization and sustainability. The worlds of academia and Inuit community life have come together in this project to support the creation of space and opportunities for community sustainability planning. These opportunities have implications for the preservation of culture and communities in NunatuKavut, and for the methodology used in this research.

Respectful community engagement was guided by the work of leading Indigenous scholars in the field like Smith, Wilson and Kovach, along with Hudson's connection to her home community and to NunatuKavut generally. This approach to community engagement helped to ensure that the research study was informed by the community in both purpose and methods. We also drew from the expertise, knowledge and guidance of three NunatuKavut communities: Black Tickle, Norman Bay and St. Lewis (Appendix A, Table A1). This research was community led and driven and the research methods support this end. Hart [33] writes of research that is "structured within an epistemology that includes a subjectively based process for knowledge development and a reliance on Elders and individuals who have or are developing this insight" (p. 9). Hudson's own experiences, as a result of growing up in and belonging to one of the pilot communities of this study and her work with the NCC, further embedded and ensured accountability to this research approach.

Strength-based decision making and planning was introduced as the framework for our discussions. This assisted in situating Inuit participants as knowledge holders and experts on matters that impact them and on their lands. This strength-based approach is particularly fundamental to decolonized sustainability planning in NunatuKavut. Deficit based research has often been conducted in Indigenous communities, failing to acknowledge and respect Indigenous knowledge and expertise [34]. The use of strength-based planning allowed for Inuit worldviews, values and perspectives to lead and guide the planning process. Planning with and by Indigenous peoples in this way has elsewhere resulted in positive outcomes across a range of areas like culture, identity-building, healing, etc. [35]. In this study, dialogue around strength-based thinking was integral to envisioning a sustainable future. It is noteworthy that females pre-dominantly led the sustainability work and all three community sustainability coordinators (described below) were female. In remote communities such as these, there is often a tendency to focus on what has not been working in communities, or how governments or other governing bodies are not working, without looking at the potential and individual and collective agency that already exists within communities. Strength based discussions, asset mapping and visioning exercises assisted communities in maneuvering around this paradigm to get to a place of planning without the baggage of what has gone wrong in the past, which stands in the way of planning a desired future. Planning from a place of strength that privileges local Inuit knowledge is also key to the pursuit of sustainable self-determination.

As a way to initiate the CGSI a regional workshop was held in Happy Valley-Goose Bay (HVGB), Spring 2017. This gathering brought together the three pilot communities, including three representatives from each of the communities. We worked with community participants and engaged in various awareness, skills and capacity building exercises. They included: (a) strength-based decision making and planning; (b) community visioning exercises; (c) community asset mapping; (d) community engagement; and (f) proposal writing.

Following the initial gathering in HVGB, pilot community participants applied and furthered the lessons that they had learned once they returned home to their community (e.g., asset mapping). As research lead, Hudson identified an external funding opportunity to further the community sustainability planning work. This allowed NCC to employ a community sustainability coordinator in each of the three communities for a period of seven months. Throughout the scope of this work, and working directly with Hudson, community sustainability coordinators were able to solidify sustainability committees in their respective communities and then co-led the committees in a range of activities and areas relevant and localized to each community. Hudson oversaw the work of the coordinators as NCC lead and as a part of this study. The coordinators furthered asset mapping exercises, participated in and co- led visioning exercises and activities (feast, cultural events, community games, etc.), wrote proposals, and engaged in networking opportunities with stakeholders.

#### *2.2. Recruitment and Data Collection*

Interactive workshops, gatherings and community meetings supported both collaboration and consensus building discussions and provided the space and environment to engage participants throughout 2017 and into 2018. These workshops, meetings and gatherings were predominantly held in the study communities, with the exception of two larger gatherings that brought together all three communities to learn and share in a larger setting in HVGB. Recruitment strategies within communities relied on local knowledge and expertise from community members and the NCC. Other NCC partners, past and present, with experience and knowledge of NCC governance and land claims, were also

invited to participate. Participants were contacted in various ways depending on the data collection strategy (i.e., email, public notices, in person, email). In order to achieve the goals of the project across three communities, it was necessary to employ a multi-dimensional approach to community outreach and engagement, and the project lent itself to learning and refining best practices, in working with the three communities.

Qualitative data collection methods included one on one interviews, focus groups, and surveys. Participants were recruited by email, telephone and word of mouth for each of these methods. Four one on one interviews were conducted in the communities (one from Black Tickle, two from St. Lewis, one from Norman Bay). Additionally, two external interviews were conducted with individuals who have been participatory to NCC's land claim and research journey over the past two decades. See Table A2 for a detailed list of activities undertaken with participants from each of the three pilot communities. Interviews occurred simultaneously with other forms of data collection. We chose interviews as a data collection method given the centrality of interviewing to qualitative methodology. However, it was clear that action-oriented data collection that directly engaged participants in gatherings (like those described above) and settings designed to share and learn from one another, were much more conducive to collecting rich data and in engaging participants throughout the research. In some instances, such as the two gatherings in HVGB, stakeholders were invited by email to participate, listen and respond to community interests and goals. Some of the stakeholders in attendance included representatives from funding agencies (e.g., Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), business advisors from Nunacor (NCC's business arm), and academics in related fields at Memorial University.

The two larger, centralized gatherings, also referred to as workshops, were held in HVGB and brought representatives from all three study communities together. Recruitment for these two gatherings was done by contacting the local governing structure by telephone and email in each of the study communities (municipality, local service district, recreation committee). It was appropriate to work with the local governing boards to not only seek their interest in the project, but to identify recruits to attend the gatherings in HVGB. The second gathering, recruited in much the same manner, also hosted a focus group discussion with participants from all three communities. The dynamics of these gatherings were comfortable, supportive, open and transparent. Existing best practices in engagement by NCC in the past also assisted in implementing spaces that were conducive to sharing and dialogue. Community gatherings ranged in size and were influenced by community population size, with 25+ people attending in Black Tickle at a full day youth and community event, approximately six people in Norman Bay and 40+ people in St Lewis at a community feast and youth/family event. The community feast in St. Lewis resulted in 43 written submissions by community members detailing what they value most about life in St. Lewis.

There were four focus groups in total (one in each individual pilot community and one collective focus group at the second sustainability gathering in HVGB-described above). There were seven participants in the focus group in Black Tickle, two in Norman Bay, six in St. Lewis and ten in the HVGB workshop. Participants attended and engaged in two workshops in Happy Valley Goose Bay with ten participants in each workshop. Survey respondents totaled 26 in Norman Bay and St. Lewis. The surveys sought to elicit information about the age, gender, and connection community members felt towards their home. The surveys were not initiated or completed in Black Tickle as the community is all of Hudson's relations. While surveys assist in gathering relevant information for analysis, in this context the use of a survey in Hudson's home community felt too impersonal. Hudson knows each individual personally and shares ancestral ties and modern-day kinship and social networks with them.

Further data were collected through collaborative community development efforts (planning and ideas sharing), and a manual to guide community planners/coordinators was compiled by the sustainability coordinators in this study. The development of this manual was informed by work in each of the pilot communities through a process of reflection and community engagement. In addition, written submissions from individual community members about what they value most about their community were collected and compiled separately into community booklets. There were 12, 12 and

26 individual submissions respectively, numbering 50 submissions in total. Participants were recruited by advertisement, telephone and word of mouth.

#### *2.3. Data Analysis*

One on one interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Notes were taken and reflected upon in instances where audio recording did not take place. Prominent themes from all sources of data were identified and interpreted. Due to the Indigenous storytelling nature of data collection, the interpretation of data sets was validated during conversations, focus groups, and gatherings with participants. This ensured that participants had ample opportunity to reflect, discuss, share what they meant, and what they saw as important for the future. The community led and driven approach of this research meant that participant stories (i.e., submissions on what they love about community, asset mapping, visioning), reflect the voices of communities in this study and explicitly reinforce connection to community. Thus, community voice and direction underscore the results and discussion that follows and will be central to any future efforts that result from planning for sustainability in NunatuKavut.

#### **3. Results: Planning for Sustainability in NunatuKavut**

Five predominant results regarding Inuit planning, through the Community Governance and Sustainability Initiative (CGSI), materialized from this study, identified in Table 1 below. A discussion of each of these key results follows. These results illustrate how Inuit led community planning materialized in this study. These results offer an alternative approach to conducting Inuit community led sustainability planning that is guided by a decolonized and strength-based framework. In doing so, we respond to the above described call by Johnson et al. [3], Ugarte [5], McGregor [6] and others to engage and privilege Indigenous rights and knowledge and participation by Indigenous peoples in planning processes.

#### **Table 1.** Key Results.


The results reflect the multifaceted engagement of participants, and their contributions to this study, and are embedded and interpreted from a place of strength, autonomy and Inuit rights. In sum, the results point to a reality whereby commitment and connection to community is paramount and where knowledge and expertise has been borne from generations of living on and with the land and this knowledge is paramount to continued community planning and ultimately survival.

#### *3.1. Inter and Cross Community Sharing Integral to Community Planning*

Storytelling and knowledge passed down through generations are integral to the continuity and survival of Inuit societies, and in community sustainability planning efforts. The exchange of knowledge and expertise between Inuit and as it relates to their collective and individual experiences living on and with the land, within their respective communities and in the region as a whole, is an integral method within a decolonized and strength based planning framework. This is particularly relevant given the many accounts of how Indigenous peoples have been marginalized by external planners in planning processes on Indigenous lands [4]. Therefore, this approach seeks to privilege the voice of Inuit in planning a future on their own terms, and from their own perspectives. This also assists in motivating and empowering community members to reject a history of outsider knows best, inherent in mainstream Western sustainability planning, and to reclaim agency on their lands. Previous in depth

research with NunatuKavut Inuit demonstrates the important role of storytelling and local knowledge and expertise to family and community survival [33]. Participant feedback about participation in the sustainability workshops revealed that participants saw value in coming together, across communities, to share and learn from one another. Community members gained encouragement to move forward in their own communities as a result of this co-learning and sharing. Community participants thought deeply about the values, assets, and overall strengths of their respective communities and how their communities were similar and dissimilar in NunatuKavut, as well as how they could support one another and learn from one another moving forward. One of the participants commented:

*"During these workshops I've learned with my community how to try and embrace the negative in our community and turn it into a positive. I've experienced other communities address issues that are similar to ours that I didn't know existed* . . . *Just overall this experience have been amazing and so insightful".*

Demonstrating further the importance of relationship building to this work, another community participant described the key benefits she gained from participating in the process. She stated: "The connections and relationships/bonds I made. The confidence to return to my community with knowledge I didn't know before".

Sharing and co-learning was key to the success of this work. While communities often work alone to achieve their goals (lack of resources and time to collaborate and remote geography, contribute to this reality), the CGSI allowed for opportunities for cross community knowledge sharing and engagement to take place in non-competitive and open spaces that also sought to strengthen community skills. This helped to reduce participant feelings of isolation and alienation in visioning and community planning.

#### *3.2. Identification of Community Strengths*

In an effort to build on the positive momentum gained from inter and cross community knowledge sharing and strength based dialogue, facilitated discussions around community strengths created and directed opportunities for community members in each of the pilot communities to submit (in writing or in picture form) their own thoughts and ideas about what it is that they value about their community. This method acknowledged and validated the strengths inherent in community connection. As Inuit continue to evolve and adapt to a changing world that impacts their environment, they are well positioned to identify the strengths that are integral to the continuation of their societies. NunatuKavut Inuit are deeply connected to the lands, waters, ice and kinship ties that make up their society and communities. Yet, they are often excluded from aspects of planning and decision-making on their lands. The identification of strengths by Inuit themselves has ensured that all sectors of society that are regarded as significant, have been included in the planning process and was an important part of ensuring a decolonized approach to community planning-one that acknowledges the various sources and sites of knowledge common to Inuit.

Submissions varied in length and individual participants described their connection to place and homeland. These submissions were compiled and integrated into three booklets. They are as follows: Why I love Black Tickle, Why I love Norman Bay, and Why I love St. Lewis. These stories were integral to deepening our understanding of community values in NunatuKavut. Below are two examples from the submissions that were compiled.

*"The peacefulness. The beauty of the land. I love all what BT is. The way the bog smells in the spring when everything is starting to thaw, sitting out on the point and watching flock after flock of birds flying by. The smell of wetness in the air as you go in over the land berrypicking. The beautiful colours of bright green grass as you climb the hills in July, the sound of seagulls going crazy for a feed of fish when the fishermen come in with their catch. The way the lights dance on the water on a beautiful calm summers night. The way the town looks after its first snowfall. Seeing the kiddies going from* *pond to pond to check the depth of the ice for skating time and the memories come racing in of when you were a child and the amount of hours you spent on them same ponds growing up".*

*"Norman Bay gave my husband and I a quiet, peaceful, and safe place to raise our children. Everybody's children played together. If you knew where one child was, you knew where the whole bunch was. I can honestly say I was never bored. The isolation from other communities never bothered me and still don't. I have always felt safe here. People would always be there to give help when it was needed, no matter what and it's still that way today. We don't have far to go for our wild foods and berries or wood for our heat".*

The success of this strength-based exercise demonstrated the deep and enduring connection that individuals have to their homeland. In addition, by eliciting positive and strength-based versions of home and community, we strengthened and situated our collective understanding about what is most important to community members as they prepare and plan for the future. Community members became re-focused around what is most important to them during this process as well. Simultaneously, community sustainability coordinators were building on asset mapping skills they had learned during the workshops in HVGB and they each worked in their respective communities to identify assets in diverse areas like culture, social, human, financial, to name a few. Asset mapping, focused on community strengths, and served to reinforce that knowledge and expertise already exists within the communities. Participants began to see themselves reflected in this way and this furthered their ability to think about what they could achieve in their respective communities. This method further ensured the active inclusion of Inuit in the planning process and that Inuit values were reflected in the planning process. For example, we learned from participants that maintaining traditional skills, local knowledge of the land, including the use of knowledge passed down through generations, are key strengths and important considerations in sustainability planning work.

#### *3.3. Strengthened Community Capacity*

Through decolonized community engagement that used a strength-based approach, participant awareness, skillsets and capacity were strengthened in areas of interest and relevance to community members in pursuit of community planning. This further enabled the active participation and engagement of community sustainability coordinators in leading sustainability planning in their hometowns. Capacity strengthening exercises were conducted with the sustainability coordinators in the following areas: (a) community engagement, (b) community strengths and, (c) sustainability goals and visioning. This method has had positive implications for community, and it ensured that capacity strengthening efforts directly benefited the communities themselves. These measures were taken to avoid the pitfalls common to Western scientific research whereby external researchers enter a community, conduct the research, and then leave with the knowledge (gained through dialogue with Indigenous participants), and then analyze and use this knowledge outside of the community itself. By ensuring that capacity strengthening efforts focused directly on furthering the leadership of community members, we sought to avoid such colonial research practices.

Conversations and capacity strengthening opportunities took place with community sustainability coordinators and other participants from the three pilot communities. We talked about why participants were engaged in community sustainability work, why it was important for them, and for other community members, to be a part of change for the future in their respective communities. These conversations allowed us to better understand collectively why people remain connected to their community, and the values surrounding this connection. Together, we were better able to think of relevant and meaningful ways to engage communities in important conversations about the future, and in community planning projects. In reflecting on one of the workshops a participant stated: "What a strong group of community leaders. I'm so impressed by the ideas and the hard work that's going to propel these communities forward". As a result of these dialogue and working group efforts, community engagement ideas were compiled by sustainability coordinators to assist NCC and others who may seek to engage and work with communities in NunatuKavut.

The community sustainability coordinators furthered community asset mapping (a new skill learned during workshops in HVGB) within their respective communities. This allowed them to capture broad and insightful responses while expanding community vision through the identification of community strengths and opportunities. Working from a place of strength was integral to this study and facilitated discussions around strength-based approaches to community planning were successful.

During the workshops (in group and as a whole) sustainability goals were identified and then further verified and expanded upon within each community through visioning exercises. During the workshops in HVGB, visioning exercises were employed where representative community members in attendance worked in community groups to map out an ideal vision for their respective communities. In doing so, community members articulated (through drawings) their hopes for the future. Early discussions about strength-based planning aided participants in creating visions that were positive, realistic and hopeful. Overall, these early visions were well thought out and discussed in detail. They created opportunities for in-depth participant discussion about what worked well in the community in the past and present, and participants identified the skills, knowledge and expertise the community already has and that they deem relevant to pursuing sustainable community development. Participants identified practical goals like infrastructure and water security projects, to name a few (See Table A3 for detailed community goals). These goals are fundamental to economic development opportunities. In addition, participants identified economic development opportunities like bakeapple harvesting and processing, the fishery, sealing, and tourism in resource and culture rich areas (see result five). The practicality of these goals was further supported by the participants 'ability to locate existing assets in the community that could assist with achieving the goals. For example, abandoned structures, buildings, empty homes, and materials and skills that already exist in the community were identified as spaces and opportunities to further the economic development ideas. Visions for sustainable economic development like berry and seal harvesting and tourism development in Black Tickle, the construction of a multi-purpose building in St. Lewis that could accommodate a cultural Centre and growing tourism opportunities, and tourism growth potential in Norman Bay, all point to sustainability planning that seeks to incorporate aspects of community and cultural life that are relevant and meaningful to Inuit themselves.

#### *3.4. Re-Connection to Community and Culture during the Planning Process*

Strength based exercises that encouraged positive thinking and reflection also aided in the re-connection to and validation of home and culture. Strength based dialogue facilitated opportunities for participants to re-connect to those aspects of home and community life that are most valuable to them. Borrowing from Corntassel's [24] work related to the interconnections between Indigenous peoples connection to land and resurgence, these re-connections described by participants are also interpreted as acts of resurgence by Inuit. For example, one community member wrote:

*"I love St. Lewis because it's a place I call home. I can teach our children traditional ways of living like hunting, fishing and trapping. Things I learned growing up as a kid and stu*ff *I can pass on to them* . . . *don't think they would learn these things if we lived in a city".*

There were ample stories (written and shared in discussions) that pointed to a high degree of pride in home across all three communities. It was obvious that by validating community and culture, people re-connected and became more engaged and responsive to thinking about the future from a place of strength and saw themselves as having a role in creating this vision for the future. Participants discussed some of the challenges and barriers that they continue to face in their communities, in a way that was solution oriented, as opposed to from a place of defeat and hopelessness, (a way of thinking apparent early on). For example, some community participants spoke about how policy and programming opportunities, or funding calls from provincial and federal governments, are often

done without regard for the interests and goals of the communities. Some expressed how they felt invalidated over the years in their communities by provincial or federal governments and marginalized from funding and other crucial opportunities to pursue planning efforts that were important to them. Others felt that some government officials simply did not care about them or their communities and felt as though it was the tactic of government to have people relocate from their homes to lessen financial burden and responsibility of government. Yet by re-connecting to community and culture, participants were able to think outside of a pre-scripted box where programs and services are outlined by external actors, and were able to come up with ideas and goals that were directly related to the interests of the communities. We learned that community interests are integral to planning as many participants talked about, for example, the importance of ensuring the survival of tradition and life ways learned from their ancestors.

