The WG reviews literatures on the link between UBH, CH and sustainable tourism, urban and rural regeneration, creative industry development, cultural entrepreneurship. It defines the methodological baseline for the community-based development strategies, identifies main research questions, and contributes to the case studies assessment preparation. Then, it analyses case studies results, compares them to the baseline, and then revises methodology, questions and results. Considering the WG nature, it privileges the interaction with local firms, practitioners, and customers, taking into account case studies and local contexts’ diversities, especially in terms of economic, institutional and human capital. Mechanisms for collaborative schemes will also be studied to understand the nature and the role of each partner involved in the process of building. The WG contributes to the training school modules preparation by revising the material on a yearly basis and finally publishing the results. 

Members

• Teresa Bahillo León (ES)
  
• Daniel Barrera Fernández (MX)
• Maricruz Cádiz Gómez (ES)
• Shirley Cefai (MT)
• Elisa Conticelli (IT)
• Alvaro Diaz (PT)
• Luisa Errichiello (IT)
• Lucilla P. Favino (IT)
• Andrea Galli (IT)
• César García (ES)
• Laura Genovese (IT)
• Klodiana Gorica (AL)
• Marco Hernández-Escampa (MX)
• Dejan Iskra (SI)
• Vladan Jeremic (RS)
• Amber Keurntjes (MT)
• Kinga Kimic (PL)
• Sanja Kovačić (RS)
• Oana Luca (RO)
• Dunja Mahne (SI)
• Ernesto Marcheggiani (IT)
• Ognen Marina (MK)
• Sanjin Mihelić (HR)
• Zoran Milovanovic (RS)
• Maria Murillo Romero (ES)
• Andrea Murzi (IT)
• Rita Occhiuto (BE)
• Francesco Paci (IT)
• Angel Pascual Martinez Soto (ES)
• Felicia Peronace (IT)
• Tommasina Pianese (IT)
• Naci Polat (TR)
• George Papagiannitsis (GR)
• Ina Šuklje Erjavec (SI)
• Carry van Lieshout (UK)
• Sasa Zecevic (BA)

WG Meetings results

Ancona, June 6-7th

WG3 meeting, leaded by Shirley Cefai and Ernesto Marcheggiani, discussed about the action goals, and in particular the issue of the survey and how the Action should progress with filling in the survey. Discussions went in the direction of how the case studies should be selected and what information should be given. Aim of meeting was meant to be directed towards what the theoretical framework of WG3 should be. The WG3 will continue communication via skype so as to formulate the theoretical framework. In particular, the main problems are:

• Clarify the role and work of WG3
• Problems of communication – work on glossary so as to have clear communication and understanding between individuals
• WG3 – Reuse and valorization – How will values be attributed?
• Discussing sites of Outstanding Universal Value, then authenticity is crucial
• Queries re whether case studies will include sites from Asia and other continents – this will be influenced by the different cultures and hence how values like authenticity will be influenced.

Some proposed sentences to develop into themes up-taken by WG3:

• WG3 governs ACTION’s work on valorisation of UBH to foster community’s benefit on regeneration, creativity, social innovation through tourism (Klodiana)
• WG3 governs action’s work on regeneration of UBH significations to foster forward-looking strategies to re-orient cultural visions of reuse/relaunch/regeneration (Rita)
• WG3 governs action’s work on interpretation of UBH to foster conservation, reuse and creative solutions to benefit communities by soliciting tourism and economic improvement (Laura).
• WG3 governs Action’s work on regeneration of UBH to foster community’s benefit through tourism, creativity and social innovation (Sanjin)

Working Document

Presentation WG3 Ancona Summary of WG3