PRESENTATION LAYOUTSLIDES 2-6: Introduction to WP5SLIDES 7-8: Task 5.1SLIDES 9-18: Analysis of the input we have so far to Task 5.1SLIDES 19-20: Task 5.2SLIDES 21-24: Analysis of the feedback & issues posted and

discussed with interest to Task 5.2SLIDES 25-26: Task 5.3SLIDES 27: Discussion on strategic Re-orientation of the

projectSLIDES 28-31: Questions from the Ljubjlana preparatory meetingSLIDES 32-41: Our proposal from Kick-off presentationSLIDE 42: Final Output of WP5

WP5: RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES

WP LeaderAntonia Moropoulou

NTUA

ObjectivesObjectives of WP5 of WP5

5.15.1 Development of integrated documentation Development of integrated documentation protocols - harmonisation criteriaprotocols - harmonisation criteria

5.25.2 Knowledge based decision making procedures - Knowledge based decision making procedures - CHIC GuidelineCHIC Guideline

5.35.3 Strategic planning for implementation and Strategic planning for implementation and validation of the CHIC Guidelinevalidation of the CHIC Guideline

WP5WP5 RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION

AND STRATEGIESAND STRATEGIES

WP5 will be organized in the following tasks

The AimThe AimTo develop criteria and a methodology for the creation of a Model

System for integrated documentation

Implemented

through National, E.U. and International Regulations

Considering Indicative Parameters

of data documentation

The established methods will be consolidated and enhanced with the ideas gained in different countries and developed by the existing European standards and codes, according to common criteria, methodology and guidelines.

WPs Workflow

TASK 5.1TASK 5.1

INTEGRATED DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLSINTEGRATED DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS (L: UL, M: (L: UL, M: NTUA, UNIBO, IPPT PAN,Z-ZNTUA, UNIBO, IPPT PAN,Z-Z))

Deliverable D 5.1 will be:

Integrated document protocols and harmonized criteria for IC modelsThey will include presentation and evaluation of the existing documentation protocols in the sector of cultural heritage protection used in EU countries and recommendations for the creation of integrated documentation

protocols in the sector of cultural heritage protection.

Presentation & evaluation of the existing documentation protocols in the sector of cultural heritage protection

Suggestion for the creation of integrated documentation protocols, which will provide new documentation procedures, upgrading in data level the current documentation methodologies (WP2), responding to criteria & indicators for risk assessment (WP3), responding to advanced diagnostics & data management (WP4)

Harmonization of existing criteria & indicators of existing European standards for the development of the Identity Card concept

Significant feedback of the relevant data will be given by the Network of Researchers, consisting of experts from all over Europe dealing with documentation protocols used for cultural heritage protection.

DISCUSSION ON TASK & DELIVERABLE 5.1

RESEARCH ON GREEK DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS

D3.1: Report on risk indicators and roadmap for future research priorities – Annex A / Identification of needs for future research priorities

D4.1: Report on Methods and Tools for data collection and presentation

D2.1: Activity Report of Task 2.1

NTUA comments & additions for Mesoscale – Micro scale – Integrated Diagnostic Methodology. It is proposed to develop these issues when addressing future recommendations and strategies in WP5.

NTUA additions of Categories / Subcategories additions

Professor Alfredo Ronchi: “EU LEGISLATION AND CULTURAL HERITAGE / MEDICI FRAMEWORK OF COOPERATION

Nypan Terje: List of Directives reviewed by the working group and now part of the EHLF work.

CHIC ID CARD Top Level: Based on the working session in Ravenna Meeting

4.1 New Questionnaire

Discussion of : Accessibility / Coding / Methodology/Structure EU-CHIC VIENNA MEETING WP2 WORKSHOP

Input for the development of Integrated Documentation Protocols

Harmonization of criteria & indicators

The output of all the above, combined with previous work and experience of NTUA in the field leads to the clarification and integration to the protocols of all necessary data regarding

PROTECTION – MANAGEMENT – DECISION MAKING

RESEARCH ON GREEK DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS

Presentation of Greek informative systems of documentationPresentation of Greek informative systems of documentation

The cases of 3 Greek Directorates of the Greek Ministry of Culture:

1. The National Archive of Monuments Information System

2. The Acropolis Restoration Service (YSMA)

3. The General Directorate of Museum Restoration and Technical Projects / Directorate of Museum construction

PresentationPresentation of Greek informative systems of risk assessment and of Greek informative systems of risk assessment and managementmanagement