The strength-based exercises in this study were successful in validating the potential, expertise, and knowledge that exists in the study communities. This form of validation proved crucial to strengthening capacity and awareness for those involved in planning, and in overcoming feelings of defeat and isolation. Furthermore, the importance of community and cultural validation is a feature of sustainable self-determination that seek to counter colonial wrongdoings that deny people and communities their very Indigeneity. It appears that by re-connecting to community and culture in the planning process, participants become more engaged and take on a greater sense of responsibility for the future.

#### *3.5. Sustainability Goals Identified, and Implementation Begun*

The three pilot communities identified a range of community sustainability goals and priorities and they began to work towards design and implementation during the course of this study. (See Table A3 for more detail). The community goals and priorities identified illustrate that community members are aware of the need to provide for basic necessities in addition to priorities that impact holistic health and well-being. While these goals represent the voice and participation of Inuit, it is important to be alert to the ever-evolving realities that impact Inuit communities and the need for Inuit to evolve and adapt to these realities. This means that goals may change and evolve as well, and planning actors must be cognizant of this and capable of attending to the varying nature of planning in these communities. Participant work on the CGSI demonstrates a commitment to community and to ensuring the survival of communities. The sustainability work of the CGSI offered a dedicated space for community members to focus on key areas of interests as they relate to community survival. As a result, a community craft group was formalized, proposals for infrastructure development identified and furthered, proposals related to water security, as well as community craft and feast events, took place. Other long-term goals were identified and discussed including the diversification of industry for economic growth. Economic development ideas reflected the resources available to community, and the skills and knowledge of community members. For example, seal processing, berry processing and a range of tourism opportunities, were identified.

These goals and priorities came out of and were furthered through the asset mapping, visioning and engagement exercises. Further priorities and sustainability goals specifically included improvements to roads and transportation, water and sewer infrastructure (two of three communities lack water and sewer infrastructure entirely and the third, partially), infrastructure to support community development and growth (i.e., multipurpose community centre/fire hall), economic security, food and heat security initiatives, and culturally relevant education. Additionally, access to clean drinking water was identified as a goal across all three communities and the degree of urgency of this goal varied across communities, with the most urgent and priority need in Black Tickle. Each of these priority areas were considered important for community sustainability now and into the future.

Communities also identified initiatives that they felt could be undertaken immediately such as community gatherings and feasts to celebrate community (St. Lewis), art and craft sessions for communities and activities for youth (Norman Bay and Black Tickle). Community members identified these as opportunities to assist in sustaining the momentum around sustainability discussions that had been ongoing in their communities throughout the research. Community centred initiatives like these were also thought to positively impact collective well-being and promote togetherness, in turn reinforcing and further validating Inuit values. In this context, it is clear that community planning and development opportunities must adhere to principles that ensure the survival of community and culture in ways that respect and ensure the survival of the natural environment and all who live with it.

#### *3.6. Limitations*

The study faced some limitations and challenges such as geography. NunatuKavut spans a vast territory and the three pilot communities are not easily accessible to each other, nor for the research team. As a result, time in individual communities was limited due to costs associated with travel to remote coastal Labrador and in order to ensure that quality time was had in each community. Inadequate funding to support community sustainability coordinators beyond the life of this study due to the external funding opportunity being short term and project based was also a challenge for the longevity of continuing this work in communities.

#### **4. Discussion and Conclusions**

Topics of governance and sustainability, including community sustainability planning, are receiving increasing attention in Canada and across the globe. Yet, conflicts and tensions related to land and resources between Indigenous peoples and the state continue and often undermine Indigenous political autonomy [36]. When Indigenous political autonomy is undermined, so too are the sustainability of cultural landscapes and the social-ecological systems that Inuit are a part of. Booth and Muir [31] recognize that Indigenous planning is necessary in order for Indigenous peoples to effectively navigate their own terrain and to navigate federal and provincial forces on their land. Yet, these authors observe that little attention has been paid (in the literature, policy or practice) to this area. An Indigenous planning perspective is new and to some extent unrealized, though it remains necessary in overcoming some of the barriers and obstacles that face Indigenous peoples in planning for the future [31] and sustaining their communities and cultures.

This study illustrates decolonized and community led sustainability planning in action. Collaborative work with NunatuKavut Inuit has given rise to 'grounded decolonization' which refers to an approach that seeks to respect and honour the values, history and culture of those who belong to their homeland, in their place and time. It refers to decolonization that must take place in the context of people who live and are connected through generations. Simply put, it means that decolonizing efforts must be acutely aware, and cognizant of, the history and present of the people in their context-and on their own terms. From this vantage point, decolonization or decolonizing efforts must be designed, shaped and implemented in locally and context specific ways. Thus, grounding decolonization refers to the act of designing and implementing decolonizing efforts that have gained consensus and agreement from communities leading their own efforts. In the context of sustainability planning, decolonization can manifest as Indigenous consent and recognition of Indigenous priorities and expertise which are integral to the creation of sustainable communities.

Corntassel's concept of place further enlightens this study [24]. The community sustainability planning and capacity strengthening efforts of Inuit in NunatuKavut throughout the CGSI reflect the capacity and strength of Inuit to make decisions that impact them on their lands and informed by their own values and perspectives. The autonomy to make decisions that impact the future of Inuit communities in NunatuKavut, in a way that is indicative of Inuit values, world views and perspectives, is integral to decolonizing and self-determination efforts that are sustainable into the future. By building on the work of Corntassel in this area and applying key concepts and ideas to the work in NunatuKavut, we were able to assist communities in identifying short and long-term sustainability goals that positively impact community. Expertise and knowledge of generations past, of tradition, moving and living with changing seasons, all point to a reality in which people live in relation with the natural environment, not against it [4].

Study participants were active in achieving a number of the goals and objectives set out in their communities through the CGSI and it was clear that the health of people and communities, of lands and waters, was and is a stated priority. The priorities and goals set out by the communities in this study are meaningful, relevant and urgent. While they are not necessarily elaborate, it is important to understand these goals in context. In many ways, they reflect a desire for the basic and fundamental rights and privileges that most Canadians' already enjoy freely, including basic necessities necessary to support the planning and development of goals driven by the global economy (e.g., access to clean drinking water). Sustainability goals and priorities in this study point to inequalities and inequities that plague NunatuKavut Inuit in these areas, but these issues are not unique to them as Indigenous peoples. Water and food insecurity disproportionately impact Indigenous communities in Canada, and in particular, Northern Indigenous communities [37]. Thus, Indigenous led self-determination efforts that are locally driven and context specific are necessary for the planning of sustainable futures that promote equality and equity for Inuit.

Community asset mapping, engagement strategies, visioning exercises, and capacity strengthening initiatives provided spaces and environments for participants and communities to envision, for themselves, a future for their community. The idea behind capacity strengthening and thought-provoking exercises such as these was not to transport knowledge from one authoritative body onto community, but rather to open safe and meaningful spaces for communities to connect with, think about, and reflect upon what is possible in a way that positions community members as experts and knowledge holders in their own right. Following from the work of Eisenberg et al. [29], this research and the processes described in this study demonstrate that Indigenous peoples and communities are experts on their lands and their knowledge of place position them to make decisions to inform a future that is compatible with their own goals, ways of knowing and of being.

Overall, the work of the sustainability committees in communities set the stage for discussions whereby community people began to talk about governance and community planning from a community centered and value-based perspective. Several participants spoke to the way in which the sustainability committee in their community had allowed them to think about and move initiatives forward in a way that had not been possible before. Participants from all of the pilot communities spoke to the necessity of community involvement and leadership in decisions that impact them directly, emphasizing the importance of grounded, decolonizing approaches to community planning and visions for the future informed by Inuit goals and values, and shaped by their connection to people, place and history, rooted in their environment and culture.

Community knowledge, values and traditions, enlightened by communities themselves, has set an important expectation in motion-that in order to plan for a sustainable future, we must think about and reconnect with what it is that we value most about our communities. This approach allows community members to reflect and to think about positive aspects of a community (i.e., culture, values etc.), and to ensure that those facets of community are protected and considered in planning for the future. What is valued within and about community became the prominent factor in considering and determining community sustainability goals in these three pilot communities. This work situates grounded decolonization as that which creates, supports and fosters environments that allow communities and people to connect and re-connect to their communities in ways that are most meaningful to them. Decolonizing paths that seek to respond to the interests, priorities and values of people in their place and time, and not those ideals or values that come from outside the community, are particularly relevant. Grounded decolonization implies that these values about community should lead the community planning approach for the future.

Decolonized planning efforts are a necessary step to sustainable self-determination in NunatuKavut so as to ensure that community sustainability planning efforts come from a rights-based perspective. As a concept and point of discussion in modern day discourse and building on the work of Smith [20], decolonization can assist us in unpacking sites of colonial control (and even colonial relationships that have endured and continue to marginalize Indigenous governance systems). While Indigenous governance systems have much to contribute to the development of sustainable communities and societies, Indigenous communities are often faced with barriers due to a lack of interest in collaboration from dominant systems of control within society [22]. The implications of this work are that community sustainability for Indigenous communities under Indigenous led decolonization, as it is for the NunatuKavut Inuit, means that capacity is being strengthened, knowledge and awareness of Indigenous rights are becoming more prevalent, the desire and will to reclaim traditional aspects of culture and political society are more paramount, and the willingness to own, author and share one's story is becoming commonplace. This research study has been a witness to the power of culture, tradition and connection to community that has come as a result of decolonizing work, all of which are integral to beginning and maintaining decolonized community sustainability.

**Author Contributions:** A.H.: Supported by the NCC, I designed and led the CGSI, with the NCC and three NunatuKavut communities. I held a dual role as NCC employee, working with and for the communities, observing and reflecting on this process as a PhD student. The multiple roles of community member, researcher and employee of NCC held me accountable but also connected me with the communities and people who participated in this research. K.V.: My contributions to this paper are as a scholar in community sustainability, governance and development. As supervisor I provided guidance throughout the research, including the writing of this article and the related PhD dissertation, as well as specific input on the construction and content of this paper, as outlined below. Conceptualization, A.H.; methodology, A.H.; investigation, A.H.; resources, K.V.; writing—original draft preparation, A.H.; writing—review and editing, A.H., and K.V.; supervision, K.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The authors are grateful to the support of this work and the CGSI from NCC and participating communities, who provided essential input and in-kind support, and to the Atlantic Indigenous Mentorship Network: Kausattumi Grants Program scholarship.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors thank the communities of Black Tickle, Norman Bay and St. Lewis for their time, contributions, expertise and knowledge throughout this research. Special thanks to the NunatuKavut Community Council (NCC) for seeing the value in this research and for your support of this initiative throughout. The authors would also like to thank all of those who supported this research as partners, colleagues and friends, whose advice and guidance were invaluable to this research.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Abbreviations**


#### **Appendix A. Community Characteristics**

Black Tickle, Norman Bay, and St. Lewis were selected as pilot communities to pursue community sustainability planning with a vision towards identifying collective community goals, building on what is and has already been working well in the communities, in order to envision a future from a place of strength, Inuit values and perspectives. This process demonstrated that residents in the three communities are proud and eager to reclaim and strengthen a future that is bright and sustainable for their families for the years to come. The communities were selected based on remote geography in NunatuKavut, their vulnerability around economic development, food and water security concerns (although to varying degrees in each community), and rate of population decline, all of which affect community and cultural preservation. These communities are also rich in Inuit culture and their remoteness and lack of basic amenities give rise to continued subsistence living in a way that persistently demonstrates Inuit adaptation in the face of globalization. In sum, this research is driven by an approach to equity. Table A1 provides an overview of the remoteness of all three communities, highlighting the lack accessibility in and out of each community and a lack of primary industry that was once the economic driver in the communities.


#### **Table A1.** Community Characteristics.

<sup>1</sup> Population source: Community Town Council, Recreation Committee and Local Service District respectively. Other information in Table 1 reflects knowledge from study participants.


**Table A2.** Data Collection Activities (All Communities).

**Table A3.** A3.1 Black Tickle Community Goals and Progress; A3.2 Norman Bay Community Goals and Progress; A3.3 St. Lewis Community Goals and Progress.



#### **Table A3.** *Cont.*

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### *Article* **Placetelling**® **as a Strategic Tool for Promoting Niche Tourism to Islands: The Case of Cape Verde**

#### **Fabio Pollice, Antonella Rinella, Federica Epifani \* and Patrizia Miggiano**

Department of History, Society and Human Studies, University of Salento, 7-73100 Lecce, Italy; fabio.pollice@unisalento.it (F.P.); antonella.rinella@unisalento.it (A.R.); patrizia.miggiano@unisalento.it (P.M.)

**\*** Correspondence: federica.epifani@unisalento.it

Received: 2 May 2020; Accepted: 20 May 2020; Published: 25 May 2020

**Abstract:** This paper reports on the experience of the first Placetelling® training course in Santo Antão and Santiago, Cape Verde, promoted by Società Geografica Italiana and Fondazione Lelio e Lisli Basso. Placetelling® is a particular type of storytelling of places that promotes local development and helps to develop a sense of identity and belonging among the members of the community. Indeed, Placetelling® supports local communities to become directly engaged in the preservation of their common legacy in order to transmit it to coming generations. Tourism is the field where Placetelling® can best express its potential. This is particularly true for what concerns tourism to islands. The paper shows the first results of what we can define as a "maieutic reworking of local heritage" in Cape Verde, through the sharing of narrative and symbolic artifacts. Special attention will be dedicated to some crucial issues: The involvement of stakeholders through the lenses of empowerment, the discrepancies between how sense of identity is perceived by the locals and how it is communicated to tourists, and how and to what extent Placetelling® can change stakeholders' awareness of their own cultural heritage.

**Keywords:** Placetelling®; local heritage; islands; sustainable tourism; Cape Verde

#### **1. Introduction**

This research was conceived within the theoretical and methodological debate about Placetelling® and, more specifically, that it is inherent in the strategic role that Placetelling® can play in defining tourism-driven trajectories for local development. Reflections in this essay were inspired by two thematic pillars: Firstly, we considered which typologies of identity narratives could be identified depending on the purposes to be pursued and, secondly, we analyzed islandness as a complexifying variable in outlining new effective strategies for identity narratives.

Placetelling® is a method to create place narratives, a strategic asset to support communication and promotional processes. It was launched in 2016 thanks to the cooperation between the Centro Universitario Europeo per i Beni Culturali (European University Center for Cultural Heritage, depositary of the trademark) and the University of Salento. In 2017, the first School of Placetelling® took place at the University of Salento. Since then, two other editions have been organized, as well as a number of scientific and popular events. The main aim of the School of Placetelling® is to train a specialized professional, namely, the placeteller, who is an expert in the field of place-oriented storytelling, able to enhance places for their peculiar identities.

In this essay, we report the experience and the early results of the Placetelling® training course held in Santiago and Santo Antão, Cape Verde.

Cape Verde is an archipelagic state in the North Atlantic Ocean made up of 10 volcanic islands with a total population of more than 500,000.

Because of its strategic location (500 km from Senegal, close to the major north-south routes), it was colonized by Portugal in the 15th century, and became one of the most important slave trade centers. Since its independence, gained in 1975, Cape Verde has been one of the most stable African states, both economically and politically, yet it faces a number of geographic, economic, and social disadvantages because of which it is categorized by UN (United Nations) as SIDS (Small Islands Developing Countries) [1]. Hence, because of the severe lack of natural resources, the Cape Verdean economy is mainly based on development aid, foreign investments, remittances, and tourism [2]. Indeed, it is correct to say that the Cape Verdean economy is tourism-driven, largely depending on Eurozone countries. According to the Instituto Nacional de Estatistica Cabo Verde, tourism flows to the archipelago have increased significantly in the last decade; in 2017, more than half of the tourists came from four European countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Holland) [3].

Although Cape Verde offers a wide variety of environmental and cultural resources, it is considered as a mere seaside destination, with severe impacts on resource shortage and landscape deterioration processes [4]. The current economic reforms, intended to diversify the economy in order to attract foreign investments and to boost employment, also include strategies to diversify tourism supply according to the principle of sustainable tourism, oriented to the crucial aim to preserve territorial carrying capacity [5,6].

Besides being the first occasion for testing Placetelling® abroad, this experience triggered both epistemological reflections and provided pragmatic evidence with regard to the relevance of the territorial element (in this case, islandness) and of identity in outlining shared, bottom-up narratives of the place and, consequently, how these elements could converge towards an effective strategic tool for local development. Place narratives for sustainable tourism are a pertinent example.

The essay starts with a theoretical overview regarding the intrinsic relationship between Placetelling® and sustainability, especially for what concerns cultural sustainability and how it can be interpreted considering the specific case of island tourism with its peculiar criticalities. Therefore, the taxonomy of place narratives and the mutual link between place narratives and nissology represent, in this specific study, a crucial issue. The link between Placetelling® and sustainability is self-evident: It arises from the need to build a narrative mechanism that makes the local community aware of the mutual relationship that binds it to the place. Such a reciprocity makes the local community a distinctive social organism. The adjective "local", in fact, means that the community is such when it recognizes itself in a territory and represents itself in symbiosis with it.

Secondly, we introduce the Placetelling® methodological framework, underlining its peculiar multidisciplinarity: Placetelling® is inspired by a prescriptive geographical approach, but it shows a robust attitude to hybridization concerning both theoretical aspects (e.g., semiotics, media studies, sociology) and practical applications (e.g., video making, photography, creative writing). Finally, we present the experience of the first Placetelling® training course in Cape Verde, which took place in April 2019 within the project "Cabo Verde: Historia, Cultura e Ambiente para um Turismo Sustentàvel", promoted by Fondazione Lelio e Lisli Basso and Fundacão Amilcar Cabral and funded by the European Union. The training course was designed by geographers from University of Salento (Lecce, Italy) and University of Tor Vergata (Rome).

