Adaptive Reuse of a Historic Building by Introducing New Functions: A Scenario Evaluation Based on Participatory MCA Applied to a Former Carthusian Monastery in Tuscany, Italy
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. State of the Art
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. The Case-Study Area
3.2. Aim of the Paper, Source of Information and Methodology for Scenario Identification
- (1)
- Studies and technical documents on the structural, historical, and cultural features of Certosa di Pisa.
- (2)
- Review of the literature on the problems of adaptive reuse of heritage buildings, with a special focus on religious buildings, in order to identify relevant criteria and attributes for the specific case study.
- (3)
- Review of the literature on museum marketing and management of publicly owned heritage buildings.
- (4)
- Case-study analysis with the aim to identify best practices suitable to be adopted in the case of Certosa. This comparative analysis included 7 publicly owned museums (5 located in Italy and 2 in other EU countries) and 21 Carthusian Monasteries (16 located in Italy and 5 in other European countries).
- (1)
- To identify new functions to be introduced in currently unused or underused spaces,
- (2)
- To ensure economic sustainability by producing financial flows able to cover maintenance costs,
- (3)
- To ensure that new functions are compatible with the heritage value of the building and with its already existing functions,
- (4)
- To promote a synergy between public and private bodies/entities,
- (5)
- To include a proper evaluation of economic and financial feasibility,
- (6)
- To include other relevant attributes in order to take into account cultural and societal aspects and
- (7)
- To involve professionals and stakeholders both in their definition and in the evaluation phases.
3.3. Common Features to All Scenarios
3.4. First Scenario: Digital Detox Accommodation Structure
3.5. Second Scenario: University Complementary Education Facility Providing Accommodation for Participants
3.6. Third Scenario: Co-Working Spaces and Labs for Specialized Craftsmen
3.7. The Analysis of Scenarios
3.7.1. The Methodological Approach: MCA Participative Analysis
3.7.2. Criteria and Attributes
3.7.3. Weights of Criteria and Attributes
4. Results
4.1. Evaluation Results
4.2. Further Observations by Stakeholders
5. Discussion
- Risk of higher restoration costs, as often happens with restoration of historic buildings, although the level of detail with which they have been assessed during the project is quite good in comparison with other contributions.
- Risk related to management. Each of the proposed scenarios requires the presence of a high qualified management, able to organize functions and activities at their best in order to attract users in a suitable way and in a proper number. This is in line with the findings of [50].
- Risk related to the creation of a foundation with public-private capital. This new management entity should coordinate not only ideas, management and visions of the two public museums already operating inside the monumental complex of the Certosa di Pisa in Calci, but also be able to harmonize visions and goals of public sector officials with those of subjects of the private sector. Although, how stated in the ”State of the art” section, there are some positive experiences about the role of public-private partnerships in the cultural heritage fields, this does not mean that to build a fruitful cooperation would be possible or easy also in this case.
- Risk related to the market response to the new functions/services that characterize each scenario. From this point of view, all the analysis needs to be updated to the new situation in tourism and educational markets determined by Covid 19 pandemic.
- Risk related to political scenarios. As we have seen, some authors found a negative relation between political instability and willingness to invest in the cultural sector. Besides, using cultural heritage as a driving force for development while maintaining its values would require clear policy goals and rules to be maintained in times, since these are strategies that need a medium—long term horizon to be successfully implemented. Agenzia del Demanio has recently shifted from a strategy of dismission of state-owned buildings to a strategy of valorization by giving them in use to private entities for a long term under the condition of their development [6]. Nevertheless, due to political instability, the Certosa di Pisa project is currently in “stand-by”.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Costanza, R.; Daly, H.E. Natural Capital and Sustainable Development. Conserv. Biol. 1992, 6, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Braat, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Fioramonti, L.; Sutton, P.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powell, J.; Lake, J.; Berry, R.; Gaskell, P.; Courtney, P.; Smith, K. Heritage, Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services—Historic Buildings and Their Associated Boundaries Buildings and Their Associated Boundaries; Tylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Rizzo, I.; Throsby, D. Cultural Heritage: Economic Analysis and Public Policy. In Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture; Elsevier Science: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 983–1016. [Google Scholar]
- Langston, C.; Wong, F.K.W.; Hui, E.C.M.; Shen, L.Y. Strategic assessment of building adaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 1709–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boniotti, C.; Sedova, A.; Pracchi, V.; Ciaramella, A. Management models for public cultural heritage: A comparison between the Italian and Russian approaches. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development, Editorial Universidad de, Granada, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, Granada, Spain, 15 June 2018; pp. 13–22. [Google Scholar]
- Della Spina, L. Adaptive sustainable reuse for cultural heritage: A multiple criteria decision aiding approach supporting urban development processes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agenzia del Demanio, Open Demanio. Available online: https://dati.agenziademanio.it/#/ (accessed on 20 February 2021).