1. Risk Map of Cultural Heritage – the Dodecanese case study: ARCHI-MED

Q1.Name of the method

Q2 Country

Q3 Level of implementation

Q5 Number of catalogued elements

Q7 Accessibility

Q8 Computerized system

Q9 Internet accessibility

Q10 Authorized person to draw up the form

Q11 Database updating

Q13 Location

Q13 A Brief description of location data

Q14 History

Q14 A Brief description of history data

Q15 Building elements

Q15 A Brief description of elements data

Q16 State of conservation and restoration activities

Q16 ABrief description of conservation data

Q17 Survey

Q17 A Brief description of survey data

Q 18 Legal conditions and constrains

Q Brief description of legal conditions data

Q19 A Location

Q19 B History

Q19 C Restoration activities

Q19 D State of conservation

Q19 E Materials

Q19 F Structure

Q19 G Surveys

Q19 H Risks prevention

Q19 I Legal conditions

Notes and suggestion

Check list editor

D2.1 RESULTS: study of protocols for data collection and analysis devoted to the main elements under the concepts of preservation and sustainability of Cultural Heritage, in order to create a complete history of the entire lifetime of the heritage good.

Summary of dataset.Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q7A Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12

Q 13.1

Q 13.2

Q 13.3

Q 13.4

Q 13.5 Q13A

Q 14.1

Q 14.2

Q 14.3

Q 14.4

Q 14.5

Q 14.6

Q 14.7

Q 14.8 Q14A

Q 15.1

Q 15.2

Q 15.3

Q 15.4

Q 15.5 Q15A

Q 16.1

Q 16.2

Q 16.3

Q 16.4 Q16A

Q 17.1

Q 17.2

Q 17.3 Q17A

Q 18.1

Q 18.2

Q 18.3

Q 18.4 Q18A

Q 19A

Q 19B

Q 19C

Q 19D

Q 19E

Q 19F

Q 19G

Q 19H Q 19I Q 19J

1National Protective Inventory Malta 1 1960

2.000 (old system) 300 (new) English 1 2 2 5

It has been updated for the first time X

boundaries and buffer zones X X X X X X X X X

Deepness depends on type of property X X

linked to resources X

ownership is not public data 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2

2BAUDID inspection of C. H. Germany 2 2004 400 per year German 2

owners, authorities 2 1 2

Regularly inspected X X X X X X X X X X

state of art and advices about maintenance X X 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 1

3Register of Cultural Monuments Estonia 1 1994 12000 Estonian 1,2 Partially public 2 2 1 X X Caddaster X X X X X X

not at public level X general info

not at public level

not at public level 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4Register of Cultural Heritage Assets Slovakia 1 1985

9.752(imm) 14.501 (mov) Slovakian 1,2

Only immovable is public 2 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X 4 3 1 3 2 1 2 1 3

5Cultural Heritage Register Slovenia 1 1991 27.000 Slovenian 1 2 2 1 X X X X X X X 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4

6 White Card Poland 1 1975 168.000 Polish 1,2Access should be justified 1 1 1 X X

Topographic num; land register X X X X X X X X X

equipment, installation, decorations X X X X X X 4 4 4 3 4 2 2 2 3

7 Cemetery Card Poland 1 1975 26.000 Polish 1 1 1 4 X X

State administration data, card num X X X X X X

plans, archive materilas X X 4 3 2 2 3 1 2 1 3

8MAMEG inspection of C. H. Hungary 1 2006 20 per year Hungarian 2

owners, authorities 2 1 2 X X X X X X X X X

state of art and advices about maintenance X visual survey 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 1

9 Site Card Israel 3 1993 Hebrew 1 1 1 0 X X X X X X

main elements and physical conditions X X 4 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 3

10

Register of national protected monuments and sites Hungary 1 1881 11.300 1 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2

11Integrated Information System of C. H. (IISPP) Czech republic 1 2003

40.315(imm) 40.000 (mov) Czech 2

Employees of National heritage Inst. 2 2 1 X X X X Land register X X X X X 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3

12 / Denmark 1 2009

9.000 protected + 30.000 Danish 1

Partially restricted. Admin & munic. 2 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 4

13 IGESPAR IP Portugal 1 2001 2158 (imm.) Portuguese 1,2 Partially public 2 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4

14 Inventory Sweden 1 2008 75.000 Swedish 1 2 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 4 2 1 3 3 1 1 2

15Register of C.H. buildings Finland 0 2009

1.591 entireites/ 4.926 buildings Finnish 1,2

C.H. officials can see more information 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 3