Though the project has only just finished, some early results are already available. These results, which also represent the direct output of the training course, are intended to be the first step towards the development of a shared promotional strategy to be implemented by all the local operators according to the principles of sustainable tourism.

#### **2. Theoretical Framework**

The scientific reflection about Placetelling® is quite recent and, due to its potential multidisciplinary applications, it encompasses a wide range of suggestions. An essential trait is the relationship between sustainable tourism and Placetelling® and, in particular, how the enhancement of local bottom-up narratives could favor the development of new forms of sustainable tourism within a SIDS context.

UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organisation) pays close attention to the relation between tourism and SIDS. Starting from numbering the "three key characteristics: Small size, with implications for pressure on resources and limited economic diversity; remoteness and isolation, leading to challenges for trading but also to a unique biodiversity and cultural richness; and a maritime environment, leading to strong tourism assets but vulnerability to climate change", sustainable tourism, intended as a kind of tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social, and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of the visitors, the industry, the environment, and host communities is presented as a supporting tool for local development [7]. The scientific debate mirrors the prescriptive framework outlined within international organizations and offers theoretical robustness to the complexity of the issue. Only to cite the most recent studies, attention was paid to the analysis of the determinants of tourism toward SIDS, to the links between tourism and social issues, and to the way tourism affects environmental systems [8–11].

In addition, many social scientists have underlined the persistence of a sort of colonialist relationship between many SIDS with a colonial history and their former colonizing countries [12–14]. This calls into question a fourth dimension of sustainability, namely, cultural sustainability, defined as the effort "to respect and enhance the historic heritage, authentic culture, traditions, and distinctiveness of host communities". [15]. Such a statement appears particularly urgent if we consider tourism in relation to globalization, and we grasp not only its dimension as an economic phenomenon, but also as a social habitus fed by the desire to experience otherness in its many manifestations [16]. The resulting cultural interaction, however, can be corrupted by asymmetries that often have geo-economic genesis, and in the context of which we observe the action of dominant cultures capable not only of modifying the behaviors and lifestyles of the host community but also of contributing directly or indirectly to an exogenous and instrumental re-territorialization of the places of tourism. In the specific case of SIDS, as will be explained below, there is traditionally a prevalence of globalitarian forms of tourism, in which the need to attract capital induces a complete adaptation of tourist supply to global demand; the consequence is 'topophagy', a de-territorializing action whereby places become non-places [17,18].

On these bases, we argue that place narratives are deeply entwined with local sustainable development. Such an observation lies on a post-structuralist interpretation of development, and the attention paid by post-structuralist scholars to the quest for discourses, explanations, theories, and descriptions which are contextual and, consequently, plural [19]. These narratives are expected to be self-centered and representative of the local communities, so as to be functional to contrast what defines "imaginary geographies", often disseminated by dominant cultures.

#### **3. Methodology for Identity Narratives**

#### *3.1. Orientative Narratives, Attractive Narratives, Hyperconnective Narratives*

Hence, place narratives have a territorializing power, as they act as determinants within local development processes which are, in turn, immersed in complex systems of local relations. Questioning the implications that the narratives of a place, according to its hetero-directed or self-centered nature, have on the processes of territorial development, requires us to go beyond a purely semiotic investigation to try to understand how these implications materialize within a specific space, how they "take place". In this, the perceptive dimension referring to complex identity systems, within which the processes of construction, negotiation, and renegotiation of meanings take place is relevant. This is especially true when we focus not only on the fruition, but also on the modes of active perception of the dominant narrative, as well as on the forms of production of alternative and place-based narratives stemming from everyday life.

There are at least three typologies of place narratives, which can converge and/or diverge: Orientative, attractive, and hyperconnective.

Orientative narratives [20] stem from the territory for the territory, in order to build or rebuild its own identity dimension and hand it on to forthcoming generations, so as to make them aware of their heritage as well as make them responsible for its protection and enhancement [21]. Orientative narratives are based on two fundamental skills: "To make local community" and "nurture amor loci" [22]; these two skills are conditio sine qua non for setting off a sustainable, shared, "contextualized patrimonialization" [23]. This form of narrative is useful to guide or re-orient both individual and collective attitudes towards the local, in order to make them coherent and functional to a full comprehension of change processes occurring at local and global scale. In other words, it supports the resilience of local systems and, therefore, their capacity to adapt to changes in the global scenario, improving competitive performance and wealth levels among local community members.

Orientative narratives are focused on the quality of social networks, landscapes, heritage safeguarding, culture, and history, and consider local community as the core and the crucial element in designing strategies for the enhancement of the characteristic features of a place. The expressive forms generally used aim to give an overview made up of anecdotes and everyday stories considered as unique and essential, which are often hidden from and unknown to outsiders; such stories are chosen and recovered by local actors themselves (citizens, tour operators, local authorities), who show a proactive attitude towards a shared comprehension of symbols and values, as well as strengthening cohesion starting from the sense of belonging.

This kind of narrative, which underlies the rebuilding of a sense of belonging among the members of a local community as well as heritage regeneration, can in turn generate attractive narratives [1]. Attractive narratives are intended to transmit identity features to those who belong to other cultures and other contexts, so as to increase territorial attractiveness and stimulate a mutual empathic relationship [1]. As a consequence, functional cultural mediations are established, in order to respond to a touristic demand which is: (1) relational—the sharing of the same relational space favors interaction between tourist and territory and allows the former to develop a direct, not mediated, awareness of place cultural values; (2) experiential—a large part of intangible cultural heritage is accessible only through its local community. Therefore, interaction with the local community allows the tourist to experience the place in its intangible aspects; and (3) sustainable—it is not the territory that adapts to the needs of tourist flows; on the contrary, the tourist lives an immersive experience, a community experience, respectful of place values and environment. It is a community-involved approach for three reasons:


Attractive narratives see the tourist as a "temporary" citizen who is "encouraged/invited" to: (1) Taste local foods and drinks originating in an invaluable, anciently rooted tradition [25]; (2)explore the history of the place through the in-depth knowledge of tangible and intangible assets layering within the territory; and (3) live the habits, handicrafts, celebrations, all the possible itineraries and workshops, sharing emotions and inclusive and original experiences with the local community.

Different from the first two narratives, the hyperconnective narrative gives absolute priority to the projection of a local system's core business within the global scale, aiming to enhance some specific tangible/intangible assets (a building, a museum, a festival, a site of pilgrimage, etc.) that are deemed appropriate to respond to specific supralocal needs. The fact that these elements, which often represent the main object of local investments, are able to satisfy the taste of a wide international audience may open up new creative and original scenarios and generate substantial multiplier effects and promising cultural bridges with other cultures. Nevertheless, many case studies have demonstrated that, in the long term, the precious "passe-partout" of cross-cultural influence can easily become a dangerous means to undermine tradition, here considered as a mere tool for territorial marketing; in this way, tradition is subjected to logics and models completely different to those characterizing sustainable tourism.

This approach underlies dangerous trends inspired by the current fashion, with the realistic risk of the damage or destruction of existential, sentimental, and emotional values which concur within a milieu and, as a consequence, to enhance the use value of that milieu to the detriment of its exchange value. Instead of being the pivotal protagonist of individual and collective growth of the local system, local community threatens to become nothing more than a bit player on a stage that can rapidly change from being the hot focus of external stakeholders to the most complete abandonment.

#### *3.2. A Preliminary Methodological Note: Island Narratives between Mainstream Narratives and Placetelling*®

As already stated, the foundational aim of Placetelling® is to achieve an identity narrative as a result of self-representational processes carried out by the local community. This appears to be particularly relevant with regard to the case of Cape Verde, given its connotation as an island state. Hence, islandness concurs in further problematizing the debate on an already complex issue, namely, the self-representation of local communities through self-determined re-appropriation and use of their own cultural and symbolic heritage. A further level of complexity comes from considering this process as the basis of local development strategies, as in the case of tourism.

The relationship between islandness and identity has been largely developed within the scientific debate, also with regard to tourism. Indeed, such a thematic triangulation (islandness-identity-tourism) identifies the focus of the most debated issues animating island studies. In particular, the emergence of a decolonial approach in island studies [26] and, more generally, the analysis of the relevance of colonial thinking in approaching islandness [27] have determined the theoretical set on which to base further reflections on the topic.

Tourism dynamics still reflect colonial links, mediated through the persistence of economic and political benefits, among former colonies and their former colonizing country, as well as language similarity. It is not the case that a huge number of small islands' economies are tourism driven; moreover, as already underlined in the literature [28,29], the effectiveness of tourism-led development strategies in island economies depends on their affiliation with more powerful countries, according to a center-periphery model [30,31] that affects both the impacts of tourism on island territories—whose carrying capacity is usually limited—and the touristic demand and supply system, often directed from the outside.

What has been said above finds further validation through the analysis of marketing narratives related to islands. As observed by dell'Agnese [32], islands are subjected to an aggressive branding operation. If we consider the place as a unique combination of objective elements and subjective perceptions, able to create what Tuan [33] defined as topophilia, islands must face a de-territorialized stereotyped imagery according to which an island—no matter where, no matter which island—represents nothing more than a pleasant, exotic refuge from the stress of urban and industrial civilization. In this imagery, historical, political, and cultural characteristics underlying island orientative narratives have no place; the hyperconnective narrative of the island as "warm water" [28] prevails on the attractive narratives which depict islands as univocally identifiable territorial entities.

In order to find evidence of the above assertions, we thought it would be interesting to see what would be the result if we entered the key word "Cape Verde tourism" on any browser, and then clicked on the most indexed links (Figure 1).

**(a) (b)**

**Figure 1.** Example of conventional attractive narrative about Cape Verde. The two word clouds were generated using Wordclouds (www.wordclouds.com), a free online tool. Though it was not possible to customize the n-grams' dimension and word clouds in general may not be very accurate (for instance, semantic networks are not considered), what emerged was worthy of an in-depth analysis. The word clouds in Figure 1 refer to two of the most indexed links: Lonely Planet (**a**) https://www.lonelyplanet.com/cape-verde [34] and World Travel Guide [35] (**b**) https://www. worldtravelguide.net/guides/africa/cape-verde/. (Source: personal elaboration).

Word clouds are visual representations of text data, which show the frequency of a word within a text. The bigger the word, the higher the frequency within the text (corpus) analyzed.

In both cases, it was possible to observe that, besides local toponyms and, of course, *island*/*islands*, the most frequent words were related to leisure activities (*music, hikes, bars, tour*) and landscapes (*mountains, beaches, dunes, seaside, valleys*). Moreover, there was a clearly identifiable reference to what we could define as a general sense of remoteness (*abroad, foreign, travel*), as well as a wide range of lemmas describing beautiful, uncontaminated, peaceful landscapes (*peaceful, unspoilt, framed*), also by recalling colors (*white, green, indigo-blue*). Finally, a very few references to local culture (*moraleza, creole*) were recorded.

The same remarks are applicable to visual contents (Figure 2). By typing the search key "Cape Verde tourism" on Google Chrome and selecting the filter "images", the results were pictures of the same kind of landscape: Sandy beaches with sparkling blue waters, palm trees, tiny wooden boats on the shoreline, a rocky skyline. Green-blue, light blue, and white were the prevalent colors, respectively referable to the sea, the sky, and the sand. In the majority of the pictures, the absence of people within the framed space evoked the idea of a peaceful, desert island. The only human traces were straw parasols and deckchairs. If present, tourists were depicted swimming or sunbathing, while the presence of locals was quite rare, mainly reduced to a picturesque element embedded within the landscape.

The result was a stereotyped description of an earthly paradise whose attractive narrative lies in its power to instill in the reader a certain sense of peace and relaxation. However, such evocative potential derives from a mere aesthetic, and a static idea of the place, rather than a full comprehension of its relational and symbolic fabric resulting from unique processes of territorialization.

Landscape representations themselves, delivering the idea of stunning, captivating, striking, surreal places and views, were characterized by recurrent elements, none of which was uniquely attributable to Cape Verde. In other words, the representation delivered by the mainstream narration on Cape Verde was more like a setting, rather than a landscape or a place; the perfect setting for holidays and honeymoons, rather than a relational experience [36].

#### *Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, 4333

**Figure 2.** The first page of results after typing "Cape Verde tourism" on Google images. (Source: Google Chrome, 11 September 2019).

The risk [28] is to incur a neocolonialist-like nissology, written by outsiders—including both foreigners and islanders living outside the island—mainly for outsiders. For instance, in tourism narratives, elements like the language used (vehicular languages prevail over vernacular), the reference to a set of characteristic features as representative of a locality (those with a wider evocative potential on the large scale), even the kind of narrator (heterodiegetic narratives prevail over autodiegetic [37]), concur in preserving such tendencies.

Testing Placetelling® within an island *milieu* shows a clear epistemological value because islandness underlines the importance of the territorial variable in characterizing Placetelling® compared to other kinds of storytelling, whereas it inspires not only the goals, but also the design and implementation of narrative processes. With regard to our case study, it was a crucial Placetelling® aim to achieve an orientative and attractive narrative able to limit the globalist effects of hyperconnective narratives.

#### **4. Case Study**

#### *4.1. Introduction*

Placetelling® is a method for narrating places, which is:


A placeteller is able to develop new immersive narrative techniques, to act in supporting place interpretation. He or she is likely to be an expert in the field of information, communication, and education, in the subfield of infotainment and edutainment, who makes storytelling a powerful tool for the interpretation and enhancement of local heritage starting from the lived space shared by the dwellers.

From a methodological point of view (how can places be told?), Placetelling® gleans its theories and techniques from literature, narratology, aesthetics, and media studies, thus highlighting its interdisciplinary character.

To be effective, storytelling has to possess some specific characteristics.

Semiotics tell us much about these aspects. Indeed, in Placetelling® the relationship that is established in the narrative representation of reality between interpretation and hermeneutic processes is crucial.

With regard, in particular, to the functions of narrating, we will use a summary scheme that illustrates the factors at stake in the construction of a functional narrative, using an *R* to indicate the reference to reality, *S* the concepts and symbolic values (also of fundamental importance because they act on an emotional level), and *F* the formal values (good narrative form and quality of exposition/illustration).

Since no good narrative text is exclusively formal or symbolic, nor does it narrate reality without an attribution of meanings (otherwise it would be pure chronicle or documentary narrative), there are no cases of good narrative that properly relate to the vertices of the illustrated triangle. Instead, there are an infinite number of combinations that are placed within it and that describe, with different objectives and measures, the three fundamental components.

What is described here can, therefore, be summarized, as in Figure 3.

**Figure 3.** The scheme presents the functions of the narrative, *R,* indicating the reference to reality, *S* concepts and symbolic values (also of fundamental importance because they act on an emotional level), and *F,* the formal values (good narrative form and quality of the exhibition/illustration). (Source: Personal elaboration).

From the point of view of a narrative structured and finalized in this way, it is necessary to listen to the places before they are represented, experiencing them, letting the places speak, creating a universe of meanings in a sort of autopoietic process.

Placetelling® is, therefore, a precious instrument of transmission and conservation of the narrative heritage, nourished by written and oral stories of humanity.

At this point it is appropriate to make some clarifications to dispel any doubts about a possible overlap of meaning between Placetelling® and other methodologies that could present affinities, such as place-making [40]. We argue that Placetelling® can be functional to place-making, in the sense that the former can accompany the latter and make it a participatory and conscious process, capable of truly restoring the territorial identity and demands of the local community in planning terms. At the same time, Placetelling® is also an instrument capable of reducing the risk that place-making could become the expression of an intellectual elite, in an undemocratic planning process. Empowering a community's narrative attitude means making it aware of its own distinctive identity and of the material

and immaterial manifestations that it assumes: An unavoidable prerequisite for the community to be involved in place-making and to become aware of its role and the purposes of planning.

In the same way, we think that Placetelling® cannot be assimilated to a technique of involvement of the local community because involvement is not the final aim of the narrative, but its presupposition. Placetelling® is a technique aimed at strengthening the identity dimension and projecting it outside. The story is a way of recognizing and representing oneself and these are actions that can contribute to strengthening the collective dimension and giving feedback on the level of participation in the political dimension.

#### *4.2. Description*

The first Placetelling® training course in Cape Verde was promoted within the project "Cabo Verde: Historia, Cultura e Ambiente para um Turismo Sustentàvel", implemented by Fondazione Lelio e Lisli Basso and Fundacão Amilcar Cabral and funded by the European Union. The project, launched in 2016, intended to trigger the diversification of Cape Verdean tourism according to the principles of sustainable tourism, so as to preserve and enhance environmental, social, and cultural conditions. Specific objects were identified in enhancing Cape Verdean cultural and environmental diversity by a high-quality tourism supply, able to create employment opportunities; improving awareness among local communities and local authorities with regard to the importance of preserving territorial capital as an asset for local development, also through tourism; and foster new community-oriented and rural-oriented tourism dynamics, in order to include peripheral areas with an attractive high potential in tourism chains [41].

The project's output included the creation of two itineraries: Circuito do Aguardente e derivados-O Grogue como produto cultura, in Santo Antao, and Circuito da Baixa da Praia-Das Águas Doces e Salgadas in Santiago.

Consequently, the training course was conceived as a maieutic process during which attendees were invited to identify the most significant elements of local culture and, on that basis, discuss how to develop a narrative product able to catch the attention of a specific target tourist interested in living a realistic experience of the two localities, starting from the narrative interpretation of the two itineraries.

In order to involve a larger number of participants and to develop a more place-oriented process, two three-day sessions were held in Sant'Antão and Santiago. Each session was attended by about 20 participants including local tourist operators, cultural operators, local administration officers, artists, women, and young people. The two training courses were conducted by Fabio Pollice (University of Salento), Simone Bozzato, and Marco Prosperi (University of Tor Vergata).

