See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327535646

HeritageCARE: Preventive conservation of built cultural heritage in the

South-West Europe

Chapter · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 77

7 authors, including:

Luís F. Ramos Maria Giovanna Masciotta

University of Minho University of Minho
117 PUBLICATIONS   982 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   57 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Maria José Morais Miguel Azenha

University of Minho University of Minho
15 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    134 PUBLICATIONS   888 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessment of the influence of environmental conditions and structural damage in the dynamic behavior of historical adobe buildings through long-term monitoring
View project

SeLCo – Service life behaviour of concrete structures: a multiphysics approach to self-induced stresses View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Giovanna Masciotta on 12 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

HeritageCARE: preventive conservation of built cultural heritage in the
South-West Europe
L.F. Ramos, M.G. Masciotta, M.J. Morais, M. Azenha, T. Ferreira, E.B. Pereira & P.B.
Lourenço
ISISE, University of Minho, Department of Civil Engineering, Guimarães, Portugal

ABSTRACT: Currently, no systematic policy for the preventive conservation of built cultural heritage ex-
ists in South-West Europe. Existing approaches for inspection, diagnosis, monitoring and curative conserva-
tion are normally intermittent, unplanned, overpriced and lacking in methodical strategy. The available finan-
cial resources are scarce and they are mostly addressed to listed buildings. Besides, owners often conceal an
inborn reluctance to invest in preventive conservation and maintenance programs.
In the light of these considerations, the HeritageCARE project has recently been launched with the purpose
of unfolding an integrated and sustainable strategy for the preventive conservation of built cultural heritage
within South-West Europe. This project involves 3 Countries (Portugal, Spain and France), 8 beneficiary
partners and 11 associated partners. The main aim of the paper is to present the key aspects of the project, its
objectives and challenges, and to outline the multilevel methodology that will be implemented and validated
through 60 case-study structures.

1 INTRODUCTION out when the severity and visual impact of damage

With a population of 76.8 million inhabitants and an
average density of 97 inhabitants/km2, the Southwest
Europe – Portugal, Spain and Southwest France (In-
terreg-Sudoe 2017), hereafter called SUDOE, boasts
approximately 31,163 heritage listed buildings (Fig.
1), being unknown the number of non-listed build-
ings with architectural or historic interest.
The cultural identity of the SUDOE territory is
deeply reflected into the construction systems spread
all over this area. Although different technical solu-
tions and morphological/typological portrayals are
found in each of the SUDOE regions, common types
of construction systems, damage and deterioration
processes can be identified (HeritageCare 2017a).
In terms of heritage preservation, the driving
principles of the SUDOE countries are very well
aligned with the UNESCO methodology and rec-
ommendations (UNESCO 1954, 1970, 1972, 2001,
2003 & 2005). Nevertheless, a systematic and inte-
grated approach for preventive conservation of built
cultural heritage does not exist in these regions. This
is not only due to the lack of knowledge about good
maintenance and preventive conservation practices,
but also to the lack of financial resources, which
hinders owners from undertaking conservation ac-
tions on their properties.
Current strategies mainly focus on curative con-
servation and restorative treatments, often carried
are of such an extent that urgent remedial measures
become imperative. This reactive approach leads to
overpriced interventions and considerable invest-
ments of societal and financial resources. In most
cases, national funding is insufficient or addressed to
listed buildings and substantial interventions, thus
the great majority of built heritage is at risk. Another
important aspect is the absence of appropriate
maintenance and proactive preventive conservation
plans to help owners minimize damage and deterio-
ration processes on their buildings in the medi-
um/long term. Last, but not least, is the scepticism of
building managers/owners to invest in preventive
conservation programs due to the lack of information
about the real benefits associated with regular in-
spections and prevention measures (HeritageCare
2017a).
At government level, each SUDOE country has
its own institutions designated to the preventive con-
servation of cultural heritage. However, no integrat-
ed and sustainable strategy able to involve all differ-
ent actors working in the fields of inspection,
monitoring and preventive conservation of built en-
vironment has been implemented up to now. Each
country acts on its own by following its own actua-
tion strategy and applying its own management
tools.

