Abstract
Climate change, natural hazards, and human actions are threatening cultural heritage in urban areas. More than ever, building regulations’ procedures and criteria are essential to guarantee the protection and safeguarding of urban areas and their buildings. These procedures and criteria are crucial to assist stakeholders in decision-making, especially when facing rapid transitions and transformative changes in urban heritage areas. Several institutional stakeholders in charge of urban heritage protection strengthen the need for a better implementation of building regulations through flexible criteria to support intervention procedures in buildings with different features and in different contexts. Under this topic, the present study uses a twofold method. Firstly, the authors analyze and compare the urban and building regulations of three Southern European countries, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, concerning procedures and criteria directed to the built heritage; secondly, they highlight and compare the views of different institutional stakeholders from the same three countries, at different levels (national, regional, and municipal), to understand the impact of the implementation of the regulations on the ground. The findings show the relevance of the institutional stakeholders’ views to improve the regulations and their practice. They highlight the need to promote inventory and cataloging procedures, as well as flexible criteria when dealing with urban heritage buildings.
Reference71 articles.
1. Agència de l’Habitatge de Catalunya. (2012). Decret 141/2012 sobre condicions mínimes d’habitabilitat dels habitatges i la cèdula d’habitabilitat [Decree 141/2012 on minimum habitability conditions for homes and the habitability certificate]. https://territori.gencat.cat/web/.content/home/01_departament/normativa_i_documentacio/documentacio/habitatge_millora_urbana/habitatge/publicacions2/22_decret_141_2012/decret141_imp.pdf
2. Allard, I., Nair, G., & Olofsson, T. (2021). Energy performance criteria for residential buildings: A comparison of Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish, and Russian building codes. Energy and Buildings, 250, Article 111276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111276
3. Arcas-Abella, J., Pagès-Ramon, A., & Casals-Tres, M. (2011). El futuro del hábitat: Repensando la habitabilidad desde la sostenibilidad. El caso español [The future of habitat: Rethinking habitability from sustainability]. Revista INVI, 26(72), 65–93. https://revistainvi.uchile.cl/index.php/INVI/article/view/62367
4. Ascione, F., De Masi, R. F., Mastellone, M., Ruggiero, S., & Vanoli, G. P. (2022). Improving the building stock sustainability in European countries: A focus on the Italian case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 365, Article 132699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132699
5. Assembly of the Republic. (2001). Lei nº 107/2001, de 8 de setembro [Law No. 107/2001, of September 8]. Diário da República, 2001(209), 5808–5829. https://data.dre.pt/eli/lei/107/2001/09/08/p/dre/pt/html
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献