Placetelling® principles and methods, implemented in the creative process, were illustrated during the first part of the training, through short intensive classes. In particular, participants were invited to reflect on:

Experiential tourism and identity-driven constructs: How to favor the discovery of real local culture by promoting the place as relational space and, as a consequence, the tourist's immersive experience (embeddedness) and how to recover narrative local capital and identify the intangible and tangible characteristic elements which define place identities, so as to make them accessible both by insiders and outsiders? It has to be clarified that place identities are to be considered as a symbolic and relational complex, which could be perceived through the double dimension of sense of belonging (for the local community) and mutual recognition (among local community members). As a consequence, Placetelling® works as a "passe-partout code" for entering the place's relational networks [42].

Identity narratives and immersive narratives. This session calls into question the debate about a place's authenticity, which becomes relevant in outlining a truly place-based narrative. In this case, taking our cue from Massey's observations about the risk posed by the spread of a "regressive sense of place" [43], we recall Cohen and Cohen's definition of "hot" authentication as "an imminent, reiterative, informal performative process of creating, preserving and reinforcing an object's, site's or event's authenticity. It is typically an anonymous course of action, lacking a well-recognized

authenticating agent. The process of "hot" authentication is emotionally loaded, based on belief, rather than proof, and is therefore largely immune to external criticism" [24]. In this way, we intend identity community narratives to be an inclusive, plural, and dynamic direct expression of daily life as lived by the locals, who represent, in turn, a plurality of subjective experiences and narratives, rather than a static, museum-like experience of the place.

Narrative forms, techniques and strategies. The definition of effective narrative place-based products and their implementation must consider four aspects.


The second part of the course, subsequent to the theoretical investigation of Placetelling® principles and methods, consisted of site visits to the two itineraries created during the project. On the basis of theoretical classes and group discussions, participants were asked to elaborate a product able to guide the tourist through an inclusive experience of the two localities. As a result, the groups outlined two "10 things to do" lists for tourists, as analyzed in the next paragraph.

#### **5. Results and Discussion**

The difficulty of guides and tour operators of the Cape Verdean islands where the course was held was to tell the specificity of their culture and to focus on its attractiveness, while trying to direct tourism towards a conscious and experiential use of its territory.

In fact, it must be considered that, differently from Sal and Boa Vista, the islands that welcome 90% of the tourist flow directed to the Cape Verde archipelago, which owe their attraction to their beaches and to the large and well-equipped tourist villages that rise along the coast, Santiago has few beaches, totaling a couple of kilometers, while Santo Antão has no beaches at all.

The Placetelling® course, therefore, worked on identifying the elements of local culture that can take on an attractive value for the tourist and how they can be told so that their attractive value produces its effects on international demand.

The metaphor used was the "cachupa", a traditional food of these islands: A corn and bean stew with meat or fish, a smart combination of elements that brings together all that these islands can offer.

In order to promote experiential tourism, the decision was made to tell this culture starting from the experiences that the tourist must have to feel Cape Verdean: A "to do-list" capable of communicating the richness of Creole culture, what to eat and when, where to go to see the sunset or dawn, when and where to drink grog, how to prepare cachupa, etc.

The two "10 things to do" lists (one for Santo Antão, one for Santiago) (Table 1) were the result of group discussion about what are the most relevant elements that compose the place identities of Santo Antão and Santiago and what kinds of activities can help an outsider to better interpret the spirit of the place. The lists represent an example of bottom-up narrative, whose elaboration required a shared reworking of traditional heritage by the locals (orientative narrative).

The "10 things to do" lists can be delivered both through direct and indirect channels, and their evocative communication mode aims to arouse people's curiosity in investigating, through an immersive experience, the daily, hidden aspects of the two Cape Verdean localities (attractive narrative).


**Table 1.** The two "10 things to do" lists.

Although an early Placetelling® experiment, the "things to do" show important differences compared to the mainstream narrative. Every item suggests an activity to achieve, so we can record a significant frequency of verbs like "*learn*", "*make*", "*experience*", "*participate*", and "*know*" that sound like an evocative imperative, implying a direct, experiential involvement of the tourist. Besides stimulating the emotional sphere, most of the identified activities aim to preserve what we can call a "local skill" (e.g., "*learn to cook Cachupa*"): Once learned, the tourist can replicate it after his/her experiential trip.

There are several specific references to the places: toponyms (besides the two localities, *Fontainhas village, Paul and Caibros, Cidade Velha, Rabelados*), food traditions (*Grogue, Cachupa*), celebrations (*pilgrimage parties, Tabanka party procession*), and leisure activities (*dance Batuque and Funanà, playing traditional music, learning to dance contradança and mazurka*) suggest *where to go* and *why*, allowing the tourist to outline an experiential mapping. Moreover, references to local toponyms and cultural features play an evocative function; in contrast, this function in mainstream narrative is played by the large use of adjectives like *stunning, striking* (cf., the paragraph "Identity narratives and islandness"), which are totally absent in Placetelling® narratives. We can conclude that Placetelling® enhances the evocative potential of the place, and evocativeness becomes site specific (Figure 4).

**Figure 4.** Word cloud generated using the two "10 things to do" lists.

Finally, differences between the mainstream narrative and Placetelling® in Santo Antão and Santiago can also be identified with regard to principles and methods, as summarized in the Table 2.


**Table 2.** Comparison between mainstream narratives and Placetelling®.


#### **Table 2.** *Cont.*

#### **6. Conclusions**

As already stated, the debate on Placetelling® is very recent, and still needs to be further developed. This means that practical applications like the one reported in this essay are useful to spot a number of weaknesses and criticalities, both in the processes and in the results that definitely deserve an in-depth reflection.

It is worth mentioning that besides the limited amount of time, a huge difficulty can be identified in the use of a non-native language, which could lead to misunderstandings in the dissemination and interpretation of symbolic meanings at the base of intangible cultural heritage.

Nevertheless, these experiences are also fundamental to show the potential of Placetelling® as a preparatory action for the enhancement of the cultural heritage of a place, a way to stimulate and direct it.

In other words, it is precisely through narration that the value of a place is created and communicated, because the community is put in a position to recognize it and reclaim it, building its own development project around it [1].

Therefore, it is necessary to know how to increase the appeal, or the charisma of places, through actions capable of stimulating the tourist's emotional imagination, especially given the fact that the tourist is increasingly motivated by the desire to achieve an intense cultural experience [31].

In fact, before travelling, the tourist imagines: So he/she wishes to satisfy an expectation built through the recourse to narratives of various kinds, mostly mediated.

Then it is a true promesse de bonheur composed of material elements, but also and above all of the intangible elements (emotions, lived experiences) that play a fundamental role in choosing the destination since the tourist phenomenon sinks its roots in the complex territory of desires [36].

The unique and unrepeatable characteristics of a place that give rise to the desire in the tourist towards that place are, therefore. fundamental elements to start an identity process and a sustainable economic and social development.

On the other hand, the tourist is not the only protagonist of Placetelling® processes: The main actor is the place itself, here considered as the result of symbolic negotiations whose tangible effects are a multiplicity of layers (material infrastructures, stories, celebrations, customs, and habits) through which the place has historically built itself. When dealing with place enhancement, the worst threat to incur is what we can define, to recall the relational approach, a regressive sense of place, namely inspired to an idea of place like something given, fixed, rather than articulated moments in networks [44,45]. This means that every Placetelling® strategy should be implemented avoiding every form of museification or Disneyfication of the place and, consequently, of local community. This also suggests a reflection about the local community's level of empowerment and, more specifically, the narratives about the local people's ability to meet their needs and set up self-determined development trajectories [46,47].

Another final aspect to be investigated is the launch of new projects through the use of narration. Placetelling®, in fact, using a geographical approach of a prescriptive type, directs the development and growth direction of a place, becomes a harbinger of new projects and, therefore, somehow

reconstructs the place we are describing through the stories that originate from it (maieutic action). In this sense, the debate on cultural sustainability ties in with territorial narratives and also affects the debate on place-making [40], as Placetelling® is here seen as a supporting tool to the implementation of community-based forms of tourism, so that it is able to enhance the symbolic narrative component. More specifically, in the case of Cape Verde, Placetelling® can act as the first step of a shared process for a new territorial branding, different from the one disseminated by the mainstream narrative. Here, territorial branding is seen as a "collective reflection on territorial identity and its representation, contributing to the strengthening of the sense of belonging and creating the basis for a strategic convergence among local actors" [46], and an appropriate territorial narrative can assume the role of "cornerstone" of the subsequent phases (regulation, circulation, exchange, consumption), which, in turn, will strengthen its evocative value and propulsive force [37].

In this way, a new direction for individual and collective behavior is imprinted, through interpretation and work on perceptions—which plays a role of meaning of social behavior.

Placetelling® tells us how to see the future of a place, intercepts potential, and gives a direction to development.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, F.P.; methodology, F.P., A.R., F.E., and P.M.; formal analysis, F.E.; investigation, F.E., A.R., and P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, F.E., A.R., and P.M.; writing—review and editing, F.E. and P.M.; visualization, F.P.; supervision, F.P. and A.R.; project administration, F.P. Sections 1, 2 and 3.2. are to be attributed to F.E.; Section 3.1. to A.R.; Section 4 to P.M.; Sections 5 and 6 to F.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The experience was developed within a wider cooperation project between the Fondazione Basso foundations and the Fondaçao Amil Cabral.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

#### *Article*

### **Di**ff**erent Worldviews as Impediments to Integrated Nature and Cultural Heritage Conservation Management: Experiences from Protected Areas in Northern Sweden**

### **Carl Österlin 1,\* , Peter Schlyter <sup>2</sup> and Ingrid Stjernquist <sup>1</sup>**


Received: 26 March 2020; Accepted: 24 April 2020; Published: 26 April 2020

**Abstract:** In the management of protected nature areas, arguments are being raised for increasingly integrated approaches. Despite an explicit ambition from the responsible managing governmental agencies, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and Swedish National Heritage Board, attempts to initiate and increase the degree of integrated nature and cultural heritage conservation management in the Swedish mountains are failing. The delivery of environmental policy through the Swedish National Environmental Objective called Magnificent Mountains is dependent on increased collaboration between the state and local stakeholders. This study, using a group model building approach, maps out the system's dynamic interactions between nature perceptions, values and the objectives of managing agencies and local stakeholders. It is identified that the dominance of a wilderness discourse influences both the objectives and management of the protected areas. This wilderness discourse functions as a barrier against including cultural heritage conservation aspects and local stakeholders in management, as wilderness-influenced objectives are defining protected areas as environments "untouched" by humans. A wilderness objective reduces the need for local knowledge and participation in environmental management. In reality, protected areas depend, to varying degrees, on the continuation of traditional land-use practices.

**Keywords:** integrated environmental management; cultural landscapes; stakeholder participation; landscape planning; systems thinking; group modeling; participatory modeling; conservation; wilderness; wilderness discourse

### **1. Introduction**

The division of society and nature into separate realms is a frequent Western perspective for describing and understanding nature [1,2]. Some scholars (e.g., Cronon (1996) [3]) have pointed out how the idea of wilderness is, to a certain extent, a construction and description of an alien but supposedly pristine environment, which, as a response to guilt over environmental degradation, should be protected from human actions such as industrialization. Whether or not these areas constitute a wildernesses in the sense that they are essentially unaffected by the influence of human actions has been a long-standing and polarized academic [4] and popular debate [5], both internationally and in Scandinavia [6,7].

This view of nature is also linked to a romantic, and to some extent nationalistic, view of nature [8], exemplified by the creation of national parks for the preservation of wilderness. Or, in the words

of the Committee Report, which formed the basis for subsequent Swedish national park legislation, (translation from Swedish) " . . . certain areas are to be set aside where life in nature may develop perfectly undisturbed by the influence of culture" [9].

Although there have been ample efforts to define what wilderness is, there is no universal definition. However, North American perspectives originating from the US Wilderness Act of 1964 have been influential in the parameters that are often included in the various definitions of wilderness. Human perceptions of nature and spatial scale are typically the foundations of the term wilderness rather than ecological parameters. For example, the experience of solitude and large and remote areas, in combination with a landscape typically perceived as unaffected by human activities, are common components in the term wilderness (see, e.g., Lupp et al. 2011 [10] for a more comprehensive review of wilderness descriptions). In a Scandinavian context, an early analogue was the identification of "wilderness core areas" in a government inquiry (SOU 1971:75) [11], defined as contiguous areas larger than 1000 km<sup>2</sup> , more than 15 km from any road or railway and without designated hiking trails and facilities for overnight stays. Protections for these areas have subsequently been developed in the Swedish Planning and Building Act (Ch. 4, §5 Planning and Building Act) by delimiting areas of "unbroken mountain areas", i.e., large contiguous areas unbroken by roads and with severe restrictions on building. Similarly, in Norway, areas may be designated as wilderness-influenced and given special status and management, but ecological uniqueness or biodiversity are less relevant components in the ideas of wilderness compared to the absence of human interference [12]. Thus, as the examples above illustrate, it is not ecological qualities per se that are meant to be preserved in the idea of wilderness, but rather the absence of human use and artifacts.

Despite a strong prevalence of perceptions that certain areas constitute a wilderness, the concept is often based on a misconception of the social-ecological processes that shape natural environments [13]. In Scandinavia, this has certainly been the case too. Emanuelson (1987) [14] concluded in 1987 that the Swedish mountain region has long been incorrectly described as a wilderness and that, as a region, it cannot be seen as "untouched" by humans. Instead, the human impact on the landscape, through various forms of traditional and indigenous land uses, for example reindeer husbandry, could be observed already from the 17th century onwards.

Nevertheless, wilderness perspectives on the Swedish mountains prevail. For example, Wall Reinius (2009) [15] exemplifies how this wilderness perspective has also been present in the Swedish context, where protected areas in the northern mountain region have been described, for example, as "Europe's last great wilderness". Further, Wall Reinius (2009) [15] highlights how even in the mixed natural and cultural World Heritage Site (WHS) of Laponia, which is co-managed with local Sámi communities, this wilderness description of an area that is effectively a Sámi cultural landscape still continues to be held, unreflectedly, by responsible managing agencies like the Swedish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Swedish National Heritage Board (SNHB) [15].

Cultural heritage conservation has a long tradition in Sweden. The managing agency SNHB was founded as early as 1630, and by 1666 the scope of the board had widened from documentation to the beginning of one of Europe's first legislations to actively protect cultural heritage features in the landscape from exploitation and destruction. The legislative framework (previously the Ancient Monuments Act (1942:350), replaced by the Historic Environment Act 1988:950 and the Historic Environment Ordinance (1988:1188)) is strong and has protected, in principle and rather radically, all objects considered ancient, whether or not they have been identified or designated as such. By tradition, the preserved objects have typically been point features (e.g., a rune stone, a burial site etc.) and have only recently and rarely come to include larger areas or landscapes.

Nature conservation is, on the other hand, a much more recent pursuit—in many respects a reaction to the industrial transformation of traditional pre-industrial landscapes, and typically concerned with protecting ecosystems and landscapes, i.e., a wider area rather than point features (though early protection also had a component of point feature protection, e.g., of large erratic boulders or very old oak trees). In 1909 Sweden created the first national parks in Europe. The early national park system had, area-wise, a clear focus on the mountainous areas of northern Sweden and was established on state-owned (then Crown-owned) land. This northern bias may be explained by a perceived need to protect what was seen as an unspoilt original pristine nature against industrial resource exploitation [16,17]. This "northern approach" was also financially expedient, as the land was state-owned and no economic compensation to landowners or users was thus required. Later legislation enabled other forms of area protection and, from the early 1960s onwards, the establishment of an extensive network of smaller nature reserves, often located on private land [17]. A weaker supporting legislation and the need to negotiate with, and economically compensate, private owners for the establishment of reserves has resulted in a more deliberative, activist and negotiating culture within nature conservation in comparison with the cultural heritage field, where deliberation and negotiations were not really needed and, as a default, protection was at hand. While the establishment of nature reserves addressed to some extent the issue of a northern bias in conservation, the larger contiguous parks and reserves are still, by and large, a northern feature of protected areas in Sweden, as apparent in Figure 1. " "

**Figure 1.** (**a**) National parks, Nature reserves and Cultural reserves in Sweden. The largest contiguous areas of protected nature are found in the northwestern mountain regions. Also clearly visible is that Nature reserves cover a much larger area compared to National parks, and the fact that Cultural reserves are barely identifiable at this scale. (**b**) Protected areas, within the mountain area (defined by the *Productive Forest Line*). Protected areas constitute a large proportion of the mountains region. In northern Sweden, Nature reserves cover a notably larger area than National Parks. There are three Cultural reserves located within the mountain area but are hardly visible.

From the 1970s onwards, as a consequence of increasingly mechanized and industrial-style forestry, there have been increasing public demands on forestry to include environmental concerns in its operations. The current Forestry Act, from 1992, equates the environmental and economic objectives [18]. Similar ambitions to integrate environmental aspects in all societal activities are expressed in the broad National Environmental Objectives (NEO) unanimously adopted by the Swedish parliament in 1999. The NEO approach is supposed to allow a transition from reactive regulation-based environmental governance to a more proactive approach based on objectives [19]. The NEO approach is further based on the assumption that all stakeholders (government agencies, municipalities, private and public corporations, individual owners and the public) should contribute to the attainment of the 16 national objectives, and the objective fulfillment of the objectives is monitored through national and regional indicators [20].

In character, the sixteen national environmental objectives vary significantly. Some of them may be described as science-driven, while others are more value-driven [21]. Emmelin (2005) [22] also points out how value-driven objectives are more contested by the various actors that need to relate to these objectives as compared to science-driven objectives. The need for a discussion on how to operationalize and concretize the rather fuzzy objectives is, according to Emmelin (2005) [22], underpinned by a situation where actors may agree on the objectives on a rhetorical level while at the same time disagreeing on the operationalization of the objectives, the chosen policy measures or the legitimacy and the balance between other environmental objectives or other societal goals on a regional or local scale. One objective characterized as a vague value-driven objective is the Magnificent Mountains objective, focused on the mountainous landscape of northern Sweden.

The Magnificent Mountains objective is one of the few, as opposed to most of the other Environmental Objectives, that can be achieved, in principle, by decisions and actions taken within Sweden—the other NEOs are all to various degrees dependent on collective European, or global, action. Nonetheless, progress reports about the state of the Swedish mountain environment have consistently emphasized that the objective will not be achieved within the given timeframe. Either the conditions in the mountain area are deteriorating rather than improving and maybe even worsening, or there is not even enough knowledge to know whether the situation is deteriorating or not [23–26].

