12. Climate change and the irreplaceability of the cultural environment –
the non-encountering phenomena? / 
Ilmastonmuutos ja kulttuuriympäristön korvaamattomuus – kohtaamattomia ilmiöitäkö? (ENG/FIN)

Torstai 27.8. klo 13:30-15:00 & 15:30-17:00 / Thursday 27th August 13:30-15 &15:30-17:00.

What role can the cultural environment have in mitigating climate change? Can the
cultural environment be seen as an ecosystem service in planning and as a resource in
sustainable development? Even though ecosystem services are an established
approach, cultural services and the role of the cultural environment have been largely
bypassed. How is it possible to develop methods of measuring the values and benefits
of the cultural environment in the ecosystem thinking? How to negotiate the benefits in
complicated situations of re-use and regeneration projects?

In 2014 the Finnish government resolved the first Cultural Environment Strategy, which
aimed at deepening people’s appreciation of their local environment and inspiring them
to actively contribute to improving it. The strategy was prepared through widespread
cooperation coordinated by the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of
Education and Culture. The implementation plan put the target state for 2020: to
recognise the possibilities of the cultural environment to restrain and adapt to the
climate change.
Therefore, the session calls for the newest research and ideas that can
contribute to a broader comprehension of the phenomena.

The session will address a wide scope of research, case studies and methodologies
related to the overlapping of cultural heritage and ecosystem services in climate change
mitigation. The aim is to gain a multidisciplinary approach and analyse the connection
between irreplaceable cultural heritage and ecosystem services from different angles.

Both theoretical and practical views discussing cultural environments in a climate
change context will be beneficial for further research. We also welcome challenging
thoughts on the irreplaceability of cultural heritage and cultural environment.

The abstracts and presentations here can be either in English or in Finnish. The session
will be bilingual. (FIN/ENG)

The chairs and organisers of the session are:

Ranja Hautamäki, D.Sc., Associate Professor in Landscape Architecture, Aalto
University

Helena Lonkila, PhD, University Teacher in Cultural Environment Studies,
University of Jyväskylä

Egle Pilipaviciute, Architect and USP Student, Aalto University

Helena Teräväinen, Architect and D.Sc. (Urban Planning), Aalto University

Esitykset / Presentations:

Sessions I

Torstai 27.8. klo 13:30-15:00 / Thursday 27th August  13:30-15:00.

1. Kuinka korvata korvaamaton?

Helena Teräväinen, Department of Architecture, Aalto University.

2. Kulttuuriympäristö, kulttuuri ja kompensaatio

Helena Lonkila, University teacher, Cultural Environment Studies (KUOMA), Art History, Museology, University of Jyväskylä.

3. Architectural quality, cultural values and compensation – Two cases in Gothenburg

Magnus Rönn, Chalmers University of Technology.

4. Cultural built environment meeting climate change

Eeva Aarrevaara, Principal lecturer, Faculty of Technology, Lahti University of Applied Sciences.

Paul Carroll, Lecturer, Faculty of Technology, Lahti University of Applied Sciences.

Sessions II

Torstai 27.8. klo 15:30-17:00 / Thursday 27th August 15:30-17:00.

5. Rethinking Repair in a Broken World

Iida Kalakoski, University Teacher, Department of Architecture, Tampere University.

6. Synergies between urban regeneration strategies and migrant communities
in cultural settings

Eglė Pilipavičiūtė, Architect and Master’s Student in Urban Studies and Planning, Aalto University.

7. Discussion and conclusions

Ranja Hautamäki, D.Sc., Associate Professor in Landscape Architecture, Aalto
University.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

1. Kuinka korvata korvaamaton?

Helena Teräväinen, Department of Architecture, Aalto University.

Suomen Kulttuuriympäristöstrategiassa 2020 kulttuuriympäristö nähdään voimavarana taistelussa ilmastonmuutosta vastaan. Jotta voidaan kehittää uusia ratkaisuja, pitää tehdä tutkimusta kulttuuriympäristön lähtökohdista ja yrittää osoittaa kulttuuriympäristön arvo muutenkin kuin ”korvaamattomana”.

Toisin sanoen pyrkiä löytämään keinoja tai tapoja, miten tuo arvo voidaan ottaa mukaan vertailuun, kun tehdään eritasoisia suunnittelu- ja kaavoitusratkaisuja. Kulttuuriympäristöllä – samoin kuin luonnonympäristölläkin- on arvoa muillekin kuin omistajilleen, on yhteistä nautintaarvoa, esimerkiksi kulttuurimaiseman esteettiset ja visuaaliset käyttöarvot, paikan identiteetti ja kulttuuriympäristön kantama kollektiivinen muisti vaikuttamassa ihmisten juurtumiseen ja kotoutumiseen.

