ArticlePDF Available

Maintenance for historic buildings: A current perspective

July 2009Structural Survey 27(3):210-229

DOI: 10.1108/02630800910971347

Authors:

Alan Forster

Heriot-Watt University

Brit Anak Kayan

University of Malaya

Download full-text PDF

Citations (63)

References (73)

Figures (1)

Abstract and Figures

Purpose – It is well understood that maintenance is critical to the survival and in‐service use of
any building. Despite recognition that the best way of protecting and maintaining historic
buildings is to undertake a combination of proactive and reactive maintenance, it is rarely
adopted or implemented, and when it is undertaken it often results in varying degrees of
success. Maintenance theory currently exists, but fails to be realised in practical application and
implementation. It is the purpose of this paper to ask why this failure is occurring.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is composed of a critical review of existing
literature, highlighting some of the major issues affecting maintenance implementation. It also
reports the early stages of proposed research ongoing at Heriot‐Watt University. Findings –
Despite recognition in the literature of the need to maintain historic buildings, this review
suggests that the ways in which maintenance is organised and financed often mitigates against
its implementation. In addition, advice to owners of historic buildings could be improved and
there is a shortage of skilled operatives. Originality/value – Unless this situation is improved,
much of our culturally significant buildings will be lost to future generations.
…

Figures - uploaded by Alan ForsterAuthor content

Content may be subject to copyright.

ResearchGate Logo

Discover the world's research

20+ million members

135+ million publications

700k+ research projects

Join for free

Public Full-text 1

Content uploaded by Alan Forster

Author content

Content may be subject to copyright.

Maintenance for historicbuildings: a current perspectiveAlan M. ForsterSchool of the Built

Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, andBrit KayanFaculty of the Built
Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,MalaysiaAbstractPurpose – It is well
understood that maintenance is critical to the survival and in-service use of anybuilding. Despite
recognition that the best way of protecting and maintaining historic buildings is toundertake a
combination of proactive and reactive maintenance, it is rarely adopted or implemented,and
when it is undertaken it often results in varying degrees of success. Maintenance theory
currentlyexists, but fails to be realised in practical application and implementation. It is the
purpose of thispaper to ask why this failure is occurring.Design/methodology/approach – The
paper is composed of a critical review of existing literature,highlighting some of the major
issues affecting maintenance implementation. It also reports the earlystages of proposed
research ongoing at Heriot-Watt University.Findings – Despite recognition in the literature of the
need to maintain historic buildings, this reviewsuggests that the ways in which maintenance is
organised and financed often mitigates against itsimplementation. In addition, advice to owners
of historic buildings could be improved and there is ashortage of skilled
operatives.Originality/value – Unless this situation is improved, much of our culturally
significant buildingswill be lost to future generations.Keywords Building conservation,
Maintenance, HeritagePaper type General reviewIntroductionThe survival of any building is
underpinned by regular maintenance, with recognitionof this made as early as the mid-
nineteenth century by John Ruskin and WilliamMorris. William Morris, founder of the Society for
the Protection of Ancient Buildings(SPAB), had specifically identified maintenance as a method
of retaining the valueembodied in the historic fabric, stating “stave off decay by daily care”
(Society for theProtection of Ancient Buildings, 2008, p. 1). Almost a century and a half
later,maintenance is still accepted as the most sustainable and suitable way to
conservebuildings (Dann and Cantell, 2007, p. 185).Internationally the importance of building
maintenance is well recognised and hasbeen embedded into principal building conservation
legislative frameworks andcharters. The Venice Charter states: “It is essential to the
conservation of monumentsthat they be maintained on a permanent basis” (International
Council on Monumentsand Sites, 1964, p. 1). The Burra Charter (International Council on
Monuments andSites, 1999: 6) clearly concurs with this stating that, maintenance “is
fundamental toconservation and should be undertaken where fabric is of cultural significance
and itsmaintenance is necessary to retain that cultural significance”. Other internationalThe
current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0263-
080X.htmSS27,3210Structural SurveyVol. 27 No. 3, 2009pp. 210-229qEmerald Group Publishing
Limited0263-080XDOI 10.1108/02630800910971347

