Towards a Systematic Approach to Digital Technologies for Heritage Conservation. Insights from Jordan

1 Introduction: Heritage Conservation and Digital Resources: An Overview. Research Problem and Aim of this Study

There is increasing agreement in international discourse on the crucial role cultural heritage in contributing to the creation of sustainable futures (Hosagrahar et al. 2016; Nocca 2017; Wang et al. 2018). Cultural heritage has multidimensional impacts on the socio-political urban environment and local economic development (Delanty 2010; Harvey 2001, 2008; Smith 2006). Preserving heritage is crucial and valuable for contemporary societies, because of its interconnection with cultural diversity, social stability, identity, resiliency and local economic prosperity (Barrère 2016; Calligaro 2014; Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge 2000; Udeaja et al. 2020; Viejo-Rose 2015).

The importance of heritage to achieve sustainable futures has been acknowledged explicitly within the framework of Agenda 2030, following the Habitat III UN conference, as far as the shift from a built environment-focused approach to heritage towards a vision not exclusively based on material aspects (Vecco 2010). Heritage has been included as one of the targets for the Sustainable Development Goal Sustainable Cities and Communities, SDG 11, i.e. the target Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage (UN 2015). Because of the intertwined nature of tangible and intangible heritage, built environment underpins a combination of values, such as cultural diversity, national and/or local identity, sense of belonging, which from one side deserve being made available to future generations (inter-generational justice principle), from the other hand, actively contribute to reinforcing communities’ resilience. Indeed, heritage and related community values are inextricably linked to the local assets, thus creating opportunities for a sustainable socio-economic development (Bosone and Fusco 2020; Trillo 2012). Threats to heritage are sometime deliberate, because by destroying tangible heritage, the intangible values of the community are also challenged. This concept has been explicitly recognized at international level by the International Criminal Court in 2016 (Fusco and Trillo 2020; ICC 2016; Trillo 2019). Alongside deliberate destruction, tangible heritage is challenged either by rapid urbanization or abandonment and decay, thus making the case for a higher need of accurate documentation through the available technologies and means.

In recent years, using technology has become crucial in the construction industry, including heritage conservation (Pocobelli et al. 2018; Udeaja et al. 2019; UNESCO 2009). Evidence has revealed that digital technologies supports the holistic documentation and planning for the preservation of heritage sites (Acierno et al. 2017; Ioannides et al. 2018). In some cases, digital technologies may also support the work of conservationists, architects, archaeologists, planners and engineers. Despite scholarship on the subject is growing, still paucity of systematic reflection based on different extant cases exists, thus reducing availability of support in the decision-making process regarding the most appropriate technology. Scholarship tend to focus either on specific technologies or on categories of heritage, while this paper gauges different solutions with the aim to guide professionals in the selection of the most suitable to match their specific needs on a variety of heritage.

To achieve this goal, this paper compares a sample of digital platforms, including dataset suitable to support heritage documentation, both for historic and traditional architecture, and archeological sites. Although the discussion starts by providing the reader with a taxonomy of the different heritage assets, the paper does not prioritize any particular asset. Indeed, the focus is on, what kind of digital technologies are the most suitable to support different types of heritage or to pursue different goals. Despite the huge potential of digital technologies for contributing to heritage conservation, there is a need for clarity on what should be used to achieve different goals and what is the best approach under various circumstances. In some cases, there is still complexity on what should be the most appropriate approach to investigate, or to document, or to plan for heritage conservation. This lack of clarity does not help to make the most of limited resources. Issues relating to the gathering of heritage data and documentation include: technicality, accessibility and affordability. Digital technologies support a variety of outcomes, these may be less or more appealing, therefore may be used to promote heritage sites and archaeological areas or to support technical work. However, extremely detailed and technically and scientifically sound digital models may be of little use while trying to support heritage promotion for tourism development, whilst aesthetically appealing digital models can be only visually meaningful. This is of little help for the prioritization of digital technology in terms of promoting heritage and supporting architects and conservationist. Currently, there is a need to clarify what can be done with digital technologies and what should be prioritized, within the budget constraints.