Onko kunnossapito ja korjaaminen aina vain omistajan vastuulle, ja kuinka olisi mahdollista jotenkin osoittaa nuo sosiokulttuuriset arvot, jopa terveys- ja virkistysvaikutukset ja jakaa niistä vastuuta tasapuolisesti yhteiskunnassa? Kuinka suunnittelussa ja kaavoituksessa voidaan löytää lievennys- ja kompensaatiomahdollisuuksia kulttuuriympäristöä koskevissa ratkaisuissa? Kuinka on mahdollista käyttää vertailukohtana ja esimerkkinä luonnonympäristöä ja siihen liittyvää ekosysteemiajattelua? – eikö silloin pitäisi pystyä osoittamaan jollain tavalla tämä sekä siihen liittyvät kustannusvastuut samassa kehikossa missä esim. ekosysteemipalveluissa lasketaan luonnonsuojelua?

Tutkimuskysymys: Kuinka kulttuuriympäristö ja sen korvaamattomat arvot saadaan selkeämmin näkyviin taistelussa ilmastonmuutosta vastaan, kun käytetään kehyksenä ekosysteemipalveluita? Kuinka kulttuuriperinnön kompensaatiomenettelyä/ tai lievennysmenettelyä voidaan kehittää siinä arvottamisen ja yhteensovittamisen työkaluna? Ympäristö- ja luontovaikutusten kompensoiminen on Suomessa toistaiseksi vähän tunnettu ja käytetty mekanismi. Se on kuitenkin noussut keskusteluissa viime aikoina esiin julkisen sektorin etsiessä vaihtoehtoisiamuotoja hidastaa luonnon monimuotoisuuden köyhtymistä ja vähentää lisääntyvään maankäytön aiheuttamia negatiivisia vaikutuksia. Kompensaatio voi tarjota työkalun lisäresurssien saamiseksi luonnon monimuotoisuuden ja ekosysteemipalveluiden turvaamiseen ja haitallisten ympäristövaikutusten vähentämiseen.

2. Kulttuuriympäristö, kulttuuri ja kompensaatio

Helena Lonkila, University teacher, Cultural Environment Studies (KUOMA), Art History, Museology, University of Jyväskylä.

Suomalaisessa ja pohjoismaisessa kontekstissa kulttuuriympäristö on hallinnon ja tutkimuksen tarpeisiin luotu konsepti, jonka avulla kehitetään sekä arjen toimintaympäristöjen että erityisten kulttuuriperinnöksi valittujen kohteiden suojelua, vaalivaa käyttöä ja kehittämistä.

Kulttuuriympäristö sisältää kolme limittäistä näkökulmaa, joita ovat arkeologinen kulttuuriperintö, kulttuurimaisema (perinnebiotoopit ja perinnemaisemat) ja rakennettu kulttuuriympäristö. Kulttuuriympäristön käsitteellä ei kuitenkaan viitata ainoastaan näihin konkreettisiin ja eri ajallista kerroksista koostuviin ympäristöihin, vaan kulttuuriympäristön käsite sisältää myös ihmisen ja luonnon välisen vuorovaikutuksen ja dynaamisen suhteen.

Työryhmässä tavoitteena on saada kulttuuriympäristön ja ekosysteemiajattelu käsitteet kohtamaan, ja kysytään voidaan kulttuuriympäristö nähdä myös ekosysteemi ajattelun mukaisena kestävän kehityksen resurssina. Omassa esityksessäni kysyn, kuinka kulttuurin ja kulttuuriympäristön välinen suhde tulisi kestävän kehityksen viitekehyksessä ymmärtää?

Esitykseni pohjautuu Dessein ym. (2015) esittämälle kulttuurisen kestävyyden kolmijaolle, jonka jäsentää kulttuurista kestävyyttä autonomisena osa-alueena, viestinnällisenä prosessina ja holistisena maailmankuvana.

3. Architectural quality, cultural values and compensation – Two cases in Gothenburg

Magnus Rönn, Chalmers University of Technology.

The presentation deals with exploitation and preservation in a selection of detailed development plans that include architectural qualities and cultural values in Gothenburg. The focus is on how compensation actions are expressed in detailed development plans. The planning and designing of detailed development plans for areas of Gothenburg with heritage values ofnational interest are investigated through case studies.

