In 2003 the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine signed a Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians, referred to as the Carpathian Convention (Conference of Plenipotentiaries for Adoption and Signature of The Framework Convention On The Protection And Sustainable Development Of The Carpathians [CPA], 2003). Spatial planning and cultural heritage have both been declared as areas of cooperation between countries party to the convention. Article 5 of the Convention is fully dedicated to spatial planning. It contains five tasks of spatial planning recognised as issues that require the special attention of the parties: transboundary transport, infrastructure and services; conservation and sustainable use of natural resources; coherent town and country planning in border areas; preventing cross-border pollution as well as integrated land use planning and environmental impact assessment. Article 11 concerns cultural heritage. It contains a list of items that the Party countries intend to preserve: traditional architecture; land use patterns; local breeds of domestic animals and cultivated plant varieties as well as sustainable uses of wild plants.
Minor references to cultural heritage and to spatial planning also appear in other parts of the Convention. The conservation of cultural heritage is listed in Article 2 as one of the goals of comprehensive policy and cooperation between the countries party to the convention. The need for integration of land use planning and water management is stressed in Article 6. The link between tourism development and cultural heritage has been mentioned in Article 9.
In accordance with the framework declaration countries party to the convention have started work on more specific documents in order to outline more precisely common policy in particular fields of activity. Further documents have been prepared referring to spatial planning and to cultural heritage. The Carpathian Convention Implementation Committee prepared terms of references for the Working Group on Spatial Development and for the Working Group on Cultural Heritage and Traditional Knowledge. As a result, three planning related documents have been published. The contribution to the EU Strategy for the Danube Region was submitted in 2010 (Interim Secretariat of the Carpathian Convention 2010). It contains a list of recommendations which ends with the proposal to write a separate chapter on the Carpathian Space within the Danube Strategy. Other contribution entitled Sustainable development of mountain regions and the experience of the Carpathian Mountains was made to the 19th session of The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Kichkovskyy 2010). It contains conclusions and recommendations for the development of policies for mountain regions in Europe based on the Carpathian experience. The third document is a Strategic Action Plan for the Carpathian Area (Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians [COP], 2011). Its recommendations are summarised in three principles: develop a more coherent approach to the implementation of policies; promote stronger territorial cooperation and ensure better coordination and dialogue between the relevant players based on multilevel governance. As far as cultural heritage is concerned the first specific document was Recommendations on the Creation of a Carpathian Heritage Inventory (The Northern Alliance for Sustainability [ANPED] 2011a) followed by the implementation of that very inventory in two pilot areas (ANPED 2011b). Moreover, the Conference of Parties published a common declaration on cultural heritage of the Carpathians at its fourth meeting in 2014 encouraging the working group to continue work on the development of the common protocol on cultural heritage (COP 2014).
According to ANPED Recommendations (ANPED 2011a) the inventory should be based on five principles: diversity, non-elite selection, balance between tangible and intangible heritage, authenticity and appropriateness, objectivity. It contains 14 categories of items and 8 criteria according to which specific items should be assessed. So far it has been implemented in two pilot areas, one in Ukraine and one in the Czech Republic (ANPED 2011b). No reference was made in the recommendations either to existing national heritage inventories nor to local spatial planning. Bearing in mind the need for better coordination and dialogue between the relevant players emphasised in the above-mentioned Strategic Action Plan (COP 2011), we decided to compare the contents of the local plans of three Carpathian towns of outstanding urban heritage value with the contents of inventories made in two pilot sites as a basis for the final development of the Carpathian Heritage Inventory for the whole Carpathians. We did this in order to check if it is possible to use existing local spatial plans as a source of information for the planned Carpathian Heritage Inventory. If so, it could to a large extent prevent the duplication of work in preparing the Carpathian Heritage Inventory from scratch.
The cultural heritage of Carpathian towns had attracted the attention of researchers long before any state or organisation made efforts aimed at its protection and sustainable use. E. A. Kuropatnicki (1858) in the late 18th century described many monuments located in small Carpathian towns in his geographical study. Urban monographs dedicated to particular towns were published in the second half of the 19th century (Janota 1862) or in the beginning of the 20th century (Swieykowski 1903; Bělohlav 1913). International concern for urban heritage was later expressed in 1931 in the Athens Charter (The International Congresses… 1973) then in the Venice Charter (International Council. 1965) and it continues until today (Lopez Morales 2014). The importance of small towns in settlement systems has been recognised more recently in many European countries (Turnock 1986; Slavík 2002; Vaishar 2004; Town & Country Planning Association 2012). Some authors focused their research on problems that this category of settlements faces (Zamfir, Tălăngă & Stoica 2009; Pirisi & Trócsányi 2014; Pirisi, Trócsányi & Makkai 2015; Zuzańska-Żyśko 2005) while others mainly present the assets and opportunities of small towns (Fertner et al. 2015; Knox & Mayer 2009). The Europe-wide research of the European Council for the Village and Small Town (ECOVAST) confirmed the important role of small towns in Europe (Carter 2014) on the basis of comprehensive evidence (Carter 2015). Recent literature on the heritage of historic towns comprises a lot of theoretical work, regional studies, reports and case studies from around the world that could be roughly divided into two groups. Authors from the first group put special emphasis on the development opportunities based on heritage resources (e.g. Munasinghe 2000; Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi 2009; Lehtimäki 2006) and others focus their attention on problems related to the use of this potential (e.g. Jinghui 2012; Dvořáková 2012; Kilinc-Unlu 2011).