16Monumentenwacht Vlaanderen Belgium 2 1991

1.500 per year Dutch 2

owners, authorities 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X X

state of art and advices about maintenance X visual survey 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 1

17 SIGEC Italy 1 1990 2.000.000 Italian 2

Admin.; universities, research 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 3

18Cultuurhistorische Waardenkaart Netherlands 3 2000 30.000 Dutch 1 2 2 0 X X X X X X X 4 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

19Nationaal Monumentenregister Netherlands 1 1968 52.000 Dutch 2

Authorities. Partially public 2 2 2 X X X X X X

elements important for resigetering X 4 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 3

20Monumentenwacht Netherlands Netherlands 1 1974 24.000 Dutch 1 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X X X X

state of art and advices about maintenance X visual survey 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 1

21 / Norway 1 2005

4.900 protected b./ 2.500 1 2 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4

22

Method of Insitute for restoration town Dubrovnik Croatia 3 1979 830

Croatian, English 1,2

Inst. rest Dubrovnik, Ministry of Culture 2 1 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

23

Ficha de patrimonio etnológico en Castilla y León Spain 2 2001 Spanish 2

Regional Government 2 1 0 X X X X X X X X X

Brief description of main elements and physical conditions X X

General status, pathologies in every structural element, historical changes in every structural element, intervention X

General dimensions X

Preservation status, urban planning status, value proposal 4 3 2 4 4 4 2 2 4

24

Inventario de patrimonio de patrimonio industrial de la provincia de Valladolid Spain 3 1996 Spanish 2

Local government 2 1 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X

Detailed description of main elements and physical conditions X X X

Detailed status, pathologies in every structural element, historical changes in every structural element, X

General dimensions X X

Preservation status, urban planning status, value proposal 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4

25 / Fyrom 1 2004 1394 1 1 1Head of INDOC 2 X X X X

Localisation according to admisnistrative X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

26 YSMA Digital data Base Greece 2 1988Akropolis Monuments Greek 2

Acropolis employees 2 1

archaeologists of Acropolis 1 X X X X X X X X X

monuments’ historical phases and old interventions & pictures or reference documents X X X

hierarchical order from the entire monument &structural parts to the individual architectural member X X X

earlier interventions and contemporary interventions for structural restoration and surface conservation. X X

described with special key words and associated with six special information groups/windows 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 1

27

Technical Reports for museum interventions, extensions, upgrades or new buildings Greece 1 Greek 2

Ministry of Culture employees 1 1

responsible architect 1 X X

archaeological data x X X X X X X X X X X X X

collaboration with other Government agencies 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4

28 POLEMON Greece 1 1999 Greek 2

Directorate of Nat. Monuments Record, Antiquities Ephorates, Museums 2 1

Directorate of Nat. Monuments Record, Antiquities Ephorates, Museums 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

29

Archives of the National Monuments’ Record of the English Heritage England 1 1983 1,000,000 English 1 2 2

English Heritage staff 2 X X X

Address, grid ref and quarter sheet X X X X X X

Typology, characteristic features, Monument period and type X X

Brief description of main elements

No mention or restricted at reference documents

No mention or restricted at reference documents X

Not to be reproduced without permission 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

30

Pastcape of the National Monuments’ Record of the English Heritage England 1 1983 1,000,000 English 1 2 2

English Heritage staff 2 X X X

Address, grid ref, coordinates and quarter sheet X X X X X X

Typology, characteristic features, Monument period and type, rehabilitation works X X X

Fair description of main elements X X

General info and reference documents

No mention or restricted at reference documents X

Not to be reproduced without permission 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2

EU-CHIC VIENNA MEETING WP2 WORKSHOP(SKB, LABEIN)

Elaboration of 4 sets of questions : Accessibility: What is the most appropriate accessibility policy? Are there different admin and users' profiles? Is it free? What's the best interface? Coding :Which is the most feasible universal coding? Which pros and cons have the alternatives? How to standardize analysis and language? Methodology:How must data be inserted and storaged? Which relations within data and with metadata must be allowed? Is there a specific methodology or fill-in guidance? Structure :What is the most appropriate structure (info hierarchy)? What is essential, what optional and what is the threshold in terms of time and detail?

CHIC ID CARD Top Level. Based on the working session in Ravenna October 12.