charters also concur that maintenance is fundamental to conservation (Worthing et al.,2002).On

a national level, English Heritage (Brereton, 1995, p. 7) suggests that “the bestmeans of
ensuring the continued preservation of a building is to carry out regularmaintenance”. Planning
Policy Guidance Note 15 (PPG 15) also makes the case, claimingthat regular maintenance is the
“key to the preservation of historic buildings” (Worthinget al., 2002, p. 295). BS 7913: 1998:8,
The Principles of the Conservation of Historic Buildings,concurs, stating: “systematic care
based on good maintenance and housekeeping is bothcost effective and fundamental to good
conservation” (British Standards Institution, 1998).Benefits of proactive maintenanceThe
relationship between proactive building maintenance and long term cost savinghas been clearly
established by English Heritage in Power of Place (English Heritage,2001). This is reflected in
comments by Maintain Our Heritage (2004, p. 3) indicatingthat “much of the need for capital
expenditure on the historic environments is the resultof poor maintenance”. This statement
recognises that reactive maintenance is notcost-effective when measured against expenditure
for proactive (preventative)maintenance. This relationship is represented graphically in Figure 1,
illustratingthe cost between planned and unplanned maintenance.Maintain Our Heritage
claimed that maintenance is “all too often responsive, notpro-active, sporadic, not systematic, a
low, not a high priority and in many cases it didnot happen at all” (Maintain Our Heritage, 2004, p.
3), whilst Worthing et al. (2002,p. 292) suggest that “very little has been written specifically
dealing with systematicmaintenance of or for historic buildings conservation” and that “there is
no wellestablished academic study or research to ascertain why maintenance is not
widelypractised, disseminated and developed” (Dann and Cantell, 2005, p. 42).The government
clearly accepts that a need to increase awareness is required toshift emphasis in maintenance
from cure to prevention and is reflected in variousFigure 1.Cost relationship betweenplanned
and unplannedsystemsMaintenance forhistoricbuildings211

recent publications (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2004; Worthing et al.,2002; Johns,
2007a; Maintain Our Heritage, 2004, p. 3). The government’s support isfurther emphasised in
the following statement:The Government fully endorses the increasing importance attached to
the preventivemaintenance of historic fabric. In discussion with English Heritage about future
fundingpriorities, it will explore how a shift of emphasis towards preventive maintenance might
bereflected in grant programmes (Maintain Our Heritage, 2004, p. 3).In facilitating this change,
the government indicates that this shift would require leadbodies and local authorities to “set an
example in the conservation of its own extensivehistoric estate’, by completing asset
management audits within the context ofbest-value systems. The aim of this would be to bring
their existing building stock upto an acceptable condition. The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) aims
to encourage this by“increasing its efforts in supporting maintenance regimes” (Maintain Our
Heritage,2004, p. 3).Wider benefits of preventative maintenance include conservation of
historicmaterials, avoidance of disruption to surrounding building fabric and occupiers andthe
minimisation of uncertainty associated with irregular inspection. However,Maintain Our Heritage
(2004) claim that the most significant benefit of systematic andpreventative maintenance is the
retention of cultural value, by prolonging the life of itscomponents as well as minimising the
loss of fabric.Definition of maintenance and conservation principlesThe importance of building
maintenance is embedded into nearly all principaldocumentation and legislation for
conservation, yet a consensus for a definition ofmaintenance has not been fully achieved.Seeley
(1993, p. 1) cites BS 8311, which defines maintenance as “the combination ofall technical and
associated administrative actions to retain an item in, or restore it to, astate in which it can
perform its required function”. A broader definition ofmaintenance has been adopted by Feilden
and Jokilehto (1993, p. 3) as “all practical andtechnical measures to keep the building or site at
a standard that permits enjoyment oftheir cultural significance and resources without damage”.
The Burra Charter(International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1999, p. 2), also utilises
broaderinterpretation for the definition “as a continuous protective care of the fabric,
contentsand setting of a place”, while Dann et al. (1999, p. 143) suggest that it is purposely
to“retain an item or restore to acceptable standard”.It is clear that various definitions have been
utilised to describe maintenance, withsome minor levels of variation. In addition, the various
terms utilised are also relativelynebulous, making objective assessment difficult.Minimal
intervention as a tool for maintenanceIt is clear that retaining historic fabric leads to the
retention of cultural significance,with the most appropriate method to achieve this being to
undertake maintenance on aminimal intervention basis. The primary aim of minimal intervention
is to restraindecay without damaging the building character. Minimal intervention aims to
avoidunsympathetic alteration of important features or prevention of unnecessarydisruption or
destruction of the fabric that gives the significance to the buildings.Minimal intervention can be
considered as “as much as is necessary” (Brereton, 1995,SS27,3212