As far as urban planning is concerned the planning systems of all Eastern European countries are usually considered as belonging to one legal family (Knieling & Othengrafen 2016) mainly due to their common communist past until 1989. After 1989 the terms “post-communist” or “post-socialist” became a sort of “label” of cities in the region (Dimitrovska Andrews 2005; Sjöberg 2014). Urban development problems related to political and economic transformation from a socialist to a market economy in Central Europe have been most visible and acute in big cities. No wonder then that detailed research on this subject also focused on big cities (Grubbauer 2012; Musil 2005; Tosics 2005) whereas small towns have attracted less attention of researchers except from settlement geographers (Vaishar 2015; Musiaka 2015).
Simultaneously international efforts have been made to safeguard those environmental and cultural values that exist in this part of Europe regardless of the communist legacy. Seven countries of the region signed a Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians in 2003. Subsequent studies on the Carpathian heritage (Głowacki & Komenda 2008) and settlement structure (Głowacki, Kotuła & Kuczyńska 2007; Kuczyńska & Głowacki 2009) confirmed a particular concentration of heritage resources in Carpathian towns. According to initial declarations countries party to the Convention prepared several documents dedicated either to spatial planning or to the cultural heritage in the Carpathians. Relatively little attention was paid to interrelations between spatial planning and the protection and use of heritage resources. Literature sources cover these issues only fragmentarily. The comparative study by P. Næss et al. (1998) on spatial planning in the Norwegian municipality of Sandefjord and in the Polish Carpathian municipality of Myślenice referred only marginally to the cultural heritage with the general conclusion that cultural heritage had been a stronger concern in Myslenice than in Sandefjord. J. Janssen, E. Luiten & E. Stegmeijer (2017) outlined the evolution of relationship between spatial planning and heritage management in The Netherlands during the last half century. Local Carpathian authors are aware of the importance of urban planning in safeguarding the heritage of Carpathian towns. M. Šarišský (2001), in his case study of Bardejov expressed concern about the effectiveness of the new local plan in protecting the historic core of the city. S. Nistor (2001) presents the strategic approach to the rehabilitation of the historic centre of Sibiu. M. Drdácký (2013) considers the applicability of some solutions used in French safeguarding and enhancement plans to landuse planning in Telč. However, even in these detailed studies they do not take into consideration specific local spatial planning regulations. We hope to fill this gap in at least partly with this paper based on an examination of the local spatial plans of Bardejov (Slovakia), Štramberk (Czech Republic) and Dukla (Poland).
The case study towns and their heritage in the settlement structures of the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia
Three Carpathian towns have been selected for the purpose of the research: Bardejov in Slovakia, Dukla in Poland and Štramberk in the Czech Republic. Bardejov with 33 296 inhabitants in 2014 is the biggest in the group. It is the centre of a district level administrative unit called an okres which corresponds to the NUTS4 level. Dukla with 2128 inhabitants in 2014 and Štramberk with 3418 inhabitants in 2014 both represent the municipal level which corresponds to the NUTS5 level. The geographical location of the case study towns is shown in Figure 1.
There are two equally important reasons for the selection of the case study towns. The first is that they have significant internationally known cultural heritage resources. The importance of the heritage of each town is reflected in its position on international and national heritage lists. The historic centre of Bardejov is listed among UNESCO World Heritage Sites since 2000. The Urban Monument Reserve was established in the centre of Štramberk in 1951. The old town of Dukla in Poland as a whole has not been formally declared a monument. However, its 10 historic buildings on the Polish national list of monuments and 33 items on the municipal list provide evidence of the rich heritage resources of this small town. All three towns have one common characteristic in their urban history. They had developed over the ages as trade cities on trade routes between the southern and northern slopes of the Carpathians. Simultaneously each of town has different unique events in its history that made it internationally known regardless of its previous past. Bardejov became a famous spa centre in the 18th century due to mineral springs in its vicinity. The discovery of the bones of a pre-historic Neanderthal child in Šipka cave in 1880 brought international fame to Štramberk. Dukla with its surroundings was the scene of a heavy battle in September and October 1944 between the Soviet and Czechoslovak armies on one side and the German and Hungarian armies on the other. The death-toll of the battle reached about 200 000 people (Wróblewski 2004).
The second reason for selection of the case studies is that all the towns have recently adopted local spatial plans (Fusková et al. 2013; Szlenk-Dziubek, Komenda & Głowacki 2005; Žiaran et al. 2007), in accordance with the national legislation of:
- –the Czech Republic: Spatial Planning and Building Order Act (Zákon ze dne 14. března 2006 o územním plánování a stavebním řádu) and National Monument Protection Act (Zákon České národní rady ze dne 30. března 1987, ío státní památkové péči);
- –Poland: Spatial Planning Act (Ustawa z dnia 27 marca 2003r. o planowaniu i zagospodarowaniu przestrzennym) and Monument Protection Act (Ustawa z dnia 23 lipca 2003r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami);
- –and Slovakia: Spatial Planning and Building Order Act (Zákon z 27. apríla 1976o územnom plánovaní a stavebnom poriadku) and Act on Protection of Monuments and Historic Sites (Zákon z 19 decembra 2001o ochrane pamiatkového fondu);
- –as well as in accordance with national or regional policies and guidelines (Glos et al. 2006).
Research on the case study towns started long ago. E. Janota (1862) published the first monograph of Bardejov in 1861. More recently the protection and management of the heritage of Bardejov has been the subject of detailed plans (Škrovina 2012), case studies (Harčar 2012; Soročinová & Soročin 2012) and professional papers (Šarišský 2001; Dvořáková 2012; Ličková 2012).
Štramberk had been well known among geologists (Ogilvie 1897) when J. Bělohlav (1913) wrote its monograph. Recent research concerns the attitude of inhabitants and local authorities (Walterová 2011) as well as visitors (Kittlerová 2015) to urban regeneration.