A group modeling-based systems analytic study by [27] showed, however, that practically all stakeholders of relevance to the Magnificent Mountain objective had doubts about the relevance and utility of designated sub-objectives to the overarching objective, as well as with regard to the relevance of the chosen official indicators. Furthermore, one of the main reasons for poor objective attainment was the effect of focusing too specifically on the environmental aspects of the sustainability trinity, to the detriment of the economic and social aspects. The study highlighted the importance of a more integrated approach in the NEO work, i.e., a call for a better coordination between concerned authorities as well as the need to involve local stakeholders in the planning and local resource management of the mountain environment. Finally, the study included a stakeholder defined transdisciplinary research agenda. One concrete outcome of the latter was a joint call on "Integrated nature and cultural heritage conservation" from the SNHB and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA).

Sayer et al. (2013) [28] and Reed et al. (2017) [29], for example, illustrate the importance of including multiple stakeholder perspectives in a landscape with competing land-use interests and where broader environmental concerns are balanced against other societal objectives in order to develop appropriate management strategies. In addition, to achieve a better integration between natural and cultural value power balances between managing governmental agencies is also a key issue, as such power balances determine who can define the landscape to be managed [30]. Dawson et al. (2017) [31] have demonstrated how systems analysis and causal loop diagrams may be efficient methods to include such multiple stakeholder perspectives in a landscape-based setting.

In a northern Swedish context, there have been arguments for increased community-based management or co-management, made by scholars as well as by stakeholders involved in land-use management in and around the mountain area (see for example [27,32,33]). Despite some examples of the adoption of such approaches (Laponia WHS, Vilhelmina Model forest), there is an evident disconnect and discontent at a local level with the possibilities for local actors to be involved in land-use management [34,35]. The Magnificent Mountains objective setting is a clear example of when the perspectives of multiple stakeholders are desirable, as it is comprised of a goal-oriented proactive environmental policy, whose delivery is dependent on multiple stakeholders with their own agendas—acting within the boundaries of a defined region, in which environmental qualities should be preserved, but also weighed against other societal objectives. After almost 20 years since its adoption the environmental objective Magnificent Mountains is far from being achieved [36]. Despite an explicit will and a common idea from both of the responsible governmental agencies, SEPA and SNHB, about increasing the integration of nature and cultural heritage conservation management, this practice does not yet appear to be taking place.

The aim of this study is to identify and understand current challenges and barriers to an integrated nature and cultural heritage conservation management in protected areas, using the protected areas in the northern Swedish mountains as reference, and in particular the influence of different discourses on management policy and the possibility to identify potential leverage points for actors to overcome these challenges and barriers.

#### **2. Background**

The Swedish mountain area is a large region. A number of definitions of what constitutes the Swedish mountain regions have been used in various settings (see, e.g., Naturvårdsverket (2019) [37] for a summary of commonly applied definitions). One commonly occurring definition, also used in this study, is the administrative boundary for productive forests, called the *Productive Forest Line*. The area above this boundary is a vast region just above 100,000 km<sup>2</sup> and accounts for approximately a quarter of the country. It is also a sparsely populated region in general, and few people live within the protected areas. Despite a sparse population pressure, it is a region of "contested landscapes" (exemplified by, e.g., Horstkotte (2013) [38]). These contestations come from shifting views on how the land should be used—for example reindeer husbandry, nature protection, cultural heritage management, tourism and industrial exploitation [35]—which are not necessarily compatible. The fact that the northern Swedish mountain landscape is also strongly shaped by long and continuous traditional land-use, both through reindeer grazing by indigenous Sámi communities as well as mountain and summer farming is well established in the literature (e.g., in [14,39–42]). Reindeer husbandry as a traditional indigenous Sámi land-use is regulated by the Reindeer Husbandry Act (1971:437) and it can, during certain periods of the year, be practiced by reindeer herding communities within the large reindeer husbandry area—an area that covers approximately half the size of Sweden. The Swedish mountain region is also part of the "year-round grazing area", which means that reindeer husbandry is allowed there during the whole year. In all protected areas in the mountain region, reindeer husbandry is thus allowed, with the exception of the southernmost national park of the mountain range—Fulufjället national park. Mountain farming, despite being significantly smaller in spatial extent than reindeer grazing, has created considerable biological values, of high interest for conservation. Both reindeer husbandry and mountain farming are thus cultural legacies in the landscape as well as prerequisites to maintaining conservation values.

In Sweden, generally speaking, nature conservation in national parks and nature reserves is the responsibility of the SEPA and the County Administrative Boards' Environmental Units, sometimes through various sui generis co-management governance structures, e.g., Laponia WHS, involving local stakeholders. Similarly, cultural heritage preservation is the responsibility of the SNHB and the County Administrative Boards' Cultural Heritage Units. As previously noted, the two types of conservation practices have different traditions and approaches, one with a focus on the preservation of remains largely of a point character, the other on the acquisition of land for conservation, management and sometimes restoration. A more integrated nature and cultural heritage conservation management through better or more efficient and locally connected collaboration has been an explicit governmental desire. Accordingly, the government has instructed SEPA [43] and SHB [44] to initiate this development, possibly due to the fact that integrated management in the region has been proven to be a challenge [35]. However, the challenge of integrating conservation management efforts based on natural and cultural

values is not unique to the northern mountain area. Wu et al. [30] show that this has been a challenge in landscape management in southern Sweden as well.

The majority of protected nature in Sweden is currently in the form of nature reserves, accounting for 9.3% of the land area [45]. National parks are the second most common form of protected nature, with 1.5% of the country protected [45]. Most of Sweden's protected nature is within the mountain area, with nature reserves accounting for a much larger area (31,181 km<sup>2</sup> ) than national parks (6457 km<sup>2</sup> ). As a comparison, the total area of cultural reserves in the mountains is only 0.1% (approx. 38 km<sup>2</sup> ) of the area protected as nature reserves. This effectively means that if integrated environmental management is going to take place, in practice, in the protected areas of the mountain region, it is within the nature reserves this will have to develop.

#### **3. Methods**

In order to understand the dynamics behind natural and cultural environmental management in the mountains, and to be able to provide decision support for policymakers based on a systems understanding [46,47], this study was conducted using group modeling sessions [48–51] combined with follow-up interviews and modeling sessions with selected key stakeholders.

#### *3.1. Pre-Modeling Session Preparations*

In a stakeholder-based analysis by Sverdrup et al. 2010 [35] of the Magnificent Mountain objective set for the Swedish mountains, significant efforts were made to identify all the key actors involved in the dynamic processes shaping the mountain region. This study draws on that rigorous stakeholder identification process.

The study was divided into four steps. First, stakeholders directly related to nature and culture heritage conservation were chosen, as already identified in Sverdrup et al. 2010 [35]. These included various public agencies on different levels: national agencies like SEPA, SNHB and the National Property Board, and on the regional level the county administrative boards of the four mountain counties, two municipalities from the southern and northern parts of the mountain area and representatives of museums and cultural foundations for landscape heritage conservation. Two NGOs were also chosen: the Swedish Reindeer Herding Association and the Swedish Hamlet Users Association.

Secondly, the 17 identified stakeholders (see Table 1) were invited to participate in a one-day group modeling session; thirdly, four of the key actors were interviewed for validation of the model; and fourthly, management plans for nature reserves were analyzed using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) as an additional validation step.


**Table 1.** Stakeholders that participated in the group-model building.

#### *3.2. Group Modeling*

The participants were introduced to systems thinking, the group modeling process and Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) notation before the modeling session began. Several of the participants were already familiar with the process owing to their participation in the Sverdrup et al. (2010) [35] study. At the beginning of the workshop the actors were asked to separately list which kind of natural and cultural environments needed more protection, as well as what they perceived as the biggest threats to these areas. The result was used as a basis for the modeling.

As the aim of the workshop was to understand the dynamics of drivers contributing or impeding integrated management, the following questions were addressed:


The results of the workshop generated a first draft of a CLD describing the dynamics behind natural and cultural environmental management in the mountains.

#### *3.3. Follow-up Interviews for Validation and Model Revision*

After the group modeling session, the resulting CLD presented a logic that was closely connected to the activities of four key actors. These actors were the SNHB, The units for Natural environments at the County Administrative Board of Västerbotten, The units for Cultural environments at the County Administrative Board of Västerbotten and The Swedish Hamlet Users Association. Follow-up interviews and individual modeling sessions were therefore conducted with each actor. The draft CLD generated during the workshop was used as a basis for the follow-up sessions, where the model was validated through a combination of the revision of the CLD and interview-style discussions on logics expressed in the CLD. These sessions were concluded with a general discussion on the stakeholders' experiences of integrating nature and cultural heritage conservation. In addition, a qualitative validation test of the final CLD was employed using a review of official management plans for protected nature.

#### *3.4. Management Plan Analysis*

Based on a GIS analysis, all the nature reserves within the area defined as mountain area were selected, resulting in 104 protected areas. From the mandatory management plans of these nature reserves, the 25 which were also identified in the Hayfield and Meadow Survey [52] were chosen for a management analysis.

Management plans include information on the history of the nature reserve, a discussion of values worth preserving/managing as well as the objectives and the intended management to reach them. If cultural heritage is taken into consideration in the management of nature reserves in the mountain area, one would expect (1) that all management plans for reserves where nature and cultural heritage values were identified by the Hayfield and Meadow Survey should at least mention the existence of such values, discuss them or include them as objectives, and (2) that a significant number of reserves, irrespective of character, should mention nature and cultural heritage values associated with traditional reindeer husbandry and remaining physical features associated with reindeer herding and the Sámi culture.

#### **4. Results**

The group modeling identified the presence of two alternative views on nature. The dominant public discourse for the mountain areas views nature and human land-use as separate, indeed incompatible, and the mountain areas as exponents of pristine nature. This view on ecosystems and landscapes was termed "the wilderness perspective" by the participants in the group modeling. The concept is hereafter referred to as the wilderness discourse (cf. Foucault 1969) [53], as the discourse concept reflects in many respects the powerful and pervasive influence of the wilderness perspective. These different, indeed competing discourses on the development of nature constitute the two major drivers in the conservation system affecting objectives, means and outcomes. The model (Figure 2) illustrates the dynamics of what may be described as a discourse system where the balance of power affects the perceived legitimacy and need for local participation—and thus, in the end, for the availability of an arena for local interaction and participation in the management of nature and cultural landscapes/heritage. — *—*

**− Figure 2.** CLD synthesizing the stakeholders model over the management of nature and cultural heritage conservation. A + symbolizes a step in the same direction, while a − symbolizes a step in the opposite direction of the preceding driver. **R** indicates a reinforcing behaviour of a loop, and **B** a balancing behaviour of a loop. A bold line symbolizes a stronger influence in that connection, while a dashed line symbolizes a weaker influence.

#### *4.1. Analysis of Final CLD—The Nature Conservation Discourse System*

— — When the wilderness discourse becomes dominant, it reinforces both the public arena, through conservation NGOs, and the managing agencies (SEPA and County administrations). It also influences the degree to which the wilderness perspective influences official management objectives for protected areas, nature reserves and national parks in the mountains.

Additionally, since nature is perceived as pristine and therefore best managed by being left alone—i.e., unused and unmanaged, thereby remaining in a state of pristinity, i.e., wilderness—there is, as a consequence, little need for any local knowledge about land-use history and practices, or for research on previous and current land-use and resource management. Indeed, such information would pose a threat to the wilderness discourse. Furthermore, if human land-use and activities are by definition detrimental to the wilderness objective, there is clearly little need for developing local knowledge or involving local stakeholders and actors, as that would pose a threat to the objective. This, in turn, leads to less involvement of local actors in the management of protected areas and, as a consequence, to a reduction in legitimacy among local actors of the wilderness management approach. When local actors are less involved in knowledge production, it also means that less local knowledge is supplied to the knowledge base relevant for management, which further reinforces the wilderness objective, since relevant knowledge about local and historic land-use is not supplied.

The wilderness discourse within managing agencies is also affected by the influence of the opposing *Cultural heritage "Landscape" perspective discourse*. Conceptually, the two-discourse system represents a zero sum game. The dominance of the wilderness discourse in managing agencies has been at the expense of a *Cultural heritage "Landscape" discourse*. This is also reinforced by what is best described as a "traditional" point feature perspective in cultural heritage conservation, which refers to what stakeholders describe as a tendency among managing agencies for cultural heritage to focus on specific point features of cultural heritage value rather than on cultural landscapes as a whole, with or without these point features (expressed as *Cultural heritage "Landscape" discourse* in the CLD). Current cultural heritage practices can rather be described as isolated islands of cultural heritage features amid a wilderness ocean.

An illustration of the dominance of the wilderness discourse is the reoccurrence, in modeling sessions and interviews, of what is termed the "free development" paradigm for managing protected nature in the mountains, a management concept where nature is managed by being left without any management. Several stakeholders pointed out that this paradigm has had a significant impact on management objectives and practices. Another illustration of the dominance of the wilderness discourse is the fact that within the mountain area there are currently 104 nature reserves, covering approximately 31,000 km<sup>2</sup> of land, and only three cultural reserves, covering just 38 km<sup>2</sup> .

#### *4.2. Validation: Objectives vs. Outcomes*

In order to validate, to some extent, the interpreted "strong influence" of the wilderness discourse and free development paradigm on the objectives and outcomes, a test was devised using official surveys and management plans for nature reserves in the mountain area (Table 1). Official "Hayfield and Meadow Surveys" (Ängs och hagmarksinventeringar), initiated by SEPA, have been performed at the county level in order to identify and map the extent of former and existing grazing and meadow areas with high nature conservation values. Very high biodiversity *and* cultural heritage values are associated with these grazing and hay meadow ecosystems, both within and outside the mountain areas. Such areas are the outcome of, and require, traditional management, i.e., they are the product of a clear cultural influence through previous and currently active land-use and require management in order to retain their character or to restore it.

Of 104 nature reserves within the mountain area, at least 25 have some overlap with areas identified in the Hayfield and Meadow Survey. A reasonable assumption is that the management plans for these 25 reserves ought to mention, in some way or other, cultural values related to grazing or hay production activities in the background descriptions or objectives for the protected area. However, only 7 of these 25 nature reserves mentions human influence in the background descriptions or the objective of protecting or recreating the cultural environments. On the other hand, 17 of these 25 nature reserves explicitly mention that part of the protection is aimed at preserving the area with intact/untouched/original nature, i.e., with wilderness as the stated objective. When it comes to the means for managing the 25 areas, only 8 mention that active grazing should be part of the management, as seen in Table 2.


**Table 2.** Validation of the dominance of the wilderness discourse based on a review of 104 management plans for nature reserves in the mountain region.

The 25 reserves should constitute a best-case scenario in that the objects had been officially identified, mapped and designated as valuable in a published survey of nature conservation values that required management, i.e., cultural influence. The fact that so few management plans even note managed/cultural values and that the majority defines wilderness as the only management objective, in spite of identified cultural values, constitutes, in our opinion, a robust confirmation that the wilderness discourse is the dominant discourse of the official nature conservation in the mountain area. Additionally, it is important to underline the fact that reindeer grazing is a land-use that takes place throughout practically the entire area of nature reserves. Active reindeer husbandry does not only produce a grazed landscape, but it also contributes to the cultural values of the mountain landscape. Reindeer husbandry is taking place in practically all the 104 nature reserves, and it is noteworthy that the practice was only mentioned in 33 of the 104 management plans. Also worth noting is that reindeer husbandry is mentioned in several instances as being allowed, or not considered as a hindrance to the conservation objectives and methods. In view of the fact that reindeer husbandry is the traditional land-use, the generator of the Sámi cultural landscape, the fact that reindeer grazing is only mentioned in 6 of 104 management plans is nothing short of remarkable. Whereas wilderness was explicitly mentioned as part of the objectives in 36 of the 104 plans, and the wording "untouched" (translation from Swedish, where "untouched" could also mean *unimpacted by human actions*) was mentioned in 71 management plans. This lends further support to our conclusions about the dominance of the wilderness discourse in operational conservation practices and about how it excludes human influences on the landscape when defining the objectives for environmental management.

#### **5. Discussion**

There is an often-stated desire for an increased integration of nature and cultural heritage conservation management in protected areas (see, e.g., Drew & Henne (2006) [54] and Linnell et al. (2015) [55]). The governmental decisions for increased integration between natural and cultural heritage in conservation [43,44] and the vision document of the SNHB [56] are clear examples of this, as was the research call funding this study. Nevertheless, what this desired integration should more specifically entail remains unclear both at a theoretical and practical level. It is not clearly expressed or communicated by the responsible governmental agencies. One interpretation could be that this reflects ambitions of administrative efficiency and savings more than it does the integration in question.

In practice, increasing integration has proven to be difficult, and not only for the mountain region. For example, when worldviews differ between agencies, ambitions of integration have been abandoned in favour of traditional opinions. As Wu et al. (2017) [30] show, this has been the challenge in landscape management in southern Sweden (where human influence is obvious) as well. This has forced SNHB into disputes and trade-off with SEPA regarding priorities of what to protect, revealing a lack of integration as well as the power imbalance between the agencies. Further, Wu et al. (2017) [30] argue, based on southern Swedish cases, that although there is a willingness among both SNHB and SEPA to achieve an integrated natural and cultural perspective in landscape management, they are also strongly expert-driven organizations where interactions and partnerships with public and local actors are treated half-heartedly. Wu et al. (2017) [30] demonstrate that neither SEPA nor SNHB, when forced into trade-offs, had been willing to compromise and develop an integrated approach, as they were

"quickly locked into their conventional positions due to their divergent interests and understandings of the landscape".

The dominance of the wilderness discourse has a significant impact on the kinds of management objectives that are formulated. With regard to management, the means are in principle limited to a hands-off, "free development", approach. In practice, the means and the objective become one.

