Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

The Political Relevance of Common Goods for UNESCO Sites Spatial Planning. The Case of the Metropolitan City of Naples

Altmetrics

Downloads

114

Views

25

Comments

0

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

07 August 2023

Posted:

08 August 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
This article deals with the governance of common goods within regeneration projects of UNESCO heritage sites. The main objective is to evaluate the existence of conditions that prove the con-temporary function of common goods as drivers of strategic regeneration of complex territories with high cultural value. The research identifies some of the strategic planning policies implemented for the historical centre of Naples and analyses their proactive function in the enhancement, conser-vation and reuse of built commons. The expected result is to contribute to the debate on the cultural planning of the territory, aimed at the diversification of services and the fight against the process of touristisation. Through desk research and consultation of primary sources, a brief outline is given of the historical process that led to the birth of the "Great UNESCO Project" in the historical centre of Naples. The paper then analyses the "Discipline of the common goods - Principles for the govern-ance and management of the commons in the city of Naples", defining its addresses, opportunities and limitations as a contribution to relational, oriented and sustainable strategic territorial planning.
Keywords: 
Subject: Social Sciences  -   Geography, Planning and Development

1. Introduction

The Management Plan is a document required by UNESCO for all properties in-scribed on the World Heritage List (WHL), with the general objective of promoting the protection and enhancement of the universal value of the property for which it has been inscribed [1,2].
The Management Plan acquires particular importance in the case of complex sites such as a Historic Centre, where it becomes a useful tool above all for the community that draws it up. In fact, it is the local population that inhabits and lives the site on a daily basis that is the main reference subject on which the proactive safeguarding of the heritage, understood as a universal asset but also as a resource belonging to a specific territory, depends. The challenge is to combine the maintenance and conservation of the site with its current use and future role, in the knowledge that its value is all the more authentic the more it is experienced and shared by the communities concerned [1, 2]. The latter are called upon to play a difficult and privileged role at the same time; they are called upon to understand and be able to engage in a continuous and responsible confrontation with the heritage of the past, to reinterpret it in the present and to transform it into a resource with a view to future sustainability. A World Heritage Site is therefore a dynamic entity that updates and evolves over time, while retaining a unique, identifiable and recognisable genetic code [1, 2].
The Management Plan of a UNESCO World Heritage City also makes a significant contribution to the implementation of the important new goals related to the conser-vation of territorial heritage and its crucial role in sustainable development that UNESCO has developed over the years [3,4,5,6,7].
The Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (2011) represents a fun-damental shift in urban conservation policy. It places conservation and development practices within an integrated planning and regeneration process that no longer concerns only the historic parts of the city, but also the natural elements and the social and economic dimensions of urban life [6,8].
The role of territorial heritage within urban planning and regeneration processes in general is a broad issue, and it is only in the 20th century that concern for its proper protection, rehabilitation and use, as well as an understanding of its relationship with the environment, has become the subject of wider interest [9,10,11,12,13].
An effective management system depends on the type, characteristics and needs of the property, its cultural and natural context, and must be integrative and holistic [14]. In the case of a historic centre, this approach involves the simultaneous implementation of three dimensions: elements (legal framework; institutional framework; resources), processes (planning; implementation; monitoring), and outcomes (out-puts/products and services; repeat performances/changes; improvements/corrective actions and feedback) [15,16].
Thus, management plans for UNESCO World Heritage Sites can integrate tradi-tional practices, pre-existing urban or regional planning instruments, and other formal and informal planning control mechanisms. Through the synergy between traditional practices and the action space introduced by the Guidelines for the elaboration of Management Plans for UNESCO Historic Centres, the territory loses its cadastral abstraction, albeit universal, and becomes a space of relationships and codification of social, cultural, economic and political interactions [17].
The recoding of urban space is thus moving towards overcoming the vertical logics that separate the production of economic value from the production of social and cultural value [18], towards a logic of circularity in which its universal signifier re-mains anchored to the historical and identity process that gave rise to it but is constantly regenerated in a common key of reproducibility.
In a bottom-up logic, existing micro-regenerative and relational practices could be used as a source of refinement for the rewriting processes of the more macro UNESCO management plans, in order to aspire to the systematic character envisaged by the latter. The management of UNESCO World Heritage sites requires a multi-level governance approach, which presupposes collaborative and inclusive consensus-building practices [19,20].
In this perspective, some cases of commons management in Italy could provide an important contribution to rethinking some management plans of the World Heritage area, defining new power relations and new forms of community relations.
According to the management perspective, a commons is a resource that is avail-able for collective use by a community and whose value and availability can only be maintained and/or developed through the cooperation of the beneficiaries [10].
According to this definition, it is possible to identify how common goods have in-herent characteristics of 'relational' and 'regenerative' goods. The category of "relational goods", which only entered theoretical discussion in the second half of the 1980s [21,22,23,24], is characterised by the dimension of socialisation inherent in the good, which can neither be produced nor consumed by a single individual, which is subordinated to the modes of interaction between individuals and which can only be enjoyed if it is shared reciprocally [25]. This dimension of reciprocity therefore seems fundamental. Other basic characteristics of a relational good are the identity of the individuals involved in the relationship, the simultaneity - the good is co-produced and co-consumed by the subjects involved at the same time -, the motivation behind the behaviour that moves the subjects in the relationship and, last but not least, the emergent 'fact': the relational good 'emerges' within a relationship [25].
The commons, by their very nature as project areas, are identified not only as rela-tional goods, but also as regenerative goods, i.e. proponents of a certain dynamic and process of urban, social and cultural redevelopment of the territories of re-location. In this sense, the process of regenerating literally means 'generating anew' and/or renewing/restoring to its initial state. The act of regeneration, in a social and moral sense, implies a rebirth, a radical renewal: in general, regeneration involves the phenomena of growth and differentiation that occur in the individual and, consequently, in the community.
The commons are an evolving expression of the synergy between practices, some-times not yet deciphered, and forms of social demand that focus on an operational di-mension of action.
Operational dimension of action. They are complex social and managerial processes capable of producing contextual and long-lasting socio-spatial effects: urban regeneration becomes a multiplication of rights to use a space [26].
In the context of these considerations, the paper aims to identify some of the stra-tegic planning policies implemented for the historic centre of Naples and integrated in the great UNESCO project, analysing their proactive role in the valorisation, conservation and reuse of the territorial heritage of universal value. A specific area of analysis is devoted to the analysis of the legal institution of emerging common goods for civic and collective use for the metropolitan area of Naples, with the aim of identifying criteria that could complement the UNESCO Management Plan for the Historic Centre and ensure its concrete implementation in the face of the critical problems that plague the territory, prey to overtourism and massive privatisation of urban space. Through desk research, literature review and consultation of secondary sources, we will briefly outline the process that led to the elaboration of the Management Plan for the UNESCO Historic Centre of Naples and, in parallel, the experiment that contributes to the construction of the so-called 'City of the Commons', in order to better understand the innovative contribution of this experience through the practice of commoning. The expected result is to contribute to the debate on the cultural planning of the territory, oriented towards the diversification of services and the contrast with the current process of mass tourism.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Case Study