None of case study towns is located in any of pilot areas where the Carpathian Heritage Inventory has been implemented. This means that the contents of spatial plans can be only roughly compared to the contents of pilot inventories. On the other hand, this fact prevents the direct flow of information between plans and pilot inventories which could make such a comparison pointless. For the purpose of the research it is more important that spatial plans have been made independently from pilot inventories.
Spatial plans of the case study towns Bardejov
Spatial Plan of the City of Bardejov (Žiaran et al. 2007) was approved in 2007. It consists of two written parts and nine maps. The first text comprises legally binding planning regulations. The second is an explanation of the first part. As far as maps are concerned only one of them is important for further analysis i.e. the comprehensive urban plan. The remaining eight maps illustrate specific issues other than cultural heritage.
The rules for the protection of historic and cultural values are summarised in 9 points in Chapter 9 of the legally binding regulations. Points 1–3 refer to the historic core of the city which since 1950 has been protected as an urban historic reserve and since 2000 has been included in the UNESCO World Heritage List. The borders of the protected area and its buffer zone are drawn on the map in the plan. Point 4 says what is subject to protection. It is: the layout of the historic urban complex with its streets, old fortifications and its spatial composition; characteristic features of construction in designated urban units and in quarters; the dominating spatial positions of the church of St. Egidius, the old city hall and the market square; the spatial composition of the historic core of the city with its height structure and with links to surrounding urban and open space; the Jewish suburb with its sites and layout; buildings listed in the monument register of the Slovak Republic well as local monuments and other buildings that supplement the space of the historic reserve and its neighbourhood.
Point 5 refers to the separate document entitled “Rules of protection of the Historic Reserve” which contains lists of historic buildings and provides the background for detailed planning documentation.
Points 6 to 9 refer to the protection of the old spa quarter Bardejovske Kupele, to the role of the regional monument authority in Prešov in planned urban architectural and construction works in the historic reserve, and to the protection of archaeological sites.
Three sections of the explanatory part of the plan are dedicated to cultural heritage. The first is an introduction to the presentation of the policy of the planned urban development. The second section outlines the characteristics of the historic core of Bardejov as a separate unit of urban structure. Both of these sections have a separate paragraph dedicated to Bardejovske Kupele. The third fragment contains a concept and rules for the protection of historic values. The main components of the plan are the reconstruction of the historic fortifications including the green walking circle around the historic core; the regeneration of streets; calming traffic with the gradual exclusion of cars for the sake of pedestrians; urban renewal of the former Jewish suburb and of the spa quarter Bardejovske Kupele. The plan is accompanied by a list of registered historic buildings and a separate list of archaeological sites.
A relatively shorter section concerns the designation of protected areas of all kinds. The existing urban historic reserve with its buffer zone and the borders of the World Heritage area are listed in the beginning of the chapter. The planned historic zone in the spa quarter is in second place.
There are also references to previous planning documents and detailed studies aimed at the protection and restoration of the historic core of the city i.e. to the detailed spatial plan for the reconstruction of the urban historic reserve prepared in 1964, to six detailed urban-architectonic studies for particular blocks of buildings and streets prepared in years 1990–2000 as well as to the regional plan which includes the planning tasks for Bardejov, among them the care of areas inscribed in the UNESCO List.
Maps are integral parts of the plan. The scale of maps is different. A wider territorial context is presented at the scale 1:50000. The plan of spatial order and functional use of the territory is drawn at a scale of 1:10000 similar to the plan for nature protection and landscape management. In addition, there are 6 maps at a scale of 1:5000. The first is a comprehensive map of the urban plan and 5 others are dedicated to specific planning topics: public transport, water management, electric power supply, publicly beneficial construction arrangements and improvements as well as to the perspective for the use of soil resources for non-agricultural purposes. The following cultural heritage items are on the comprehensive map of the plan: boundary of the urban historic reserve and its boundary if it is a buffer zone; boundary of the planned historic zone in the spa quarter; boundary of the protected complex of historic buildings (Jewish suburb); protected historic buildings and the pedestrian zone in the historic core of the city. Where necessary they also appear on other maps.
The town council of Štramberk approved the local spatial plan of the town in 2013 (Fusková et al. 2013). In a similar manner to Bardejov, it consists of two written parts (legally binding regulations and explanations) and of maps. Six maps at the scale of 1:5000 are integral parts of the binding regulations, i.e. the main map of the plan and five other maps presenting specific issues: basic spatial structure of the plan; transport; water management; electricity and communications; publicly important undertakings. The explanatory part includes three maps: the co-ordination map (scale 1:5000); the map of the planned conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural uses (scale 1:5000) and the map presenting the wider spatial context of the town at a scale 1:25000.
The legally binding part refers to the cultural heritage at the very beginning when the protection of urban and architectural as well as natural values and townscape are declared as the main aims of the plan of spatial development. Detailed rules on heritage protection focused on the territory of the urban historic reserve and on real estates of cultural value are presented in point 2.4 of the plan. Any new construction or reconstruction of existing buildings within the historic reserve (designated in the plan as a mixed-housing centre) must respect historic plot boundaries. Three conditions are imposed on new construction or alterations to existing buildings within the historic reserve. The height of the building cannot exceed the height of existing buildings. Static transport facilities cannot exceed a capacity of 5 places. The construction of row-garages is not allowed. Two rules binding in the whole area of the town refer to cultural heritage. The first says that any construction of new buildings or alteration to existing building in areas spatially linked to areas with historic buildings must be made with respect to the character and structure of historic buildings. In the case of the construction in other areas view horizons and visibility have to be taken into account. The second regulation concerns photovoltaic facilities. In places that appear in view perspectives from the urban historic reserve or in distant views to the reserve such facilities will be allowed only exceptionally on the basis of individual assessment provided that the view would be disturbed only minimally. Detailed regulations for each type of land use (chapter F) within the urban historic reserve contain among other regulations, regulations concerning heritage protection. The area of the urban reserve is allocated to seven types of land use. Rules of heritage protection are quite similar in all of them. The most detailed regulations have been formulated for the mixed housing – urban centre (SMC) area that covers the majority of the reserve. Construction in this area is only allowed within historic locations and volume. Historic land division and the location of the building on a plot are protected. This means that construction is only allowed in historic locations. The same regulations have been applied to allotments (labelled ZZ in the plan) to public spaces (labelled PV) as well as to land not allocated for development (farmland, forest and mixed open space) due to the fact that, exceptionally, some construction may be allowed (e.g. utilities, construction aimed at the protection of nature and landscape).