- Napolitano, M.R.; De Nisco, A. Cultural heritage: The missing “link” in the place marketing literature “chain”. Place Brand. Public Dipl. 2017, 13, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalle Nogare, C.; Galizzi, M.M. The political economy of cultural spending: Evidence from Italian cities. J. Cult. Econ. 2011, 35, 203–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerquetti, M.; Ferrara, C. Marketing research for cultural heritage conservation and sustainability: Lessons from the field. Sustainability 2018, 10, 774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bullen, P.A.; Love, P.E.D. Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Struct. Surv. 2011, 29, 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nesticò, A.; Morano, P.; Sica, F. A model to support the public administration decisions for the investments selection on historic buildings. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 33, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yazdani Mehr, S. Analysis of 19th and 20th Century Conservation Key Theories in Relation to Contemporary Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings. Heritage 2019, 2, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferretti, V.; Bottero, M.; Mondini, G. Decision making and cultural heritage: An application of the Multi-Attribute Value Theory for the reuse of historical buildings. J. Cult. Herit. 2014, 15, 644–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MIsIrlIsoy, D.; Günçe, K. Adaptive reuse strategies for heritage buildings: A holistic approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 26, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yildirim, M. Assessment of the decision-making process for re-use of a historical asset: The example of Diyarbakir Hasan Pasha Khan, Turkey. J. Cult. Herit. 2012, 13, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latham, D. Creative Reuse of Buildings: Volume One; Donhead Publishing Ltd.: Shaftesbury, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Plevoets, B.; Van Cleempoel, K. Adaptive reuse as a strategy towards conservation of cultural heritage: A literature review. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2011, 118, 155–164. [Google Scholar]
- Velthuis, K.; Spennemann, D.H.R. The future of defunct religious buildings: Dutch approaches to their adaptive re-use. Cult. Trends 2007, 16, 43–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Della Spina, L.; Giorno, C.; Galati Casmiro, R. An Integrated Decision Support System to Define the Best Scenario for the Adaptive Sustainable Re-Use of Cultural Heritage in Southern Italy; Springer International Publishing: Charm, Swiserland, 2020; Volume 177, ISBN 9783030528683. [Google Scholar]
- Girard, F.; Nijkamp, P.; Artuso, L. Le Valutazioni Per Lo Sviluppo Sostenibile Della Città E Del Territorio; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Dutta, M.; Husain, Z. An application of Multicriteria Decision Making to built heritage. The case of Calcutta. J. Cult. Herit. 2009, 10, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giove, S.; Rosato, P.; Breil, M. An application of multicriteria decision making to built heritage. The redevelopment of venice arsenale. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 2010, 17, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torrieri, F.; Fumo, M.; Sarnataro, M.; Ausiello, G. An integrated decision support system for the sustainable reuse of the former monastery of ‘ritiro del carmine’ in campania region. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, H.J.; Zeng, Z.T. A multi-objective decision-making process for reuse selection of historic buildings. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 1241–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amato, A.; Rovai, M.; Andreoli, M. The Role of Evaluation and Participation in developing Cultural Heritage Enhancement Projects. In A Participatory Multicriteria Analysis Applied to the “Certosa di Pisa” in Calci (Tuscany, IT) Case Study, Proceedings of the WORLD HERITAGE and CONTAMINATION Architecture, Culture, Environment, Agriculture, Health, Economy, Landscape, Design, Territorial Governance, Archaeology, e-Learning, 11–13 June 2020; Gambardella, C., Ed.; Gangemi Editore spa: Roma, Italy, 2020; pp. 150–159. [Google Scholar]