In 1995, after various phases of reconstruction and renovation linked to the processes of pacification following the historic Irpinia earthquake of 1980, a large part of the historic centre of the city (1021, hectares out of 1700) was included in the UNESCO World Heritage List for its exceptional historical value, determined by the fulfilment of the following criteria:
“… to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;”
“… to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;”
The historic centre of Naples is therefore defined and treated as a complex geographical area that also includes everything that was included before the Second World War, i.e. until the great recent construction expansion contradicts its ordered growth criteria (Figure 1).
In order to assess, in extreme synthesis, the difficulties of an organic plan drawn up for a complex area, it is sufficient to recall that this area includes 7,710 buildings, 82,937 apartments, 253,411 rooms (of which about 28,000 are empty or located in the 149 pericentric or semicollapsed buildings). Moreover, since the post-war period, this centre has been implemented with the construction of approximately 500 buildings of various sizes, of poor quality, with superficialities that violate every legal, constructive and aesthetic norm [27]. Moreover, of the approximately 300 religious buildings, as many as 200 are closed, vandalised, abandoned and ruderalised. The peculiar morphological structure, the exceptional character of the urban layout and the presence of numerous buildings of historical and artistic interest make the Centro Antico a point of reference for the entire city and metropolitan area, as well as a point of particular design complexity.
In the context of the Campania Region's general objective of recovering and enhancing its cultural and environmental heritage - through the protection and recovery of the historical fabric of the urban area and the revitalisation of the social, cultural and economic fabric - the Great Programme for the Historic Centre of Naples (2009) sets as a specific objective the recovery of an urban continuum through the renovation and enhancement of infrastructures and the valorisation of the public and private heritage in order to promote the improvement of the environmental and social quality of the urban area. Closely linked to this objective, the major programme will contribute to the social and cultural regeneration of the historic centre of Naples - a UNESCO World Heritage Site - by promoting social inclusion through the establishment of a participatory and governance process for improving the quality of life and by increasing the supply of cultural and social animation poles, including the introduction of tertiary activities of a high artistic, cultural or social level, by providing for the reuse of abandoned buildings and the reuse of common areas on the ground floor of the restored buildings.
The paradigm guiding such programming seems to be in line with the need to work within the framework of social inclusion, a proactive characteristic of creative cities theorised by some of the academic literature [28,29,30,31], which advocates precisely the use of existing cultural sectors to regenerate the urban-social fabric in a sustainable way. In fact, according to Sasaki [31], a socially inclusive city is one that produces unique trends in the field of art and culture, while promoting innovation, the reuse of existing cultural heritage and the valorisation of creative activities carried out by the resident community. The main objective of the Big Tent Project is therefore to bring about a redevelopment that is not limited to the rehabilitation of the built heritage, but also to the redesign of the social and cultural infrastructure associated with it.