The transport regulations in part D take into account the unique character of the historic reserve. Therefore minimum widths of streets, sidewalks, bike-paths and some other regulations are not applicable to the mixed housing –urban centre (SMC) area which covers the majority of the urban historic reserve.
Šipka cave, which brought fame to Štramberk when relics of the Neanderthal child were discovered, is referred to in the plan as a protected natural monument.
The explanatory part of the plan contains three paragraphs related to the cultural heritage of the town. The first is a short description of the most valuable part of the urban area with its unique complex of wooden town houses on the slopes of Kotouč hill. The next heritage related paragraph is in the same chapter. It is a repetition of the rule adopted in the legally binding part of the plan that within the urban historic reserve, and within areas of particular historic protection, any construction proposal on plots with historic monuments or on neighbouring plots or other plots where construction is likely to affect the visibility of the monument should be considered individually with particular attention paid not only to the protection of the actual monument, but also to the preservation of the values of the surrounding area. The third paragraph concerns landscape harmonisation. As an outstanding value of the preserved natural and cultural space, landscape is protected against destruction. For this reason, no new “competitive” landmarks should be built in the vicinity of cultural or historic landmarks. The subsequent description of landscape structure is to a large extent based on historical and cultural criteria. A landscape region is defined as a landscape unit with similar cultural and historic characteristics that differs clearly from other units in terms of all its characteristics or only in terms of some of them. The outstanding role of cultural landmarks (the tower of Truba Castle and viewing tower on Bila Hora Hill) is emphasised among the characteristics of the Štramberk landscape region. Three types of landscape with important cultural heritage components are distinguished in the area. The built-up landscape is the urban landscape of the town that developed around the 13th century castle. The major part of this area is protected as an urban historic reserve. The landscape of forested limestone hills is called “harmonised” due to the balance preserved between natural and man-made components. The existing limestone quarry is considered a “man-made” landscape. It encompasses an important archaeological site. Moreover Appendix 1 to the explanatory part of the plan contains a list of all protected historic buildings in the area as well as the legal basis for the protection of the urban historic reserve. The famous Šipka Cave is also placed in the appendix as an area protected due to its archaeological and natural values.
As far as maps are concerned the “co-ordination map” has the largest legend with the following cultural heritage items: areas of particular historic protection; immobile cultural monuments – single objects or groups of objects of historic importance; buildings of particular architectural value and historic monuments of local importance. Cultural heritage items appear also on other maps. The area of the historic urban reserve is shown within the area allocated for mixed residential use in the centre on the comprehensive map of the plan as well as on other maps (transport, water management, electricity and communications). The map of the basic division of the planning area presents the area where the preparation of a more detailed regulatory plan is necessary due to its location next to the boundaries of the historic urban reserve.
The Municipality of Dukla approved its 10 local spatial development plans in 2005 (Szlenk-Dziubek et al. 2005). Each of them consists of the text of binding planning regulations and of a comprehensive map at a scale of 1:2000. In this paper we analyse one of these plans that covers the town of Dukla. The remaining plans cover 25 villages in the municipality. Planning regulations concerning the protection of cultural heritage, historic monuments, contemporary objects of significant cultural value and the cultural landscape are assembled in a separate subchapter. It starts from the monument protection rules. They reflect Polish national legislation. Therefore, the list of monuments inscribed in the national register of monuments is placed at the beginning of the subchapter. All these monuments are protected together with their immediate surroundings within designated “conservation zones”. According to the plan, monuments from the national register should be kept in their existing use. Alterations to other objects within “conservation zones” are only allowed if they are harmonised with the architecture of existing protected buildings. New electricity lines within the zone should be made as cables in the ground substrate/ground. Any earth works in the zone should be made under the supervision of an archaeologist. Slightly different regulations are applied to monuments from the municipal register. They are not listed in the plan and not surrounded with conservation zones. Alterations to these buildings are allowed provided that the basic characteristics of a building are preserved i.e. the size, the form of roof and historic architectural details. A separate regulation has been formulated for the former court building which is also on the municipal list of monuments. In this case obscuring the facade of the building with other buildings, trees or advertisements is not allowed. For the historic part of the town, a zone of cultural landscape protection has been designated. Within this zone historic groups of buildings together with the street network and greenery are protected. Any new construction within the zone must be harmonised with historic buildings in terms of size and architectural style. New electricity lines should be laid as underground cables. No new “competitive” landmarks are allowed and views to historic buildings are protected. In addition to historic monuments from national or municipal inventories several buildings important for the contemporary cultural landscape of the municipality are protected by means of planning regulations. Thirteen such objects have been identified in the whole municipality. Three of them are in the town: the Jewish student house, St. John from Dukla and St. John Paul II Reconciliation Cross as well as the war cemetery from both World Wars. Three archaeological sites are identified in the area of the plan. According to Polish legislation they belong to two categories. One archaeological site of a higher historic value is listed in the national register of archaeological sites. An archaeological protection zone has been designated in the plan around this site. Within the zone any change of land use is only allowed under archaeological supervision. Two other archaeological sites which are on a separate list do not have any zones around them however the approval of the regional monument authority and archaeological supervision is still required in case of any earth works.
