D4.4. Rural Regeneration Activities: Data, Results, Conclusions and Recommendations
Creators: name: Francisco, Barrientos.
name: Martín-Lerones, Pedro
name: Olmedo, David
name: López-Vidal, Ana
name: Luca, Claudia de
name: Åberg, Hanna Elisabet
name: Egusquiza, Aitziber
name: Martin, John
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022

description: The main objective of Work Package 4 was to provide quantifiable evidences of the potential role of CNH as a driver for sustainable growth. To do this, WP4 has been monitoring over the last 2.5 years the performance of the deployed Action Plans (or regeneration schemes) in the 6 initial Replicators (Rs), and the 9 Additional Replicators (ARs) included in the last phase of the project. Performance’s monitoring has been done through selected cross-thematic and multiscale Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and through the implementation of a holistic approach based on Systems Dynamics (SD) for properly assessing the heritage-led regeneration. Six SD models, one per SIA, have been developed and are freely accessible through the Monitoring Platform in the RURITAGE Resources Ecosystem (RRE), as explained in the deliverable D4.3. These SD models are useful for laying out different what-if scenarios. Last, WP4 has been contributing to create sense of ownership of CNH developing a participatory co-monitoring approach.<br> This deliverable is based on the work developed in the last stages of the project. The Task 4.3 has developed a comprehensive data collection procedure through the coordination and supervision of all the gathered data. According to the monitoring programme described in the deliverable D4.2, quantitative data coming from the Rs have been completed and integrated with qualitative data coming from the My Cult-Rural Toolkit (Task 4.4). This data has been used for calculating the KPIs, according to the evaluation procedure defined in Task 4.1.<br> The main challenges for each Replicator have been identified and the lessons learned obtained from the Role Models have served as the basis for this assessment. All the Rs have improved their level of performance, according to the selected KPIs, with improvements ranging from 37% to 67%. The complex problem of assessing the heritage-led rural regeneration Action Plans to transform rural areas into sustainable development demonstration laboratories has been analysed by means of System Dynamics (SD) models. A performance model has been defined for each SIA by establishing weights, feedback loops and delays in information to the KPI within the corresponding Replicators. All these SD models have been integrated into the RURITAGE Monitoring Platform. The user interface developed for the advanced end-users provide the necessary elements to use the model.<br> The Replicators were provided with My Cult-Rural Toolkit equipment box, which facilitates the physical tool workshops. The Replicator’s Action Plans were updated to link actions to co-monitoring tools, if applicable. Co-Monitoring physical tools use participatory, community-based methodologies to gain a better understanding into tangible and intangible qualities and values of the landscape and associated cultural ecosystem services.<br> Data collection and KPI calculation started in December 2019 and has ended in June 2022, lasting for 2.5 years. Along this time, a full set of data has been collected and the data collection process has been available online through the Monitoring Platform, ensuring a proper supervision and analysis. Regular data collection campaigns have been run every 6 months and data have been uploaded to the database once reviewed and validated. After four years of RURITAGE, data collected has allowed to do a project impact assessment comparing the value of the results obtained with the targets predefined at the baseline of the monitoring process. These expected impacts were established at the beginning of the project, clustering several impact indicators and are related with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Some insights after developing these tasks are that we were optimistic with the difficulties in data collection, and ambitious with some of the targets that were overestimated. We have also learned that other targets have been clearly underestimated and have been exceeded in most of the cases. The COVID-19 pandemic and lock-down situation obviously have affected somehow to the development of the Action Plans, hence to the achievement of the expected results.
description: {"references": ["R. Tamborrino, E. Patti, A. Aliberti, M. Dinler, M. Orlando, C. d. Luca, S. Tondelli, F. Barrientos, J. Martin, L. F. M. Cunha, A. Stam, A. Nales, A. Egusquiza, Z. Amirzada and I. Pavlova, \"A Resources Ecosystem for Digital and Heritage-led Holistic Knowledge in Rural Regeneration,\" Journal of Cultural Heritage, vol. 57, pp. 265--275, 2022.", "M. Emery and C. Flora, \"Spiraling-Up: Mapping Community Transformation with Community Capitals Framework,\" Community Development: Journal of the Community Development Society, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 19--35, 2006.", "Insight Maker, \"https://insightmaker.com/,\" 2022. [Online]. Available: https://insightmaker.com/"]}