2.2. Data Collection and Data Analysis

An in-depth analysis and review of existing literature was carried out to identify some of the strategic planning policies implemented for the historic centre of Naples, analysing their proactive function in the valorisation, conservation and reuse of the territorial heritage. Through desk research and consultation of secondary sources, it was considered necessary to briefly outline the historical process that led to the implementation of the general variant of the PRG Piano Regolatore Generale in the historical centre of Naples, in order to understand which methods and characteristics were replicated or multiplied within the 'Great UNE-SCO Project'. A special focus was then given to the process that led to the recognition and identification of the category of common goods within the metropolitan area of Naples, in the hypothesis of a possible hybridisation between the management of common goods and the management of the UNESCO site, with the aim of identifying and assessing the existence of conditions that prove the recognised function of common goods as a driver of strategic regeneration oriented towards the enhancement of the UNESCO site.

3. Results

3.1. The Variation of the General Urban Plan - historical center, eastern zone, northwestern zone – of Naples.

With Resolution no. 12 of 17 January 2020, the Municipal Council of the City of Naples approved the "Preliminary Town Plan Variant and the Preliminary Environmental Report of the Strategic Environmental Assessment", as required by Campania Regional Law no. 16 of 2004, the only guiding document for a Town Plan, which the City does not yet have. As of today, the variant of the General Regulatory Plan - Historic Centre, Eastern Zone, Northwestern Zone (Decreto Pgrc 323/11 June 2004) - constitutes de facto the new PRG General Regulatory Plan of Naples, and its report, approved by Decree of the President of the Regional Council of Campania no. 323 of 11 June 2004, is one of the basic documents of the General Town Planning Instrument [32].
This variant completes the revision of the PRG, which began with the Urban Planning Guidelines document, approved by the City Council on 19 October 1994. The general variant translates the proposals of the variants for the historic centre, the eastern zone and the north-western zone into urban planning instruments, covering an area of approximately 10,365 hectares with a population of approximately 1,013 thousand inhabitants according to the 1991, census. All the districts of the city are included, with the sole exception of Bagnoli. Together with the variant for the western area, approved by Decree of the President of the Region of Campania no. 4741, of 15 April 1998, this document constitutes the general variant of the current PRG, approved by Ministerial Decree no. 1829, of 31 March 1972.
The preamble to the variant states that the plan is intended as a macro-redevelopment measure that does not envisage any further expansion of the city. The intention is therefore to restore the historic centre, giving priority to the protection and restoration of the physical integrity and cultural identity of the territory through the recovery of the historic city and the enhancement of the area of environmental and landscape interest.
The Variant divides the municipal territory into 6 areas, as provided for by Ministerial Decree 1444, of 1968, including 'Zone A - Settlements of Historic Interest'.
As far as the policy of intervention in the historic fabric is concerned, "regulations are almost exclusively provided for direct intervention" [33, p. 11]. Art. 11 of the coordinated text of the implementing provisions of the variant of the PRG - approved by Decree of the President of the Campania Regional Council no. 323 of 11 June 2004, - defines those interventions aimed at "preserving the building organism and ensuring its functionality through a systematic series of works that, while respecting the typological, formal and structural elements of the organism itself, allow uses compatible with them" [33, p. 14]. The works identified as conservative restoration and renovation works are, in particular, those aimed at preserving and protecting the property in its inseparable historical-architectural unity as it has evolved over time, and those aimed at adapting the buildings; they must safeguard the historical-cultural, environmental and, in particular, typological features, even if the buildings have undergone changes or extensions over time, and ensure their functionality with compatible uses.