Figure 1. Distribution of listed heritage buildings by Region in
Southwest Europe.
2 THE HERITAGECARE PROJECT
2.1 Focus and objectives
The HeritageCARE project – monitoring and pre-
ventive conservation of historic and cultural heritage
– arises in response to the need of a systematic and
sustainable approach for the preventive conservation
of built heritage in Southwest Europe. A funding of
1,686,282.82 € has been allocated by the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) within the In-
terreg-SUDOE program to finance this three-year
project, which has started in September 2016. For
the purpose of this paper, the definition of ‘cultural
heritage’ adopted in the UNESCO Convention of
1972 shall be considered (Jokilehto 2005).
Driven by the principle “prevention is better than
cure”, the focus of the HeritageCARE project is to
give rise to a joint strategy based on a multi-level
system of services for the systematic inspection, di-
agnosis, monitoring and management of heritage as-
sets – whether listed or not – in the SUDOE territo-
ry. Beyond traditional tools, such a strategy will
leverage the latest advances in digitization and smart
technologies to keep abreast of the times and further
enhance the quality of the services provided.
Among the main objectives that HeritageCARE
envisages to accomplish in the short/medium term
are the creation of a database for buildings/assets
management, information exchange, and the stand-
ardization of methods and tools for maintenance and
preventive conservation of heritage buildings/assets.
In this regard, guidelines and rules of “good prac-
tice” will be developed during the project. In the
long-term, the HeritageCARE mission is to raise
public awareness about the societal and economic
benefits associated with the adoption of preventive
conservation measures as well as to engage society
in the conservation process of historic assets by in-
volving all possible actors working in heritage-
related fields (Fig. 2), such as owners and managers
of historic buildings; tourists; heritage management
entities; national and regional authorities; construc-
tion, rehabilitation and inspection sectors; universi-
ties and research centres.
Figure 2. Actors involved in the HeritageCARE project.
The ultimate goal and challenge of the project is
the creation of a non-profit self-sustaining entity that
will keep pursuing the HeritageCARE mission once
the project is concluded.
2.2 The Consortium
The project Consortium is composed of 8 benefi-
ciary partners, counting a total number of 27 collab-
orators and researchers distributed among the three
partner countries, i.e. Portugal, Spain and France.
Beyond the University of Minho, leader and coordi-
nator of the project, there are the Regional Direction
of North Culture and the Centre of Graphic Compu-
tation for Portugal; the Santa Maria La Real Founda-
tion of Historic Heritage, the University of Salaman-
ca and the Andalusian Institute of Historic Heritage
for Spain; the Universities of Clermont-Auvergne
and Limoges for France. Besides, the Consortium
counts 11 associated partners, whose support will be
indispensable for the success the project. As for Por-
tugal, there are the Portuguese Association of Old
Houses, the Archdiocese of Braga and the Guild of
Companies for Conservation and Restoration of Ar-
chitectural Heritage. Regarding Spain, there are the
Spanish Association of Cultural Heritage Managers,
the Adeco Camino and the Hispania Nostra Associa-
tion. Finally, concerning France, there are the Archi-
tectural Atelier Pantheon and the Architecture Office
Pascal Parmantier – Heritage Architect.
The HeritageCARE headquarters is based in
Guimarães, at the Institute of Science and Innovation
for Bio-Sustainability (IB-S) of the University of
Minho, leader partner of the project.
3 THE METHODOLOGY years, thereby allowing to compare the health condi-
tion of the building over time.
The methodology through which HeritageCARE will
operate in the three countries is soundly aligned with Table 1. HeritageCARE grading system for condition and risk
CEN standards (EN 15898, EN 16095, EN 16096) classification.
and relies on a system of services for the periodic in- Condi- Urgency
spection and monitoring of historic buildings sup- Class tion Symp- Risk
Comments
No. Classi- toms Classifi-
ported by advanced technologies. This system of fication cation
services is organised in three levels (Fig. 3). Each No immediate ac-
service level includes the previous one, thereby fea- No
Long tions required |
turing different costs per different levels. The choice 0 Good symp-
term Preventive moni-
toms
of the service level depends on the owners’ needs toring is necessary
and financial resources. However, HeritageCARE The condition of
the fabric is not
will try to keep all three service levels as affordable perfect but does
as possible to help owners/managers embark on the Minor
Medium not need immedi-
conservation process of their properties. 1 Fair Symp-
term ate action | Moni-
toms
toring is necessary
to prevent further
decay
The condition of
Moder- the fabric is such
ately that it needs time-
Short
2 Poor Strong ly repair or addi-
term
Symp- tional inspection
toms and diagnosis
work
Urgent repair is