The map of the plan presents the planned land allocations as well as information about protected areas and objects. The following cultural heritage items are shown on the map: monuments from the national register with their protective zones; archaeological sites with their zone of archaeological protection; the zone of cultural landscape protection; objects important for the cultural landscape. Moreover the area of a historic park is designated as a separate planning allocation.
Heritage items in the spatial plans of the case study towns and in pilot areas of the Carpathian Heritage Inventory
All the spatial plans analysed were prepared in the specific local conditions of each case study town with respect to the national planning and heritage legislation of each country. Each plan contains protective regulations concerning heritage objects. Some objects are listed in national inventories of monuments whereas others are protected locally on the basis of local inventories or directly by planning regulations. The diversity of protected heritage objects in each plan is shown in Table 1. Items from both pilot areas of the inventory are in Table 2. Categories of objects common to both tables are highlighted in bold whereas categories that are different are underlined.
Protected heritage objects in the spatial plans of the case-study towns
|TYPE OF ITEM/CITY||Bardejov||Dukla||Štramberk|
|Churches and monasteries||5||2||2|
|Chapels and wayside shrines||_||3||2|
|Crosses and religious statues||1||2||2|
|Jewish boarding house||_||1||_|
|Townhouse (stone and brick)||84||19||11|
|An acacia alley||_||1||_|
|Other tangible items|
|Fountains and wells||_||_||2|
Heritage items in pilot areas of the Carpathian Heritage Inventory
Source: authors based on ANPED (2011b)
|TYPE OF ITEM||Czech pilot area||Ukrainian pilot area|
|Churches and monasteries||2||43|
|Chapels and wayside shrines||6|
|Crosses and religious statues||3|
|Plum jam workshop||1|
|Folk Costume Workshop||2|
|Water power plant||1|
|Townhouse (stone and brick)||2|
|Cellars and Wine Huts||1|
|Sheep summer camp||1|
|Carpathian Buffalo Station||1|
|Natural protected areas||2||9|
|Other tangible items|
|Fountains and wells||2|
|Handicrafts and art||4||7|
|Ceremonies, customs, rites||2||2|
|Associations and folk groups||3||2|
So far, the Carpathian Heritage Inventory has been carried out in two pilot areas. One is situated in the eastern part of the Czech Republic. It covers an area of about 4000 km2 and covers almost the whole of the Czech Carpathians. There are several small towns in the area which are similar to the case study towns analysed above in terms of their current size and their history i.e. they developed in the Middle Ages as trade centres and their medieval urban layout has been preserved, e.g. Valašske Meziříčí, Uheršky Brod, Valašske Klobouky. The second pilot area is in the Ukrainian Carpathians. It covers the town of Khust with its surroundings of about 1000 km2 and an area similar in size to the above situated to the south of the city of Kolomyia. Currently Khust is the only urban centre in the pilot area. It has about 28 000 inhabitants and it has developed since the Middle Ages as a trade centre and a fortress in the Hungarian Kingdom. So, both pilot areas, as well as the case study towns, are similar in terms of heritage resources. The main difference between the plans analysed and the pilot inventories is the way in which lists of heritage items were created. Plans contain items that are formally recognised as monuments by the appropriate authorities or that have been added to the list by the municipal council whereas pilot inventories were created on the basis of direct consultation with local communities and their aim is to cover everything that local communities consider as heritage (ANPED 2011b). Items from both pilot areas included in the inventory are shown in Table 2.
The contents of both tables can be attributed in the first place to past events that brought particular items into existence and to subsequent circumstances that preserved them until now. With this reservation one can only make a comparison between two tables or between columns within each table. The most visible difference between the local plans and the Inventory is the range of items included. It is significantly wider in the case of the latter as it covers in addition to buildings and other man-made items also natural objects (trees, rocks etc) and natural protected areas as well as intangible heritage (e.g. local dialects, folk dances). Another less visible, but important, difference is the role of residential buildings. In all local plans houses of all kinds are the largest group of objects whereas they hardly appear in the Inventory, only occurring in the Ukrainian pilot area. The third difference is the presence of many museums in the Inventory and their lack in urban plans. Generally, the list of heritage items from plans is more balanced than the list from the Inventory. i.e. bigger differences appear between heritage lists in Czech and in Ukrainian pilot areas than between the three plans investigated. Similarities among plans may mainly be attributed to the existence of objects in the case study towns. As regards pilot inventories it is possible that the differences between Czech and Ukrainian pilot areas reflect different perceptions of heritage by local communities (e.g. few sacral objects in the Czech pilot area in spite of the existence of many historic churches in the Czech Carpathians).
The initially declared principles of the inventory have not been followed in pilot projects. Contrary to the principle of non-elite selection, few residential buildings were included. The principle of diversity was obeyed to a limited extent only in the Ukrainian area whereas in the Czech area many categories of potential heritage items are not represented. The same refers to the principle of balance between the tangible and intangible. The inventory in the Czech area is evidently biased towards intangible heritage. The principle of authenticity and appropriateness is the vaguest. As authors of the plan explained (ANPED 2011a) this meant that putting the item on the inventory should not increase the risk posed by mass tourism and commercial promotion. Whatever their intentions were, this principle, though not contrary to it, is hardly applicable to the common policy of countries party to the Convention bearing in mind Article 9 of the Convention, where countries declared in favour of the promotion of sustainable tourism providing benefits to local people based on the exceptional cultural heritage. As regards the principle of objectivity, it is also hardly achievable when the perception of local people is the main criterion for including the item in the inventory (ANPED 2011a) (e.g. few sacral buildings in the Czech area). Surprisingly enough, local plans better fit the declared principles of the Carpathian Heritage Inventory than the Inventory itself in terms of diversity; non-elite selection and objectivity due to the relatively even representation of all categories of objects in plans while in the inventory some categories are evidently better represented (museums) than others (housing). As regards the principle of balance between tangible and intangible heritage, the former is directly included in the inventory whereas plans referring to intangible heritage only refer indirectly to it by means of tangible objects (memorial statues and plaques). The assessment of the accordance of plans with the principle of authenticity and appropriateness is difficult because this principle comprises two different criteria. All heritage objects listed in the plans and pilot inventories analysed are authentic. However, their appropriateness is a very subjective criterion.