p. 7; Watt, 1999, p. 234) and “as little as possible” (Feilden, 2003, p. 235).Monumentenwacht (a
subsidised proactive maintenance scheme), which wasestablished and implemented in
Flanders, strongly believes that minimalintervention provides higher survival rates of the fabric
due to reduceddeterioration. This in turn supports the materials’ authenticity and “may reduce
theneed for restoration” (Monumentenwacht Flanders, 2000).Various authors (Feilden, 2003, p.
235; Feilden and Jokilehto, 1993; Worthing andBond, 2008, p. 95) have indicated that minimal
intervention based on maintenance isnot only cost-effective, but it is also the least destructive
approach to conservation.However, Feilden (2003) has argued that “minimal intervention can
only work byutilising regular inspection” (p. 236), and therefore raises questions about the
costassociated with survey and inspection, market viability or subsidy.Distinction between
repair and maintenanceThe Burra Charter suggests that maintenance should be the first priority
and must “bedistinguished from repair because repair involves restoration or
reconstruction”(International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1999, p. 2). This important
distinctionhas been discussed by Worthing et al. (2002), who argue that while repair work
iseffective at “prolonging the life of the element and the building; it will also involvedamage to
the fabric (p. 296). Brereton (1995, p. 2) suggests that in repair works“unnecessary replacement
of historic fabric” may take place, potentially significantlyreducing the value of the building as a
source of historical information. Feilden (2003)believes that a minimum intervention approach
creates least harm to the fabric, andalso clearly enables the distinction between maintenance
and repair to be made. It isevident that repair works pose philosophical questions, such as no
matter howcarefully the repair works are carried out there is always the potential to
seriouslydiminish the building’s authenticity.In addition, budgetary pressures can often conflict
with minimal interventionprinciples, with the motivation to spend budget allocation resulting in
unnecessaryworks being undertaken. The nature of annual budgetary bidding processes in
mostorganisations makes planned maintenance difficult to administer and the resultingrepair
works uneconomical (Mills, 1994; Smith, 2005).Problems with maintenance for historic
buildingsThe following section will investigate problems that affect current practice
formaintenance discussing the main factors in greater depth.Maintenance policy and
proceduresAlthough maintenance is fundamentally good for conservation, it is not reflected
incurrent policy. Maintenance policy is generally poorly integrated, with a lack ofleadership
and/or deviations from procedural systems being a major problem(University of the West of
England, 2003; Dann and Cantell, 2007).As Maintain Our Heritage (2004, p. 9) highlighted, “there
has been lack of leadershipand direction in the promotion of maintenance”. In fact, there is no
clearly establishedpolicy to advise building owners, with much of the maintenance guidance
andinspection work being led by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (Devlin,
2005).Maintenance forhistoricbuildings213