At this aim, a bi-national team of five experts on digital technologies applied to different types of heritage worked collaboratively to gather the case studies in this paper and to analyse them comparatively, then findings were discussed with a larger panel of experts in the field. Case studies are digital platform implementing digital technologies for heritage conservation in Jordan. Jordan is a Middle East and North Africa (MENA) country and has been chosen as unit of analysis, because of the huge potential of digital technologies for heritage documentation. MENA countries experience threats to heritage that are higher than in other contexts, thus creating the need for an increased use of digital technologies for heritage documentation (Ipert 2016; Mazzetto 2018). Jordan is considered an emerging developing country, with all the development and urban projects that are running and the waves of refugees due to different political, social, economic reasons. The demand for more land for agriculture and development projects like roads and dams is directly affecting cultural heritage, therefore, local institutions are willing to develop their technical capacities, and learn from international case studies on how to integrate modern technology in cultural heritage protection projects (Sheldrick and Zerbini 2017). Furthermore, digital technologies can be used in support of planning for heritage conservation in a more effective way, and it is anticipated that currently Jordan is experiencing a renewed interest in implementing a recent law for heritage protection, including exploration of digital solutions. Finally, digital technologies allow promoting heritage beyond its materiality, bearing in mind limitations in terms of authenticity (Nikonova and Biryukova 2017).

The discussion on digital platforms currently available in Jordan allows for highlighting strengths and limitations of different approaches and methodologies, thus drawing lessons for addressing the strategic choice of the most appropriate digital solution under different circumstances and in different contexts. In fact, there is a difference between tools and instruments to be used to achieve goals such as accuracy of the digital representation, effective and aesthetically appealing 3D virtual images, interoperability of the data with platforms used by planners and architects. Digital technologies can be used to gain accuracy in the data, for effective documentation of heritage and to save time and money. The review of different cases offers a reflection on what should best adopted for achieving different goals. Thus, outcomes from this study may be used by conservationists, architects, planners, and engineers working at the interplay of heritage conservation and digital technologies internationally.

2 Setting the Context: Heritage Conservation in Jordan

Jordan is a MENA country, a region challenged by a variety of serious threats undermining the conservation of heritage, both archaeological and historical. Beside the conflicts and wars, heritage of the MENA region is vulnerable to growing threats. Urban and industrial development, agricultural expansion, looting and illicit trafficking, population growth and natural threats (R. Bewley and Kennedy 2013; Zerbini 2018). Therefore, recording and documenting of cultural heritage is a high priority in order to help heritage professionals and decision makers to protect those sites and evaluate their condition on the ground, specially to the sites which can’t be visited. Heritage inventories also have an important role to play in influencing the decisions of policymakers who plan infrastructural development plans such as dams, roads residential areas and others.

Jordan is a country well known for its diverse and valuable cultural heritage assets. It is an urbanized country with the northern part historically more urbanized than the southern, which is largely a desert (The World Bank 2007). As a nation it is experiencing significant pressures in its cities including: increasing poverty, political events in the region limit migration opportunities out of the country in search of employment, rapid urban population growth and uncontrolled urban expansion (Shahateet and Partale 2019; The World Bank 2007). Such pressures represent a particular threat to the traditional historic cores and to their built heritage that are often abandoned or used increasingly inconsistently with the central function they have performed earlier in the life of the city (Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and Bank 2005). This includes archaeological sites and the crusader castles to more recent urban fabric and traditional community public spaces that represent the Ottoman and post Ottoman architectural heritage and urban tissue. Under such circumstances, local communities lack an understanding of the value of heritage and therefore do not preserve their cultural assets. In a country like Jordan, cultural heritage resources require delicate treatment and conservation works, as these archaeological sites are continuously exposed to natural and human dangers that accelerate their deterioration.