Discussion and conclusion
The choice of appropriate measures and an information resource is an important dilemma for the implementation of the heritage goals of the Carpathian Convention. The results of the pilot heritage inventories made in two small areas in Ukraine and the Czech Republic indicate that the initial concept of the Carpathian Heritage Inventory needs to be verified.
This paper has been written on the basis of three spatial plans of three historic Carpathian towns and two relatively small pilot inventory areas. Therefore the following conclusion concerning the main research question should be considered preliminary rather than final, and may be verified and supplemented on the basis of further studies covering the wider Carpathian area. The contents of the spatial plans of Bardejov, Dukla and Štramberk indicate that local spatial plans should be taken into account in the development of tools for the implementation of a common heritage policy of the Carpathian countries. Strangely enough the role of spatial planning in this field was not noted in the text of the Carpathian Convention even though the importance of spatial planning for the development of international transport; infrastructure and services as well as for conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources; coherent town and country planning in border areas and for preventing cross-border pollution is well recognised. Traditional architecture and land use patterns are listed in the Convention among cultural heritage goods that should be preserved without any reference to spatial planning.
On the other hand the discrepancies revealed between the initially formulated principles and the results of pilot heritage inventories in Ukraine and the Czech Republic provide evidence that the very concept of the Carpathian Heritage Inventory needs re-thinking. Creating one more inventory in addition to the existing international (UNESCO list), national, regional or local heritage inventories makes little sense. If the Carpathian inventory is implemented, it should only cover carefully selected heritage items that are not included in other inventories (e.g. selected sorts of intangible heritage). The other option is to include those buildings that are typical of the Carpathians as a whole and that distinguish this region from other mountain regions of Europe in the Carpathian Inventory even if they are not quite unique. At the time of writing the results of the pilot inventories are known and countries party to the convention still work on the common cultural heritage protocol. It is a good point in time to realise that so far the link between spatial planning and the preservation of the Carpathian cultural heritage has been overlooked and to revise the further activities of countries party to the Carpathian Convention aimed at the implementation of its goals in the field of cultural heritage.
Bělohlav, J. (1913) Štramberk. Vlastivědný sborník České Monografie, vol. 12, Irena Bělohlavová, Prague [in Czech].
Carter, V.J, ed., (2014) The Importance of Small Towns, The European Council for the Village and Small Town [ECOVAST], Tenterden, UK. Available from: http://www.ecovast.org/english/publications_e.htm [accessed: 14.11.2016].
Carter, V.J, ed.,(2015) The Evidence Base Supporting Document to the publication “The Importance of Small Towns” published in November 2014, The European Council for the Village and Small Town [ECOVAST], Tenterden, UK. Available from: http://www.ecovast.org/english/publications_e.htm [accessed: 14.11.2016].
Conference of Plenipotentiaries for Adoption and Signature of The Framework Convention On The Protection And Sustainable Development Of The Carpathians [CPA] (2003) Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians, Kyiv. Available from: http://www.carpathianconvention.org/text-of-the-convention.html [accessed: 25.10.2016].
Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians [COP] (2011) Strategic Action Plan for the Carpathian Area, Bratislava. Available from http://www.carpathianconvention.org/documents-thematic-areas.html [accessed: 26.10.2016].
Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians [COP] (2014) Ministerial Declaration on cultural heritage of the Carpathians, Mikulov. Available from: http://www.carpathianconvention.org/cop-decisions.html [accessed: 28.10.2016].
Dimitrovska Andrews, K. (2005) Mastering the post-socialist city: Impacts on planning the built environment, [in:] F.E. Ian Hamilton, K. Dimitrovska Andrews & N. Pichler-Milanović, eds., Transformation of cities in Central and Eastern Europe. Towards globalization, United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 153–188.
Drdácký, M. (2013) Telč, Czech Republic, [in:] R. Pickard, ed., Management of Historic Centres Spon Press, London, 31–52.
Dvořáková, V. (2012), Ochrana pamiatkových územi – beh na dlhé trate, Urbanita, 24/2, 11–15 [in Slovak].
Fertner, Ch., Groth, N.B., Herslund, L. & Carstensen, T.A. (2015) Small towns resisting urban decay through residential attractiveness. Findings from Denmark, Danish Journal of Geography, 115 (2), 119–132.
Fusková, V. Mičková, I. Šiřina, P., Veselá, Z. (2013) Územni Plán Štramberka, Urbanistické Středisko Ostrava, Ostrava. Available from: http://www.stramberk.cz/cs/mesto/uzemni-plan.html [accessed: 17.03.2016][in Czech].
Glos, P. et al. (2006) Pamiatková rezervácia Bardejov: Zásady ochrany pamiatkového územia 2006–2009 Aktualizácia, Krajský pamiatkový úrad Prešov, Prešov [in Slovak].
Głowacki, W. & Komenda, J. (2008) Mapping Cultural Heritage – Carpathian Experience, Problemy Rozwoju Miast, 1, 154–158.
Głowacki, W., Kotuła, Ł. & Kuczyńska, K. (2007) Carpathian settlement structure [in:] I. Illes & Z. Gal. eds., Socio-economic analysis of the Carpathian area, Hungarian Academy of Science, Pécs, 51–72.
