IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i24p10561-d463840.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Creative Living Lab for the Adaptive Reuse of the Morticelli Church: The SSMOLL Project

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Cerreta

    (Department of Architecture (DiARC), Federico II University of Naples, 80134 Naples, Italy)

  • Alessia Elefante

    (Urban Regeneration and Social Innovations, Blam, 84133 Salerno, Italy)

  • Ludovica La Rocca

    (Department of Architecture (DiARC), Federico II University of Naples, 80134 Naples, Italy)

Abstract

The international debate on the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage sites consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals has become increasingly important in the implementation of circular economy models for urban policies. The new values that characterize cultural assets, considered the result of a collaborative process, can enhance both manufactured and human capital, and provide the basis for a system of relationships that binds them. Furthermore, the values of historical artistic assets produced by community-based regeneration processes are particularly relevant when they characterize abandoned commons and cult buildings, to which communities attribute an identity and symbolic value. Starting from the definition of the concept of complex social value, we propose a methodological process that combines approaches and techniques typical of deliberative evaluations and collaborative decision-making processes. The aim is to identify the complex value chains generated by adaptive reuse, in which intrinsic values can play a driving role in the regeneration strategies of discarded cultural heritage. The experimentation, tested with the project “San Sebastiano del Monte dei Morti Living Lab” (SSMOLL), activates a creative and cultural Living Lab in the former Morticelli church, in the historic center of Salerno, in southern Italy. The reuse project is part of a more comprehensive process of social innovation and culture-led urban regeneration triggered in Salerno starting from SSMOLL. The partial results of the process show how a co-exploration phase has characterized the cultural characteristic of the living lab and how the co-evaluation of the individual activities orient the possible reuse scenarios. Finally, the results provide a first analysis of the relationship types activated.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Cerreta & Alessia Elefante & Ludovica La Rocca, 2020. "A Creative Living Lab for the Adaptive Reuse of the Morticelli Church: The SSMOLL Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-20, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10561-:d:463840
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10561/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10561/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    2. Maria Cerreta & Simona Panaro, 2017. "From Perceived Values to Shared Values: A Multi-Stakeholder Spatial Decision Analysis (M-SSDA) for Resilient Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Lucia Della Spina, 2020. "Adaptive Sustainable Reuse for Cultural Heritage: A Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding Approach Supporting Urban Development Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, February.
    4. Wendy Proctor & Martin Drechsler, 2006. "Deliberative Multicriteria Evaluation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(2), pages 169-190, April.
    5. Salvatore Giuffrida & Filippo Gagliano & Enrico Giannitrapani & Carmelo Marisca & Grazia Napoli & Maria Rosa Trovato, 2020. "Promoting Research and Landscape Experience in the Management of the Archaeological Networks. A Project-Valuation Experiment in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-35, May.
    6. Kenter, Jasper O. & O'Brien, Liz & Hockley, Neal & Ravenscroft, Neil & Fazey, Ioan & Irvine, Katherine N. & Reed, Mark S. & Christie, Michael & Brady, Emily & Bryce, Rosalind & Church, Andrew & Cooper, 2015. "What are shared and social values of ecosystems?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 86-99.
    7. Arjo Klamer & Anna Mignosa & Lyudmila Lyudmila, 2013. "Cultural heritage policies: a comparative perspective," Chapters, in: Ilde Rizzo & Anna Mignosa (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Cultural Heritage, chapter 3, pages i-i, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    9. Marta Bottero & Chiara D’Alpaos & Alessia Marello, 2020. "An Application of the A’WOT Analysis for the Management of Cultural Heritage Assets: The Case of the Historical Farmhouses in the Aglié Castle (Turin)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Cheng, Xin & Van Damme, Sylvie & Li, Luyuan & Uyttenhove, Pieter, 2019. "Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Gaia Daldanise, 2020. "From Place-Branding to Community-Branding: A Collaborative Decision-Making Process for Cultural Heritage Enhancement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-23, December.
    12. Maria Cerreta & Giuliano Poli, 2013. "A Complex Values Map of Marginal Urban Landscapes: An Experiment in Naples (Italy)," International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems (IJAEIS), IGI Global, vol. 4(3), pages 41-62, July.
    13. Maria Cerreta & Eleonora Giovene di Girasole, 2020. "Towards Heritage Community Assessment: Indicators Proposal for the Self-Evaluation in Faro Convention Network Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-22, November.
    14. Guido Ferilli & Pier Luigi Sacco & Giorgio Tavano Blessi & Stefano Forbici, 2017. "Power to the people: when culture works as a social catalyst in urban regeneration processes (and when it does not)," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 241-258, February.
    15. Ilde Rizzo & Anna Mignosa (ed.), 2013. "Handbook on the Economics of Cultural Heritage," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14326.