- Conejos, S.; Langston, C.; Smith, J. Improving the implementation of adaptive reuse strategies for historic buildings. In Le Vie dei Mercanti SAVE HERITAGE: Safeguard of Architectural, Visual, Environmental Heritage; Citeseer: Naples, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mayrhofer, J.P.; Gupta, J. The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 57, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hanson, H.I.; Wickenberg, B.; Alkan Olsson, J. Working on the boundaries—How do science use and interpret the nature-based solution concept? Land Use Policy 2020, 90, 104302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calabrò, F.; della Spina, L. The public-private partnership for the enhancement of unused public buildings: An experimental model of economic feasibility project. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dolores, L.; Macchiaroli, M.; de Mare, G. A dynamic model for the financial sustainability of the restoration sponsorship. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dubini, P.; Leone, L.; Forti, L. Role distribution in public-private partnerships. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 2012, 42, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Settembre Blundo, D.; García Muiña, F.E.; Fernández del Hoyo, A.P.; Riccardi, M.P.; Maramotti Politi, A.L. Sponsorship and patronage and beyond: PPP as an innovative practice in the management of cultural heritage. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 7, 147–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinto, M.R.; De Medici, S.; Senia, C.; Fabbricatti, K.; De Toro, P. Building reuse: Multi-criteria assessment for compatible design. Int. J. Des. Sci. Technol. 2017, 22, 165–193. [Google Scholar]
- Gennai-Schott, S.; Sabbatini, T.; Rizzo, D.; Marraccini, E. Who remains when professional farmers give up? Some insights on hobby farming in an olive groves-oriented terraced mediterranean area. Land 2020, 9, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Martinez, I.; Debolini, M.; Sabbatini, T.; Bonari, E.; Lardon, S.; Marraccini, E. Agri-urban patterns in Mediterranean urban regions: The case study of Pisa. J. Land Use Sci. 2020, 15, 721–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rovai, M.; Andreoli, M.; Gorelli, S.; Jussila, H. A DSS model for the governance of sustainable rural landscape: A first application to the cultural landscape of Orcia Valley (Tuscany, Italy). Land Use Policy 2016, 56, 217–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaggio, D. Selling beauty: Tuscany’s rural landscape since 1945. In The Cultural Wealth of Nations; Bandelj, N., Wherry, F., Eds.; Stanford University Press: Redwood, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 90–113. [Google Scholar]
- Cretella, A. Alternative food and the urban institutional agenda: Challenges and insights from Pisa. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 69, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAI Fondo Ambiente Italiano I luoghi del cuore-Certosa di Calci; FAI - Fondo per l’Ambiente Italiano (Italian National Trust Fund), I Luoghi del Cuore (Places of the Heart), Website Page Related to “Certosa di Calci”. Available online: https://www.fondoambiente.it/luoghi/certosa-di-calci?ldc (accessed on 20 February 2021).
- FAI Fondo Ambiente Italiano I luoghi del cuore-Monte Pisano; FAI - Fondo per l’Ambiente Italiano (Italian National Trust Fund), I Luoghi del Cuore (Places of the Heart), Website Page related to “Monte Pisano”. Available online: https://www.fondoambiente.it/luoghi/monte-pisano?ldc (accessed on 20 February 2021).
- Comune di Calci, P. Concorso di idee per la Progettazione, il Recupero e la Riqualificazione Architettonica dell’asse Viario tra la Pieve e la Certosa di Calci. Available online: https://www.comune.calci.pi.it/attachments/article/486/7.%20TAV.1_web.jpg (accessed on 20 February 2021).
- Amato, A.; Rovai, M.; Andreoli, M. Digital Detox Tourism as a Resource for the Enhancement of Cultural Heritage. In A Development Study for Certosa di Pisa in Calci (Tuscany). Proceedings of the WORLD HERITAGE and LEGACY Culture Creativity Contamination, 8 June 2019; Gambardella, C., Ed.; Gangemi Editore spa: Roma, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Amato, A.; Rovai, M. Certosa 2030, Final Report WP 21 within the Research Project “Studi Conoscitivi per la Conservazione e la Valorizzazione del Complesso Della Certosa di Calci e dei Suoi Poli Museali” (Diagnostic studies and research fro the conservation and Enhancement of, 2020.