In the comprehensive plan the city of clearly support the use of compensation in planning processes through voluntary agreements with the developer. However, heritage consultants hired for investigate qualities and values at sites have not refereed the comprehensive plan in their reports.

The objective for the presentation is to investigate, analyze, and discuss compensation in the planning processes of sites with appointed cultural values. The overall goal is to develop knowledge of how key players understand the heritage and architectural qualities in detailed development plans. The research method is based on cases studies. In the presentation are: the extension of the library at Götaplatsen and a new house for student apartments in Norra Guldheden.

Detailed development plans seen as products have compensation measures embedded in the design regulations. They are demand-oriented to both land-use and architectural design. This is “hard compensation measures” based on regulations. Compensation is also expressed by changes through opposition from key actors, which results in a kind of “soft compensation measures” hidden in processes. The City Planning Authority eliminates criticism by changing the detailed development plan according to values and qualities protected by key players. The steering objective is make the plot available for exploration.

4. Cultural built environment meeting climate change

Eeva Aarrevaara, Principal lecturer, Faculty of Technology, Lahti University of Applied Sciences.

Paul Carroll, Lecturer, Faculty of Technology, Lahti University of Applied Sciences.

This presentation deals with cultural built environment as a valuable resource considering the service it produces in the environment and its inhabitants. The relatively low amount of culturally valuable built environments and buildings in Finland enhances the urgent challenge to preserve them. Cultural buildings also contain structures which bind coal from the atmosphere – a viewpoint crucial in the discussion of building sector future challenges and climate change mitigation goals. As we understand the focus in building trade is still very much concentrated on new structures instead of adaptation of suitable renovation methods in older buildings. The presentation will discuss our research connected with the increasing pressure climate change is causing to cultural buildings. Philips (2015) has introduced the concept of adaptive capacity of cultural heritage under the impacts of climate change. For example, both freeze-thaw cycles and wet frost, which are common in Nordic countries, are causing more damages to cultural built environment currently. Our research is part of the emerging research area analyzing and describing the climate change-related impacts to cultural heritage and. We are also interested how these issues are considered by professionals in preparing preservation plans for cultural areas as well as in urban planning processes. We are preparing an article facing this topic and based on a questionnaire for urban planning professionals in different countries

5. Rethinking Repair in a Broken World

Iida Kalakoski, University Teacher, Department of Architecture, Tampere University.

Built heritage is a subject to variety of processes of change and transformation in times of the ecological crisis. In this presentation I discuss the concept of “broken world” in relation to architectural conservation. These approaches work for me as a framework to study “brokenness” as a broad societal and ecological question, which brings together architectural conservation and ecological crisis through an amplified interest in maintenance and repair.

Undoubtedly, there are things that architectural conservation could learn from the broken world thinking and vice versa. Also, current interest in combining the themes of sustainability and built heritage might be a way to find heavier arguments to support the agenda of architectural conservation, which often seems to suffer from the softness of the argumentation in comparison to e.g. economic arguments that are, in some cases, used to support demolition and other destructive practices

6. Synergies between urban regeneration strategies and migrant communities
in cultural settings

Eglė Pilipavičiūtė, Architect and Master’s Student in Urban Studies and Planning, Aalto University.

Politic-economic situations, wars and environmental changes influence migration. In addition, climate change challenges the survival of regions and societies and UN forecasts that migration will hit globally, with 25 million to 1 billion environmental migrants by 2050. This pressure of displacement will concern local cultures, their heritage and will change its identity.

Current cases indicate that migrants tend to create new relations with the heritage of the hosting countries: inhabiting and revitalising neglected historical villages legally or by squatting, reusing archaeological sites as shelters and hiding places, or starting illegal profiting and looting. Some of these newly created relations, together with existing international networks of migrants can benefit depopulated and abandoned areas by revitalizing societal, economic ties and cultural heritage usage.

Meanwhile, governments are defying integration policies which are not always thorough and just. Furthermore, city municipalities are dealing with constant neglection and decay of nonresilient areas and urban structures, therefore failing to acknowledge and combine migration policies together with regeneration strategies. Can migrant communities be the driver of change in urban regeneration projects in cultural environments?

To draw a clearer understanding on the phenomena and answer the research question, I will conduct an extensive research on previous urban regeneration projects of cultural environments, especially the ones involving migrant or refugee communities. Two ways of involvement will be drawn: inclusion of different cultures as a participation in the planning process, and exclusion – when migrant groups are intentionally removed or “hidden” from the projected outcome.

7. Discussion and conclusions

Ranja Hautamäki, D.Sc., Associate Professor in Landscape Architecture, Aalto
University.