Figure 3. Schematic summary of HeritageCARE methodology. Major Urgent necessary |Urgent
3 Bad Symp- and Im- additional inspec-
toms mediate tion and diagnosis
3.1 Service Level 1 – StandardCare work
Parts that are ‘not
Although less complex and demanding than others, Parts not inspected’ are ei-
Not
Service Level 1 (SL1) is considered the most im- NA/
Acces-
(safely) Not In- ther not (safely)
portant of HeritageCARE service levels. Simple, NI accessi- spected accessible for the
sible
feasible and low-cost, SL1 shall allow a rapid condi- ble building inspec-
tors or not visible
tion screening of the conservation status of the herit-
age buildings along with their integrated assets.
The condition survey is carried out through on-site Object information, inspection data and reports
inspections and is aimed at identifying building pa- will be progressively stored in a 4D database to keep
thologies and deterioration processes in due time. track of the conservation status of all inspected
Prior to inspection, a historic analysis of the buildings. This database will be used to feed a web-
building is made to get acquainted with previous based platform for HeritageCARE subscribers to
structural interventions, maintenance works, func- easily access and retrieve the stored information (for
tional changes over time, and so forth. Then, quali- privacy’s sake access to contents will be restricted
fied teams of professionals perform detailed on-site depending on the user authorization). In case of seri-
inspections with the support of specific fillable ous problems, both owners and national Heritage au-
forms/e-forms. The overall condition of the con- thorities will be alerted through the system. If neces-
struction is assessed based on a grading scale system sary, owners will be also advised to contact experts
(Table 1) that associates a weighted index to each of in order to perform in-depth inspection and diagno-
the inspected items (HeritageCare 2017b). Accord- sis works, and to plan a prompt intervention.
ing to this criterion, the need for urgent remedial
measures or additional inspection and diagnosis 3.2 Service Level 2 - PlusCare
works is automatically detected.
Based on the inspection outcome, HeritageCARE Service Level 2 (SL2) is conceived to increase and
will elaborate a short easy-to-read report with advic- further detail the level of information of the inspect-
es and recommendations for owners, pointing out all ed buildings and related indoor assets, like altars,
necessary conservation and maintenance actions that tapestries and paintings to cite a few instances, inte-
they should undertake in the short, medium and long grating and complementing the information collected
term to prevent further decay. Depending on the type in SL1. To this end, advanced techniques and
and conservation status of the object, inspections equipment might be required, such as geomatics and
will be repeated at regular intervals, e.g. every 2-3 associated tools for 3D recording (e.g. UAV photo-
grammetry, laser scanner, back-pack mapping).
Nevertheless, HeritageCARE commits to keeping
SL2 fieldwork as convenient and viable as possible,
and so the final products.
The main outputs of this level are the 3D model-
ling and virtualization of the inspected heritage
structure, with the incorporation of all information
acquired up to this stage (beyond SL1 information,
there might be additional documentation from the
inventory of integrated assets or data from structural
monitoring activities and ND testing). These models
will be also used to produce 2D technical drawings
of the construction, i.e. plans, sections and eleva-
tions.
The data and outputs generated in SL2 will be up-
loaded, organized and managed in the database, thus
allowing HeritageCARE subscribers to access them
anytime through the afore-mentioned web platform
and eventually use this material for tourism purpos-
es, heritage promotion and fruition, etc.
3.3 Service Level 3 - TotalCare
Service Level 3 (SL3) is devoted to the integration
and management of information obtained from for-
mer levels into the HeritageCARE database, by lev-
eraging the Building Information Modelling (BIM)
with application to heritage structures – hence the
acronym hBIM (Arayici et al., 2017). Digital models
of the inspected historic buildings are built, accessed
and manipulated through this intelligent 3D model-
based process, including building constituent materi-
als, integrated assets, and costs associated with
maintenance plans and management operations. In
other words, BIM environment enables faster infor-
mation sharing, more accurate resolutions, visual
representation of potential issues, better integration
between preventive conservation actions and man-
agement systems, and much more.
Supported by hBIM, SL3 will allow HeritageC-
ARE to streamline the conservation and manage-
ment process of complex and singular heritage con-
structions, resulting of great help for owners and
managers of monumental fabrics. Fulcrum of SL3 is
to guarantee the interoperability between hBIM
models and the database of HeritageCARE at
SL1/SL2.
3.4 Implementation and validation
During the project, the HeritageCARE methodology
presented in the previous sections will be imple-