Nr. . element name Score Comments

1 Picture, drawing, basic graphic data… visual info 26 One piece. Links to more can be given. Format must be defined.

2 Name 26 This field might be broken down into 2 or more. Example: official name, local name.

3 Address 26 Includes number, postal code. Country code: see next.

4 Country / Nation 26

5 Region 26

6 Geo Location, coordinates 26

7 General description of the object (prose). 26 Everyone agrees on this. But how this short description is to be made depends on different subject interests. A guideline should be developed. In a computer system a limit must be set to the number of words / positions allowed.

8 Original use 26

9 Current use 26

10 Date / year of construction (of the oldest parts) 26 Needs some possibility to inform about additions etc. over time. This could be done in the general description. Also possible to have a free text field added to write some very short info on developments over time.

11 Typology 26 Set of defined typologies must be developed.

12 Link ; URL for more information Mentioned in the meeting but not as a specific information element.

13 Cadastre id. This was not mentioned in the meeting, but will often be tied to the unique id or the identification of the property in the national property register.

14 Unique national and European identifier. Not mentioned in the meeting. Can be system generated based on a unique national identifier.

15 Legal regulation (status) 26 Protected according to…… Type protection. Needs to be defined more precisely on a European level. The national legislation is always the basis.

16 Contact person/details, administration name, department etc.… 15 This will not be a mandatory field. But in some countries this is already standard information.

17 Ownership type 23 Private, Public (state, municipality), combined?.

18 State of conservation/Maintenance condition 26 A grade expressed by a number (0 – 3). Ref CEN standard on Condition survey of immovable heritage (protected and historic buildings, sites and constructions).

19 Risk (grading) / Hazard potential 17 / 18 Grading system must be developed. Can this be combined with hazard potential?

20 Vulnerability (importance, value, etc.?). 14 With this participants meant an indicator for how important the monument etc. is and the importance to intervene if damage develops? This is a very tricky indicator to have – at least at the top level, it needs some guidelines but seems problematic at this level.

21 Historic data, data on former interventions etc. 24 Pointer or information on where this can be found. Possible to have a very short prose description?

22 Structural type similar to another info element. 26 It was unclear if this information element concurred with typology (see 11). If not it needs some further elaboration? If it is the same it needs to be incorporated into Typologies.

23 Basic construction material 26 The notes from the meeting read ‘Basic materials’. I have assumed we are talking construction materials.

Notes:Top score is 26; i.e. all participants agreed.All this top level information should be public and this may need some clarification with national regulations and rules on public protection of individuals.The number of objects (structures, sites) will be above 1 million on a European level. If we include immovable heritage in historic zones, protected urban environments as well as other valuable immovable heritage, we assess we are speaking of close to 2-3 million. This is a substantial number to manage.3 colours reflect 3 ‘chapters’ or ‘sections’ of the ID card.

D3.1 RESULTS: Survey on actual risk

assessment methodologies

- identification

and analysis of existing

directives for risk

assessment related to

monument conservation

General information about informative systems for risk assessment and management related to Immovable Cultural Heritage

• Name•Country•Responsible institution•Level of implementation•Access• Updating• Reference to catalogue (census)

Risk assessment methodology

Factors of danger •Static-structural domain•Environment domain•Weather/Climate domain•Anthropic domain

Vulnerability

Legal constrains

Risk mathematical model/algorithm

Possibility to realize database queries

Data downloadable

On Risk indicators: The hazards identified are focusing mainly on the Macroscale of the risk assessment problem. However, the risk of damage associated with monuments is also a function of various other factors such as the conservation state of the materials (i.e. not only the static/structural aspects of the building), the importance and distribution of cultural heritage, the impact factor of the hazards present, various socioeconomic parameters etc. Since the materials’ state of conservation depends on their physicochemical and physicomechanical parameters and the materials’ behavior in a corrosive environment is not generalized, the risk assessment should be dealt in the direction of revealing the specific active decay mechanism with an integrated decay study both in Mesoscale [type of decay (morphology)] and Microscale [kinetics of the phenomenon (decay rate) and thermodynamics of the phenomenon (susceptibility to decay)] level, through a Standardized Diagnostic Study Methodology.

NTUA’s Proposals & Additions to D3.1

D4.1 RESULTS: Survey on

identification of MTTs for data collection and

presentation of the most

effective MTTs in relation to the

Cultural Heritage Identity Card

(CHIC).

