Innocastle Baseline Survey 2 3

1 INNOCASTLE BASELINE SURVEY 2 3 This publication only reflects the author’s views and the programme authorities are not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein This document and the baseline survey has been drafted by the School of Arts - KASK of HOGENT University of Applied Sciences and Arts, one of the five partners in the Innocastle project. Part 1 and 2 draw from the baseline survey of each partner as well as the study visits, thematic seminars and different discussions. In part 3 each partner developed their own chapter, based on the framework of the baseline survey. 4 5 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT This document is a search of common ground through four regional zooms. It is divided in three parts. INTRODUCTION p.7 IN SEARCH OF… In the first part a comparison is made between the regions by looking at the data and knowledge collected during the project. The first chapter is structured along the four strands of the methodology 1. ANALYSIS p.22 PART I and analyses the regions, rural estates, policy instruments and stakeholders. The second chapter IN SEARCH OF… p.21 2. THEMATIC EXPLORATIONS p.60 explores the challenges and potentials of rural estates by looking into the three themes of the project: ‘governance & partnerships’, ‘economic development’ and ‘promotion & visibility’. …COMMON GROUND In the second part a common ground is developed. In chapter three the different historical castles, 3. FIVE FUTURE-PROOF manors and estates in the participating regions are defined as one type of heritage with specific PART II CHARACTERISTICS p.100 characteristics. It is a tentative proposal intended to open the debate on the shared qualities of these ... COMMON GROUND p.91 sites across Europe. In the fourth chapter the common ground is made explicit by translating the 4. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS p.112 needs of the different sites into 13 shared policy recommendations. These recommendations are intended to help increase the development possibilities of this European heritage type on a national and international level. 5. CENTER REGION ROMANIA p.134 FOUR REGIONAL ZOOMS PART III The third part of this document collects the four chapters drafted by the different regions as part 6. WEST FLANDERS BELGIUM p.170 of the baseline survey. Each chapter within this section groups basic information along the four FOUR REGIONAL ZOOMS p.131 strands of the baseline methodology as well as information on the learning cases and first thoughts 7. BADAJOZ SPAIN p.210 on the development of the local action plans. Together, they form the solid base for the comparison between the different regions found in section one and for the development of the action plans to 8. GELDERLAND THE NETHERLANDS p.244 improve the preservation, transformation and exploitation of rural estates in each region. COLOPHON p.274 6 7 INTRODUCTION This document is the result of the baseline survey executed within the scope of the Innocastle project. It is an exploration of the rural estates - historical castles, manors and estates - as well as the policies and actors that influence these sites in four European regions. The study takes a forward looking approach to rural estates by identifying and exploring the future potential of these sites and the elements influencing that potential. As such it forms a basis for improving policies in the four regions to better support the preservation, transformation and exploitation of this heritage towards the future. By exploring the similarities and differences between these regions it as well tries to find common ground between them and get a better understanding of this heritage in a broader European perspective. 8 9 The project regions are the Center region in Romania, West Flanders in Belgium, Badajoz in Spain, Gelderland in the Netherlands. In the UK the National Trust functioned as a knowledge partner. 10 11 ABOUT THE PROJECT Innocastle is an Interreg Europe funded project RURAL ESTATES OBJECTIVE running from mid-2018 to the end of 2022. The central issue addressed is that in most At the core of the Innocastle project lie The overall objective of Innocastle is European countries, current policies towards the the many historical castles, manors and estates to ensure the sustainable preservation of preservation, transformation and exploitation which can be found in the different partner rural estates in four participating regions. By of historic castles, manors and estates are regions as well as the rest of Europe. Within this developing and supporting the implementation outdated and do not reflect their real needs document, these three notions are consequently of four action plans targeting four specific policy and opportunities. There is a need for better referred to as ‘rural estates’. Within this project instruments addressing these sites, Innocastle and more integrated governance, a better this refers to a historical, multifunctional, rural will remodel current policies to better reflect the understanding of the economic possibilities and or peri-urban entity composed of different parts trends and future requirements such as more better promotion and visibility for these historic which was historically managed as a unity and place-based approaches, the need for economic sites. incorporated living quarters for the landlord. and environmental resilience, and multi-actor involvement. From a historical perspective it is not correct to PARTNERS group these three notions into the overarching Innocastle’s approach centres around three main concept of rural estates. As however explained activities which together form the interregional The project is a collaborative effort of in chapter 2 of this document the reason to do learning of the project: five partners who have worked in five regions this is inherently future oriented. Referring to • Development of a joint baseline survey across Europe on the topic of rural estates. the different sites as either a castle or manor on the preservation, transformation Four partners worked within the project on a house for example points towards the difference and exploitation policies and practices region and instrument while the National Trust between the two. These differences are however based on a common methodology. functioned as knowledge partner. mainly historical or architectural and obliterate Analysing the current status of heritage the many similarities these sites have when policies in the partner regions. considering the potential they have for us now • Organisational learning through study The five partner organisations of the project. and in the future. visits to each participating region. These study visits consist of visiting inspirational sites in each country, The National Institute for Heritage in Romania collecting transferable good practices, a The School of Arts-KASK of the HOGENT University of Applied Science and Arts in Belgium thematic seminar based on local needs, The Provincial government of Badajoz in Spain, a peer review, a participant satisfaction The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty in the United Kingdom survey and a learning report to ensure The Province of Gelderland in the Netherlands the proper documentation of all study visits. • A regional action plan to improve the targeted policy instruments of each partner based on the input collected in the baseline survey, the study visits, the peer reviews and regional stakeholder meetings. 12 13 METHODOLOGY FOUR STRANDS OF THE DATA CHALLENGES METHODOLOGY The data collecting along these four strands Due to these difficulties this document cannot A methodology was developed in the proved difficult for many reasons: be read as a full baseline survey in which an first semester of the project which combined • Readily available quantitative data on overarching set of data is collected to function as the collection of qualitative and quantitative rural estates is almost non-existent and full comparison between regions and between data. These data have been collected along the scope of the project did not allow start and finish of the project. The document four strands which guided us to a better to collect large sets of data. The data can however be understood as an exploratory understanding as well as to the development of sets that were available are incomplete research giving insight into the different regions the local action plans. What are the specificities or not standardised. and the striking similarities and differences of each region, the condition of the rural • The difference between the rural between them. estates, the policy contexts in which they find estates in the four participating As such these challenges had their value as they themselves and the stakeholders involved? While regions is huge. The data that could be were the starting point of many discussions this methodology is structured around these partially collected on the rural estates leading to insights and policy recommendations four strands, understanding their interaction is revealed large differences between the described in this document. crucial. Transversal moments within the process regions. The lack of further detailed as well as the study visits bring these four information hindered a full quantitative strands together. comparison. • The four target policy instruments are from a different category and all have a different objective. While it is valuable to understand the different approaches it makes difficult a more detailed comparison. Relevant information for one instrument either

Load more