National policies that are supportive of maintenance have been implemented inDenmark and
The Netherlands with a great deal of success, with the integration of anational strategic
maintenance framework clearly paying dividends. That being said,within the UK, maintenance as
a tool for retaining cultural significance appears not tobe highly regarded by conservation
organisations, resulting in problems in thepromotion of new innovative systems. By comparison,
the Dutch have acceptedmaintenance as being the most effective approach to conservation
(Maintain OurHeritage, 2000; Monumentenwacht Nederland, 2008), and have had
considerablesuccess in its implementation.Heritage bodies that claimed to place maintenance
at the centre of their conservationstrategy have generally failed to implement this for their own
listed buildings and it isthe authors’ view that heritage bodies within the UK should be setting an
example ofbest practice planned maintenance by implementing this to their building
stock.Although maintenance is perceived as being simple it is evidently complex at a
strategiclevel and has led to continuingly unclear policy and advice and ultimately to
confusion.Buildings at Risk registersAlthough there are various Buildings at Risk Registers in
the UK their coverage andaccuracy is somewhat patchy and disparate. These systems are
fragmented andtherefore their efficacy is diminished (Maintain Our Heritage, 2004; English
Heritage,2003). This contrasts with Italy and The Netherlands that have one database
system,which is utilised to provide evidence to support the case for maintenance (Maintain
OurHeritage, 2004, p. 14).Conservation plansMaintenance for historic buildings has begun to
receive more attention with thepromotion of “conservation plans”. These were introduced in the
late 1990s (Dann andCantell, 2007) and are implemented as part of the regulatory framework
for grant aidedprojects. A conservation plan’s primary objective is to highlight the significance
of abuilding or place via an assessment of analysis of conservation needs. This isdetermined by
a condition survey, which then forms the basis for a routine buildingmaintenance schedule
(Dann et al., 2002; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors,2008a, b; Historic Scotland,
2000).Clark (2001, p. 56) highlights that “the sensitive repair and maintenance of anhistoric
building and its landscape is not just a matter of specifying traditionalmaterials and techniques.
It requires an appreciation of why the site is significant, howthis significance is embodied in the
fabric and what impact potential repairs mighthave on it”.It is clear from this statement that
repair works may in fact ultimately diminish thesignificance of a building if inadequately or over-
zealously undertaken. For this reason,several authors (Kerr, 2000; Miele, 2005; Gard’ner, 2007)
have proposed that analternative strategy be adopted in which condition surveys form the basis
of earlyidentification of defects and thereby reduce the need for physical interventions.However,
critics of conservation plans question whether these maintenance regimesare implemented,
and a cynical view could be that these reports are only produced toenable the satisfaction of
grant funding and after the project has been completed thereis no ability to check that the
suggested works are regularly undertaken.SS27,3214

Current and best practice maintenanceTo date, efforts to promote and develop best practice
maintenance systems for historicbuilding conservation appear to be wanting (Dann and Cantell,
2005), with all too oftencost-ineffective reactive maintenance being undertaken. Exacerbating
this situation isan absence of accessible and rigorous literature, (Dann and Wood, 2004)
specificallytargeted at maintenance in conservation. One possible exception to this is
EnglishHeritage, which appears to recognise some of the main issues in its publication Powerof
Place (Dann and Cantell, 2007).Though there is increasing awareness about the relationship
between maintenanceand the retention of cultural significance, this does not seem to be
mirrored in the form ofeffective action. Policies developed by organisations do not link
conservation aims andmaintenance activity. According to Maintain Our Heritage (2004, p. 12)
most currentmaintenance strategies are merely “activity plans” rather than long-term plans.
Inaddition, a lack of clear systematic and preventative maintenance strategy isexacerbated by
regionalism in national organisations, and as mentioned, to date very fewnational heritage
organisations have an integrated database for managing maintenanceinformation and none of
them use performance indicators for maintenance management.Current practice within
organisations does not appear to have developed specificprocedures for implementing
systematic preventative maintenance approaches. Toolsthat are commonly used in the main
industry, such as cost-benefit analysis, riskassessment and programme reviews for
maintenance, are rarely considered for historicbuildings. Pricing for conservation maintenance
is further complicated as nohandbooks, manuals or lifecycle data exists in any meaningful
sense, as opposed to themain industry, which has a long tradition of the use of these sorts of
publication.Significant gaps in knowledge, unclear communications and conflicts in
proceduresappear to be prevalent (Hutton and Lloyd, 1993) as maintenance is “rarely covered”
byformal contract, supervision and monitoring (Sˇarisˇsky´, 2000, p. 1). The
limitedconsideration (Shen, 1997) of these issues creates tension between experts
(Pendleburyand Townshend, 1999; Dann and Wood, 2004) and potentially reduces
publicparticipation (Mynors, 2006; Wood, 2006) in interventions to historic buildings.In addition
to the aforementioned, various authors (Sˇarisˇsky´, 2000; Orbas¸li andWhitbourn, 2002; Dann
and Worthing, 2005) have highlighted the problems associatedwith inappropriate repair
strategies for maintenance works. The inadequacies in repairstrategy is a reflection of the lack
of understanding of both professional andcontractors alike at undertaking traditional repairs
that must conform to aphilosophical framework.The literature review has also revealed issues
relating to medium and long-term costallocation of maintenance projects and associated
administration for historic buildingconservation. A lack of interest and poor financial allocation
of money by localauthorities and conservation bodies fails to accommodate the actual
maintenance needsof their buildings, with local authorities having budgets that are significantly
less(Chanter and Swallow, 2007) than what is required to implement proactive systems(Dann
and Cantell, 2007). In addition, maintenance or property management departmentsdo not have
the appropriate status and power to enable redirection of funds to implementthese proactive
systems. This view is shared by Shen (1997) and Dann and Steel (1999)who highlight that
maintenance budget allocations always face a “cut-off line” and inreality, maintenance “falls”
somewhere in the middle of budget priority.Maintenance forhistoricbuildings215