- Ferraro, V. Restyling museum role and activities: European best practices towards a new strategic fit. CAPITALE Cult. Stud. Value Cult. Herit. 2011, 19, 133–177. [Google Scholar]
- Morkūnaitė, Ž.; Kalibatas, D.; Kalibatienė, D. A bibliometric data analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods in heritage buildings. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 76–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nesticò, A.; Somma, P. Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Methods for the Enhancement of Historical Buildings. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carbone, F.; Oosterbeek, L.; Costa, C.; Ferreira, A.M. Extending and adapting the concept of quality management for museums and cultural heritage attractions: A comparative study of southern European cultural heritage managers’ perceptions. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Prezziario Restauro dei beni Artistici 2019. 2019. Available online: https://www.amazon.it/Restauro-beni-artistici-Prezzario-2019/dp/8849665679 (accessed on 20 February 2021).
- Borri, A.; Corradi, M. Architectural Heritage: A Discussion on Conservation and Safety. Heritage 2019, 2, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Strengths | Weaknesses |
| Unsatisfactory maintenance Architectural and structural deterioration Low security level Unsuitable environment for disabled persons Inadequate servicescape Separate management for the two museums |
Opportunities | Threats |
| Unsatisfactory public transport Absence of bike and pedestrian trails connecting to residential areas Lack of parking places Lack of local accommodations Disconnection with the territory Possibility to raise conflicts when involving local stakeholders in projects aiming to improve transport and connection infrastructures |
COSTS | Min (€) | Max (€) | INCOME | Euro/Month | Euro/Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Restoration and implementation of the new functions | 1,876,743 | 2,667,332 | Total rent of commercial spaces | 9325 | 111,900 |
a. Attributes belonging to the Economic criterion | |
Attribute | Attribute value/score |
Implementation (construction) costs | Restoration costs and costs for actions needed in order to implement the new functions characterizing each scenario |
Break-even occupancy ratio | Occupancy minimum rate able to cover yearly maintenance costs for the whole “Certosa” |
Earnings before interests, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) | Profit from selling goods or services before costs not directly related to producing them |
Net Present Value (NPV) | Net Present Value |
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) | Internal Rate of Return |
Enterprise Risk | Risk assessment of required investments, based on their capacity to generate profits |
b. Attributes belonging to the Cultural criterion | |
Attribute | Attribute value/score |
Respect for the original functions | How and how much the new proposed functions take into account the fact that the building was originally a Carthusian monastery |
Synergy with current functions | How and how much the new proposed functions may promote the already existing museal functions of “Certosa” |
Interference with current functions | How and how much the new proposed functions may interfere with the flows of persons and with the museum activities which already exist |
c. Attributes belonging to the Territorial integration criterion | |
Attribute | Attribute value/score |
Local economy involvement | Assessment of the capacity to integrate local economic activities and the new proposed functions |
d. Attributes belonging to the Restoration impact criterion | |
Attribute | Attribute value/score |
Invasiveness of restoration | (a) Preference for introducing the new proposed functions, although they ask for major structural and plant interventions vs. (b) Preference for preserving the original building characteristics, although it implies the impossibility to introduce the proposed new functions or the necessity to modify them |
Degree of alteration of the (spatial) layout | Assessment of the extent with which the new proposed functions would modify the original (spatial) layout of the building (e.g., by using space-dividing furniture) |
