Skip to main content

Cookie settings

We use cookies to ensure the basic functionalities of the website and to enhance your online experience. You can configure and accept the use of the cookies, and modify your consent options, at any time.

Essential

Preferences

Analytics and statistics

Marketing

Home Activity Log in
Home
/ Processes /
OpenHeritage Observatory Cases
Processes / OpenHeritage Observatory Cases

Help

A participatory process is a sequence of participatory activities (e.g. first filling out a survey, then making proposals, discussing them in face-to-face or virtual meetings, and finally prioritizing them) with the aim of defining and making a decision on a specific topic.

Examples of participatory processes are: a process of electing committee members (where candidatures are first presented, then debated and finally a candidacy is chosen), participatory budgets (where proposals are made, valued economically and voted on with the money available), a strategic planning process, the collaborative drafting of a regulation or norm, the design of an urban space or the production of a public policy plan.

Process phases

During this first phase OH Partners were asked to submit 'hypotheses' or proposals for research and because the partners are experts in various fields and practices such as public policy, academic disciplines: Architects, administrators, financial managers, sociologists, heritage conservationists, policy experts, etc. Drawing on this broad spectrum of expertise in the hypotheses generation, the aim is to increase the impact and relevance of OpenHeritage insights in this spectrum of work and knowledge. 

This survey serves to complete the information around interviews conducted during the visits to partner sites with comparable and quantitative information that will feed a database about community-led urban regeneration projects across Europe. Observatory Cases were invited to fill this survey as part of their contribution to the research. 

OH partners were invited to vote and comment on proposals i.e hypotheses. They voted on proposals based on whether their on activities within the respective labs supported the statement in the proposal text. This process took place in Barcelona in person during the consortium meeting using 'dotmocracy' and was later digitized within Decidim.

This phase is the OH Berlin Consortium meeting were partners gathered in person to collaborate and discuss how to progress with their labs.

  1. Markus - Hypotheses (10 mins)

  2. Presentation of OC survey + Bratislava video (20 mins) 

  3. Status of OCs (20 mins) quick update on where we stand with the OCs

  4. Work on OC challenges 

  •    teamwork identifying challenges in building the OC cases (5 mins) 

  •    gathering and clustering challenges (15 mins) 

  •    vote for 3 most relevant challenges (5 mins) 

  •    World Café - 3 rounds - 3 tables focusing on challenges (30mins) 

  •    Summary and wrap-up (10 mins) 

OpenHeritage Observatory Cases

#observatorycases Identifying innovative practices of adaptive heritage re-use in Europe

About this process

Observatory Cases are ongoing, advanced experiments of adaptive re-use of heritage sites. They are practices that present prototypes of innovation in the realm of community/stakeholder involvement, resource integration, financial management or having an area-based, territorial approach. Many of them have a deep social mission, aiming to increase the social integration of vulnerable people, and the re-use is regarded as part of creating a more sustainable, eco-friendly way of development. OCs are important knowledge resources and they present a crucial link between analysis and practice.

Before the consortium meeting in Barcelona, OH partners were asked in November 2018 to send in ‘hypotheses’ to prepare and explore the ideas around Open Heritage. These ‘hypotheses’ recorded as proposals within this process were used to support ongoing academic research as well as clarify what underlying assumptions and knowledge partners bring to heritage work. However, much of this took place before the Open Heritage Decidim platform was up and running. So hypotheses were sent through email and voted on through a physical in person process using ‘dotmocracy’ where participants (partners) voiced their votes through putting dots on the hypotheses or proposals that resonated best with how they thought about the Open Heritage project. Digitizing this process on Decidim, we want to record our history and experience as accurately as possible for greater transparency as well as to share knowledge about our beginnings in creating collective decision making processes.

Reference: OH-PART-2019-03-12

Confirm

Please log in

The password is too short.

Share