mented and validated through real case-study struc-
tures to be chosen among the great variety of herit-
age buildings spread over the SUDOE territory. Note
that these case studies will be selected so as to en-
compass the most representative structural typolo-
gies identified in the SUDOE territory.
Service Level 1 will be applied to 60 case studies,
namely 20 buildings per partner country. Out of
these 60 case studies, 15 will be selected for the im-
plementation of Service Level 2, counting 5 build-
ings per country. Finally, considering the higher
complexity of the services when raising the level of
the methodology, Service Level 3 will be exclusively
applied to one building per country, resulting in a to-
tal number of 3 case studies (Fig. 4). During the pro-
ject time frame, the services provided by Herit-
ageCARE will have no cost or charge for those
whom will be joining the system.
Figure 4. Distribution of HeritageCARE case studies by service
level.
4 ONGOING PROJECT ACTIVITIES
The initial months of the project have been devoted
to the elaboration of a first report aimed at character-
izing and contextualizing the built cultural heritage
present over the SUDOE territory as well as shed-
ding light on the current status of preventive conser-
vation in the three SUDOE countries. The scope of
the report was to gather and organise all information
necessary to embark on the activities established for
the three service levels and to outline the best actua-
tion strategy in terms of conservation measures and
recommendations. Online questionnaires have been
sent to owners and managers of the historic and cul-
tural buildings belonging to the SUDOE territory to
get a better insight into the status quo of such prop-
erties, especially regarding use, state of conservation
and major maintenance problems experienced. The
information so collected is now being exploited for
the development of ad hoc inspection tools, such as
interactive mobile apps linked to a damage atlas for
assisting HeritageCARE inspectors in the characteri-
zation of the types of damage affecting the buildings
and in the identification of possible causes and con-
sequences of damage. It is worth noting that an effi-
cient preventive conservation program can only be
planned on the basis of a correct and thorough diag-
nosis.
The afore-mentioned report provided an over-
view of the most common construction systems,
types of damage and deterioration processes that are
found within the SUDOE territory. Each region fea-
tures different morphological and typological por- both traditional media channels and new Internet
trayals, but dwelling, religious and military construc- communication vehicles, like webpages and social
tions are the most recurrent structural typologies in media platforms, are being used so as to reach out as
Southwest Europe. In what concerns the construction many people as possible and to raise public aware-
systems, five main types have been identified, name- ness of the benefits of regular inspections and
ly masonry, rammed earth, timber, iron and concrete maintenance programs in the conservation process of
constructions. For each system, the relevant con- built cultural heritage. Target-oriented seminars, fo-
struction components have been classified and rums, workshops and training schools will be organ-
grouped based on their structural role within the ised to present the multi-level methodology through
building, distinguishing among structural system, which HeritageCARE is operating and provide a live
building envelope, partitions and installations (Her- platform for debate, information exchange and
itageCare 2017a). knowledge transfer.
As for the integrated objects, it was deemed more
appropriate to categorize them depending either on
the type of material (stone, wood, gold, silver, cop-
per, iron, ceramic, textile and others) or on the type
of object (paintings, frescos, sculptures, altarpieces,
furnishings, glazed tiles or other kinds of movable
objects, such as weapons, books, fabrics, jewellery
and the like).
Definition and illustrations of recurrent types of
damage and deterioration processes for both con-
struction systems and integrated objects are currently
being organized in the form of a damage atlas (Her-
itageCare 2017a, MDCS 2017, Monumentenwacht
2017, ICOMOS 2008), where potential causes, con-
sequences and correlations between different types
of damage are identified and ordered based on the
affected materials and construction elements as well
as according to possible prevention and mitigation
actions. For obvious reasons, besides English, the
damage atlas is being translated in the three SUDOE
languages, viz. Portuguese, Spanish and French.
At the present time, the HeritageCARE Consorti-
um is detailing the key steps of the methodology for
preventive conservation of historic and cultural
buildings. The technical requirements and specifica-
tions for the tools to be used in each service level are
also being defined along with the layout and contents
of the outputs to deliver to owners and stakeholders
(Fig. 5).
These activities are resulting into two additional
reports which will mark the conclusion of the first
year of the project (HeritageCare 2017b,c). Even