At an international level, Jordan has shown commitment to the protection of tangible and intangible heritage. This includes the ratification of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972) ratified in 1975 and the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) ratified in 2006. The national legal framework concerning archaeological and heritage preservation in Jordan is defined by two separate laws under the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities. The Department of Antiquities is the responsible entity for the implementation of the archaeological policy in Jordan (Al-Qaatarneh 2013). The Antiquities Law No. 21 for the year 1988 defines antiquities as “Any movable or immovable object which was made, written, inscribed, built, discovered or modified by a human being before the year AD 1750” (Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities 1988). It should be noted that the Law of Antiquities protects architectural heritage dating to pre-1700 AD; later monuments are not under legal protection, thus leaving without any safeguard significant layers of the built heritage, such as heritage belonging to Ottoman Period. The National Law 2005 for the Protection of Urban and Architectural Heritage is expected to reform the sector, providing standards for the protection of architectural and urban heritage, preparing a list of all the heritage locations, provide the necessary finances for restoration and fairly compensate the owners of heritage sites in order to encourage them to protect the buildings they own (Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities 2005) (Figure 1).

Figure 1:

Jordan’s heritage and archaeology legislation (Trillo et al. 2020)

The country has witnessed several efforts for the conservation of its cultural heritage from international or local institutions to individuals using different techniques, and advanced technology is considered a tool for the documentation of cultural heritage. This discourse of heritage conservation and digital technologies has been influenced by the historical landscape described in this section. Local institutions in Jordan are willing to develop their technical capacities and learn from international case studies on how to integrate modern technology in cultural heritage protection projects (Sheldrick and Zerbini 2017). The employment of digital technologies, such as laser scanning, photogrammetry, satellite imagery is an active field which aims to answer the archaeological research questions, support in conservation works, reduce the time spent in extracting documents using the traditional method of document management or to provide more engaging experiences for the site presentation purposes to the visitors.

We will be presenting a few examples of projects which are aimed at documenting “antiquities” in Jordan-as defined by the Antiquities law-were implemented in Jordan in order to formulate a comprehensive understanding of the opportunities and limitation of using technology in this scope in the local context.

For the purpose of this paper, it is important to highlight that the definition of “heritage” according to the Jordan regulatory framework is slightly different from the international understanding of what heritage includes. Indeed, heritage would include both archaeological and non-archeological assets. In the following sections, while using the term “heritage”, we will refer to the international UNESCO definition of heritage, i.e. including archaeological assets. In this regard, the protection law of archeological and non-archeological sites in Jordan does not present clearly for public and private sectors in Jordan. Furthermore, the lack of intellectual engagement with experts besides the capacity building of local community appears as barriers of establishing clear specifications for considering sites undoubtedly as heritage or as archaeological sites in Jordan. The line between heritage and archeological sites is determined by time and represented before and after 1750 AD. Case studies in this paper cover both groups of assets.

3 Heritage Assets and Digital Technologies: a Possible Taxonomy

This section provides the reader with a literature review on the categories chosen for the taxonomy of the different platforms investigates as case studies. At this goal, this section first discusses different definitions of tangible heritage assets, secondly, it provides the reader with an understanding of the current technologies mainly used for heritage conservation.

4 Research Methodology

This study is based on a case study strategy and on a qualitative methodology, resting on both secondary (academic and non-academic literature, desk analysis of websites) and primary data (email exchange with experts working in the selected platforms). A single case study strategy articulated in multiple sub case-studies has been chosen (Yin 2011). The unit of analysis is a MENA country, Jordan. The reasons for choosing Jordan are mainly two and relate to context factors broadly explored in Section 2. Being a MENA country, an area in which heritage is severely threatened by a variety of factors, Jordan has been included in various recent projects including the digitalization of heritage. In addition, national and local policy makers and experts are currently focusing on the implementation of the National Law on Heritage conservation. This is creating a momentum for heritage conservation in Jordan, thus triggering a discussion on which means are currently available in support of heritage conservation, including digital technologies (Udeaja et al. 2019). Digital platforms including Jordan as part of the database have been purposely selected, to cover both the variety of heritage categories and digital technologies as identified through the literature in the previous section. However, no significant platform has been left outside this study, hence, the sample is representative of the most relevant digital platforms for heritage conservation including Jordan as part of the database or exclusively focused on Jordan.