3.2. Management Plan of the "Historic Center of Naples" UNESCO site.

The need to draw up a management tool for the historic centre of Naples was one of the main points made in the 2006, Periodic Report on the site, which recommended, among the future actions to be carried out, the drafting of a management plan coordinated between the bodies responsible for the site and the activation of appropriate fundraising strategies. This need became an obligation following the 2008, UNESCO Commission inspection, which denounced the poor state of conservation and the serious deterioration of the historic centre and imposed the obligation to draw up the plan by February 2011, [34]. With this objective in mind, an agreement was signed in February 2010, between the Municipality of Naples and UNESCO for assistance in drawing up the plan. Between December 2010, and January 2011, a first draft of the Management Plan was presented and submitted for public consultation. On 18 February 2011, the UNESCO Management Plan for the Historic Centre of Naples was presented and officially adopted.
The drafting of the Management Plan draws its methodological and operational foundations from a number of historic centre planning experiences already underway in the city, which underpin its structure and content choices [34].
In fact, the Plan borrows its objectives, vision and intervention projects from the "Grand Programme for the Unesco Historic Centre", approved with a programme agreement between the Campania Region, the City of Naples, the Curia and the Superintendence in September 2007.
The Grand Programme provides for a total of 124 interventions with a budget of about 220 million euros [operational objective 6.2 of the POR-FESR 2007-2013] and is also the result of a consultation phase with citizens, which included more than 20 public meetings and resulted in 240 expressions of interest.
However, the management plan/system for the historical centre of Naples is part of a wider reflection by the scientific community on the issue of the need to recognise, preserve and enhance the Historic Urban Landscape. The new category of Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) [6] confirms a process of progressive widening of the area under consideration, not only in a "quantitative" sense (the territorial dimension in which conservation actions are to be inserted), but also in a "qualitative" sense, due to the multiplicity of elements (belonging to the material and immaterial heritage) to be taken into account [34].
For this reason, the Management Plan for the Historic Centre of Naples becomes an experiment and is configured at international level as an "emblematic case" of a historical approach to the urban landscape, as a very representative example of urban in-settlement understood as a historical stratification of cultural and material values [35], which implies a more adequate and mature reconsideration of the methodological guidelines useful for its setting.
The case of Naples is particularly suitable for this approach because of at least three different interpretative aspects of the concept of HUL: the importance that the landscape dimension has always had for the development and appreciation of the city; the highly stratified character of the urban fabric of the historic centre; the composite characterisation of its historical-social milieu [34]. From this category emerges the need for a territorial rethink, in line with the extension - also geographical - that the concept of landscape entails. This means that the theme of the Historic Centre of Naples must be approached on a larger scale (municipal, provincial, regional) in accordance with the themes and axes of intervention provided for in the Plan.
The Plan is structured around 4 principles/axes of action: 1. Protection and Conservation; 2. Production, Tourism, Trade; 3. Transport, Infrastructure and Environment; 4. Civil Society, Knowledge Production, Research [35]. This process involves, coordinates and integrates the set of resources, tools and forces present in the territory, in order to achieve the following objectives: to maintain over time the integrity of the values that allowed the WHL to be registered; to combine protection and conservation with the integrated development of the territorial resources of the local economy; to make compatible a local process shared by several subjects [35].

