Download
presentation layout n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
PRESENTATION LAYOUT PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
PRESENTATION LAYOUT

PRESENTATION LAYOUT

160 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

PRESENTATION LAYOUT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. PRESENTATION LAYOUT • SLIDES 2-6: Introduction to WP5 • SLIDES 7-8: Task 5.1 • SLIDES 9-18: Analysis of the input we have so far to Task 5.1 • SLIDES 19-20: Task 5.2 • SLIDES 21-24: Analysis of the feedback & issues posted and discussed with interest to Task 5.2 • SLIDES 25-26: Task 5.3 • SLIDES 27: Discussion on strategic Re-orientation of the project • SLIDES 28-31: Questions from the Ljubjlana preparatory meeting • SLIDES 32-41: Our proposal from Kick-off presentation • SLIDE 42: Final Output of WP5

  2. WP5: RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES WP Leader Antonia MoropoulouNTUA

  3. Objectives of WP5 • 5.1 Development of integrated documentation protocols - harmonisation criteria • 5.2 Knowledge based decision making procedures - CHIC Guideline • 5.3 Strategic planning for implementation and validation of the CHIC Guideline

  4. WP5 will be organized in the following tasks WP5 RECOMMENDATION AND STRATEGIES

  5. The Aim To develop criteria and a methodology for the creation of a Model System for integrated documentation Considering Indicative Parameters of data documentation Implemented through National, E.U. and International Regulations 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.

  6. WPs Workflow

  7. TASK 5.1INTEGRATED DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS(L: UL, M: NTUA, UNIBO, IPPT PAN,Z-Z) • 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. Deliverable D 5.1 will be: Integrated document protocols and harmonized criteria for IC models They 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.

  8. DISCUSSION ON TASK & DELIVERABLE 5.1 CHIC ID CARD Top Level: Based on the working session in Ravenna Meeting RESEARCH ON GREEK DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS D2.1: Activity Report of Task 2.1 Discussion of : Accessibility / Coding / Methodology/Structure EU-CHIC VIENNA MEETING WP2 WORKSHOP D3.1:Report on risk indicators and roadmap for future research priorities – Annex A / Identification of needs for future research priorities 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. D4.1: Report on Methods and Tools for data collection and presentation NTUA additions of Categories / Subcategories additions 4.1 New Questionnaire 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.

  9. 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

  10. RESEARCH ON GREEK DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS Presentation of Greek informative systems of documentation The cases of 3 Greek Directorates of the Greek Ministry of Culture: The National Archive of Monuments Information System The Acropolis Restoration Service (YSMA) The General Directorate of Museum Restoration and Technical Projects / Directorate of Museum construction Presentationof Greek informative systems of risk assessment and management Risk Map of Cultural Heritage – the Dodecanese case study: ARCHI-MED

  11. 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.

  12. Summary of dataset.

  13. 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?

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

  15. D3.1 RESULTS: Survey on actual risk assessment methodologies - identification and analysis of existing directives for risk assessment related to monument conservation

  16. NTUA’s Proposals & Additions to D3.1 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.

  17. 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).

  18. NTUA’s Proposals & Additions to D4.1 • On methods and Tools: Suggestion of new categories • General info • Architectural Documentation • Interventions • Ownership and Legal Status • & proposals for changes to the main categories and sub-categories

  19. TASK 5.2KNOWLEDGE 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

  20. 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 MULTIPLE-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS / ALGORITHM FOR NECESSITY INDEXES CALCULATION) KRHTH Emerging Methodologies for EU-CHIC results adoption - ITAM’s proposal of an IS method (software), entitled “CHOOGLE - Integrating national CH databases”,

  21. Feedback & Relevant Issues discussed

  22. 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 a demonstration, but the coordinator said that he cannot redistribute the project finances in support of this. Therefore, ITAM would need to individually take on the responsibilities and cost to further develop the system to demonstrate it, although the EU-CHIC project will acknowledge its development, and help to promote and sell it.

  23. Emerging methodologies to assist in practical adoption of final CHIC results As discussed at the AC meeting on 31 January, participants emphasized the importance of compatibility in all databases emerging from EC financed projects. They also raised the issue of open access, the integration of different systems across Europe, and the challenge of how to link them on a common meta-data basis. In principle participants support the proposal that the EU-CHIC identity card could be a product of the project, yet there were several that would have to 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.

  24. AC members questions to be addressed • 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.

  25. TASK 5.3 STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND VALIDATION OF “EUCHIC” (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.

  26. DISCUSSION ON TASK & DELIVERABLE 5.3

  27. 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.

  28. Questions formed in Preparatory Meeting

  29. WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS OF YOUR WP IN THE REPORTING PERIOD? • 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).

  30. 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, theAdvisory 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.

  31. WHO CAN USE EACH OF THE RESULTS? The results of WP5 can be used by Governmental – Regional & Local Bodies in partners’ countries as well as in the ones disseminated to: • 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) • 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

  32. NTUA’s Proposal

  33. 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: • Problems in Methodology • Incompatible Interventions • Problems in Regulations • Problems in the National Codes and Euro codes Total Quality Control System should encompass all the criteria of a ALL DECISION MAKING SYSTEMS REQUIRE QUALITY CONTROL IN ALL THEIR PROCEDURES

  34. Total Quality Control System Compatibility – Serviceability of materials & interventions Regulations / New requirements from users Criteria (Quality) Preservation of authenticity Quality Control Methodology (Parameterization) Historic Documentation Architectural Materials and Conservation Interventions Structural

  35. The criteria of A Total Quality Control System are • Observance of the deontology 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 restorations (so that the building can accept safely the new uses and face the earthquake risk) • Compatibilityof the materials and conservation interventions with authentic materials, the building and its environment • Sustainability • Increase of lifetime • Protection of the environment and energy savings • Minimization of environmental impact on the monument

  36. The vital stage is the creation of an archive for every building including all the existing dataconcerning -Special building documentation -Materials and building's structure in general -Environmental factors -Air pollution-Degradation mechanisms -Diagnosis techniques and methods -Intervention works The archive should be a dynamic one, incorporating and supplying with information on the building, during its entire life-time.

  37. Decision Making Procedures

  38. KNOWLEDGE BASED DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES. The criteria for ranking the buildings and prioritize the activities of inspection, diagnosis & intervention are defined by Necessity Indexes.

  39. Necessity indexes – Criteria for decision making Inspection necessity index. It originates from the need oftactical 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 hazard:Based on the data introduced, it is the index which presents the maximum hazard

  40. Inspection (manuals, check lists) Surveys and Monitoring Interventions WorksAssessment Interventions Works Study for Interventions (Specifications) Diagnosis (Diagnosis Protocol) Integrated Methodology for Decision Making Support Data Base Documentation, Environmental, Air Pollution, Degradation Mechanisms, … Inspection report Check Lists Ranking Inspection Necessity Index Check Lists No Need for interventions Yes No Need for diagnosis Ranking Intervention Necessity Index Yes Diagnosis (Diagnosis Protocol) Diagnosis report Ranking Diagnosis Necessity Index Ranking Diagnosis Necessity Index

  41. Stages for the determination of limits of necessity indexes Necessity indexes used for the facilitation of a decision making procedure Criteria for decision making Physical, chemical, mechanical parameters, indicative of the building materials’ state Quantification of parameters Determination of critical limits of parameters separating the range of values into zones of different hazard degree

  42. 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