Category of data collection

Sub category Additions / variations depending on IS

General description: Architecture typeBuilding elementsMaterialsBuilding techniques

Decoration (Greece)Ownership & Legal Status (Greece, Slovenia, Spain)Electromechanical elements (Greece)Movable objects (Italy)Context and landscape (Malta)Dating (Poland)Legal protection status (Slovenia)

Geographic situation: Historic buildings and monumentsLinear structuresProtected areasArchaeological sites and monuments

Historic buildings and monuments- individual item- complex item (Italy)Archaeological sites - Individual item- complex item (Italy)

Surveying and documentation

Measured plansRealistic 2D depictionsRealistic 3D depictions

Historical development Historical resources researchArchaeologyDating methodsConstruction historyConservation activitiesArt history

Conservation Activities (Greece)

Material condition and structural health assessment

Maintenance inspectionsDiagnostic surveys

Outer effects impact Long term environmental effectsEnvironmental changeAnthropic impact and improper useDisasters - Floods Disasters - LandslidesDisasters – Wind, storms and hurricanesDisasters – Earthquakes and tsunamisDisasters – FireDisasters – others

Dangers- coastal dynamicsDisasters – avalanchesDisasters – vulcanoesEnvironment-air – erosion indexEnvironment-air – blackening indexAnthropic – dynamics of demographic densityAnthropic – pressure of tourismAnthropic – liability to theft (all Italy)

Vulnerability and risk management

Preventive careMitigationsMonitoring

Management, Exploitation & Maintenance Planning

Preservation plansExploitation

Accessibility assessment (Greece)Maintenance inspections (Slovenia)

Scientific research MTTs R&DThematic research and databases

Within category "Surveying and documentation" we suggest including the subcategory Visual Observations

Category “Outer effects impacts”  could be renamed into "Environmental Factors"so that it would be more extensive, including the whole environment (ground, suroundings,flora, fauna etc..), not just climate effects

Category "Historical development" could be renamed to "Historical documentation" ommiting the Conservation activities

The subcategory "Improper use" could not be under “Outer effects impacts” but there should be added an new Category "Uses" including all the past and the current use of the building / monument

We suggest a new Category "Interventions" containing all the information of the building / monument, with subcategories as Construction phases, Conservation activities and Conservation Interventions

In the category „Management Exploitation & Maintenance Planning“ we could use as MTTs links to a GIS database regarding the management plans and the maintennce schedules

Under the category "Material condition and structural assessment" we would suggest including the subcategories  "Phenomena and decay mechanisms", "Building areas and Sampling", "Analytical techniques testing"

Category “Outer effects impacts”  could be renamed into "Environmental Factors"so that it would be more extensive, including the whole environment (ground, suroundings,flora, fauna etc..), not just climate effects

Under the category „Vulnerability and Risk Management“ we would suggest including the subcategory „Expert Decision Making System“ using as MTTs Inspection Indicators, Diagnosis Indicators and Intervention Indicators

On methods and Tools: Suggestion of new categoriesGeneral info Architectural DocumentationInterventionsOwnership and Legal Status & proposals for changes to the main categories and sub-categories

NTUA’s Proposals & Additions to D4.1

TASK 5.2

KNOWLEDGE BASED DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES AND “EU CHIC” GUIDELINE (L: NTUA, M: UL, IIT, Z-Z, UNIBO, LABEIN)

The integrated documentation protocols developed in Task 5.1 will be complemented dynamically, according the necessity of performing inspection, diagnosis and intervention works, leading to knowledge based decision making procedures.

Significant feedback of the relevant data will be given by the Advisory Network, consisting of representatives of national authorities established in European countries, dealing with cultural heritage protection.

After compiling all the information, the EU CHIC guideline about recommendations on how to evaluate & use the IC models to monuments & sets of historic buildings will be produced.

Deliverable D 5.2 will be:

EU CHIC Identity Card Guideline This guideline will contain:

The assessment of the data collection that should be undertaken, including risk indicators. This part of the document will be created in a form of specific kind of combination of questionnaires and data sheet, including harmonization of

criteria and indicators of existing European standards for the development of the Identity Card concept The evaluation of the most usable tools and methods to collect and store the data and the criteria to select the most

appropriate in every case The criteria to be considered regarding further and past alternation of assets.