The sub-case studies have been initially analyzed by relying on the in-depth knowledge of digital platforms for heritage conservation in Jordan of the five authors. In fact, all authors have been working on different projects and from different angles, within diverse multi-national research teams. Two authors have worked for Mapping Digital Cultural Heritage in Jordan (Madih), a project aimed at gathering information on digital platforms on Jordan heritage, three authors are currently developing digital tools for enhancing effective conservation of Jordan vernacular and traditional architecture. They have decided to join their efforts on this study by putting together and discussing collaboratively all the available data accumulated over the years. Their firsthand knowledge has been complemented with informal discussions that researchers conducted with further experts working on the specific databases, wherever needed to complete the information gained through the desk analysis and most importantly, to verify and complement the secondary data. Table 3 presents the data utilized to discuss each sub-case study, thus showing the consistency across the cases. It is worth mentioning that the discussion with external experts has been conducted by exchanging emails, since this study has been developed during the COVID-19 lockdown, and has taken the form of informal discussion aimed at filling the gaps in the knowledge of the researchers.^[4]

From Section 3, we have derived the two lists of heritage assets and of digital technologies most commonly used to support heritage conservation internationally, which will be covered with the chosen case studies. Drawing from the list of tangible heritage categories (Section 3.1) and from the list of digital technologies (Section 3.2) used for heritage planning conservation, we have derived the headings and mapping of the case studies against each category and supporting the comparative analysis conducted in Section 6. Each case study has been thoroughly analyzed, to identify weaknesses and strengths of each selected approach and methodology with respect to the type of heritage. The bi-national team of five experts had weekly discussion over a three months’ time in order to achieve a shared understanding and evaluating the cases consistently. However, to avoid any bias due to excess of involvement in the case studies, the team has first analyzed and discussed as a team the chosen cases, then verified the findings by discussing them with further experts. The following Section 5 presents each case study individually, while Section 6 offers a comparative analysis of the 10 platforms presented below. Section 7 gives concluding thoughts and makes recommendations.

5 Case Studies Presentation

This section presents the case studies, by drawing from the dataset presented previously in Section 4. Case studies are first presented individually, then discussed with a comparative approach in Section 6. The researchers have considered a total of 10 case studies, each with a different level of involvement, from a direct involvement in the development of the case (e.g., RAEng), to an indirect involvement with knowledge derived from having worked in the delivery of the project. The case studies are presented below (Sections 5.1 to 5.10).

5.8 RIWAQ

RIWAQ is a Ramallah based non-profit organization whose main aim is the protection and development of architectural heritage in Palestine. Riwaq’s Team comprises of 13 professionals, of architects, administrators, one historian and one archaeologist. The scope of Riwaq’s work focuses on protecting and developing living architectural heritage for adaptive reuse (Salameh 2020). Digital technologies play a significant role in the work that Riwaq does. The team uses conventional methodologies for documentation which include on-site freehand sketching for plans, elevations and sections, followed by recording all the measurements in addition to photometric documentation for the building and its surrounding landscape. Thereafter, these sketches and measurements are transformed into digital drawings using the AutoCAD software (see Figure 2 below). For sites with high significance/importance in terms of history, architecture and aesthetic values, Riwaq commissions a company to undertake 3D laser scanning to create 3D point cloud model, such as the Crusader Church in Al Jib and Al Hiqqiyeh in Qalandiya. ReCab and AutoCad Software was used and the plans and sections were extracted from the 3D point cloud model (see Figure 2). In other cases, Riwaq team uses the Photometry rectification technique. This technique is based on removing the perspective and the camera lens distortions, Riwaq team uses the software associated with the camera and the Hugin software for removing the lens distortion and the perspective distortion. Thereafter, using AutoCAD software rectified images are transformed into digital drawing scaled files to create sections and elevations. This technique was used in Hosh Al-Etem in Birzeit and Deir Al-Khader in Gaza (see Figure 2).

Figure 2:

Riwaq work using digital technologies (Salameh 2020).

In this instance using digital technology saves time and produce very accurate results, however, conventional methodologies of documentation are important since they give the chance for the architect/restorer to carry out on-site visual analysis using freehand sketches. These traditional techniques can allow for a better understanding of the site (Salameh 2020). Additionally, using freehand sketches creates an archival material for the site’s condition from the eye of the architect/restorer (Salameh 2020).