Suitability to comply with safety Standards | (a) Preference for introducing the new proposed functions, although they ask for more invasive actions in order to comply with safety standards vs. (b) Preference for preserving the original building characteristics, although it implies the impossibility to introduce the new proposed functions or the necessity to modify them |
Suitability to improve accessibility | (a) Preference for introducing the new proposed functions, although they imply the need for all spaces to comply with accessibility rules and, consequently, to look for alternative solutions or to undergo major works in order to guarantee accessibility vs. (b) Preference for preserving the original building characteristics, preferring functions that do not require accessibility for all spaces |
Attributes Belonging to Economic Criterion | Scenario 1 Digital Detox | Scenario 2 Education Facilities | Scenario 3 Coworking |
---|---|---|---|
Implementation Costs | 7,121,506€ | 6,598,331€ | 6,835,474€ |
Breakeven occupancy ratio | 64% | 80% | 60–61% |
EBITDA | 146,648€ | 109,376€ | 108,374€ |
NPV | 995,912€ | 579,546€ | −214,839€ |
IRR | 12.17% | 9.82% | 2.99% |
Enterprise Risk | High | Low | Medium |
Criterion | Criterion Weight | Attribute | Cumulative Weight |
---|---|---|---|
Implementation (construction) costs | 0.029 | ||
Breakeven occupancy ratio | 0.014 | ||
Economic | 0.300 | EBITDA | 0.043 |
NPV | 0.079 | ||
IRR | 0.064 | ||
Enterprise Risk | 0.071 | ||
Respect for the original functions | 0.200 | ||
Cultural | 0.400 | Synergy with current functions | 0.133 |
Interference with current functions | 0.067 | ||
Territorial integration | 0.100 | Local economy involvement | 0.100 |
Invasiveness of restoration | 0.060 | ||
Degree of alteration of the (spatial) layout | 0.040 | ||
Restoration impact | 0.200 | Suitability to comply with safety standard | 0.080 |
Suitability to improve accessibility | 0.020 |
Criterion | Attribute Scenario | Digital Detox | Education Facilities | Coworking Spaces |
---|---|---|---|---|
Implementation (construction) costs | 0.029 | 0.086 | 0.057 | |
Breakeven occupancy ratio | 0.043 | 0.014 | 0.029 | |
EBITDA | 0.129 | 0.064 | 0.064 | |
Economic | NPV | 0.236 | 0.157 | 0.079 |
IRR | 0.193 | 0.129 | 0.064 | |
Enterprise Risk | 0.071 | 0.214 | 0.143 | |
Total score for Economic criterion | 0.701 | 0.664 | 0.436 | |
Respect for the original functions | 0.600 | 0.400 | 0.200 | |
Cultural | Synergy with current functions | 0.133 | 0.400 | 0.267 |
Interference with current functions | 0.067 | 0.167 | 0.167 | |
Total score for Cultural criterion | 0.800 | 0.967 | 0.634 | |
Territorial integration | Local economy involvement | 0.100 | 0.200 | 0.300 |
Total score for Territorial integration criterion | 0.100 | 0.200 | 0.300 | |
Invasiveness of restoration | 0.060 | 0.150 | 0.150 | |
Degree of alteration of the (spatial) layout | 0.040 | 0.100 | 0.100 | |
Restoration impact | Suitability to comply with safety standard | 0.080 | 0.200 | 0.200 |
Suitability to improve accessibility | 0.020 | 0.050 | 0.050 | |
Total score for Restoration impact criterion | 0.200 | 0.500 | 0.500 | |
Overall evaluation | Total score | 1.800 | 2.331 | 1.869 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Amato, A.; Andreoli, M.; Rovai, M. Adaptive Reuse of a Historic Building by Introducing New Functions: A Scenario Evaluation Based on Participatory MCA Applied to a Former Carthusian Monastery in Tuscany, Italy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042335
Amato A, Andreoli M, Rovai M. Adaptive Reuse of a Historic Building by Introducing New Functions: A Scenario Evaluation Based on Participatory MCA Applied to a Former Carthusian Monastery in Tuscany, Italy. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4):2335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042335
Chicago/Turabian StyleAmato, Agnese, Maria Andreoli, and Massimo Rovai. 2021. "Adaptive Reuse of a Historic Building by Introducing New Functions: A Scenario Evaluation Based on Participatory MCA Applied to a Former Carthusian Monastery in Tuscany, Italy" Sustainability 13, no. 4: 2335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042335
APA StyleAmato, A., Andreoli, M., & Rovai, M. (2021). Adaptive Reuse of a Historic Building by Introducing New Functions: A Scenario Evaluation Based on Participatory MCA Applied to a Former Carthusian Monastery in Tuscany, Italy. Sustainability, 13(4), 2335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042335