Further, the prevalence of objectives influenced by a wilderness perspective on nature and protected areas precludes or reduces the possibilities of creating an arena open to the nature conservation and cultural heritage administrations, as well as to the participation of local actors. Consequently, when no arena for participation exists there are few possibilities to generate common objectives between managing agencies or to involve local actors in conservation efforts, local/indigenous knowledge production or co-management, which clearly is a prerequisite for initiating a more integrated environmental management [57–59] on a general level. As shown in Figure 2, the absence of an arena for participation impacts the local perception of how legitimate management practices and objectives are. This is problematic because, as pointed out in Sandström et al. (2008) [19], in order to sustainably achieve environmental objectives, the state is dependent on the involvement of local actors in the environmental management and operationalization of objectives. The strong influence of a wilderness perspective has been noted, in a Swedish context, by, e.g., Wall Reinius [15], even in the Laponia WHS, which is arguably the most integrated environmental management attempt there is in the Swedish mountain region. If the dimensions of historical use and the cultural values that traditional land-use in the mountains have produced are not emphasized, the praxis and management risk marginalizing the groups practicing traditional land-uses [15], like reindeer husbandry and mountain and summer farming. There is the obvious risk with this strong and prevalent wilderness discourse, in the protected areas, that artefacts of traditional land-use will in practice be excluded in areas that cannot under any compelling argument be considered as wilderness. Further, one important difference worth mentioning is that for the Laponia WHS site there is a co-management arrangement in place with local Sámi communities, which might help to counterbalance the risk of excluding the historical and cultural perspectives. The nature reserves in the mountain area, while representing the largest protected area, tend to go under the radar when compared to the national parks and the WHS site, in that they lack co-management arrangements. Here, the risk is larger that the wilderness perspective will remain unchallenged. It is clear that current conditions for participating in consultations or co-management with stakeholders involved with cultural features or landscapes in the mountain area are far from satisfactory (see, e.g., Reed (2008) [60] and Sverdrup et al. (2010) [35]).

It has long been evident that climate change modeling points to (in, e.g., SOU 2007:60 [61]) major habitat changes in decades to come in the mountain area—where alpine/sub alpine heaths, in particular, are likely to develop into tree or shrub dominated habitats. The region is currently experiencing rapid on-going climate change which is affecting land-use and ecosystem composition and distribution [62]. If open habitats are to be retained, land-use interventions may be needed, and it is worth noting in this context that reindeer grazing mitigates the effects of the warming climate in the Swedish mountains by, for example, reducing tree-line advancement [63] and maintaining biodiversity [64].

Finally, the wilderness discourse, as expressed in management objectives, is also an impediment to developing and funding management-relevant research that includes human and local agency in the landscape. As is evident in the model, the more prevalent the wilderness ideals are in the objectives, the less need for local knowledge. This creates a self-reinforcing situation where new knowledge challenging the dominant discourse is less likely to emerge.

#### **6. Conclusions**

The dynamics of nature and cultural heritage conservation management, as modeled by the stakeholders in the group modeling session and subsequent interviews (Figure 2), in combination with the literature, allows the following conclusions:


There is little expressed disagreement between managing agencies when it comes to a stated willingness to increase the integration of nature and cultural heritage conservation management. However, what this call for integration should entail with regard to the involved agencies is unclear. What is clear after the stakeholder-based group modeling and interviews is that any substantive and successful integration between nature and cultural heritage conservation is currently unlikely. The dominance of the wilderness discourse is an impediment to an integrated nature and cultural heritage conservation, as it precludes the development of a joint understanding of landscapes and their conservation values, objectives and management approaches. Furthermore, the dominant discourse is an impediment to the development of arenas for local stakeholders to engage with the conservation authorities.

Given the current state and dynamics of the conservation discourse system in the Swedish mountains, any form of deeper integration between nature and cultural heritage conservation is unlikely to develop until the dominance of the wilderness discourse is reduced.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, C.Ö., P.S. and I.S.; methodology, C.Ö., P.S. and I.S.; formal analysis, C.Ö., P.S. validation, C.Ö., P.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.Ö., P.S.; writing—review and editing, C.Ö., P.S. and I.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research (Dnr 3.2.-3093-2013) was funded by the Swedish National Heritage Board (SNHB) and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) as a part of the call "Integrated nature and cultural conservation management in the Swedish mountains".

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to express their gratitude to the stakeholders that participated in this study and contributed with their valuable insights.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### *Article* **Urban Heritage Conservation and Rapid Urbanization: Insights from Surat, India**

**Chika Udeaja <sup>1</sup> , Claudia Trillo <sup>1</sup> , Kwasi G.B. Awuah <sup>1</sup> , Busisiwe C.N. Makore 1,\* , D. A. Patel <sup>2</sup> , Lukman E. Mansuri <sup>2</sup> and Kumar N. Jha <sup>3</sup>**


Received: 17 February 2020; Accepted: 8 March 2020; Published: 11 March 2020

**Abstract:** Currently, heritage is challenged in the Indian city of Surat due to diverse pressures, including rapid urbanization, increasing housing demand, and socio-cultural and climate changes. Where rapid demographic growth of urban areas is happening, heritage is disappearing at an alarming rate. Despite some efforts from the local government, urban cultural heritage is being neglected and historic buildings keep being replaced by ordinary concrete buildings at a worryingly rapid pace. Discussions of challenges and issues of Surat's urban area is supported by a qualitative dataset, including in-depth semi-structured interviews and focus groups with local policy makers, planners, and heritage experts, triangulated by observation and a photo-survey of two historic areas. Findings from this study reveal a myriad of challenges such as: inadequacy of urban conservation management policies and processes focused on heritage, absence of skills, training, and resources amongst decision makers and persistent conflict and competition between heritage conservation needs and developers' interests. Furthermore, the values and significance of Surat's tangible and intangible heritage is not fully recognized by its citizens and heritage stakeholders. A crucial opportunity exists for Surat to maximize the potential of heritage and reinforce urban identity for its present and future generations. Surat's context is representative of general trends and conservation challenges and therefore recommendations developed in this study hold the potential to offer interesting insights to the wider planners and conservationists' international community. This paper recommends thoughtful integration of sustainable heritage urban conservation into local urban development frameworks and the establishment of approaches that recognize the plurality of heritage values.

**Keywords:** urban heritage conservation; historic urban landscapes; urban planning and management; cultural heritage; Surat's heritage; sustainable development

#### **1. Introduction**

The challenges faced by urban areas in South Asia today are steep and are at the forefront of the development of inclusive cities. Today, South Asian urban areas are among the largest and densest in the world, home to approximately 1.77 billion people, with the Indian urban population projected to double by 2050 from 410 million urban residents in 2014 to a staggering 857 million in 2050 [1]. Consequently, the urban fabric is experiencing issues such as growing informality, housing shortages and increasing rural to urban migration. India is arguably known as one of the most popular destinations for cultural tourism with rich and varied histories and traditions that allow for the

exploitation of opportunities offered by cultural heritage [2]. The country has a considerable number of heritage assets, including 38 sites inscribed on the World Heritage list with 30 cultural properties, seven natural sites, and one mixed site, as well as over 3,600 centrally protected monuments under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) [3]. Additionally, there are 13 elements of intangible cultural practices and expressions on the UNESCO list. However, this rich heritage is facing major threats in urban areas and structures considered to be of national, state, or local importance in India, and remain under threat from urban pressures, neglect, vandalism, and demolition. Despite the intensification of urban growth in India's cities, restoration efforts to safeguard valuable heritage assets remain visible at only a few places of historic significance [4–6], and cultural heritage issues have not been mainstreamed into the overall urban planning and development framework

International consensus exists on the role played by heritage in achieving sustainable development. In 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were unanimously adopted by United Nations (UN) member states resulting in a wide-ranging set of 17 goals and 169 targets aimed at poverty reduction, leaving no-one behind, and advancing the health and well-being for all by 2030 [7]. Out of the finalized SDGs, Goal 11 is the United Nation's strongest expression of the vital role cities and urban environments play in the global landscape. There are sporadic explicit references to cultural aspects in the 17 goals and these include: target 11.4, which focuses on the strengthening of efforts to protect and safeguard the world cultural and natural heritage; target 4.7, which gives emphasis to the promotion of knowledge and skills and the appreciation of cultural diversity; targets 8.9 and 12.b, which focus on sustainable tourism and local culture aligned with target 14.7, which gives attention to the sustainable use of aquaculture and tourism [8]. All of the targets have specific implications in the field of culture. These targets give light to the growing consensus that the future of our societies will be decided in urban areas of which culture plays a key role [1,9,10]. The 2016 United Nations New Urban Agenda recognizes both tangible and intangible heritage as a significant factor in developing vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive urban economies, and in sustaining and supporting urban economies to progressively transition towards higher productivity [1,7,11].

Furthermore, the global discourse has focused on this crucial role of heritage in the context of urban development and heritage conservation. In particular, the UNESCO recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) [12,13] has synthesized these elements by proposing a holistic understanding of urban historic areas through all-inclusive approaches [14]. On the 10 November, 2011, UNESCO's General Conference adopted the new recommendation on the HUL as an additional tool, a "soft-law" to be implemented by Member States on a voluntary basis. This document conceptualizes urban heritage as the multi-layering of cultural and natural values and attributes that go beyond the notion of "historic center" or "ensemble" to encompass a much broader urban geographical context [12,13,15]. This value is often constructed through processes of selection criteria appropriated internationally or nationally and objectified to become worthy of political, economic, and touristic attention and conservation. There is therefore a need to safeguard and respect the inherited values and significance of cultural heritage in cities.

In line with the main entry points for culture heritage in the achievement of sustainable development, this paper aims to explore the landscape of urban heritage conservation in the Indian city of Surat as an instrument to a better understanding of challenges and pressures that threaten the implementation of heritage conservation policies within rapidly growing urban contexts, beyond the international principles and criteria.

This paper is structured in seven sections. Following the introduction (Section 1), a focus on Surat allows for proper contextualization of this study (Section 2). The research methodology is presented in Section 3. The chosen research strategy stems from the epistemological paradigm of interpretivism based on the empirical qualitative dataset (Section 4), including policy and planning documents, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and direct observation of two sub-cases, i.e., the two historic precincts of Surat (1) Gopi Surat Central Zone and (2) Rander Gamtal. Section 5 discusses the data by articulating the six thematic areas emerged from the findings (Sections 5.1–5.6):


As a result, this paper draws recommendations for the development of a sustainable urban heritage framework that includes: (6.1) holistic urban heritage legislation, (6.2) identifying and mapping the city's heritage values and preserving local identity and sense of place, and (6.3) developing local urban heritage and planning expertise, skills, and knowledge. Inclusive community and stakeholder engagement are central to the successful integration of urban heritage conservation. Section 7 concludes the paper by summarizing the findings and detailing areas of future research.

#### **2. Setting the Context: The City of Surat and Its Heritage, an Overview**

The city of Surat (Figures 1 and 2) is currently urbanizing rapidly with demands of urban sprawl and development [3,16]. According to the census taken in 2011, Surat's urban district had a population of 4,849,213 people although the actual population may exceed these figures due to rapid development in Surat's metropolitan region [17,18]. Surat's urban context includes social cohesion challenges, increasing rural to urban migration, rising housing demands, and considerable stress on city management and resources [19]. Yet, in the context of these urban pressures, there is an evolution of approaches recognizing tangible and intangible heritage as strategic assets in creating cities that are more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable [10,20,21]. Surat has a diverse and vibrant heritage that has created and shaped the cultural identity of the city. Historic social practices and processes have remained interdependent and reciprocal with Surat's built fabric. However, urban heritage conservation is not perceived as a priority when considering other urban development objectives [16,22]. Cultural heritage continues to remain marginal in urban development agendas, often overlooked in the context of urban poverty, social inequalities, and a severe lack of basic infrastructure [11]. Although it is evident that effort is being made to improve sustainable planning and heritage conservation [17,19,22], there exist significant challenges that limit the impact and scope of these initiatives. Commerce and Industry is influential in Surat's governance structure as it takes the lead on several been recurrent and devastating, such as a plague in 1994 and floods in 2006 and 2008. Surat's climate

**Figure 1.** The city of Surat [Source: Author (modified arcGIS) map].

**Figure 2.** Surat Central Zone and Rander Gamtal. [Source: Author (modified arcGIS) map].

richness and diversity of Surat's heritage combined with the city's rapid urbanization trend reflects approaches towards the preservation of Surat's urban heritage. Having survived numerous historic invasions and power structures, Surat is presently in the top ten largest cities in India and recognized as one of the fastest growing cities (Figure 1) [19]. The strategic location of the city aided in forming historic overseas links with the rest of Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, which date back from 300 BC. These trading connections influenced the living patterns and built heritage in Surat, particularly in the historic precincts Gopi Surat Central Zone and Rander Gamtal. Historically, Surat's heritage conservation was mostly concerned with safeguarding the remains of architectural monuments. Key historic monuments include major development by Malek Gopi, a rich trader in 1496-1521 AD, the establishing of silk and cotton factories from the 1600s, the construction of the inner-city wall in 1664 AD, and the outer-city wall in 1715 AD [18]. The city of Surat grew in the 17th and 18th centuries to become an established and formidable export and import center of India. Settlement in Surat continued to develop with custom houses and gardens along the River Tapi and Surat's fort. By 1901 AD, the diamond cutting industry was established and began exporting diamonds to the United States of America from the 1970s. Currently, 80 percent of diamonds of the world are cut in Surat [19] and the jewelry and textile industry has allowed a steady flow of wealth into the city. The evolution of the concept of heritage preservation has developed in parallel with the evolution of Surat, becoming a practice that goes beyond tangible assets and possesses a human and socio-cultural element [15]. However, the practice of conservation in Surat still lags behind the actualization of this diverse concept. The city lacks an official holistic values-based approach that specifies the significance of Surat's historic areas whilst taking into account the existing built environment, intangible heritage, cultural diversity, socio-economic and environmental factors, and local community values [14,15].

The Surat Municipal Corporation is the main government body in Surat responsible for urban planning schemes, alongside the Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA) (which includes the municipal corporation area) and the Hazira Development Authority, which governs the port and industrial hub located downriver from Surat city [23]. SUDA is responsible for preparing the area development plan and for controlling unauthorized developments. The South Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry is influential in Surat's governance structure as it takes the lead on several critical regional and city development initiatives [24]. Achieving urban sustainability is of significance in Surat as it is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The city lies in a flood plain area and the southwest area of the city hosts a number of creeks. Natural disasters have been recurrent and devastating, such as a plague in 1994 and floods in 2006 and 2008. Surat's climate change predictions and risk profile all indicate an increase in rainfall, with monsoons dominated by heavy spells of rain combined with longer dry spells, leading to an increase of floods [19,23].

#### **3. Research Methodology**

The research strategy of this study is based on a single case study, i.e., the city of Surat. This city was purposely selected for two reasons. Firstly, this research is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council investigating Surat as a case study for urban heritage conservation. Secondly, the richness and diversity of Surat's heritage combined with the city's rapid urbanization trend reflects a need for investigation into the conservation of its urban heritage and the challenges being faced. This study area therefore presents an opportunity for the development of holistic and sustainable approaches towards the preservation of Surat's urban heritage.

In line with the research goals of articulating a discourse on challenges and issues related to the implementation of heritage conservation policies in growing cities, the research strategy stems from the epistemological paradigm of interpretivism and mainly rests on qualitative research methods. These latter are often seeking to understand processes and cultural and contextual meanings. Therefore, giving emphasis to the need for enquiry through an inductive approach that attempts to understand the experiences with a goal to present a credible representation of the interpretations of those experiences [25]. A variety of sources were used to obtain data for triangulation purposes. The main advantage of using triangulation is that it allows for the evaluation of different sources of information to investigate concepts on the basis that a consensus of the findings will yield more robust results [26].

As anticipated, the empirical dataset is based on qualitative data, including policy and planning documents, interviews, focus groups, and direct observation of two sub-cases, i.e., the two historic precincts of Gopi Surat Central Zone and Rander Gamtal (Figure 2). Policies and strategies have been chased at multiple scales (national and city wide), while direct observation of physical urban fabric has been conducted at a neighborhood scale. A visual illustration of the research methodology and instruments is offered with Figure 3. Qualitative primary data was collected in September 2018 by a team of 3 UK and 3 Indian researchers. A total of 34 stakeholders participated in focus groups and 10 stakeholders in the interviews prepared by UK and Indian researchers (Figure 3).

**Figure 3.** Dataset Outline.

#### **4. Data Presentation**

#### *4.1. Secondary Dataset: Policy and Planning Documents, Strategies, Regulations*

First, documents relevant to India's cultural heritage and the city of Surat were collected and undertaken by The Rockefeller Foundation's Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network provided the City of Surat with expert feedback on the draft regulation "Rules & Regulations for Heritage Buildings & Precincts in Surat" First, documents relevant to India's cultural heritage and the city of Surat were collected and analyzed (Figure 3). All relevant policies and regulations in force nationally, regionally, and locally were systematically gathered and considered, including national laws, policies, and governance of heritage conservation in India, Gujarat, and Surat. This also included key reports discussing the impact of climate change on the city of Surat including the vulnerability assessment (2010) on Surat undertaken by The Rockefeller Foundation's Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) [23] and Surat Resilience Strategy [19]. All relevant previous surveys and investigations on Surat heritage were systematically collected and analyzed. Incidentally, the team of researchers provided the City of Surat with expert feedback on the draft regulation "Rules & Regulations for Heritage Buildings & Precincts in Surat" [27]. This is a local regulation aimed at the conservation of all the listed heritage buildings and sites and identified precincts, as listed by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) in 2009. The project team conducted an in-depth study of the GIS-Based Mapping of Living Heritage of Surat For Improved Heritage Management in Surat prepared by the Urban Management Center in 2011 [17], which still forms the basis of the knowledge of the local heritage in Surat. The desk analysis of the documents was complemented with primary data collected in Surat in September 2018 and is discussed in the next sections. The document analysis revealed a failure to encompass a broader urban geographical context for urban heritage when considering the preservation of cultural heritage. The perspective demonstrated from the analysis suggests heritage conservation in Surat is side-lined when considering other urban development objectives such as housing and infrastructure. The documents were discussed with local practitioners and with city planners with the aim of checking the level of accuracy of the work, how the studies were generating impact on actual heritage conservation policies, and how far the current situation was with respect to the study.