This guideline will be written in English and translated in languages of all CHIC partners: Arabic, Croatian, Czech, Flemish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Polish, Slovenian and Spanish

DISCUSSION ON TASK & DELIVERABLE 5.2

Finalize the Criteria for Decision making

NTUA’s Integrated Methodology for Decision Making Support with certain foreseen procedures

Criteria for IC models assessment including: The assessment of data collection that should be undertaken, including risk indicators, harmonization criteria and European standards indicators: (questionnaires and data sheets? ) The evaluation of the most practical tools and methods to collect and store data and the criteria to select the most appropriate case specific material The criteria to be considered regarding previous and future asset alterations

Emerging Methodologies for EU-CHIC results adoption - ITAM’s proposal of an IS method (software), entitled “CHOOGLE - Integrating national CH databases”,

MULTIPLE-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS / ALGORITHM FOR NECESSITY INDEXES CALCULATION) KRHTH

Feedback & Relevant Issues discussed

Presentation from ITAM

The Czech partner presented their proposal “CHOOGLE – integrating national cultural heritage basis” and the Coordinator considered that it was in line with the stated EU-CHIC objectives as it offered a possible upper-level solution for the project implementation.

One of the biggest advantages of the CHOOGLE system could be in creating comparable databases for the maintenance of cultural heritage objects.

ITAM– is there sufficient interest amongst EU-CHIC partners to further develop the CHOOGLE database, and to approach, as a first step, a demonstration to show that it is possible to join multiple databases and extract specific relevant data (such as that required for the EHL label).

A conclusion was reached that the consortia supports such a step towards ademonstration, but the coordinator said that he cannot redistribute the

project finances in support of this. Therefore, ITAM would need to individuallytake on the responsibilities and cost to further develop the system to

demonstrate it, although the EU-CHIC project will acknowledge itsdevelopment, and help to promote and sell it.

As discussed at the AC meeting on 31 January, participants emphasized the importance ofcompatibility in all databases emerging from EC financed projects. They also raised the issue ofopen access, the integration of different systems across Europe, and the challenge of how tolink them on a common meta-data basis. In principle participants support the proposal that theEU-CHIC identity card could be a product of the project, yet there were several that would haveto be addressed: EU-CHIC should develop with a standard level of minimum common information. The database should offer added value (e.g. will it directly serve the EHL). The database should be formed so that it can become a direct tool for supporting the EHL. The database will have to be a kind of specialized database in a group of cultural heritage

projects, yet be compatible with all others. The IT system should enable an interrogation of a large number of different datasets to reveal

relevant criteria and information required for the consideration of an award of a EHL label (so called labeling criteria). Possible label criteria are listed as the importance for EU history, for EU identity, for tourism, and for sustainability development. (Other aspects may need to be added pending further investigation.

The database should be founded on established standards of documentation and monitoring, and should incorporate risk assessments (integrated risk management) according to modern standards.

Emerging methodologies to assist in practical adoption of final CHIC results

Why should a relevant authority use a tool/system? What is its added value in comparison to other already existed

methods? How to motivate potential end-users to adopt it? Mrs. Rajčić recalled that the EC wants all databases that were, and

will be, developed in the frame of EU projects to be compatible with each other. AC members also noted that such a tool should be focused on one area of EU-CHIC; such as risk assessment for example, and should incorporate all relevant standards about cultural heritage objects, or even develop a new standard on meta data information, which should also be linked with CEN TC 356 endeavours.

Any new standard should encompass what each documentation system should have as mandatory and not mandatory information fields. From this perspective, EU-CHIC could innovatively develop a basis for standardisation work on that specific aspect, and this would represent an important significant step forward.

AC members questions to be addressed

TASK 5.3 STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND VALIDATION OF “EU CHIC”

(L: NTUA, M: UL, SKB, Z-Z, ITAM, FRAUNH., IIT, UNIBO, IPPT, LABEIN)

The developed Guideline needs to be further validated. Directives should be developed for:

Further research in order to finalize the recommendations for the creation of integrated documentation protocols & the development of knowledge based decision making procedures in the sector of cultural heritage protection

Strategies for implementing EU CHIC model in EU policies & standard bodies

Implementation of EU-CHIC results through demonstration projects, comparative studies, benchmarking of the guideline

The extension of the proposal to other assets not covered within the project topics: movable, archaeological, intangible & underwater heritage

At the end of this task, the final conference will be organized to present the outcomes of the EU-CHIC project to widen community of experts & other stakeholders engaged in the heritage safeguarding.

Deliverable D 5.3 will be:Strategic planning for EU CHIC guideline implementation

The strategies for further research on recommendations for integrated documentation protocols and knowledge based decision making procedures and strategies for implementation and validation of the developed recommendations will be

elaborated in this deliverable. Recommendations for the development of EU policies in this area will be considered. The strategic plan will be based on analysis of case studies of typical heritage buildings and/or sites delivered by all

project partners.

