![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Gathering knowledge and data for diagnosis is highly important for the safeguarding and conservation of architectural heritage. These data should be organised in order to create a complex list of procedures to find sufficiently sensitive, effective and reasonably inexpensive technical processes to survey and to repair, renew and maintain load-bearing structures of potential heritage values.Footnote1
1 Evaluation per Partes or Evaluation by Parts method developed by Eberhardt and Pospisil for assessing sensitivity of heritage valuable buildings and structures to invasiveness of diagnostics and repair methods.
The research is based on an analysis of the concept “heritage value”Footnote2
2 Grant of the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic NAKI DG18P02OVV033. The NAKI program’s vision is to achieve the maintenance and sustainable development of a specific national and cultural identity and integrity and cultural heritage in the context of European and world culture in the 21st century and in the conditions of expected global change through applied research and development. (see: Program na podporu aplikovaneho vyzkumu a experimentalniho vyvoje narodni a kulturni identity na leta 2016 až 2022, NAKI II, p. 6, Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic, Prague 2013).
. As a typical multidisciplinary field of research, practical tasks in heritage preservation show that heritage value should be understood as a complex value composed of varied elementary segments coming from different fields of human activities. Whereas each field has its own logical verifying rules and its own research methodology, each elementary segment is evaluated separately.The present article introduces the “E-P Heritage value assessment method” (E-P method) as a methodology for assessing the heritage values of buildings and structures or of their parts. The second purpose is to find a sufficiently sensitive process how to avoid invasive diagnostics on the architectural heritage. The procedure is aimed to be applied both on protected and non-protected buildings and structures.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 Evaluation per Partes or Evaluation by Parts method developed by Eberhardt and Pospisil for assessing sensitivity of heritage valuable buildings and structures to invasiveness of diagnostics and repair methods.
2 Grant of the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic NAKI DG18P02OVV033. The NAKI program’s vision is to achieve the maintenance and sustainable development of a specific national and cultural identity and integrity and cultural heritage in the context of European and world culture in the 21st century and in the conditions of expected global change through applied research and development. (see: Program na podporu aplikovaneho vyzkumu a experimentalniho vyvoje narodni a kulturni identity na leta 2016 až 2022, NAKI II, p. 6, Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic, Prague 2013).
3 In French, the distinction is expressed through two different words. Héritage (“Legacy”) corresponds to all items which have been inherited from past generations. Patrimoine (“Heritage”) is only the part(s) of architectural heritage which has/have been identified as being valuable and which deserve(s) preservation, specific care and/or protection.
4 Accessible on Internet: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/[assessed 01/09/2020].
5 The Dublin Principles, Joint ICOMOS – TICCIH Principles for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage Sites, Structures, Areas and Landscapes were adopted by the 17th ICOMOS General Assembly on 28 November 2011. Accessible on Internet: https://ticcih.org/about/about-ticcih/dublin-principles/ [assessed 22/01/2021]..
6 An Expert Meeting on the Global Strategy and Thematic Studies for a Representative World Heritage List was convened in June 1994 at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, and the Committee approved its report at its 18th session in Phuket (Thailand) in December 1994.
7 See the detailed investigation of historical bridges above.
8 Example of a calculation of the sensitivity to invasiveness is given in .
9 In this case study, heritage value was divided into 15 segments: age value, historical value, use value, creative (artistic and technical) value, surrounding value, craftsmanship value, symbolical value, scientific value, social value, spiritual value, typicality/representativeness, uniqueness/singularity, integrity, authenticity, and transformation value. Each segment sensitivity was set as justified in Chap. 3.
10 In the original calculating system for the proposed method, the maximum number of points was settled to 130. Since then, the evaluation of additional case studies has allowed the co-authors to tune the categories of values. (The initial method considered 15 segments: age value, historical value, use value, creative value, surrounding value, craftsmanship value, symbolical value, scientific value, social value, spiritual value, typicality / representativeness, uniqueness / singularity, integrity, authenticity and transformation value. Since then, in order to make the method more accurate, precise and efficient, the creative value was divided in two parts: artistic and technical. For the same reasons, the surrounding value was divided in two segments: urbanistic / landscape. Therefore, there are 17 categories of values described in chapter 3). The maximum number of points can now reach between 150 points to 170 points. (The increase is the maximum number of points is explained by the subdivisions of the two categories detailed in the previous note (creative value and surrounding value). In addition, the scientific value’s and the transformation value’s scopes have been settled between 1 to 3 points according to the conditions explained in chapter 3.1.). Using the proposed methodology for the assessment of the case study, the assessment grid has proved to be efficient and reliable in most cases when each range of categories was settled to 15%. In the original scales, 15% corresponded to 20 points: 110 to 130 points for A++ category (85% to 100%), 90 to 110 points for A+ category (70% to 85%), 70 to 90 points for A category (55% to 70%), 50 to 70 points for B+ category (40% to 55%) and 30 to 50 points for B category (25% to 40%). (This scale has been considered for the first case studies’ evaluation (ISCA 2019). After the revision of the method, when the maximum number of points can reach 160 points, 15% equals to 34 points: 136 to 160 points for A++ category (85% to 100%), 112 to 136 points for A+ category (70% to 85%), 88 to 112 points for A category (55% to 70%), 64 to 88 points for B+ category (40% to 55%) and 40 to 64 points for B category (25% to 40%). These numbers should be adjusted via simple cross-multiplication when the total amount of points can reach 165 points (for instance when the scientific value’s sensitivity scope is raised to 2, this is notably applied to the Group B’s case study below) and 170 points (when the scientific value’s scope is raised to 3). .
11 According to the first assessment method elaborated, this monument was assessed to 102 points of 130. The numbers of points for the A category should be included between 70 and 90 points of 130 points (55% to 70%) and the numbers of points for the A+ category should range between 90 and 110 points of 130 points (70% to 85%).
12 Czech Kingdom or Kingdom of Bohemia from 1212 to 1918.
13 Spring Vřídlo in Karlovy Vary is 73 Centigrades warm.
14 e.g., Edward VII, king of England, Peter the Great, tsar of Russia, Francis Joseph, emperor of Austria and Austria-Hungary, William I, German emperor, August II, king of Poland, Otto von Bismarck, Klemens von Metternich,,…
15 e.g., Gottfried Leibniz, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Albert Schweitzer,…
16 e.g., Johann von Goethe, François Chateaubriand, Friedrich Schiller, Rudyard Kipling, Jan Neruda, Mark Twain, Adam Mickiewicz, Franz Kafka,…
17 e.g., Frederic Chopin, Ludwig van Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Antonin Dvorak, Carl Maria von Weber, Niccolo Paganini, Richard Strauss, Johann Strauss, Leos Janacek,…
18 e.g., Thomas Alva Edison, J.P. Morgan, Louis Renault…
19 Eberhardt, S., Pospisil, M., Ryjacek, P., Sykora, M. 2021. Heritage Value Assessment Method - Application to Historic Steel Bridge in Prague. 17th International Conference on Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage Architecture (STREMAH). Rome.
20 Grant of the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic NAKI DG18P02OVV033 “Methods for achieving the sustainability of industrial heritage steel bridges”.