#### *4.2. Focus Groups*

Two focus groups were organized with local academics, decision makers, and practitioners to capture different views and perspectives on heritage conservation in Surat (Figure 3). The goals of the two focus groups were more general and categorized into two sections of discussion. Firstly, discussing with local experts about heritage conservation to gauge their view on principles and criteria applied in Surat. The second goal was the exploration of how to raise awareness about the importance of heritage conservation for local identity. Gathering a total of 15 participants, focus group 1 was arranged at the Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology (SVNIT). Focus group 2 was arranged by the Association of Engineers and Architects and gathered 19 participants. Engaging with the stakeholders in heritage was imperative for discussing key urban conservation issues in Surat. The diversity of participants in focus group 1 allowed for an exploration of the challenges in urban heritage conservation in Surat. The discussion in focus group 2 centered around national and local initiatives to develop a smart, sustainable, and resilient Surat. In both focus groups, the researchers understood that though conservation of heritage was considered important in principle, still different views on what should be included in heritage and how to conserve persisted. This revealed a disconnection between the national legislative framework for heritage conservation and local guidance provided by local authorities. The focus groups proved to be crucial for the facilitation of understanding meanings attached to issues in contexts that had not been interrogated in advance by the project team. The transcripts and informal notes taken were analyzed as a means of providing a coherent method for reading the interview material in relation to the questions. The aim of the analysis was to draw out salient dimensions related to urban heritage conservation in Surat.

#### *4.3. Semi-Structured Interviews*

As a final step, further qualitative empirical data was conducted with 10 semi-structured interviews administered with local experts on heritage conservation (Figure 3), sampled by selecting them across both the public and private sector (Table 1). Furthermore, the focus groups assisted in providing a diverse sample for the expert interviews. The interviews were used to undertake in-depth exploration of emerging issues from the focus groups, observation, and documentary evidence. Perspectives were sought for the interviews from respondents from the built environment as well as those concerned with intangible heritage. This included a local yoga teacher who drew on his experience and skills and enabled a kind of storytelling about Surat's heritage. These additional perspectives assist in highlighting the interconnection between tangible and intangible heritage. Other stakeholders who contribute significantly to strategic planning of heritage in Surat such as the local Government (Surat Municipal Corporation) officials, heritage architects, and consultants were consulted. The details of the interviewees are listed below in Table 1.



The interview schedule consisted of three broad thematic sections. The first section contained points of discussion exploring the conceptualization of heritage in India and Surat and the heritage conservation landscape, including questions such as: "Can you describe how international frameworks (e.g., UNESCO World Heritage Convention) have shaped efforts towards conserving Surat's heritage?". The second section discussed the challenges in conserving Surat's heritage, e.g., "What are some of the challenges you face in integrating cultural heritage in your practice and how do you overcome these challenges?". The third section encouraged the respondents to provide recommendations on how to develop sustainable heritage conservation approaches in Surat. The semi-structured interviews provided an opportunity for the respondents to discuss these themes in greater depth with reference to their practice and experience.

#### *4.4. Direct Observation and Photo-Survey of Two Chosen Historic Precincts*

The observation of the city was undertaken as a visual tool to support the understanding of heritage conservation in Surat (Figure 3). Fieldwork was conducted in Surat's historic areas, Gopi Surat Central Zone and Rander Gamtal (Figure 2). The observation was based on the study conducted by the Urban Management Centre for the Surat Municipal Corporation [17]. GIS maps of the historic areas were used to identify sub-areas in the two historic areas showing highest concentration of historic buildings and further investigate the state of conservation and actual context situation. Fieldwork was conducted both by car/motorbike and by walking during working days, morning and afternoon. Photographs were taken both to document the state of conservation of the built environment and to capture people using it. The direct observation and photo-survey of the two areas allowed understanding of some of the main challenges to heritage conservation in Surat. Although there are some efforts to restore key monuments such as the fort and castle restoration, Surat's heritage remains neglected and increasingly in desperate need of urgent attention. This is further discussed in the following sections, covering findings from all the empirical data gathered by the team.

#### **5. Data Discussion and Findings**

This section discusses the findings from evidence gathered through the secondary dataset, interviews, focus groups, and photo-survey discussed above. Data analysis has been conducted through content coding of interviews, focus groups, and direct observation notes. Photos shown in this section are taken as part of the direct observation and photo-survey of the two chosen historic precincts. Furthermore, the representation of cultural heritage from the document analysis is included in this data discussion. Six thematic areas of discussion emerged from the findings. Two dominant paradigms of heritage conservation exist in Surat. The first is a traditional paradigm in which built heritage (Section 5.1) is a central focus with restoration efforts concerned with monumentalism and heritage experts largely responsible for maintaining and preserving heritage assets. This is reflected in the lack of integration of heritage conservation within local planning documents (Section 5.2). The second paradigm is underdeveloped in practice and exists largely in emerging discourse. It is concerned with values-based approaches to heritage and the holistic inclusion of intangible attributes (Section 5.3). The findings revealed that the local community lack the understanding of the values of heritage and how to care for Surat's heritage assets (Section 5.4). As a result, development projects for new infrastructure are usually insensitive to the authenticity and integrity of cultural heritage (Section 5.5). The final thematic area is concerned with the relationship between cultural heritage and climate change (Section 5.6).

#### *5.1. Surat's Built Heritage*

Surat's built fabric reflects the powers that have historically dominated and influenced the city, including the Hindus, Muslims, French, Dutch, Portuguese, and the British. As a port city located on the western part of India in the state of Gujarat (Figure 1), Surat has an established heritage with a diverse portfolio of tangible heritage assets. Although, the city does not have a UNESCO World Heritage site, six sites are listed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and acknowledged as "Monuments of national importance" in Surat. These include (1) Dargah known as Khawaja Dana Saheb's Rouza; (2) Old English Tombs; (3) Tomb of Khawaja Safar Sulemani; (4) Old Dutch & Armenian Tombs & Cemeteries; (5) Ancient site comprising S.Plot No.535 and (6) Fateh Burj [3]. This markedly adds to the promotion of Surat's urban heritage. This pride in Surat's heritage was demonstrated in the interviews, as illustrated in the quote below by the Heritage Consultant.

*Surat is one of the oldest economic hubs and hence the impact of various cultural eras from all over the world. This has been the result of our old city houses and buildings* (I3, Heritage Consultant, Expert Interviewee).

Despite this recognition, Surat does not have an official register of heritage assets of historical importance or protected monuments. Heritage sites across the city reflect elements and motifs that tell its own individual story through its design, material, woodwork, cornicing, paint, color, and landscaping of that era. Building materials evolved depending on the influence at that time. Local traditional houses used timber for the main house construction. Indeed, the use of other construction materials such as brick and concrete demonstrated external influence as shared by the Heritage Architect.

*The construction techniques of the housing are quite similar* . . . *, but the decoration is di*ff*erent. The housing inside are very simple but the façades instead are very di*ff*erent, because they are an expression of social distinction and power* (I6, Heritage Architect, Expert Interviewee).

Surat's built heritage also has a historic economic impact. It reflects cultures of the settlers as well as the economic growth and status of their owners. The house form has evolved over the centuries responding to modernization and contemporary living and the rise of industry. Indeed, some historic buildings no longer exist; however, in terms of boundaries identification of the two main historic areas in the city of Surat and in terms of heritage classification, including the articulation of the historic traditional houses into 4 typological influences (i.e., vernacular, colonial (Gothic and Renaissance), Art Deco, and Arabesque) are still current. Different architectural languages are visible in the house form such as the facades, the layout, plan form, and hierarchy of spaces. In particular, the front façade is a crucial reflection of the owners sociocultural, political, and economic status and beliefs. The vernacular architecture depicts houses built from local resources and with local traditions, often with wooden facades, large brackets, and overhanging eaves. The carvings in the wooden columns are highly decorated, reflecting animal, bird, and floral patterns. Surat's colonial influence resulted in forms of Gothic and Renaissance styles (Figure 4). The Arabesque style includes the use of repetitive geometric patterns on the facades and the buildings are made completely in brick and lime. Façade divisions using decorative art forms built with modern industrial material reflect the influence of the Art Deco style.

The design and ornamentation of certain structural elements are great examples of the cross-cultural influences in Surat and richness of its patrons. For example, columns and brackets can be found in Surat's heritage buildings, with detailed carving and embellishment often bearing floral, animal, and bird carvings and general geometric patterns with associated meanings. Figure 5 shows the beautification applied to carvings on the Chintamani temple column. Additional elements of focus central to Surat's heritage architecture are the windows and doors (Figure 5). These are often found to be symbolically decorated with meaningful motifs, dominating the façade in a predominantly symmetrical composition.

Restoration efforts for Surat's built heritage have focused predominantly on monuments as these were deemed to have historical and architectural importance [17]. As a result, heritage properties not fitting this criteria had a lack of maintenance and investment, thus amplifying their vulnerability. The findings from the direct observation as recorded by the photo-survey demonstrated that Surat's heritage is increasingly at risk, neglected, and in desperate need of urgent attention as shown in Figure 6. The SMC has made notable yet limited efforts to restore key monuments such as the fort and castle restoration (Figure 7). An example of the commitment to heritage restoration is the development of the city's first heritage precinct at Chowk Bazar [16]. Under this project, 11.5 hectares of land around Surat's fort are currently being redeveloped including Surat's castle and moat, Suryaputri Udyan up to the river edge, Frazer promenade, and Shanivari along the river bank. The field visits and discussions with a local conservation architect and 60 selected architecture students from across India established the core focus of efforts on monument restoration such as Surat's fort. Surat's fort was built in the year 1540–41 for protection against the Portuguese raids. The fort currently has twelve-meter-wide battlements and four-meter-thick walls.

Art Deco influences (Source: authors' photos). **Figure 4.** House façades in Rander and Gopipura showing colonial style influences and elements with Art Deco influences (Source: authors' photos).

found in Surat's heritage buildings, with detailed carving and embellishment often bearing floral,

focus central to Surat's heritage architecture are the windows and doors (Figure 5).

tage houses in Gopipura (Source: authors' photos).

Restoration efforts for Surat's built heritage have focused predominantly on monuments as these

survey demonstrated that Surat's

Art Deco influences (Source: authors' photos).

found in Surat's heritage buildings, with detailed carving and embellishment often bearing floral,

focus central to Surat's heritage architecture are the windows and doors (Figure 5).

tage houses in Gopipura (Source: authors' photos). **Figure 5.** Interior temple pillar decoration in Gopipura (left) and door and window design and decoration of heritage houses in Gopipura (Source: authors' photos). ablished the core focus of efforts on monument restoration such as Surat's fort. Surat's fort was built in the year 1540–

Restoration efforts for Surat's built heritage have focused predominantly on monuments as these

**Figure 6.** Dilapidated heritage buildings in need of restoration in Rander Gamtal (Source: authors' Dilapidated heritage buildings in need of restoration in Rander Gamtal (Source: authors' photos).

**Figure 7.** Redevelopment occurring alongside the old Surat fort walls.

#### *5.2. Urban Heritage Management*

processes and practices that suit their context. These local mechanisms feed into the state's acts While there is a superabundance in policies and practices on heritage at an international level, the context is different in India. In fact, India also differs from other countries in the Asian region. For example, countries such as Sri Lanka and Bhutan have clearly defined policies regarding urban heritage [1]. India in contrast has an institutional framework dedicated to heritage protection, but lacks a strategic focus on urban heritage. Heritage legislation has largely developed as a result of a fear that development changes and pressures will erase the history of places [28,29]. The urban development models followed since independence have irrevocably altered many historically important towns and cities [27]. The decentralization of power to local bodies is given in the 74th amendment to the Constitution. This therefore empowers local bodies to act proactively and develop processes and practices that suit their context. These local mechanisms feed into the state's acts and legislation. The fragmentation and complexity of the current governance systems have not provided a favorable ground for culturally sensitive urban development strategies. The national system does not allow for the translation of fundamental steps in heritage conservation at a local level such as the identification of heritage and the provision of regulations that prevent demolition and regulate new developments [30].

At a state level, Gujarat's inclusive urban development policies lack consistent integration of heritage issues [30]. At a local level, Surat's policy instruments on heritage conservation are underdeveloped and there are no specific local policies or strategies on heritage conservation in place yet. An attempt to produce guidelines for the conservation of heritage based on a study conducted by the Urban Management Centre for the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) [17] has been made, but still the local authority struggles to implement it. The SMC considered the National Institute of Urban Affairs (2015) studies in preparing the draft for the "Rules & Regulations for Heritage Buildings & Precincts in Surat" [27]. The team of researchers provided the SMC with expert feedback on the draft regulation as part of the documentary analysis. The analysis revealed a significant focus on monuments in Surat, overlooking associated intangible attributes. Additionally, the regulation failed to encompass a broader urban geographical context of urban heritage that goes beyond monuments and integrates the multi-layering of cultural and natural values. This implies that heritage conservation is not perceived as a priority when considering other urban development objectives [16,22]. The existence of a top-down approach to governance in Surat leads to the exclusion of communities in the practice and processes of urban planning. Cultural heritage continues to remain marginal in discussions about urban development agendas, often overlooked in the context of urban poverty, social inequalities, and a severe lack of basic infrastructure [11]. Although it is evident that effort is being made to improve sustainable planning and heritage conservation, there exist challenges that limit the impact and scope of these initiatives.

#### *5.3. Valuing Heritage: Intangible Dimension*

The city of Surat has a diverse and vibrant economic and sociocultural fabric (Figure 8). Tangible and intangible cultural heritage is represented, developed, and protected in Surat, and is depicted as diverse and multidimensional [31,32]. Heritage is a concept that is difficult to define, what it means and how it has been presented, re-presented, developed, and protected, set against a back-drop of demands and motivations is multidimensional [33,34]. In the drive to define traditions and identities in a community [34], the notion of "heritage" is developed [21]. Living expressions and practices of heritage are also often misunderstood and treated as ambiguous due to its complexity and variation [35,36]. The interrelationship between history/the past [33] and heritage is recognized in literature-defining heritage as elements of the past for contemporary society to inherit, record, conserve, and pass on to future generations [5,37]. In this landscape, urban heritage plays a fundamental role in reinforcing cities' identities through the integration of heritage and historic urban area conservation, management, and planning strategies into local development processes and urban planning aids [20,38]. It allows for the broader urban context to be considered with the interrelationships of heritage and its physical form, spatial organization, connection, and values. Throsby [39] highlights the need for acknowledging the "interconnectedness of economic, social, cultural, and environmental systems". Thereby positioning cultural heritage as the "glue" among the multidimensions of sustainable development. This approach extends beyond the notion of monuments and historic centers and includes social and cultural practices and values, economic processes, and the intangible dimensions of heritage as related to diversity and identity [38]. It reinforces the integral role cultural heritage can play as a key resource in urban sustainable development.

*and festive…Surat is an amalgamation of many traditions and* 

*The city of Surat has kept the heritage and survived invasion and calamities. The people's spirit is inclusive* 

chitect explains below, Surat's tangible and intangible heritage

— authors' photos). **Figure 8.** Vibrant city of Surat (top left—Station road known as Rajmarg Surat); Street markets of Surat (bottom left—Chauta bazar); Daily life embedded in urban fabric (middle); Residents using urban traditional areas (Rander Gamtal) for small retail or everyday traditional activities (right) (Source: authors' photos).

The concept of Surat's heritage is associated closely with broader notions of local identity, memory, and nationalism [40–42]. Scholars [4,37,43–45] have argued that heritage is an essential element of national representation with the potential to perpetually remind citizens of the symbolic foundations upon which a sense of belonging is based. It is therefore presented or re-presented as something of special value or significance relating to the past. This dynamic history has created and shaped the cultural identity of the city of Surat. Historic social practices and processes have remained interdependent and reciprocal with Surat's built fabric. The built environment is a crucial space for expressing traditional and spiritual activities that are still actively imprinted on urban life as shown in Figures 8 and 9. As the heritage architect explains below, Surat's tangible and intangible heritage are interdependent.

*The city of Surat has kept the heritage and survived invasion and calamities. The people's spirit is inclusive and festive* . . . *Surat is an amalgamation of many traditions and communities. It is a base for many crafts. The city has a lot of harmony, which has its footprints in a way of amalgamation in the built heritage and intangible heritage* (I4, Heritage Architect, Expert Interviewee).

The photos (Figure 8) below show how lively Rander Gamtal historic area is and the role played by tangible and intangible heritage in shaping the place and in adding quality to the urban environment and in enabling the consolidation of the social bonds.

At present, there is no standard classification and valorization approach towards the cultural heritage in Surat. The paucity in recognizing the pluralistic values of Surat's tangible and intangible heritage leaves to question what type of heritage should be preserved, for what reason, and by whom [14,47]. Consequently, heritage assets that have significant attached values to citizens are left out of local government efforts to raise awareness and promote heritage tourism. The articulation of heritage values allows for the consideration of decisions for heritage assets to give a "heritage status and significance" and therefore the assessment of these values attributed to heritage is a very important activity for the achievement of sustainable urban conservation [48]. Despite the fact that values are widely understood to be critical to heritage conservation, there is still a paucity of knowledge

about how plural heritage values can be used to assess tangible and intangible heritage [49]. Expert interviewees pointed, as described below, that local politicians are not concerned with the value assigned to Surat's cultural heritage. Without political buy-in and commitment, heritage is left at the margins of urban development.

chitect explains below, Surat's tangible and intangible heritage

*Elected people, local leaders* . . . *They even do not bother about the value of these heritage buildings, they would rather demolish them and replace with new buildings* (I3, Heritage Consultant, Expert Interviewee).

*So far, we have not been able to capitalize the value of the history and of the heritage, this city has been always well known for trade and commerce, not for its history* (I8, City Resilience Officer, Expert Interviewee).

Without the acknowledgment and appreciation of Surat's culture and values, opportunities for establishing social cohesion and connectivity are missed. Surat's urban fabric is under consistent pressure to "modernize", leading to the continuous disappearance of traditional skills and crafts that are part of the intangible cultural heritage [21,36]. Expert interviewees commented on the depreciation of a sense of place and belonging in Surat due to the various physical environmental challenges mentioned above and the increase in population.

*Most of the heritage sites are present in the middle of the city, but due to blindly following the Western culture, people neglect their own heritage and culture* (I9, Heritage Proprietor & Industrialist, Expert Interviewee).

Social connectivity and cohesion are weak and therefore there is a lack of interest in engaging with Surat's heritage [19]. This challenge is exacerbated when considering migrant populations who have settled in Surat primarily for industrial activities and have no inherited sense of responsibility to conserve and value Surat's heritage. — authors' photos).