3.3. Common goods. Recognition between urban standards and in itinere management

The concept of 'commons' is marked by a strong polysemy and very different theorisations. According to its broadest definition, the "commons" are resources - material and immaterial - whose "management" takes place outside (and sometimes against) the public (state) and market spheres [36]. Italy is one of the main centres for the development of rethinking around the commons [37].
The experience of the commons in Naples was born out of practices of reappropriation of disused real estate, mainly located in the historical part of the city, by informal groups with the intention of returning the same assets to the community. They therefore organised themselves into plural communities in order to restore the collective use value of these assets. With an act of civil disobedience, these living bodies of the human fabric of the territory have mobilised themselves and, through virtuous practices of self-education and self-organisation, have given life to paths of urban and human regeneration and civic development, forming from below real communities, free and horizontal.
In terms of the legal instruments adopted by public administration, the 'institutional' emergence of the commons in Naples began about twelve years ago, following the victory of the referendum for the republicanisation of the water service and other essential services (12-13 June 2011). Not only was water recognised as a public good and the joint stock company Arin, which managed the service, was transformed into a subject of public law (DCC 20/2011), but the very notion of public goods was included among the objectives of the municipal statute (DCC 24/2011). In art. 3, paragraph 2, it can be read that the Municipality of Naples, also with the aim of protecting future generations, "recognises the commons as functional for the exercise of the fundamental rights of the person in its ecological context and guarantees their full enjoyment within the scope of municipal competences" [17]. It should be noted that, as soon as they are recognised as a source of rights, uses constitute an objective, structural quality of the good that determines a profound metamorphosis: they structurally open up goods to civic and collective use and, for this reason, they are recognised as common goods, that is, goods with widespread ownership. It is in this context that forms of self-government can be experimented with [17]. In 2011, therefore, the Municipality of Naples recognised the value of existing experiences in the urban area, carried out by groups and/or committees of citizens, according to the logic of self-government and experimentation in the direct management of common spaces, thus demonstrating that it perceives these assets as places that can be used collectively and for the benefit of the local community.
Subsequently, with DGC 424/2021, of 13 August 2021, the Municipality of Naples recognises the declarations of civic use of the communities of Giardino Liberato di Materdei (former convent of Teresiane), Lido Pola (former Lido Pola), former OPG "Je So' Paz-zo" (former monastery of Sant'Eframo Nuovo), Scugnizzo Liberato (former convent of Cappuccinelle, former juvenile prison of Filangieri), Santa Fede Liberata (former Conservatorio di S. Maria della Fede) (Figure 2), which operate in buildings owned by the Municipality of Naples and recognised by Council Resolution no. 446 of 2016, as spaces of civic importance that can be included in the list of common goods.
The common goods hitherto recognised and endowed with a declaration of civic and collective use can be considered as goods invested by a "relational" paradigm, since they are generated and re-adapted in specific sociological "places" according to a specific symbolic code that, on the one hand, emphasises reciprocity and, on the other, excludes other and different symbolic codes, such as the economic code of utilitarian exchange. In their new function, they are configured as goods that do not emerge to satisfy an instrumental need, but rather emerge with intrinsic needs linked to the cultural and social dimension of the human being as an actor in a given context with an important expressive value [18]. However, the process of identifying similar goods remains open, thanks to the institution of the Permanent Citizens' Observatory on Common Goods of the City of Naples, established by DS 314/2013, of 24 June 2013, a participatory consultative body. It is therefore a body that tends to integrate and dialogue with the administration the knowledge coming from direct experiences and practices, in the conviction that it can serve to bring the administrative action closer to the needs of those who live in the city and claim a voice in the decision-making processes.