    16. Maria Cerretta & Lidia Diappi, 2014. "Adaptive Evaluations in Complex Contexts: Introduction," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1 Suppl.), pages 5-22.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ezio Micelli & Francesco Campagnari & Luca Lazzarini & Elena Ostanel & Naomi Pedri Stocco, 2024. "They Like to Do It in Public: A Quantitative Analysis of Culture-Led Regeneration Projects in ITALY," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Maria Cerreta & Gaia Daldanise & Ludovica La Rocca & Simona Panaro, 2021. "Triggering Active Communities for Cultural Creative Cities: The “Hack the City” Play ReCH Mission in the Salerno Historic Centre (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Arnould, Maxence & Morel, Laure & Fournier, Meriem, 2022. "Embedding non-industrial private forest owners in forest policy and bioeconomy issues using a Living Lab concept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    4. Stuart Danvers & Jonathan Robertson & Ambika Zutshi, 2023. "Conceptualizing How Collaboration Advances Circularity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Marta Bottero & Giulia Datola & Daniele Fazzari & Roberta Ingaramo, 2022. "Re-Thinking Detroit: A Multicriteria-Based Approach for Adaptive Reuse for the Corktown District," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-22, July.
    6. Dell’Anna, Federico & Dell’Ovo, Marta, 2022. "A stakeholder-based approach managing conflictual values in urban design processes. The case of an open prison in Barcelona," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. Hacer Tercanli & Ben Jongbloed, 2022. "A Systematic Review of the Literature on Living Labs in Higher Education Institutions: Potentials and Constraints," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-27, September.
    8. Margherita Pazzini & Rachele Corticelli & Claudio Lantieri & Cecilia Mazzoli, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Analysis and Decision-Making Approach for the Urban Regeneration: The Application to the Rimini Canal Port (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-28, December.
    9. Marco Gola & Marta Dell’Ovo & Stefano Scalone & Stefano Capolongo, 2022. "Adaptive Reuse of Social and Healthcare Structures: The Case Study as a Research Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, April.
    10. Marco Rossitti & Alessandra Oppio & Francesca Torrieri, 2021. "The Financial Sustainability of Cultural Heritage Reuse Projects: An Integrated Approach for the Historical Rural Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-22, November.
    11. Lucia Della Spina, 2023. "A Prefeasibility Study for the Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Historical Landscapes as Drivers and Enablers of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-30, August.
    12. Marta Dell’Ovo & Federico Dell’Anna & Raffaella Simonelli & Leopoldo Sdino, 2021. "Enhancing the Cultural Heritage through Adaptive Reuse. A Multicriteria Approach to Evaluate the Castello Visconteo in Cusago (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-29, April.
    13. Hongyu Li & Jie Chen & Konomi Ikebe & Takeshi Kinoshita, 2023. "Survey of Residents of Historic Cities Willingness to Pay for a Cultural Heritage Conservation Project: The Contribution of Heritage Awareness," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-22, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Cerreta & Gaia Daldanise & Eleonora Giovene di Girasole & Carmelo Maria Torre, 2021. "A Cultural Heritage Low Entropy Enhancement Approach: An Ex Post Evaluation of Creative Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    2. Maria Cerreta & Gaia Daldanise & Ludovica La Rocca & Simona Panaro, 2021. "Triggering Active Communities for Cultural Creative Cities: The “Hack the City” Play ReCH Mission in the Salerno Historic Centre (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    4. Gaia Daldanise, 2020. "From Place-Branding to Community-Branding: A Collaborative Decision-Making Process for Cultural Heritage Enhancement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Bruce Seaman, 2017. "¿Qué está en juego al optar entre distintas formas de apoyo para el sector cultural?," Estudios Públicos, Centro de Estudios Públicos, vol. 0(146), pages 121-162.
    6. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    7. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    8. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    9. Isabella M. Lami & Stefano Moroni, 2020. "How Can I Help You? Questioning the Role of Evaluation Techniques in Democratic Decision-Making Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    10. Nir Mualam & Nir Barak, 2019. "Evaluating Comparative Research: Mapping and Assessing Current Trends in Built Heritage Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-27, January.
    11. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    12. Leslie Carnoye & Rita Lopes, 2015. "Participatory Environmental Valuation: A Comparative Analysis of Four Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-23, July.
    13. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    14. Adam P. Hejnowicz & Murray A. Rudd, 2017. "The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-34, May.
    15. Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Artitzar Erauskin-Tolosa & Pedro José Lozano & Itxaro Latasa, 2019. "Individual and Social Preferences in Participatory Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    16. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri, 2021. "Valuation through deliberation - Citizens' panels on peatland ecosystem services in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    17. Kenter, Jasper O. & Reed, Mark S. & Fazey, Ioan, 2016. "The Deliberative Value Formation model," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 194-207.
    18. Barnaud, Cécile & De Longueville, Florence & Gonella, Gabriel & Antona, Martine & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Waylen, Kerry A, 2023. "Participatory research on ecosystem services in the face of disputed values and other uncertainties: A review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    19. Kenter, Jasper O. & Jobstvogt, Niels & Watson, Verity & Irvine, Katherine N. & Christie, Michael & Bryce, Ros, 2016. "The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 270-290.
    20. Shi, Qinqin & Chen, Hai & Liang, Xiaoying & Zhang, Hang & Liu, Di, 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services valuation and its multilevel drivers: A case study of Gaoqu Township in Shaanxi Province, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10561-:d:463840. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.