Sustainability assessment of Syrian cities considering historical and cultural heritage

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Introduction. The sustainability of territories of urban settlements (USs) and rural settlements (RSs) is one of the priority tasks of urban planning and socio-economic planning, and is also determined by the goal of integrated development of the territory. This issue is widely discussed in the scientific and technical literature, where the focus is on socio-economic, environmental and anthropogenic factors that characterize the urban system, which are used to obtain a quantitative indicator of the level of sustainability using entropy-weighted, (TOPSIS-Technique of Preference Similarity to the Ideal Solution) and other methods. At the same time, the importance of cultural heritage in sustainable development has not received enough attention. This paper presents the results of sustainability assessment of the impact of immovable tangible cultural heritage of eight Syrian cities based on a multi-criteria model.Materials and methods. The paper uses materials from open sources and statistical data of municipal organizations, the selection of which is based on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the system approach. The data include characteristics of social, historical-cultural, economic, environmental, engineering, transport subsystems of the city. The aim of the study is to determine a generalized index characterizing the sustainability of the city and the impact of its factors on its importance of cultural heritage in promoting socio-economic development and urban reconstruction after the military conflict.Results. Based on the presented model, calculations of the urban sustainability index (IS) of 8 Syrian cities — Damascus, Homs, Aleppo, Latakia, Palmyra, Daraa, Deir ez-Zor and Idlib for the period of 2010 (before the military conflict) and 2023 were performed, which showed a decrease in the sustainability index up to two times. This is due to the destruction of residential areas of engineering and transport systems, destruction of cultural heritage objects. It is also found that tangible cultural heritage has a great impact on the sustainability of the city system.Conclusions. The proposed model for determining the index of urban sustainability (IS) allows us to obtain a quantitative assessment and analyze the impact of each factor. It is shown that along with the restoration of residential areas and objects of engineering and transport infrastructure, it is necessary to carry out works to preserve objects of cultural heritage, the loss of which leads to a decrease in the sustainability of the city, the loss of its urban identity.

About the authors

Ali Salmo

Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU)

Email: alisalmorussia1993@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6797-7559

E. V. Shcherbina

Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU)

Email: scherbinaEV@mgsu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8595-2101

References

  1. Cosovic M., Amelio A., Junuz E. Classification methods in cultural heritage // Proceedings of the Visual Pattern Extraction and Recognition for Cultural Heritage Understanding (VIPERC2019). 2019. URL: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2320/
  2. Isa W.M.W., Zin N.A.M., Rosdi F., Sarim H.M. Digital preservation of intangible cultural heritage // Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. 2018. Vol. 12. Issue 3. P. 1373. doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.v12.i3.pp1373-1379
  3. Hua S. World heritage classification and related issues — A case study of the “convention concerning the protection of the World cultural and natural heritage” // Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010. Vol. 2. Issue 5. Pp. 6954–6961. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.05.048
  4. Щербина Е.В., Салмо А. Градостроительные риски утраты культурного наследия // Строительство: наука и образование. 2022. Т. 12. № 4. С. 46–63. doi: 10.22227/2305-5502.2022.4.4. EDN UVUULM.
  5. Ахмед М. Сирийское всемирное наследие и конвенция всемирного наследия во время сирийской войны // мат. науч.-практ. конф. молодых ученых географов. 2019. С. 169–172. EDN MGXJMF.
  6. Tišma S., Uzelac A., Jelinčić D.A., Franić S., Škrtić M.M. Overview of social assessment methods for the economic analysis of cultural heritage investments // Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2022. Vol. 15. Issue 8. P. 327. doi: 10.3390/jrfm15080327
  7. Medda F., Lipparini F. Impact investment for urban Cultural Heritage // City, Culture and Society. 2021. Vol. 26. P. 100413. doi: 10.1016/j.ccs.2021.100413
  8. Rudan E. Circular economy of Cultural Heritage — Possibility to create a new tourism product through adaptive reuse // Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2023. Vol. 16. Issue 3. P. 196. doi: 10.3390/jrfm16030196
  9. Assessing the values of cultural heritage: research report / ed. De la Torre M. Los Angeles, CA : Getty Conservation Institute, 2002. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/values_cultural_heritage
  10. Panzera E. The role of Cultural Heritage in shaping territorial identities // Cultural Heritage and Territorial Identity. 2022. Pp. 117–143. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-94468-1_5
  11. Салмо А., Щербина Е.В., Алибрахим Л.Я. Architectural and urban identity of Homs city // Вестник МГСУ. 2021. Т. 16. № 10. С. 1285–1296. doi: 10.22227/1997-0935.2021.10.1285-1296
  12. Zin N.M., Ismail F.Z. Cultural Heritage protection from disaster impacts: A review of global disaster risk reduction frameworks // IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2023. Vol. 1217. Issue 1. P. 012004. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1217/1/012004
  13. Falk M.T., Hagsten E. Assessing different measures of fire risk for cultural world heritage sites // Heritage Science. 2023. Vol. 11. Issue 1. doi: 10.1186/s40494-023-01026-y
  14. Crowley K., Jackson R., O’Connell S., Karunarthna D., Anantasari E., Retnowati A. et al. Cultural Heritage and risk assessments: Gaps, challenges, and future research directions for the inclusion of heritage within climate change adaptation and disaster management // Climate Resilience and Sustainability. 2022. Vol. 1. Issue 3. doi: 10.1002/cli2.45
  15. Karaca F. An AHP-based indoor air pollution risk index method for Cultural Heritage Collections // Journal of Cultural Heritage. 2015. Vol. 16. Issue 3. Pp. 352–360. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2014.06.012
  16. Горбенкова Е.В., Щербина Е.В., Старолавникова О.М. Методика определения индекса развития агрогородка // Интернет-журнал Науковедение. 2015. Т. 7. № 2 (27). С. 97. doi: 10.15862/92TVN215. EDN UHMKUP.
  17. Подгорбунских П.Е., Головина С.Г. Алгоритм мониторинга устойчивого развития сельских территорий // Аграрный вестник Урала. 2012. № 5 (97). С. 79–84. EDN PAKJEV.
  18. Harbiankova A., Shcherbina E.V. Evaluation model for sustainable development of settlement system // Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13. Issue 21. P. 11778. doi: 10.3390/su132111778
  19. Harbiankova A., Scherbina E., Budzevich M. Exploring the significance of Heritage preservation in enhancing the settlement system resilience // Sustainability. 2023. Vol. 15. Issue 21. P. 15251. doi: 10.3390/su152115251
  20. Salmo A., Shcherbina E. Post-war reconstruction priorities in the light of preservation tangible cultural heritage: AHP approach // Устойчивое развитие территорий : сб. докл. IV Междунар. науч.-практ. конф. М., 2022. С. 200–206. EDN KILILZ.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).