6 Comparative Analysis of the Case Studies

This section presents a comparative analysis of the cases mentioned in the section above. A classification of the case studies is presented as a first phase of the analysis, by combining the two taxonomies derived from the literature review (Sections 3.1 and 3.2). This allowed us to develop a comparative discussion and appreciation of commonalities and differences, as well as deriving useful insights. The following Table 4 has been prepared by the five researchers jointly through e-collaboration on skype over 12 weekly meetings, by analysing the case studies and mapping them against the categories of heritage and digital technologies implemented.

Table 4 shows how digital technologies applied to heritage are normally either aimed at producing technical support (EAMENA, DAAHL, APAAME, MEGA-J, Zamani, RAEng, RIWAQ, Wadi Faynan) or to create appealing images aimed at promoting heritage sites (I AM, GAIMS), also through gamification of heritage (GAIMS). I AM sits at the interplay of these two categories. Only one case applies Building Information Modelling to heritage conservation, i.e. RAEng. However, this was clear to the researchers, who are directly involved in the development of this case study and knew from the outset that they were filling a gap. One major observation is that the digital platforms focus on systematically documenting archaeological heritage (EAMENA, APAAME, DAAHL, MEGA-J, Wadi Faynan), and therefore are more likely to focus on either satellite or aerial imagery, and to remain at the larger scale, with little or no attention paid to the scale of the building of technologies. Some platforms focused on archaeological heritage, such as the Zamani project or I AM. These platforms demonstrate digitalization at the building scale. In so doing, they do not offer an extensive and wide range of archeological sites, but are focused on a few (one in the case of the Zamani project) assets, which are presented by using photogrammetry and laser scanning. Vernacular architecture and post-1750 heritage are so far not systematically considered by any platforms, thus leaving a serious gap in the body of knowledge on heritage in Jordan. Only I AM, RAEng and RIWAQ include this category of heritage, with RAEng and RIWAQ exclusively aimed at supporting the conservation of traditional and vernacular architecture.

As part of the next stage of analysis, the researchers have sought to understand which is the main goal, explicitly expressed or not, underpinned in the chosen databases. Five main goals have been identified as shown in Table 5 below: (1) documentation; (2) monitoring; (3) planning; (4) promotion; (5) gamification. Documentation is the main goal of all platforms orientated to offer direct support to conservationists, archeologists, architects and planners on heritage conservation, regardless of the category of heritage. EAMENA aims also at monitoring the state of archaeological assets. Some platforms, both gave attention to both archaeologic and non-archaeologic assets, as a means to offer instruments and tools for planning, by sharing useful data. However, it has to be highlighted that some experts are concerned about the criminalization of heritage data should it be widely accessible and shared for all. A relevant difference that can be observed between archaeological and non-archeological dataset is about the type of digital representation, either 2D or 3D as illustrated in Table 5. Systematic archeological survey mainly offers 2D maps, covering as already highlighted, large scale areas. Platforms digitalizing individual archeological assets or on vernacular heritage, as well as platforms aimed at grasping the non-technical user attention with aesthetically appealing graphic, mainly rely on 3D representation. Indeed, high levels of accuracy and reliability are key-specifications of digital dataset of technically-orientated platforms. Consequently they are mainly aimed at contributing to the goals (1), (2) and (3) (documentation – monitoring – planning); while high level of aesthetical accuracy and appealing graphic are key-specifications of digital dataset of non-technically orientated platforms, mainly aimed at feeding into the goals (4) and (5) (promotion and gamification). It is therefore confirmed (key-finding 1) that having a clear understanding from the outset of which users will be targeted by the digital technologies for heritage conservation, and the specific goals that digital technologies will address, is essential in order to save resources and time.

In light with the aim of this study, i.e. to shed light on limitations and opportunities in the implementation of digital technologies in heritage conservation, Table 6 below gives a further comparison of the strengths and lessons learned and the criticisms and identified areas for future development. Ultimately, the comparative analysis has shown that there is no huge difference between platforms focusing on archaeological and non-archeological heritage, the key difference being between platforms aimed at achieving a systematic coverage of large-scale assets. These are mainly 2D based and tend to digitalize large archaeological sites through satellite or aerial images. Alternatively, platforms focused on either archeological or non-archeological assets, also implements 3D technologies and survey techniques suitable to capture the scale of the building (laser scanning, photogrammetry) (Figure 3).