DISCUSSION ON TASK & DELIVERABLE 5.3

STRATEGIC RE-ORIENTATION OF THE PROJECT

A broad discussion on a strategic re-orientation of the project occurred. In this, it was noted that a series of significant activities on the emergence of the European Cultural Heritage Label (EHL) initiative were currently progressing within the European Commission and AC members suggested that such a reorientation could be to beneficially direct the project activities and efforts to the potential usage of the EU-CHIC systems as a tool for supporting the future implementation of the ECHL.

It was suggested that this new approach should mean involving the European Commission and linking the project to the European Cultural Heritage Label (ECHL) project process, along with the emerging EU Tourism Strategy, and with sustainability initiatives in emerging European politics.

EU-CHIC should identify relevant on-going political EU/EC initiatives and make use of them where mutual benefits could be achieved. For example, EU-CHIC and European Cultural Heritage Heads Forum links could be readily established via meta data, and from this perspective, what EU-CHIC is trying to accomplish could appear to the ECHL as being very attractive, highly relevant, applicable and economically justified, creating a win-win situation for all parties.

Further, it was suggested that EU-CHIC should try to address and motivate the European Cultural Heritage Heads Forum – ECHHF (there was a meeting on 26 and 27 May, 2011 in Amsterdam, NL). The aim might be to contextualise the EU-CHIC project under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty; the DG Research Joint Programme Initiative (JPI); and the potential benefits that could feed into the standardization CEN/TC 346 work, to promote the uptake and benefits of EU-CHIC at national levels.

Projects partners should also investigate future options to include EU-CHIC within the on-going JPI process, and be further motivated to identify relevant contact persons that could be contacted directly, and sent hard copies of the emerging material. For example, if direct contacts with Ministries are not feasible an approach via regional cultural heritage institutes is also possible. Other potential strategic targets are EC Eurostat and the EC Tourism Strategy.

Questions formed in Preparatory Meeting

Even though the WP5 starts at month 18, the preparation has already begun, through:

Research on information systems (IS) of documentation, risk assessment and management of Greece and the countries that NTUA had untertaken

NTUA’s contribution to WP2, WP3 & WP4 (reported in Mid Term Report)

Process of results deriving from previous related work packages (WP2, WP3, WP4).

WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS OF YOUR WP IN THE REPORTING PERIOD?

HOW CAN THESE RESULTS BE USED?

The adaptation of the WP5 results would lead to the increase of knowledge on the heritage across Europe, the support the development of sustainable maintenance, preservation and revitalization of historic sites and monuments through the development of guidelines for the assessment and use of efficient and user-friendly systems for the identification of parameters to characterize the heritage building and their possible alterations during its entire lifetime, using the concept of Identity Card.

The concept of the Identity Card of monuments will allow proper management, conservation and maintenance strategies.

In order to inform the research community of these important results and help end users adopte them an Awareness and Dissemination Plan containing different kind of activities is prepared and deployed along the project and beyond.All Project Partners, the Advisory Committee, the Advisory Network will establish, maintain and develop cooperative links with local authorities and stakeholders responsible for safeguarding the cultural heritage, encouraging them to adopt the EU-CHIC methodologies in local conservation schemes.

Implementation of the generated knowledge will help in decision making procedures, disseminating a common sense of responsibilities and preservation of cultural heritage. It will also be a place for discussion about the transfer of EU CHIC philosophy & methods to real practice of heritage protection through the channels opened by the Advisory network, ERA Heritage network, ECTP FACH, Europa Nostra, ICOMOS, COST, EUREKA etc.

The results of WP5 are expected to be the base for further research and practical use in the participating countries and other ones.

WHO CAN USE EACH OF THE RESULTS?

Ministries of Culture / Relevant Directorates – Ephorates

Museums

Local Bodies as Stakeholders of specific monuments or

historic city centers

Related NGOs

Research Institutes & Universities for education and

research in monuments’ protection

Laboratories and technical assistant bodies to

conservation

Scientific community

Owners and managers of Cultural Heritage buildings

Restoration enterprises (specially SMEs)

Construction & Consultants’ offices in the field of

conservation – restoration of historic buildings and

monuments

Architects and other prescription/specifying bodies

National Technology Platforms

Industry on building materials and interventions techniques

European and International Associations of

networks related to Cultural Heritage,

Organisation of World Heritage Cities, WHIN,

WCMC, World Monuments Fund-World Monuments

Watch, IDCBS,

FACH of the European Construction Technology

Platform,

ERANET

Standardization Committees, especially CEN/TC

346.