Grubbauer, M. (2012) Toward a More Comprehensive Notion of Urban Change: Linking Post-Socialistic Urbanism and Urban Theory, [in:] M. Grubbauer & J. Kusiak, eds., Chasing Warsaw; Socio-Material Dynamics of Urban Change, Campus Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt/M, 35–60.
Harčar, P. (2012). Mestské opevnenie v Bardejove – vývoj, obnova, prezentácia. BARDKONTAKT Problematika mestských pamiatkových center, Zborník prednášok. 20, 239–242 [in Slovak].
Interim Secretariat of the Carpathian Convention (2010) Inputs to EU Strategy for the Danube Region. The Carpathian Region – a macro-region forming an integrated part of the Danube region Vienna. Available from: http://www.carpathianconvention.org/documents-thematic-areas.html [accessed: 12.01.2017].
International Council on Monuments and Sites (1965) International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964), Venice. Available from: www.pua.edu.eg/PUASite/uploads/file/Engineering/…/lect6.pdf [accessed: 26.01.2017].
Janota, E. (1862), Bardyjów. Historyczno-topograficzny opis miasta i okolicy, Drukarnia C. K. Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków. Available from: https://polona.pl/item/1624047/2Z [accessed: 07.02.2017] [in Polish].
Janssen, J., Luiten, E., & Stegmeijer, E. (2017) Heritage as sector, factor and vector: conceptualizing the shifting relationship between heritage management and spatial planning, European Planning Studies, 25 (6), 1–19. .
Jinghui, W. (2012) Problems and solutions in the protection of historical urban areas, Frontiers of Architectural Research, 1, 40–43.
Kichkovskyy, M. (2010) Sustainable development of mountain regions and the experience of the Carpathian Mountains, paper presented at the 19th session of The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities in October 2010, Strasbourg.
Kilinc-Unlu, A. (2011) A study of Historic Towns after “Tourism Explosion”; the case of Çeşme, Foça and Şírínce in Western Turkey (Master’s thesis prepared at the University of Pennsylvania, US). Available from: http://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/169/ [accessed: 15.03.2017].
Kittlerová, K. (2015) Městská památková rezervace a její regenerace – Štramberk – postoje návštěvníků a turistů, bachelor’s degree thesis prepared at the Vysoká Škola Polytechnická Jihlava, the Czech Republic. Available from: https://is.vspj.cz/bp/get-bp/student/20143/thema/3849 [accessed: 22.03.2017] [in Czech].
Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F., eds., (2016) Planning Cultures in Europe Decoding Cultural Phenomena in Urban and Regional Planning (2nd ed.), Routledge, New York.
Knox, P.L. & Mayer, H. (2009) Small Town Sustainability Economic, Social, and Environmental Innovation, Birkhäuser, Basel.
Kuczyńska, K. & Głowacki, W. (2009) Typologia Osadnictwa Karpackiego Regionu Rozwoju, Problemy Rozwoju Miast, 3, 62–75.
Kuropatnicki, E.A. (1858) Geografia albo Dokładne Opisanie Królestw Galicyi i Lodomeryi, Drukarnia Zakładu Narodowego im. Ossolińskich, Lwów. Available from http://rcin.org.pl/dlibra/doccontent?id=34790 (Original work Published 1786) [accessed:11.01.2016] [in Polish].
Lehtimäki, M. (2006) Sustainable Historic Towns – Urban Heritage as an Asset of Development, National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki.
Licciardi, G. & Amirtahmasebi, R., eds., (2009) The Economics of Uniqueness: Investing in Historic City Cores and Cultural Heritage Assets for Sustainable Development, World Bank, Washington, DC. .
Ličková, J. (2012) Obnova národnych kultúrnych pamiatok v lokalite SKD – UNESCO –Historické jadro mesta Bardejov, BARDKONTAKT Problematika mestských pamiatkových center, Zborník prednášok, 20, 233–238.
Lopez Morales, F.J. (2014) Revisión de los Conceptos Fundamentales La Carta De Venecia, Medio Siglo Después, [in:] F. J. Lopez Morales & F. Vidargas, eds., Los nuevos paradigmas de la conservacion del patrimonio cultural. 50 aňos de la Carta de Venecia, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico [in Spanish].
Munasinghe, H. (2000) Heritage Protection and Cultural Identity: The Case of Urban Space, Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 13(3), 75–81.
Musiaka, Ł. (2015) Medieval Heritage of Small Towns in the State of the Teutonic Order in the Register of Monuments, Region and Regionalism, 12(1), 219–238.
Musil, J. (2005) City development in Central and Eastern Europe before 1990; Historical context and socialist legacies [in:] F. E. Ian Hamilton, K. Dimitrovska Andrews & N. Pichler-Milanovič, eds., Transformation of cities in Central and Eastern Europe. Towards globalization, United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 22–43.
Næss, P., Saglie, I. L., Głowacki, W. & Dunin-Woyseth, H. (1998) Environmental considerations in physical planning under different conditions: A comparison of a Polish and a Norwegian municipality, Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 15(2), 57–77. .
- Export Citation
Næss, P., Saglie, I. L., Głowacki, W. & Dunin-Woyseth, H. (1998))| false Environmental considerations in physical planning under different conditions: A comparison of a Polish and a Norwegian municipality, Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 15(2), 57–77. 10.1080/02815739808730447.
Nistor, S. (2001) Romania’s Urban Architectural Heritage: between Neglect and Revitalization, paper presented at ARCCHIP Workshop A03 on Cultural Heritage in Urban Areas in June 2001, Prague/Liblice. Available from: http://www.itam.cas.cz/~arcchip/ariadne_3.shtml [accessed: 18.01.2016].
Ogilvie, M. M. (1897) Die Korallen der Stramberger Schichten, Palaeontographica 7A, 73–282 [in German].