In reality, maintenance is rarely regarded as an important approach to conservinghistoric

buildings, with a considerable number of authors claiming that maintenancereceives negatively
biased judgements. It is believed (Dann and Cantell, 2007, p. 189)that maintenance of historic
buildings is always understated and is considered as a“low-status professional” operation
which “does not gain the attention” that it deserves(Dann and Cantell, 2005, p. 44; Seeley, 1993;
Son and Yuen, 1993; Milne, 1985, p. 2;Wood, 2003a, p. 75; Wood, 2003b). In addition, building
owners have negativeperceptions associated with maintenance as they do not clearly see the
benefits of thisactivity. All too often, maintenance has been described as the “Cinderella” sector
of theconstruction industry (Wood, 2005, p. 291) and, as Feilden (2003, p. 238) highlights,
hasbeen perceived as a “difficult burden”. Other commentators (Dann and Cantell, 2005;Seeley,
1993; Son and Yuen, 1993; Wood, 2003a, p. 75) believe that maintenance isunpopular due to its
unglamorous nature and for that reason is often considered asbeing a slightly inferior activity. It
has been shown that a building’s significance andvulnerability is key to underpinning decisions
for the prioritising of finance and thedevelopment of a maintenance strategy, yet this rarely
appears to be a focus ofdecisions made.Maintenance grants and fiscal incentivesExpense of
repairs is believed by Mynors (2006) and Swallow (1997) to be puttingbuildings at risk (English
Heritage, 1992), with the high cost of building maintenancebeing regarded as a universal issue
(Hutton and Lloyd, 1993; Blanc, 1994; Shen, 1997;Andreasen, 2000). Subsidy or grant aid for
building maintenance for historic buildingsis clearly required to increase uptake and therefore
reduce neglect (Dann et al., 2000).Very little practical or financial assistance is available to
owners of historicbuildings, with current grants being aimed at repairs (or restoration) to listed
buildingsrather than on maintenance. It is well recognised that repair grants are
necessary;however, it negates the financial needs for systematic and preventative
maintenancerequirements for historic buildings. The traditional system of grant aid for
historicbuildings fails to clearly clarify what type of works are fundable, causing confusion.
Inaddition, grant-aided projects are always heavily oversubscribed (Dann et al., 2000) asthe
general public rely heavily upon them to enable works to the fabric (Pickard andPickerill, 2002a,
b).According to Dann and Cantell (2005), the most significant disincentive tosystematic and
preventative maintenance and repairs, is value added tax (VAT,currently 15 per cent in the UK)
on repairs and maintenance works. In contrast, VAT iszero-rated on demolition and alteration
work to listed buildings (Dann and Cantell,2005). This apparently paradoxical situation is
inconsistent with conservationprinciples as it encourages deterioration. In response to this
situation, the Departmentfor Culture, Media and Sport (2004) has recommended relief against
income tax for themaintenance of historic buildings that are open to the public. This is common
practicein many European countries (Maintain Our Heritage, 2000), but unfortunately the
UKgovernment has not yet accepted this recommendation. By comparison, a
considerablenumber of European countries have a maintenance-focused grants system
forindividual owners of listed buildings, providing necessary and welcome fiscal breaks(Dann
and Cantell, 2007; Maintain Our Heritage, 2000). Maintain Our Heritage wasformed to develop
and promote a similar local service as that offered bySS27,3216

