Mind the diversity: defining intervention concepts of built heritage in international doctrinal documents

Abstract

Interventions are essential for the management of built heritage because they extend the lifespan of buildings and enable them to be enjoyed by multiple generations. International organisations and institutions, such as UNESCO and ICOMOS, have adopted doctrinal documents over time, stimulating best practices in built heritage management worldwide. Although these documents are often referenced in academic work, they are seldom systematically researched. Which interventions are referenced or omitted? Are they defined? What trends are noted in the understanding of best practices as interventions? This research consists of a systematic content analysis of nine international doctrinal documents, which were selected from nearly seventy international doctrinal documents—mainly adopted by UNESCO and ICOMOS. The main aim is to reveal and compare the concepts used for reference interventions and further use the definitions to reveal and discuss the relationships between them. The trends of these interventions being used were determined based on the frequency of mentions per intervention term in the selected documents. Regarding the definition of the intervention concepts, there are three main findings. First, instead of being treated as a single concept, ‘conservation’ has been presented as an umbrella concept for other interventions and thus has been the most popular concept since the first version (1992) of the New Zealand Charter was implemented. In contrast, ‘preservation’ remains a single concept, among the highest scales, to maintain the integrity of built heritage, including use. Second, ‘repair’ was found to play a paradoxical role between ‘restoration’ and ‘reconstruction’, which created divergent opinions in the documents. Third, since the notions of ‘use’ have expanded from the functions of monuments (International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites: The Venice Charter, 1964) to the ‘associations of places’ (The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, with associated Guidelines and Code on the Ethics of Co-existence, 1999; The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013), which include activities, traditional habits, accessibility, etc., the complexity of mentioning different forms of ‘use’ has led to some (re)interventions, such as ‘adaptation’, ‘adaptive reuse’, and ‘rehabilitation’, being put into grey areas and used interchangeably. This research advances the current understanding of intervention concepts and their relationships, as well as differences and similarities in definitions.