4. Discussion

In recent times, the Campania Region has certainly introduced a series of innovations in the regulatory apparatus for planning, programming and controlling the territory, identifying the elements of development quality in the structural interpretation of the territory itself and of the landscape and its heritage values, in line with the significant changes in international legislation following the European Landscape Convention and the entry into force of the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code (Legislative Decree 42/2004, and subsequent additions and corrections) (Figure 3).
In the historical centre of Naples, the variant for fractionation was approved by the Municipal Council Resolution no. 24/2017, and a variant proposal was prepared to promote the recovery and reuse processes of ruderal areas. In addition, in-depth studies were carried out to develop the typological classification already carried out in the western variant, in line with the typological classification of the general variant. In the western area, therefore, the updating of the urban planning instruments in force has been promoted, on the subject of land use, which is currently in progress, and which foresees the adaptation of the land use regulations of the Western Variant to the more modern regulations of the General Variant, characterised by the "conformative" constraint [38].
In this context, the Management Plan for the UNESCO World Heritage Site of the Historic Centre of Na-poli, as a spatial overlay plan, should assume the role of a territorial management tool capable, on the one hand, of integrating with the numerous existing programmes, plans and projects and, on the other hand, of providing added value in terms of the objectives of achieving sustainable development and improving the quality of the environment and the lives of the inhabitants.
Despite the formal recognition, however, the places on the Unesco list are not concretely protected, nor do the inhabitants see any gradual improvement in their daily lives. Naples remains crushed under the weight of endemic problems: the waste emergency that has lasted for almost twenty years (1994-2012), a totally inadequate public transport network, hydrogeological instability, high poverty and unemployment rates [39].
The lack of a policy to resolve the housing crisis, which has seen hundreds of thousands of families evicted and an equal number of empty or dilapidated buildings in the hands of property developers, church hierarchies, construction companies or banking groups, is exacerbating the social divide.
The public housing stock, from an indispensable tool to guarantee the right to live and the permanence of the working classes in the historic centre, is being transformed into a resource to be monetised and privatised, and it is on this situation of social weakness that the rise of the tourist industry is being grafted in 2014, which will see 8,000 apartments exclusively for tourists in the city centre alone by 2023, creating a speculative bubble on the market for affection. The physical, ecological and environmental, social, health, economic and psychological overload that the city is experiencing, determined by unreasonable and atavistic land-use policies and overdevelopment, is consuming the urban and cultural fabric that should be passed on to future generations as the universal heritage.
The privatisation of public space, in a city overwhelmed by a population density whose figure of 8,566 inhabitants per square kilometre is excessive even in relation to the national figure (189 inhabitants per square kilometre), is an indication that the existing urban plans and the instruments implemented are only minimally guided by the principles of fair and democratic land use. Over the years, we have witnessed the transformation of inhabitants from citizen-residents/citizen-users to citizen-consumers [40]. This transformation reveals the dominance of economic exchange relations over social relations and practices [40]. And it is precisely in this direction that the paradigm shift represented by the introduction, among the aims, objectives and fundamental values of the Municipality of Naples, of the legal category of the common good, "understood in its availability for use as an accessible, usable, shareable good, available for the representation and realisation of the instances, projections and discernible desires of the settled and travelling communities", could represent a methodology for reinterpreting the territory, provided that it is not used in a utilitarian way aimed at maintaining the status quo.
The UNESCO management system should therefore seek to provide a global key to all the sectoral interpretations of the territory in the light of the objectives of protection and enhancement of the World Heritage Site. A "plan of plans", in other words, which should combine objectives and strategies operating at different levels in an attempt to achieve a unified result. Not a new set of constraints, not an overlap of choices and priorities. Rather, a common thread to support decision-making processes for the implementation of radical transformations of the territory, tending towards the socialisation and con-division of urban space.

5. Conclusions

With the project related to the Unesco site 'Historic Centre of Naples', the public administration aims to promote certain processes already in place. In general, the global and long-term cultural development strategy of the project is oriented towards the extension of the existing area, thus creating opportunities for cultural and economic development according to the principle of 'in & out': what is processed 'outside' is brought 'inside' and vice versa. Beyond good intentions, however, it is clear that the common space is a place of generative tensions [41]. Insofar as it is alive and inhabited, it cannot be reduced to a rigid system, but must maintain the possibility of the emergence of the new and thus of constant change [41]. The basic actions to be taken should therefore encourage and support emerging forms of existence. The basic idea should be to trigger urban regeneration processes through the socialisation of existing and emerging assets with a view to long-term, permeable and malleable diffuse co-design.
The UNESCO site management plan should therefore operate in a 'relational' as well as 'regenerative' key, with a view to the simultaneity of the process: the city is co-produced and co-regenerated at the same time by the communities that inhabit it.
The inclusion of the discipline of the commons (which remains in itinere) within a possible update of the management plan of the Neapolitan UNESCO site, stands today as a potential expression in the creation of a system that could (au-to) sustain itself in the strategic reuse of relational spaces and community spaces, in which to decline the theme of the polis, spaces in which to nurture the propulsive potential of new opportunities for vision [42].
This study, although a synthesis of many years of history relating to an undoubtedly unique and complex territory, sought in part to explore how practices relating to the recognition and management of commons constitute a fundamental premise for strategic and sustainable territorial planning. The lack of general plans with a systemic vision can easily lead to fragmented, unsuccessful and uncoordinated spatial development.
The new trajectories or paths to be explored in the practical implications proposed by studies such as these are many. The general direction is that which sees in the broad strategic planning of systemic territorial planning the possibility of stitching together the many living places that make cities complex and interdependent realities. Any urban planning project must therefore aim to structure the set of 'past-present-future' nodes in order to turn them into an innovative fabric for the production of new urban standards [18].