Citations (63)

References (73)

... With the historic building repair and maintenance (R&M) sector, recognised as an important
driver for the well-being of a country (UNESCO, 2015); according to Balaras et al., (2005) 50% of
Europe's national wealth is enclosed within the historic built environment, the scale of the
economic, social and importance value of conserving, repairing and maintaining historic
buildings cannot be underestimated. Promoting a proactive and sustainable approach to the
process of historic building R&M has become a cornerstone of not only building conservation
legislative frameworks, charters, and guides within countries worldwide but also for the UK
(Forster and Kayan, 2009). This has led to various pre-emptive historic building maintenance
schemes being positively implemented to stimulate such an objective, such as; the Danish
Centre for Building Storage scheme, commonly acknowledged as the Building Vision and Action
Plan (Michiels, 2013) and the Dutch Monumentenwacht scheme (replicated across Belgium and
Luxembourg); whilst given the scope of the research is on the UK context, and it is estimated 6
million-plus UK pre-1919 historic buildings (traditionally constructed) buildings, albeit, with a
particular focus on Scotland, numerous public and private funded grant schemes are available
to support the cost of conservation-standard repair projects. ...

... Over the course of the past two decades, much debate and discourse have occurred within
the academic literature surrounding a robust definition of repair and maintenance (see Dann,
Worthing, and Bond, 1999;Feilden, 1993;Jokilheto, 1993;Worthing et al., 2002;Worthing, Dann,
and Hills, 2003;Forster and Kayan, 2009). The discussion invariably tends to surround semantics;
surrounding the distinction between maintenance and repair, which makes determining a clear
definition difficult (Forster and Kayan, 2009). ...

... Over the course of the past two decades, much debate and discourse have occurred within
the academic literature surrounding a robust definition of repair and maintenance (see Dann,
Worthing, and Bond, 1999;Feilden, 1993;Jokilheto, 1993;Worthing et al., 2002;Worthing, Dann,
and Hills, 2003;Forster and Kayan, 2009). The discussion invariably tends to surround semantics;
surrounding the distinction between maintenance and repair, which makes determining a clear
definition difficult (Forster and Kayan, 2009). Although ...

A Common Structured Integrated Collaborative Digitised (CrOsS) Framework for the Historic
Building Repair and Maintenance (R&M) Sector

Thesis

Full-text available

Jul 2020

Scott Mcgibbon

View

Show abstract

... The awareness of the building managers and/or owners about the need to maintain their
assets more efficiently has increased over the last years . The maintenance of buildings'
envelope elements is not yet a first concern (Forster and Kayan, 2009;Thomsen and van der
Flier, 2011). Usually, maintenance actions are carried out when the buildings' envelope elements
are already severely degraded, or reactive maintenance actions are performed to react to
failures and do not deal with the causes (Mobley, 2014), thus leading to additional costs and
risks (Dann and Cantell, 2005). ...

... Therefore, the development of more efficient methodologies for the implementation of
strategic planning of maintenance actions is important (Lacasse and Vanier, 1996;Aikivuori,
1999). The existing tools have several limitations (Ashworth, 1996;Sherwin, 2000;Forster and
Kayan, 2009): scarce data about maintenance protocols; poor or non-existent implementation of
strategic procedures; lack of information regarding durability and performance of buildings;
insufficiently accuracy of the existing maintenance policies; and lack of infor-mation about
global costs associated with repairs. This information is extremely relevant to managers,
insurers, owners or users, and allows the adoption of more sustainable and durable solutions at
the design stage and for the definition and implementation of reliable maintenance policies,
enabling a more rational management of the building stock. ...