though still in progress, the methodology is already
being tested on a few case studies (beginning from
Service Level 1) so as to evaluate its pros and cons,
and opt for a refinement in case of necessity. A criti-
cal appraisal is fundamental at this stage, before pro-
ceeding with the inspection of all selected case-study
structures and the standardization of methods &
tools for the development of guidelines and rules of
“good practice”.
Transversal tasks related to the management and
communication of the HeritageCARE project are be-
ing run as well, paying particular attention to the dis-
semination and promotion of the objectives, activi- Figure 5. Example of layout for owner’s report.
ties and progressive achievements of the project
among the desired target audiences. To this purpose,
 Drawing inspiration by the Flemish example of
Monumentenwacht visited in February, in these last
months the HeritageCARE partnership has started to
move some steps forward in the definition and or-
ganization of the management/financial structure of
the future non-profit entity. Issues related to its legal
characterization and statute will be addressed in the
forthcoming months.
5 FINAL REMARKS AND CONCLUSIONS
The HeritageCARE project aims at implementing a
new methodology for preventive conservation of his-
toric and cultural buildings in Southwest Europe by
involving all societal actors working in heritage-
related fields. Despite the economic and cultural
challenges associated with the achievement of the
envisaged objectives, HeritageCARE partners are
jointly working for the development of a systematic
and integrated strategy that will allow to streamline
both conservation and management issues of built
heritage in Portugal, Spain and South of France, en-
suring the future sustainability of the approach as
well as the direct engagement of the society in the
preservation process of built environment.
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was carried out within the scope of the
project HeritageCARE (SOE1/P5/P0258), co-funded
by the Interreg-Sudoe/FEDER program and included
in the research activities of the ISISE Research Cen-
tre, also financed by FEDER funds through the
Competitiveness Factors Operational Program –
COMPETE and by national funds through FCT –
Foundation for Science and Technology within the
scope of the project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007633.
document, HeritageCARE (Report of the Project Activity
1.3).
ICOMOS, 2008. Illustrated Glossary on Stone Deterioration
Patterns. MONUMENTS AND SITES (XV).
Interreg-Sudoe, 2017. https://www.interreg-
sudoe.eu/gbr/programme/what-is-interreg-sudoe-
programme.
Jokilehto, J. 2005. Definition of cultural heritage: References
to documents in history. ICCROM Working Group 'Herit-
age and Society'.
MDCS, 2017. The Monument Diagnosis and Conservation Sys-
tem, “mdcs.monumentenkennis.nl”.
Monumentenwacht The Netherlands, 2017.
“www.monumentenwacht.nl”.
UNESCO, 1954. Convention for the Protection of Cultural
Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations
for the Execution of the Convention, United Nations Educa-
tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Hague Conven-
tion.
UNESCO, 1970. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and
Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Own-
ership of Cultural Property, Paris Convention.
UNESCO, 1972. Convention concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage, United Nations Edu-
cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, The General
Conference of the UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO, 2001. Convention of the Protection of Underwater
Cultural Heritage, United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization, The General Conference of the
UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO, 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intan-
gible Cultural Heritage, United Nations Educational, Scien-
tific and Cultural Organization, The General Conference of
the UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO, 2005. Convention on the Protection and Promotion
of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, The
General Conference of the UNESCO, Paris.

7 REFERENCES

Arayici, Y., Counsell, J., Mahdjoubi, L., Nagy, G., Hawas, S.,
Dweidar, K (Ed.) 2017, Heritage Building Information
Modelling, 1st Edition, Routledge, ISBN-13: 978-
1138645684, ISBN-10: 1138645680
EN 15898:2011 Conservation of cultural property – Main gen-
eral terms and definitions.
EN 16095:2012 Conservation of cultural property – Condition
recording for movable cultural heritage.
EN 16096:2012 Conservation of cultural property – Condition
survey and report of built cultural heritage.
HeritageCare, 2017a. Survey of construction systems, type of
damages and deterioration processes within the SUDOE ter-
ritory. Unpublished document, HeritageCARE (Report of
the Project Activity 1.1).
HeritageCare, 2017b. Technical requirements for the tools to
develop in the HeritageCare project. Unpublished docu-
ment, HeritageCARE (Report of the Project Activity 1.2).
HeritageCare, 2017c. General methodology for the preventive
conservation of cultural heritage buildings. Unpublished

View publication stats