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Comune di Urbino. Piano di gestione del Sito UNESCO, 2013. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-1144-6.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2023).
  2. UNESCO. Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas, 1976.
  3. UNESCO. Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites, 1962.
  4. UNESCO. Recommendation concerning the Preservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private Works, 1968.
  5. UNESCO. Recommendation concerning the protection, at national level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972.
  6. UNESCO. Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape (HUL), 2011.
  7. UNESCO. The Hangzhou Declaration: Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies, 2013.
  8. van Oers, R.; Pereira Roders, A. Historic cities as model of sustainability. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 2012, 2, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sardi, A.; Sorano, E. Dynamic Performance Management: An Approach for Managing the Common Goods. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ricciardi, F.; Cantino, V.; Rossignoli, C. Organizational learning for the common good: An emerging model. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2021, 19, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Modell, S. Performance management in the public sector: Past experiences, cur-rent practices and future challenges. Aust. Account. Rev. 2005, 15, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Arnaboldi, M.; Lapsley, I.; Steccolini, I. Performance Management in the Public Sector: The Ultimate Challenge. Financ. Account. Manag. 2015, 31, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brignall, S.; Modell, S. An institutional perspective on performance measure-ment and management in the “new public sector”. Manag. Account. Res. 2000, 11, 281–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Petri, L. c et al. Process orientation of the world heritage city management system. Journal of Cultural Heritage 2020, 46, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ringebeck, B. Management Plans for World Heritage Sites. A Practical Guide, 2008. Available online: https://www.unesco.de/sites/default/files/2018-05/Management_Plan_for_Wold_Heritage_Sites.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2023).
  16. Wijesuriya, G.; Thompson, J.; Young, C. Managing Cultural World Heritage World. Heritage Resource Manual, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN, 2013. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/document/125839, (accessed on 1 July 2023).
  17. Capone, N. Dispositivi giuridici per la città pubblica e l’uso comune dello spazio urbano. L’esperienza napoletana dei beni comuni. WORKING PAPERS Urban@it 2021, 12, 212–223. [Google Scholar]
  18. Castronuovo, V. I significati contemporanei del patrimonio culturale per una pianificazione “relazionale” del territorio. Il caso del Quartiere dell’Arte nella città metropolitana di Napoli. Semestrale di Studi e Ricerche di Geografia 2022, XXXIV, 2, 23-38.
  19. Veldpaus, L. Historic Urban landscapes: Framing the Integration of Urban and Heritage Planning in Multilevel Governance, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, 2015. Available online: https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3914913/798291.pdf (accessed on 07/2/2023).
  20. Healey, P. The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environ. Plann. Plann. Des. 1996, 23(2), 217–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nussbaum, M.C. La fragilità del bene: fortuna ed etica nella tragedia e nella filosofia greca Ed. Il Mulino: Bologna, Italy, 1986.
  22. Donati, P. Introduzione alla sociologia relazionale, Ed. Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 1986.
  23. Gui, B. Eléments pour une Définition d’Economie Communautaire. Notes et Documents, 1987; 19-20, 32–42. [Google Scholar]
  24. Uhlaner, C. Relational Goods and Participation: Incorporating Sociality into a Theory of Rational Action. Public Choice 1989, 62, 253–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bruni, L. Felicità, economia e beni relazionali. Nuova Umanità, 2005; XXVII, 159–160. [Google Scholar]