Condition-Based Maintenance Models for Stone Claddings

Conference Paper

Jan 2020

Cláudia Ferreira

A. Silva

Jorge de Brito

Luis A. C. Neves

View

... Community involvement must also foster a desire for shared learning of relevant knowledge
and skills between local workers and conservators 2. In order that conservation can be
implemented sustainably over time, it is necessary to foster transition from a praxis based on
'one-off' comprehensive restoration work to a system of regular maintenance, based on
preventive care. In fact, while maintenance of buildings is frequently poor or non-existent,
regular implementation would permit a reduction in the costs of intervention (Forster and Kayan
2009), prevent the loss of historical material and lessen the need for new building elements. To
this end community involvement should focus on increasing awareness of the importance of
ongoing care 3. ...

Putting Sustainability into Practice: the use of Locally Available Materials in Conservation

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 2020

Flavia Ravaioli

View

Show abstract

... The so-called Lorenz curve illustrates the typical course of the wear process of building
elements during their operation [26][27][28]. In this process, we can distinguish the following
three basic intervals of a building's age t and the corresponding intervals of technical wear Zt-
Figure 1: ...
Intensity of the Formation of Defects in Residential Buildings with Regards to Changes in Their
Reliability

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2020

Jarosław Konior

Marek Sawicki

Mariusz Szóstak

View

Show abstract

... Private owners of the historic assets also have negative views on this because they do not
clearly see the benefits of this activity. Despite the significance and vulnerability of a building
are the key to supporting decisions in setting financial priorities and developing a maintenance
strategy, yet this rarely seems to be a focal point of the decisions taken (Forster and Kayan,
2009). ...

Management of Maintenance Costs in Cultural Heritage

Chapter

Aug 2020

Giovanna Acampa

Claudia Mariaserena Parisi

View

Show abstract

... This maintenance action allows delaying or mitigating the degradation process, while
avoiding compromising important characteristics of the cladding, and preventing unnecessary
risks [67]; and, iii) Combination of cleaning operations, minor intervention and total replacement
(MS3). The inclusion of cleaning operations in MS3 represents the main maintenance activity
applied in claddings [68]. ...

Definition of a condition-based model for natural stone claddings

Article

Jul 2020
Cláudia Ferreira

A. Silva

Jorge de Brito

Inês Flores-Colen

View

Show abstract

... It goes beyond the assessment of state of conservation to include periodic assessments of
risks and threats. It is meant to facilitate early damage detection by addressing first the
deterioration causes so that intervention can be kept to a minimum (Forster, Kayan, 2009). ...

VALIDATION OF THE BCH-ONTOLOGY

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2020

O. ZalameaG. García

View

Show abstract

... A corrective approach encompasses risks for owners/users, since only the works needed to
correct a given anomaly are performed in failure conditions, sometimes without intervening on
the causes. Moreover, usually, this approach also involves high costs associated to urgent
repairs (Vanier, 2001;Forster and Kayan, 2009). ...

The impact of imperfect maintenance actions on the degradation of buildings’ envelope

components

Article

Jun 2020

Cláudia Ferreira

A. Silva

Jorge de Brito

Inês Flores-Colen
View

Show abstract

... On the other hand, several studies have been conducted to highlight the significance of
conservation and restoration of heritage buildings and emphasize the role of technology in
developing advanced conservation methods. Forster and Kayan (2009) highlighted major issues
affecting the maintenance implementation of historic buildings. They suggested the ways in
which maintenance is to be organized and financed. ...

Resolving deterioration of heritage building elements using an expert system

Article

Jun 2020

Mohamed M. Marzouk

Maryam Elsharkawy

Pakinam Elsayed

Aya Eissa

View

Show abstract

... However, the issue of heritage conservation has been broadly studied since 19 th century.
The theoretical approach, in relative literature, arising from the awareness of heritage's
degradation at global level, includes the theory of "adaptive reuse", established by Violletle-Duc
in 19th century and studied extensively since then (Plevoets and Cleempoel 2012;Mehr 2019),
the theory of "maintainance" instead of "restoration", as expressed later, by L. Ruskin and W.
Morris and of "preservation" as documented by P. Geddes (Forster and Kayan 2009;Orbaşli
2017), as well as the plethora of Conventions and Legislations documenting the importance of
conservation set on a value-based approach, in the 20th century (ICOMOS 1999(ICOMOS ,
2008(ICOMOS /2010UNESCO 1972UNESCO , 2005, which led to the OUV concept, in 1972. The
development of tourism, in the 20 th century, gave a new boost to the issue of heritage
preservation. ...