Pirisi, G. & Trócsányi, A. (2014) Shrinking Small Towns in Hungary: The Factors Behind the Urban Decline in “Small Scale”, Acta Geographica Universitatis Comenianae, 58, 131–147.
Pirisi, G. Trócsányi, A. & Makkai, B. (2015) Between shrinking and blooming: the crossroad of small towns’ urbanisation in Hungary, Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia Geographica, 8, 12–28.
Šarišský, M. (2001) Preservation of Cultural Heritage in Urban Areas, paper presented at ARCCHIP Workshop A03 on Cultural Heritage in Urban Areas in June 2001, Prague/Liblice. Available from: http://www.itam.cas.cz/~arcchip/ariadne_3.shtml [accessed:16.05.2016].
Sjöberg, Ö. (2014) Cases onto themselves? Theory and research on ex-socialist urban environments, Geografie, 119 (4), 299–319.
Škrovina, M. (2012) Spracovanie plánu manažmentu pre lokalitu svétoveho dedičstva Bardejov. Plán manažmentu lokality svétoveho dedičstva ako nástroj ochrany, BARDKONTAKT Problematika mestských pamiatkovych center, Zborník prednášok, 20, 56–58 [in Slovak].
Slavík, V. (2002) Small towns of the Slovak Republic within the transformation stage, Acta Facultatis Studiorum Humanitatis et Naturae Universitatis Prešoviensis, Folia Geographica, 5, 146–154.
Soročinová, A. & Soročin, J. (2012) Historické chronogramy versus novodobé reklamy w centrách miest, BARDKONTAKT Problematika mestskych pamiatkových center, Zborník prednášok, 20, 96–104 [in Slovak].
Swieykowski, E. (1903) Studya do historyi sztuki i kultury wieku XVIII w Polsce. Tom 1 Monografia Dukli, Akademia Umiejftnosci, Krakow. Available from: http://pbc.biaman.pl/dlibra/doccontent?id=6894 [accessed: 03.02.2016] [in Polish].
Szlenk-Dziubek, D. Komenda, J. & Głowacki, W., (2005) Miejscowy Plan Zagospodarowania Przestrzennego Miasta Dukla, Institute of Urban Development, Kraków. Available from: http://dukla.e-mpzp.pl/ [accessed: 20.05.2016] [in Polish].
The International Congresses for Modern Architecture (1973) Le Corbusier: The Athens Charter (translated by A. Eardley), Grossman, New York (original work published in 1941).
The Northern Alliance for Sustainability [ANPED] (2011a) Recommendations on creating of the Carpathian Heritage Inventory. Available from http://www.carpathianconvention.org/documents-the-matic-areas.html [accessed: 08.03.2016].
The Northern Alliance for Sustainability [ANPED] (2011b) Carpathian Heritage Inventory. Available from http://www.carpathian-convention.org/carpathian-heritage/ [accessed: 25.02.2016].
Tosics, I. (2005) City development in Central and Eastern Europe Since 1990; The impacts of internal forces [in:] F.E. Ian Hamilton, K. Dimitrovska Andrews & N. Pichler-Milanovič, eds., Transformation of cities in Central and Eastern Europe. Towards globalization, United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 44–78.
Town & Country Planning Association (2012) A vision for rural England TCPA policy statement. TCPA, London.
Turnock, D. (1986) Restructuring the Settlement Pattern of Romania [in:] C. S. Yadav, ed., Urban Planning and Policy part B Cross-cultural Urban Policies, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, 361–390.
Ustawa z dnia 23 lipca 2003 r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami, Dz.U. 2003 nr 162 poz. 1568 [in Polish].
Ustawa z dnia 27 marca 2003 r. o planowaniu i zagospodarowaniu przestrzennym, Dz.U. 2003 nr 80 poz. 717 [in Polish].
Vaishar, A. (2004) Small Towns: an Important Part of the Moravian Settlement System, Dela, 21, 309–317.
Vaishar, A. (2015) Small Towns – Engines of Rural Development in the South-Moravian Region (Czechia): An Analysis of the Demographic Development, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63, 1395–1405.
Walterová, K. (2011) Městská památková rezervace Štramberk-postoje občanů a veřejné správy k regeneraci a významu pro cestovní ruch, bachelor’s thesis, Vysoká Škola Polytechnická Jihlava, Czech Republic. Available from: https://is.vspj.cz/bp/get-bp/student/13613/thema/1188 [accessed: 22.03.2017] [in Czech].
Wróblewski, W., ed., (2004) Tędy szli…: operacja Karpacko-Dukielska – retrospekcja 60 lat później, Ruthenus, Krosno [in Polish].
Zákon České národní rady ze dne 30. března 1987, o státní památkové péči, 20/1987 Sb. (1987) [in Czech].
Zákon z 19 decembra 2001 o ochrane pamiatkového fondu, 49/2002 Coll. (2002) [in Slovak].
Zákon z 27. apríla 1976 o územnom plánovaní a stavebnom, 50/1976 Zb. (1976) [in Slovak].
Zákon ze dne 14. března 2006 o územnlm plánování a stavebním řádu, 183/2006 Sb (2006) [in Czech].
Zamfir, D. Tălăngă, C. & Stoica, I. V. (2009) Romanian small towns searching for their identity, Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 1(1), 41–53.
Žiaran, J. Marek, D. Kovács, D. & Lakata, M. (2007) Územný Plán Mesta Bardejov, Architektonická Kancelária ARKA, spol. s r.o., Košice. Available from: http://www.bardejov.sk/mestsky-urad/uzemny-plan/schvalene-upd [accessed: 17.12.2015].
Zuzańska-Żyśko, E. (2005) Economic Transformation of Small Silesian Towns In the Years 1990–1999, Geographia Polonica, 78(1), 137–149.