5. Assessment of some indicators within an impact
5.4. Example chain: Loss of cultural heritage due to land take
Up till now, the concept of environmental indicators has hardly been applied to the interaction of transport with the cultural heritage (see in Annex 6 the description of this chain of causality – chain 34). Possibly, this is because archaeologists use other means of describing cultural values and have found little incentive to develop indicators. Contributing reasons may include the absence of a universally accepted terminology defining ancient monuments and dwellings, cultural legacy and other fundamental concepts. Subjective factors, political and religious aspects, inflation factors, ethical considerations, etc. also contribute to the difficulty of developing rational and clear-cut indicators in the field of cultural legacy. For a holistic perspective of the environmental impact of transport infrastructure, however, it is obvious that also the cultural heritage should be covered by environmental indicators. The following text aims at reporting one of the first attempts to develop an indicator in this field.
5.4.1. Application situations
Situations where indicators of loss of cultural heritage can be useful include many stages in the planning of transport infrastructure. The applicability is probably highest in early planning stages, e.g. when strategic environmental assessment is to be performed. Indicators are also useful in spatial planning, e.g. regional development planning, preferably co-ordinated with infrastructure planning. Other applications include long-time monitoring of land use where conflicts between, for instance, the demand for infrastructure improvement and the preservation of cultural legacy may arise.
5.4.2. Relative importance of criteria
In the absence of experience of developing indicators in the field of interaction between cultural legacy and transport infrastructure, it is difficult to judge the relative importance of the criteria set up in Table 25. As a preliminary point of departure, it is reasonable to attach equal importance to the ten criteria in that table. The criterion concerning ethical concerns may seem to be uncomplicated but a closer examination may well indicate a need of further consideration (see research needs in Chapter 7). In (the many) situations where explicit targets for the cultural legacy are lacking, the criterion of target relevance seems to be of limited relevance.
5.4.3. The construction of a possible indicator
In our trial to develop an indicator of the loss of cultural heritage due to land uptake, we have based our work in the legal and planning framework pertaining to the current situation in Greece.
We have taken our point of departure in the definition provided by the UNESCO convention (see Annex 6, chain 34). In addition, we have found it necessary to also include the following concepts: i) integral entity (natural integral entity and socio-economic integral entity), ii) the inflation factor. Further, we have taken into account ethical, educational and decision-making aspects as well as specific criteria. These concepts are elaborated in Annex 6.
The description of the indicator
As a first step, we make a distinction between two levels of protected areas, reflecting a qualitative and a quantitative measure, respectively:
− level 1: “absolute” protected areas (qualitative measure)
− level 2: non-protected areas, or areas whose protection can be temporarily annulled for reasons of high national importance (quantitative measure) In areas that fall into the 1st level as defined by Greek law (Karakostas, 2006) and satisfy the definition of the International Convention of UNESCO (see Annex 6), any manipulation is prohibited. Only qualitative criteria can be used.
For areas belonging to level 2 (areas without strict protection), the situation is less rigid but still subject to strong limitations: only in the case of relevant public works of national defence or foremost economic importance defined by law, it is possible to permit some protection adjustments where these are absolutely necessary for these reasons. In these cases, an assessment of the value of the cultural heritage as an integral entity can be computed. To this end, we propose a very simple quantitative indicator:
Loss of Cultural Heritage Unit (LCHU) defined as the loss or alteration of the volume of the integral entity of the cultural heritage due to land uptake. A simple formula of LCHU is:
LCHU = Cch V where:
– V is the volume (in m3) of dwelling / monument / area, as it is defined structurally as an integral entity, above or below the ground.
– Cch is the Cultural Heritage Coefficient, which can take values {1, x1, x2, or x3}. Cch = 1 if none of the below situations (A, B, C) can be verified up to the present state of technological and archaeological know-how. The values of x1, x2, or x3 need to be further assessed and they depend on the occurrence of the conditions A, B, C below:
A. Verified existence of a Degree of Preservation. Integrity of the assemblage (example: isolated or integrated archaeological remains).
Preservation level (foundation, superstructure, etc.). Presence of carvings, mosaics, wall paintings, etc.
B. Verified existence of an evaluation in terms of monumental and natural surroundings. Historical associations. Interrelation with the human and natural milieu. Correlation with historically known events or personages.
Religious, calendar or astronomical functions, etc.
C. Verified existence of a Degree of Originality / Rarity in the archaeological record. Frequency of occurrence in the local, regional, national and international archaeological record.
If any one of the three conditions A, B, C can be certified, we have Cch = x1. If two can be verified, we have Cch = x2. If all three can be verified, we have Cch = x3,and if none can be verified, we have Cch = 1.
Since this is an initial attempt to construct an indicator in this field, the concept has to be further elaborated and also tested in different practical application situations. Also, the necessity of testing this approach on other national frameworks than the Greek one must be acknowledged.
The LCHU indicator is to be categorized as an Impact (I) indicator in the DPSIR system.
5.4.4. Evaluation of the suggested indicators of loss of cultural heritage
The above approach is but a first attempt to evaluate the possibility of building an indicator pertaining to the loss of cultural heritage due to land uptake by transport infrastructure. The concept and method of mathematical calculation of the LCHU have been kept as straightforward as possible in order to permit the maximum transparency and simplicity for evaluation purposes. A preliminary evaluation of the 1st and 2nd level indicators of loss of cultural heritage is given in Table 30 using the criteria defined in Table 25 on page 126.
Table 30. Evaluation of indicators of loss of cultural heritage Category
Representation Operation Application
Indicator
Validity Reliability Sensitivity Measurability Data availability Ethical concerns Transparency Interpretability Target relevance Actionability
1st level xxx xx xx x xx xx x xx xx xx 2nd level x xx xxx xxx x xxx xxx xxx xx xx x=poor; xx=limited; xxx=good; xxxx=excellent.
More in detail, the evaluation can be commented as follows:
• Validity: the indicator at 1st level being a qualitative indicator is superior in validity; however it suffers from the limited breadth of its definition. The 2nd level indicator is an integral indicator with a superior breadth, but being quantitative, it has limited validity
• Reliability: the indicators are reliable
• Sensitivity: the 2nd level indicator presents a higher sensitivity
• Measurability: the 1st level indicator is almost impossible to measure. The 2nd level indicator could be adjusted in order to present a high level of measurability, depending on the values of the Cultural Heritage Coefficient (Cch)
• Data availability: the data is scarce for the 1st level indicator and even more scarce for the 2nd level indicator
• Ethical concerns: from an ethical point of view, the 2nd level indicator is superior to the 1st level indicator
• Transparency: the indicators are transparent; the mathematical formula in the 2nd level indicator is quite straightforward
• Interpretability: the indicators are clearly related to the field of assessment. The 2nd level indicator presents a more global nature than the 1st level indicator
• Target relevance: both indicators are high in target relevance
• Actionability: Both indicators have a good actionability with the 2nd level indicator being slightly superior