Social transformations of cultural heritage: from benefaction to sponsoring: Evidence from

mountain regions in Greece

Article

May 2020J MT SCI-ENGL

Stella GiannakopoulouDimitris Kaliampakos

View

Show abstract

Show more

Recommendations

Discover more

Project

Innovation in Repair and Maintenance (R&M) practice of historic buildings

Scott Mcgibbonmohamed abdel wahabming sun

The purpose of this research is to Develop a Structured & Holistic Digital Workflow framework
for Process Improvement in the R&M of Historic Buildings with the overarching aim to address
the questi ... [more]

View project

Project

An assessment of binder leaching in traditional mortars for mass masonry

Alan Forster

Funder: Engineering & Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) EP/ G064865/1. o Duration:
3 years, 2009-12 o Award Value: £150,000.00 o Position PI: (100%) Context: The research
investigated th ... [more]

View project

Project

Lime-Quest Project: ”Technical and environmental performance framework for regionally

sourced lime mortars: A comparative analysis method

Alan Forster

Clare Torney

Funder: Technology Strategy Board (TSB) – Knowledge Transfer o Duration: 18 months, 2013-
14 o Award Value: £135,000.00 o Position PI: (100%) Context: Knowledge Transfer Partnership
(KTP) collabora ... [more]

View project

Project
Historic digital survey I: Investigating Stereo-Vision based Videogrammetry for Cultural Heritage
Building Fabric Condition Survey

Alan Forster

Frédéric Bosché

Enrique Valero[...]Alick Leslie

Funder: Historic Scotland o Duration: 6 Months, starting February 2015 o Award Value:
£80,000.00 (FEC) o Position CI (30%) Context: Pilot study of drone based building fabric
assessment

View project

Article

Full-text available

Relationships along the organic supply chain

March 2019 · British Food Journal

Haley Baron

Carolyn Dimitri

Purpose Since the implementation of the National Organic Program in 2002, the US organic
market has grown in both scale and scope, consequently placing pressure on the organic supply
chain. The crucial role of matching consumer demand for final products with farm-level
production falls to certified organic handlers, the intermediary firms that process, manufacture
and distribute organic products. ... [Show full abstract]View full-text

Article

Action Research: An appropriate design for research in nursing?

January 1994 · Educational Action Research

Shelagh SparrowJane Robinson

Action research is currently a fashionable research design for investigating nursing. This paper
examines some of the reasons for this recent interest and discusses some of the issues
surrounding the use of this research approach within the British National Health Service which
at present is undergoing major organisational change. The use of action research to reduce the
theory/practice gap is ... [Show full abstract]Read more

Article

An evaluation of an internal audit on student feedback within a British university: A quality

enhanc...

February 2010 · Quality Assurance in Education

Ken Reid

Purpose – Final year students attending British universities now complete an annual
questionnaire to assess their views on their learning experiences of higher education (HE) from
a variety of perspectives. They undertake this process as part of the National Student Survey
(NSS). These data are then collated and an annual report with associated league tables is
produced. Swansea Metropolitan ... [Show full abstract]Read more

Book

Full-text available

Gender Equity Insights 2018: Inside Australia’s Gender Pay Gap

March 2018

Rebecca Cassells

Alan S Duncan

This third report in the BCEC|WGEA Gender Equity Insights series extends and strengthens the
evidence base around gender pay gaps and how these have changed over time across
Australian workplaces. The report uses unique data reported to the WGEA, capturing 4 million
employees and over 11,000 employers in the 2016-17 reporting period. It builds on the first and
second in the series, with updated ... [Show full abstract]View full-text

Last Updated: 04 Dec 2020

ResearchGate Logo

Join for free

Login

App Store

Company

About us

News

Careers
Support

Help Center

Business solutions

Advertising

Recruiting

© 2008-2021 ResearchGate GmbH. All rights reserved.

TermsPrivacyCopyrightImprint