Figure 3:

(Top) 3D model showing on the Zamani digital platform (www.zamaniproject.org/site-jordan-petra.html), (middle) Search tool showing in Mega Jordan digital platform (www.megajordan.org), (bottom) 3D virtual reality of traditional heritage house in As-Salt on the RAEng digital platform (www.herititjordan.com).

7 Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, the use of digital technologies can contribute significantly towards the sustainable heritage conservation and planning. The digital platforms mentioned in this study promote the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), not just with respect to the target directly aimed at measuring the achievements on heritage conservation (Target 11.4), but also on SDG4 (education), SDG8 (economic growth) and SDG9 (industry and infrastructure). In fact, by being embedded into the wider strategies for socio-economic growth and education, heritage conservation policies will make a significant contribution to pursuing the goals of Agenda 2030, with digital technologies playing the role of boosting such a process. This paper concludes with a set of recommendations offering useful insights to conservationists, policy makers, architects, planners, and IT experts on digital technologies applied to heritage conservation. These recommendations are articulated based on analyzing related data, the process, impact and the projects outcomes as discussed below.

Recommendation (1). It is essential to clarify goals and final users of the digital technologies applied to heritage.

2D large scale systematic surveys, possibly repeated at regular intervals, are extremely useful to document and monitor large scale archeological assets, with the potential to be used for large scale heritage cities and landscapes. The tracking of sites can be achieved particularly specific heritage elements to highlight areas of attention. 3D digital objects are more appropriate at the building scale and should be used to document and monitor both archeological and architectural heritage with significant meaning. BIM technologies can help document buildings and related technologies but would require an in-depth level of knowledge of technical details. They cannot be derived by simply relying on photogrammetry or laser scanning. When properly understood, this knowledge can allow for the development of a sensitive and sustainable process of conservation. Finally, if platforms are mainly aimed at tourist promotion, there is no need for technical accuracy, and technical survey may not be essential. Instead, the implementation of highly sophisticated 3D augmented reality technologies is essential to raise the profile of heritage sites.

Recommendation (2). Georeferencing is a key-aspect of technical platforms aimed at documenting and monitoring large scale heritage assets.

The different georeferencing systems may create an issue of interoperability, and in the long-term, having a central documentation and monitoring digital centre would be extremely useful for supporting coordinated nation-wide heritage conservation strategies. Adopting a single standard for georeferencing digital objects and maps is highly recommended. This would enable a baseline to be achieved in different geographical regions of a country and therefore provide a consistent approach for heritage conservation.

Recommendation (3). Open-access platforms should not be used for vulnerable heritage.

Knowing the exact location of vulnerable heritage may support not only researchers and conservations, but also individuals who may use this crucial information for criminal activity and exploitation. It is highly recommended that, following the EAMENA lessons, a password is requested for accessing sensitive information and data, keeping a record of data requests and purpose for requests. It is possible to use this record to list the vulnerable sites based on the level of attention and support needed e.g. (from 1–10) where category one is highly need for support. Furthermore, knowledge exchange can be achieved by comparing other similar sites around the world.

Recommendation (4). Systematic use of digital technologies may support better heritage conservation and planning.

A systematic survey of heritage assets has so far been conducted mainly for archeological sites, with very little or no interest in conducting systematic survey on heritage towns and cultural landscape. Documenting and monitoring heritage towns and cultural landscape would be very helpful to support architects, planners and policy makers. Benefits include planning effective conservation strategies such as using techniques of building, materials, skills in conservation, and developing sustainable plans for heritage cities and for historic urban landscapes. A non-systematic survey of exemplar buildings through BIM can help clarify the nexus between the scale of the building (and its constructional techniques and details) and the larger site. A blended approach relying both on 2D and 3D representations would help to achieve this goal.

To conclude, this set of recommendation is derived from the comparative analysis of 10 digital platforms focused on Jordan heritage, however, their applicability is transferable to the wider international context because they are not related to any context-specific issues. There is a huge need for accurate heritage documentation, more effective heritage conservation planning and heritage promotion. Digital technologies can help in achieving these goals, if they are appropriately selected and implemented in consistency with the expected result.