**Figure 9.** Festivals and traditions are still very lively and fully embedded in the city's everyday life. (Source: [46] Uttarayan—The festival of kites left and middle); (Source: authors' photos top and bottom right).

#### *5.4. The Emerging Local Community Awareness of Heritage Conservation*

There was agreement in the findings that the local community lack education, language, and understanding about the values of tangible and intangible heritage and how to care for these heritage assets. Cultural heritage can promote contact, exchanges, and reciprocity, particularly when people engaging with heritage are not considered as passive consumers but as creators, distributors, and decision makers [50]. Expert interviewees highlighted the need for citizen participation in urban heritage conservation as illustrated by the quotes below.

*Surat is experiencing constant dense growth of the CBD and acute migration. There is a need for an active dialogue with people and making them aware of our rich history. People's participation will bring awareness about the many layers of history. It will facilitate the connection of the footprints about history and the immediate past* (I6, Heritage Architect, Expert Interviewee).

*The local community has a crucial role to play in promoting the pride of our heritage. There should be more involvement of various activities related to heritage* (I3, Heritage Consultant, Expert Interviewee).

The rise in modern practices leaves little room for recognition of traditional activities and processes [51]. Some efforts to build heritage awareness have already been created as discussed in the sections above. However, there is no existing formal strategy to engage with urban communities about Surat's diverse heritage and how to preserve it. Increased awareness about history, story, and the reality about heritage monuments and intangible heritage can instill a sense of pride in the local community [52,53]. Younger generations with digital access to global agendas on sustainability and heritage identity have a growing interest in visiting and taking steps to restore heritage sites in Surat [54]. However, Surat's underdeveloped heritage tourism industry reduces the interest and exploration of heritage. Thus, contributing to the paucity of understanding of the significance and value of heritage [22]. An expert interviewee representing the local municipality commented on the need to develop the tourism industry with a view to stimulating interest from the locals and to urge them to understand and appreciate the value of the heritage.

*Now tourists are coming to the city for business and go away after the visit, so we are trying to o*ff*er something that might induce those people to go with the family and to spend time and money around the city. Surat should not only be for business, but also for tourism. If tourists were paying attention to the buildings, then the locals would understand and appreciate the value of the heritage* (I1 & I2, Surat Municipal Corporation Museum, Expert Interviewee).

The fieldwork revealed that the compartmental thinking and fragmentation in Surat's heritage landscape is largely attributed to the absence of skills and knowledge amongst decision makers in Surat's local government and heritage organizations. The current approaches to heritage conservation in Surat are described in the interviews as "artificial" and "copying the West". Without proper training that focuses on solutions and techniques catering to the uniqueness of Surat's urban context, heritage assets will continue to decay and vanish. There is a need to innovate and develop solutions through communication, cooperation, and collaboration with multiple disciplines. Few of the heritage experts and decision makers can use the digital technology [55] needed for restoration, and there is generally a lack of interest and awareness to learn these crucial skills [56,57]. Therefore, heritage conservation strategies lack any digital innovation and technique.

### *5.5. Urban Development and Real Estate Pressures*

Surat faces the urgent task of providing new infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing population. People from rural areas and other less-developed towns and cities are migrating to Surat in search of employment opportunities in expanding and established sectors such as the textile trade and diamond business [19]. Consequently, Surat is experiencing real estate pressures for new infrastructure and commercial developments that can house more people and add increased value to the land (Figure 10). There is an existing conflict between the need to preserve heritage and its urban fabric and modernization projects to meet economic objectives. Providing urban infrastructure to meet the rise in population while protecting the integrity and authenticity of its heritage remains a distinct challenge [58]. Development projects for new infrastructure and commercial developments are often based on standardized solutions that are intended to generate immediate revenues [1]. However, they are usually insensitive to the authenticity and integrity of cultural heritage [28,59]. The interpretation given by local experts on the impact of such a rapid urbanization on local heritage was twofold as illustrated below. Through the analysis of both interviews and focus groups data, the researchers understood that (1) rapid urbanization boosts the property market to produce more housing, hence old buildings are replaced with new buildings with higher densities and (2) the replacement of newcomers weaken the affection that local communities still have for local heritage, since newcomers are often not aware about the heritage value and local identity.

New development and heritage building (Rajmarg) (Source: authors' photos). **Figure 10.** New development and heritage building (Rajmarg) (Source: authors' photos).

–

*Surat is experiencing an increasing population at a very fast rate and very rapid urbanization. This creates significant problems to create heritage awareness, identifying and awaiting opportunities* (I7, Officer, Surat iLAB & Smart City, Expert Interviewee).

*The problem is not just about land value, is also about money. They go up and up because they do want to rent to more and more people* (I4, Heritage Architect, Expert Interviewee).

*Urbanization is a threat because young generation left the historic city and new owners replaced traditional owners, and found old housing unsuitable to accommodate contemporary lifestyle* (I1 & I2, Surat Municipal Corporation Museum experts, Expert Interviewee).

The rise in the real estate market has increased the land value in certain areas resulting in housing that are unaffordable for low-income groups and therefore remaining vacant. Developers are buying land in the historic areas, demolishing heritage buildings and replacing them with modern housing with higher density to increase the land value (Figure 10). As a result, heritage buildings and their surrounding areas are falling rapidly into decay. Furthermore, the attractiveness of contemporary ways of living are leading to many people leaving traditional houses and the historic parts of Surat because of unsuitability [17]. Some heritage houses, as designed according to the Indian tradition, lack adequate infrastructure such as toilets, sewage systems, and water pipes. Implementing contemporary infrastructure such as an air conditioning unit, bathroom, or flush toilets that is compatible with the old fabric in heritage buildings can be a challenge.

The photo sequence Figure 11 refers to different buildings captured in the same day (Figure 11a–d). However, it shows the typical trend happening in the two areas of Rander Gamtal and Gopi Surat Central Zone (Figure 2). Historic traditional buildings are often 2 or 3 storey buildings, built of traditional materials such as bricks (Figure 11a). In a leapfrogged but yet systematic way, they are replaced by individual landowners/builders with concrete buildings, allowing to push the density higher. Figure 11b shows a single traditional building demolished. This is happening in a leapfrogged way, ending up in chunks of the historic precints being replaced with scattered interventions. On one hand, this makes the process of destruction of the traditional heritage slower, on the other hand, this process is happening silently but in a growingly pervasive manner and is spoiling the identity and the value of the historic urban fabric. Figure 11c shows the typical higher rise building replacing the previously existing traditional one. The last image (Figure 11d) clearly shows how the new building follows a kitsch aesthetic, replacing the sophisticated elegance of traditional architecture with bombastic, inconsistent, and ungrounded architectural features. Still, it also clearly shows how the owner considers such replacement aesthetically appealing since the façade looks quite willingly manicured. This corroborated the finding from the interviews and focus groups, regarding the necessity to raise awareness across the locals on the value of traditional heritage.

(**a**) (**b**)

(Source: authors' photos). **Figure 11.** Photo sequence of new developments in historic area, Rander Gamtal. (**a**) Brick traditional buildings, (**b**) demolished single traditional building, (**c**) high rise development, (**d**) Replacement building with new features (Source: authors' photos).

#### *5.6. Cultural Heritage and Climate Change*

The impact of climate change on heritage has wide consequences ranging from structural damage, atmospheric moisture and temperature changes, and new interactions between natural and anthropogenic factors to more socioeconomic factors such as tourism demand and supply. Findings from the literature analysis suggest that the cultural aspects (social and spatial) are increasingly being considered for achieving environmental sustainability [23,60,61]. At a state and local level, there is a paucity of evidence of policies/measures that take into account traditional and local community knowledge in assessing the possible impact of climate adaptation on cultural heritage elements and

practices. Indeed, at an urban scale, assessing the value of heritage resources is required for various reasons, such as, assessing vulnerabilities, adequately defining conservation priorities and directing funding [61]. Disaster management and risk mitigation policies with a heritage focus remain largely insufficient, particularly in view of Surat's vulnerability to repetitive flooding. Indeed, there lacks an established discourse in the area of sustainability and inclusive urban development concerning the relationship between cultural heritage and climate change. Efforts worth mentioning in addressing this gap include the 100 Resilient Cities (RC) Challenge which seeks to work with cities around the world to build resilience and tackle social, economic, and physical challenges that are faced by cities in an increasingly urbanized world. As a result, Surat introduced the Surat Resilience Strategy [19] as a platform to help address the critical question of what can be done to protect and improve the way of life of citizens of Surat in the present and in the future. The approach for developing and implementing this strategy is one of diverse collaboration, involving stakeholders such as the Surat Climate Change Trust (SCCT) and Surat Heritage Cell. However, there is an absence of specific measures on heritage sites to reduce the exposure and vulnerability of people and ecosystems to the risks and hazards of climate change. The strategy focuses heavily on social sustainability but fails to consider traditional and local community knowledge in assessing the possible impact of climate adaptation on heritage elements and practices. Similarly, the vulnerability assessment on Surat undertaken by The Rockefeller Foundation's Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) [23] highlights heritage as a strength in the profile description of Surat with no further explorations concerning cultural heritage and climate change.

#### **6. Recommendations: Sustainable Urban Heritage Framework**

Surat's heritage conservation efforts need to be located within the context of the city's socioeconomic and physical infrastructural urban pressures, needs, and demands. The diverse challenges discussed in the section above indicate the crucial necessity for a focus on sustainable urban heritage conservation in Surat. As highlighted by the UN Sustainable Goals (SDG 11), cultural assets represent an essential resource for sustainable and inclusive human development and to progress cities' social resilience [1]. At a local level, the recommendations discussed in this section demonstrate that Surat is a relevant qualitative case study for exploring the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) approach in different urban contexts that experience similar elements of heritage conservation [12,13,62]. The findings have shown that Surat is a diverse urban settlement with multi-layers from the physical socio-cultural environment. Therefore, learning from the qualitative study of Surat and the HUL approach, more general recommendations can be drawn to address the inclusive local management of heritage resources as illustrated in the framework in Figure 12. These recommendations include developing holistic urban heritage legislation (6.1), identifying and mapping the city's heritage values, preserving local identity and sense of place (6.2), and developing local urban heritage and planning expertise, skills, and knowledge (6.3). Inclusive community and stakeholder engagement are central to the successful integration of urban heritage conservation (Figure 12). Using the HUL approach as a guiding framework [12], Surat Municipal Corporation and other local heritage stakeholders together with the inclusive participation of Surat's residents, can reinforce local identity, local distinctiveness, and local tangible and intangible values.

**Figure 12.** Integrated Urban Heritage Model.

#### *6.1. Holistic Urban Heritage Legislation*

as plans and guidelines. Surat's local policies must go beyond monumentalism and instead address On a national level, heritage policies need to be integrated with planning interfaces. The national Planning Act has good capacity for spatial control and regulation, but needs to broaden when dealing with cultural assets [63]. Surat has committed to becoming a resilient, smart, and sustainable city facilitated by international and national programs, and therefore, the protection of cultural heritage should be central to fulfilling these goals. To this extent, the recognition and appreciation of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage will enhance social cohesion and create a sense of place and belonging. These benefits can only truly be actualized through the development of urban heritage policies that integrate heritage protection into urban planning legislation and practice. Not only monuments but also traditional housing and local heritage should be targeted by local planning policies, by embedding heritage conservation principles within the local planning instruments such as plans and guidelines. Surat's local policies must go beyond monumentalism and instead address the heritage and its urban fabric as well as associated interdependent intangible heritage [10,21]. This can be financially viable by combining in an integrated strategy of the concepts of resiliency and heritage conservation. Intersections between heritage conservation, social cohesion, resilience, and local identity (Resilient City and heritage conservation) may support interventions leading to a better appreciation of the value of traditional housing and local heritage and elicit a more responsible approach from developers/local owners. Furthermore, disaster management and risk mitigation policies with a heritage focus will establish a discourse in the area of sustainability and inclusive urban development concerning the

relationship between cultural heritage and climate change. Still, limitations and constraints to the demolition of traditional buildings must be included in the local planning policies in support of two areas, firstly, a better understanding of what must be valued by the community, and secondly, to make sure that conservation policies are endorsed consistently in the two historic areas of Rander Gamtal and Gopi Surat Central Zone (Figure 2). It should not be expected that the real estate market will acknowledge the value of heritage unless constraints and limits are imposed by local authorities when a gap in national conservation policies exists.

#### *6.2. Identifying and Mapping Heritage Values and Preserving Local Identity and Sense of Place*

A vital part of any sustainable approach is to recognize and understand the values linked to Surat's heritage. Thus, moving away from a material-based approach, also referred to as "authorized heritage discourse" [34,64,65] or an expert-driven approach that places the conservation of heritage solely in the hands of heritage authorities. Universal solutions that solely focus on monuments and do not embrace the intangible associations with heritage sites, nor their management systems and practices tend to oversimplify the complex reality of Surat's heritage landscape. A values-based approach places the people of Surat at the core of conservation. This approach is largely based on the Burra Charter (ICOMOS) and has been further developed to recognize the plurality of values, voices, and perspectives in the practice and interpretation of heritage conservation. The inclusion of the local community in decision making about Surat's heritage is prioritized in the discussions of solutions. This is with the view to democratize heritage and increase community participation. Initiatives such as U-Turn awareness programs reflect significant action from the local people of Surat to organize resistance to prevent the demolition of heritage buildings [19]. In this context, a values-based approach builds on the growing momentum and makes concerted effort to engage the whole range of stakeholder groups throughout the conservation process [66]. The youth have a crucial role to play in the success of community awareness. Intergenerational approaches encourage older people and the younger generations to share and learn about heritage together and in a meaningful and impactful way. Surat's educational institutes, schools, and colleges can facilitate this learning and allow for a high level of engagement with tangible and intangible heritage.

In rapid urbanization conditions, local communities are often replaced at a rapid pace too, by becoming less resilient to change and therefore not capable to advocate for their own identity preservation. Again, it should not be expected that disenfranchised local communities will be strong enough to advocate for local heritage conservation, it is a duty of local authorities to impose limits and constraints to the demolition of local heritage. Successfully integrating the historic environment into urban planning management includes identifying and recognizing the complex elements that make Surat distinctive and create a sense of place and identity.

#### *6.3. Local Urban Heritage and Planning Expertise, Skills and Knowledge*

Heritage buildings are perceived for the most part as a financial liability and non-priority topic in Surat's investment discourse. This is partly due to the costs, skills, and resources needed to restore the buildings and the surrounding urban fabric. Surat's heritage practitioners lack a strong evidence base for their decision-making in heritage improvements and the quantification of damage to historic materials [19]. The effective use of technology in the heritage sector in Surat has significant potential to contribute to an accurate and informed understanding of the heritage sites, buildings, and interiors. Therefore, heritage professionals and decision-makers need to gain skills and knowledge to identify innovative solutions as well as to seek synergy with other disciplines and fields of work. Resilience building can be combined and associated with heritage conservation, to empower local administrators in their role of endorsing heritage conservation. Organizations such as the ASI and INTACH need to develop formal systems that recognize and support the conservation of heritage as an interdisciplinary effort [67,68]. The Smart City program could support the implementation of new technologies facilitating knowledge sharing on local heritage.

#### **7. Conclusions**

This paper has examined the context of the challenges in Surat and the efforts made with the view to make heritage an integral of part of urban planning and management. A presentation of the conceptualization of urban heritage conservation within the city of Surat has been made. The discussion is situated in the context of a growing global discourse on the crucial role culture plays in sustainable urban development. The city of Surat is explored as an exemplar study through qualitative fieldwork. Although Surat has made deliberate steps in addressing its urban heritage, the existing challenges are considerable. The findings from this study highlight the need for decision-makers in the heritage sector to acknowledge Surat's multi-layered and diverse cultural heritage as a critical resource preserved through community engagement. Furthermore, the findings reflected the diversity in Surat's built architectural heritage that demonstrate the typological influences (i.e., vernacular, colonial (Gothic and Renaissance), Art Deco, and Arabesque). The absence of structured approaches can be presented as an opportunity for the design of locally defined participatory processes that promote the diverse transformation of cultural heritage.

Future research can focus on community-based negotiation of urban cultural representation. Surat is not an isolated case, the narrative on this case study reflects current trends and challenges on conservation of heritage assets in rapidly-growing urban areas. Thus, considerations and recommendations are indeed relevant to the larger heritage cities' planners and the conservationist international community. The inclusive development of urban heritage has the potential to foster a shared cultural identity experiencing both material (tangible) and socio-psychological (intangible) remnants of the nation's past and bringing pasts, peoples, places, and cultures into performative contestation and dialogue. Unifying these separate elements to present a coherent story and sustainable representation of urban heritage, however, remains a priority area for future research. Additionally, this paper recommends future research should be supported with comprehensive statistical and geo-spatial heritage data that can allow for the investigation of the role of urban heritage with broader urban issues.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, C.U., C.T., K.G.B.A., B.C.N.M., D.A.P. and L.E.M.; Formal analysis, C.U., C.T., K.G.B.A., B.C.N.M., D.A.P. and L.E.M.; Methodology, C.U., C.T., K.G.B.A., B.C.N.M., D.A.P., L.E.M. and K.N.J.; Supervision, C.U.; Writing—original draft, B.C.N.M.; Writing—review & editing, C.U., C.T., K.G.B.A., B.C.N.M. and L.E.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research is financed by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), UK [project reference: AH/R014183/1] and the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), New Delhi, India. This work is a part of an ongoing project "IT INDIAN HERITAGE PLATFORM: Enhancing cultural resilience in India by applying digital technologies to the Indian tangible and intangible heritage".

**Acknowledgments:** The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Municipal Commissioner of Surat, Deputy Municipal Commissioner and their team of Heritage Cell, Sardar Patel Museum and Science Center of Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC), Archeological Survey of India (ASI) Vadodara Circle, SURATi iLAB (Surat Smart City Development Ltd.), Gujarat Tourism, Surat-Gopipura Heritage Conservation Society, Surat Heritage Trust, Tapi Trust Surat, Indian Building Congress (IBC) Surat Chapter, Southern Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SGCCI) Surat, Resilience Strata Research and Action Forum Surat, Institute of Civil Engineers and Architects (ICEA) Surat, Sarvajanik Education Society Surat, Patanjali Yog Prashikshan Samiti Surat, Raman Bhakta School of Architecture, Tarsadi, and CREDAI Surat for their generous interest and support for this research.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