Meta-Management / Meta-users: creation of sites

& databases for the extraction of necessity indices of

inspection – diagnosis – intervention works, for the

evaluation –monitoring and maintenance

Strategic planning & Policy making in National /

European / International level (measures, rules, laws,

guidelines etc)

The results of WP5 can be used by Governmental – Regional & Local Bodies in partners’ countries as well as in the ones disseminated to:

NTUA’s Proposal

Proposed Methodology for Integrated Documentation Protocols

At present there is no existing common procedures nor an established methodology for collecting, organizing and presenting data that could be used as a background for

decision making in the selection of refurbishment strategies because of:

should encompass all the

criteria of a

ALL DECISION MAKING SYSTEMS REQUIRE QUALITY CONTROL IN ALL THEIR PROCEDURESALL DECISION MAKING SYSTEMS REQUIRE QUALITY CONTROL IN ALL THEIR PROCEDURES

Problems in MethodologyIncompatible InterventionsProblems in RegulationsProblems in the National Codes and Euro codes

Total Quality Control System

Total Quality Control System

Methodology (Parameterization)

Criteria (Quality)Regulations / New

requirements from users

Compatibility – Serviceability Compatibility – Serviceability of materials & interventionsof materials & interventions

Quality Control

Architectural

Structural

Historic Documentation

Preservation of authenticityPreservation of authenticity

Materials and Conservation Interventions

The criteria of A Total Quality Control System are

Observance of the deontology of international conventionsdeontology of international conventions that demand the preservation and presentation of historic, sentimental virtues and the architecture of monuments, while preserving the authentic materials, forms and structures.

Serviceability of the conservation interventions and restorationsServiceability of the conservation interventions and restorations (so that the building can accept safely the new uses and face the earthquake risk)

CompatibilityCompatibility of the materials and conservation interventions with authentic materials, the building and its environment

SustainabilitySustainability Increase of lifetime Protection of the environment and energy savings Minimization of environmental impact on the monument

The archive should be a dynamic one, incorporating and supplying with information on the The archive should be a dynamic one, incorporating and supplying with information on the building, during its entire life-time. building, during its entire life-time.

The vital stage is the creation of an archive for every building including all the existing data concerning

-Special building documentation -Materials and building's structure in general

-Environmental factors-Air pollution-Degradation mechanisms

-Diagnosis techniques and methods -Intervention works

Decision Making Procedures

KNOWLEDGE BASED DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES.

The criteria for ranking the buildings and prioritize the activities of inspection, diagnosis & intervention are defined

by Necessity Indexes.

Necessity indexes – Criteria for decision making

Inspection necessity index. It originates from the need of tactical inspection of buildings in order to assess their condition

Diagnosis necessity index. It uses information deriving from diagnostic and intervention studies

Intervention necessity index. It is developed based on information deriving from diagnostic studies, inspection bulletins, environmental studies

Index of maximum hazardIndex of maximum hazard:: Based on the data introduced, it is the index which presents the maximum hazard

Integrated Methodology for Decision Making Support

RankingIntervention Necessity Index

Study for Interventions

(Specifications)

Interventions Works Assessment

Surveys and Monitoring

Inspection(manuals, check lists)

Diagnosis(Diagnosis Protocol)

Interventions Works

Inspection report

No

Yes

Diagnosis report

Yes

No

Diagnosis(Diagnosis Protocol)

Data BaseDocumentation, Environmental,

Air Pollution, Degradation Mechanisms, …

Need for interventions

Need for diagnosis

RankingDiagnosis Necessity Index

Check Lists

Check Lists

RankingInspection Necessity Index

RankingDiagnosis Necessity Index

Stages for the determination of limits of necessity indexes

Criteria for decision making

Criteria for decision making

Necessity indexes used for the facilitation of a decision making procedure

Necessity indexes used for the facilitation of a decision making procedure

Physical, chemical, mechanical parameters, indicative of the building materials’ state

Physical, chemical, mechanical parameters, indicative of the building materials’ state

Quantification of parametersQuantification of parameters

Determination of critical limits of parameters separating the range of values into zones of different hazard degree Determination of critical limits of parameters separating the range of values into zones of different hazard degree

Final Output of WP5

A Guideline establishing : the Identity Card concept to the European Cultural Heritage

the minimum criteria of the data collection to be undertaken, the most recommendable systems for data storage, the criteria regarding further or past alternation to be considered

the harmonization of existing criteria & indicators of existing European standards for the development of the Identity Card concept

A part of the guideline will be a model of data collection and presentation in form of data sheets – demonstrated by

the selected cases of heritage buildings