  26. Berardi, G.; Castronuovo, V. Il “convicinio” di Sant’Andrea degli Armeni a Taranto: un bene relazionale, oltre che culturale. IN_BO. Ricerche E Progetti Per Il Territorio, La Città E l’architettura 2017, 8, 490–499. [Google Scholar]
  27. Regione Campania. La rigenerazione del Centro Storico di Napoli. Grande Progetto “Centro storico di Napoli, valorizzazione del sito UNESCO”, 2012. Available online: https://cached.forges.forumpa.it/assets/Speeches/6674/c39_taglialatela_marcello_bis.pdf (accessed on 06/08/2023).
  28. Yum, S. How can we measure the magnitude of creative cities? A new creativity index: 3Ci. Creativity Research Journal 2020, 32, 174–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Landry, C. The Creative City: A toolkit for urban innovators Ed. Earthscan: London, United Kingdom, 2012.
  30. Sasaki, M. Creativity and cities: The role of culture in urban regeneration. 季刊経済研究 2004, 27, 29–35. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sasaki, M. Urban regeneration through cultural creativity and social inclusion: Rethinking creative city theory through a japanese case study. Cities 2010, 27, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Acierno, A. Linea di costa e pianificazione metropolitana di Napoli. TRIA Territorio della Ricerca su Insediamenti e Ambiente 2014, 7, 307–326. [Google Scholar]
  33. Giunta Regionale della Campania. Variante al Piano regolatore generale di Napoli. Relazione Generale, 2004.
  34. de Rosa, F. Il Piano di Gestione dei Siti UNESCO: approcci valutativi per la Conservazione Integrata del Paesaggio Urbano Storico, Thesis, 2015. Available online: http://www.fedoa.unina.it/9508/1/DeRosa_Fortuna.pdf (accessed on 07/02/2023).
  35. Comune di Napoli. Sistema di gestione Centro Storico di Napoli Patrimonio Mondiale UNESCO, 2011. Available online: https://www.comune.napoli.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/14142, (accessed on 05/02/2023).
  36. Ranocchiari, S.; Mager, C. Bologne et Naples au prisme des biens communs: pluralité et exemplarité de projets de gestion «commune» de l’urbain. Développement durable et territoires 2019 10(1).
  37. Sauvêtre, P. Quelle politique du commun? Les cas de l’Italie et de l’Espagne. SociologieS 2016.
  38. 38. Comune di Napoli. Napoli 2019-2030, Città, ambiente, diritti e beni comuni Piano Urbanistico Comunale, Documento di Indirizzi, 2019.
  39. Caputi, A.; Fava, A. Napoli in vendita tra turismo e privatizzazioni. Crítica Urbana. Revista de EstudiosUrbanos y Territoriales 2019, 2, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fanizza, F. Governo del territorio e diritti sociali nella città. MeTis 2013, 6. [Google Scholar]
  41. Centemeri, L. La cura e il comune. In Trame. Pratiche e saperi per un’ecologia politica situata, A.A. V.V., Eds., 1st ed.; Tamu Edizioni: Naples, Italy, 2021; pp. 135–140. [Google Scholar]
  42. Barca, F. Una cultura contemporanea per il bene comune, 2015. Available online: http://www.flaviabarca.it/una-cultura-contemporanea-per-il-bene-comune/ (accessed on 06/06/2023).
Preprints 81795 g001
Figure 1. General Regulatory Plan (GRP) areas of Historic Centre of Naples and "Buffer Zone" of the UNESCO site. Source: elaboration on PRG data, 2004.
Figure 1. General Regulatory Plan (GRP) areas of Historic Centre of Naples and "Buffer Zone" of the UNESCO site. Source: elaboration on PRG data, 2004.
Preprints 81795 g001
Preprints 81795 g002
Figure 2. Spatial representation of recognised commons (◦•), with and without declaration of civic and collective use (◦•) and commons to be recognised (x). Source. Commons Network of Naples, 2021.
Figure 2. Spatial representation of recognised commons (◦•), with and without declaration of civic and collective use (◦•) and commons to be recognised (x). Source. Commons Network of Naples, 2021.
Preprints 81795 g002
Preprints 81795 g003
Figure 3. Typological representation of some urban planning instruments for the Naples metropolitan area. Source: Elaboration based on PRG data, 2004.
Figure 3. Typological representation of some urban planning instruments for the Naples metropolitan area. Source: Elaboration based on PRG data, 2004.
Preprints 81795 g003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated