# **DISCOVERING THE MARINA'S CULTURAL HERITAGE AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPE**

Ricardo Martín1 , Víctor Yepes2 , Alejandro Grindlay3 1School of Civil Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia (Spain) phone +34 369 879563, e-mail: rimarpo@doctor.upv.es 2 ICITECH, Universitat Politècnica de València (Spain) 3Department of Urban and Spatial Planning, University of Granada (Spain)

**Abstract** – This paper explores the marinas' cultural heritage and it attempts to deep into the relationship between their cultural heritage and cultural landscape. Landscape and heritage are relevant elements in these areas and could be competitive advantages in the management of these maritime facilities.

As facilities for maritime pleasant activities there are many possibilities of identifying their culture heritage and cultural landscape. It is through the analysis of these concepts which is developed the study of the proposed relationship between cultural heritage, cultural landscape, and marinas.

Therefore, they are identified some elements to consider within marinas' cultural heritage and their cultural landscape, not only related to the conservation and re-utilization of elements from the past. And it is also proposed three relationship models, ranging from integration, to strengthen and evolution.

# **Introduction**

Marina is a word coined by the National Association of Engines and Boats Manufacturers in 1928 [10], and it comprises a variety of designs and services, both for vessels and their crew, and also for visitors [1]. In a general meaning, a marina can be defined as a recreational boat facility serving pleasure craft [15], [35], [40], not only as a parking place for boats —berthing facilities— but also for amenity purposes, including entertainment and leisure facilities [1], [19], [36].

The contemplation of a pleasant environment acquires great importance in achieving a leisure character. Environmental quality and scenic views became main topics for economic benefits of marinas [27], [39]. Thus, high aesthetic, historic and cultural resources, and a unique environment represents issues to consider for marina manager. Cultural and heritage resources have been studied in commercial ports, specially dealing with derelict industrial port areas and urban waterfront revitalizations [4], [14], [29], [38], [41]. Focusing on marinas, scholarship have analyse then from diverse viewpoint, such as its relationship with nautical tourism [22], [26], its environment [18], [30], or its layout and shape [8], [32]. But landscape has seldom taken into account [27].

This paper explores the marinas' cultural and heritage landscape, and it attempts to deep into the relationship between their cultural heritage and cultural landscape. Landscape and heritage are relevant elements in these areas and could be competitive advantages in management of these maritime facilities. Firstly, we introduce what landscape means within

95 FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Ricardo Martín, Víctor Yepes, Alejandro Grindlay, *Discovering the marina's cultural heritage and cultural landscape*, pp. 95-104, © 2020 Author(s), CC BY 4.0 International, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-147-1.11

a marina, which drives to consider the cultural and heritage landscape in this context. This constitutes the basis to introduce the relationship models with dealing with these topics.

# **Landscape and marina**

Landscape is a relationship between people and their environment [28], [47]. Its significance has its roots in art and it has acquired greater significance along its evolution [43], [48]. During this development, all the different meanings have been integrated in the same concept. It may cause confusion in interpreting the expression, making difficult to manage [6]. Landscape is an ambiguous concept, associated to both to the perception of place by people, and to refer to a particular reality differentiable from the rest [42]; [5]. Firstly, it is perceived as an abstract concept, as a kind of background or set of a picture nature, surround, environment— which produces sensations who observed [47]. Second, it is related to the particular characteristics that difference from others [5]. Landscape encompasses natural and cultural, past and present, and tangible and intangible features [7], [13], which may range from a mood, a feeling, to analysis through a scientific and analytical approach, establishing common features applicable to a territory. All these components must be considered simultaneously in their interrelations, forming a whole [11], [33] and therefore, it is a holistic, relativistic and dynamic concept [5], [31]. Landscape is an element which appears, either directly or indirectly, in various international legal texts. Nevertheless, it was not until 2000 when an international convention addresses this issue specifically. The European Landscape Convention (ELC), signed on 20 October 2000, defines landscape as «an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors» [12]. Until then, landscape had tried intuitively, recognizing the need to preserve the environment as a guarantor of maintaining the quality of life of people, but in a biased and sectorial manner, focussing firstly safeguarding outstanding areas of natural beauty, with a traditional protectionist stance of nature conservation [34].

Martín and Yepes [27] suggest a landscape approach to marinas dealing with theirs attributes in a transdisciplinary way. They use the hierarchical approach theory as a way of breaking down complexity and to identify patterns and processes by layering the multiple topics that are embodied within landscape. Landscape can be perceived as a nested hierarchy in which different levels correspond to functional units at distinct spatial scales.

The authors consider three hierarchical stages, including territorial, local and inner level. First one is grounded on integrated coastal management, highlighting those aspects related with their location: causes of their location, coastal affection and future incidences. Second level encompasses the relationship with their environment, both physical and emotional. In this stage, the balance between external flows and port operability is one of the main subjects, and it is conditioned by the degree of overlapping. Finally, the inner level is critical from the point of view of the observer, which is located within the infrastructure itself. This is not a closed framework, but a starting point for managers to consider the landscape within the management of marinas.

Figure 1 - Components of landscape within marinas [27].

# **Port cultural landscape and marinas**

Cultural landscapes represent the *«combined works of nature and man»*. This definition given by UNESCO [49] collects the term coined by Sauer [46] in the earlier 20th century: *«cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a culture group. Culture is the agent, the natural area the medium, the cultural landscape the result»*. Early reports addressed on historical studies and since the late 1980s were introduced understanding of the complexity of these terms, involving an expanded scope intending to provide a multidisciplinary effort. But it was until the 1990s when *«cultural landscape»* was adopted as a conservation category when World Heritage Committee of UNESCO agreed in 1992 on revised operational guidelines specifying that cultural landscapes could be protected in accordance with the World Heritage Convention of 1972 [3], [20]. Cultural landscape reflects the social changes and attitude towards its surroundings, relating both natural processes and social processes [5], [21]. The cultural landscape reflects changes in the interconnections between society and the environment [21], [44] and it is a reflection of fear the threat of decreasing of aesthetics and cultural-historical values facing the progress of economic development [49], [21].

Cultural landscape concept has several connotations at the same time and different disciplines have used it in different ways [20]. Within this ambiguity, infrastructure can be considered as a cultural landscape. All infrastructure is imbued with a cultural quality not only because interacts natural and social environment but it is also a reflection of technical expertise and, at times, of a sensibility, which makes these actions not only expose the solution to a difficulty, but how that this problem is addressed [2], [29], which takes on not only social but also cultural dimension.

Focusing on ports, shelter is suited for maritime activity necessity. People transform the coastal environment to adapt shore line with lack of shelter to these requirements, reflecting existing knowledge and according to needs and construction techniques. However, if we analyse the construction methods for ports pointed out in various old treaty and studies [24], [51] it follows that techniques have been progressing, and not that proper procedure. The conceptual basis is the same, varying the applied technologies in each period seeking of a maximum throughput. As summarized by Diedrich [16], *«harbours can be addressed as very specific sites at precise moments in time. The landscape perspective allows us to perceive harbours as result of a particular culture, as cultural goods»*. However, the port is an element that can hold and bring together various activities, so it is the container, varying their contents. The specific requirements of these activities have accumulated distinctive feature that clearly distinguish from the rest of its urban surrounding [41]. It results in a dual port cultural landscape treatment: the container (infrastructure) and the content (activity).

From the viewpoint of the container, the port reflects landscape the degree of knowledge of coastal phenomena, the construction techniques available in each moment and construction procedures used to overcome adversity.

Focusing on the content, the nature of this activity is developed which gives the space a particular culture and therefore conforms corresponding landscape. We also must consider the constraints given by the conditions of the security, operability and functionality of inner activities.

Related to marinas, the tourist or recreational adjective to this kind of ports has a connotation to pleasure, containing all the services required for comfortable stay [50]. But this should not harm its technical qualities that marina has to maintain, and the nature of the relationship with its environment. The playful nature of this activity and the lack of a mark acquired by a minor temporal course involve several obstacles in creating a particular identity. The main obstacles for a marina to overcome when achieving a cultural character are: (1) to avoid mere craft-berthing, (2) the adoption of monotonous and anodyne solutions in relation to the immensity of the coast in which they are inserted, and (3) the lack of links to their environment [27]. Marinas should aspire to be attractive sources of their surroundings where to interact and to share experiences [23], [52].

# **Port cultural heritage landscape and marinas**

In 1992, the scope of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was broadened to allow the cultural landscapes to be included in the World Heritage List. Therefore, cultural landscapes with and outstanding and universal quality can cross the cultural character achieving a heritage one.

Historically, ports provide attractiveness to their surroundings from ancient times [24], [27]. This drives to a set of relationships that have been woven and that take place in their urban and territorial environments with the particularity of a singular space (interface between land and water). The persistence of port activity in one place over time provides archaeological bases that are grounds for granting a patrimonial character to that port. In this sense, several authors have explored the archaeological value of existing ports [37], [38]. Ports are able to store singular elements and structures, such as old buildings, lighthouses or cranes, as well as, signs of different materials and periods. The preservation of these elements represents an opportunity to take advantage for the valuation of port spaces [17].

There is a huge diversity for the treatment of heritage elements in port areas. The recuperation and maintenance of old port infrastructures for its integration in the redevelopment process, and the conservation and maintenance but displaced from their original sites are examples of these processes.

Nevertheless, we can find some constrains when dealing with port heritage. Firstly, the operations of recovery this heritage are limited by their financial return [45]. Secondly, it is necessary to identify and recognize the real value of these elements [38]. Finally, the difficulty to find solutions that match the compatibility between the element to be retained and the alternatives of use and development.

Several actual marinas have their origin in old fishing ports and also occupy the space that has been leaving port activity that has been declining (fishing or industrial), or share the port space with such activities. Throughout the development of the ports, the change in their uses and functions has been determining links with socio-cultural and economic factors, remaining cultural elements that determine the importance of this heritage.

# **Relationship models**

When considering landscape of marinas, the image of the marina and the water acquire great importance. Nevertheless, the most valued criteria are the compatibility with the environment, the historic and cultural resources, and those which provide identity and character to the space [27]. Above exposed points out two main ideas related to culture and heritage: (a) both are main element when analysing marina's landscape; and (b) they are related with the character of the marina.

The character must be taken into account when dealing with marina's landscape. It can be described as «*a distinct recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another»* [47]. It is necessary to note that the character of a port refers to uniqueness, so it can be seen as unique entity with own identity [25]. In this sense, the concept of searching for an identity there is always the risk of replicating an existing concept, repeating a solution that transforms the space into a thematic space whose unique purpose is its image [9]. And there is also an absence of representing the environment of cultural values, being independent of the place of its location, without obligation of meaning or representation, not consumer oriented meeting place but its image.

Cultural landscape reflects the social changes and attitude towards its surroundings. It relates the interconnections between society and the environment, and it is a reflection of fear the threat of decreasing of aesthetics and cultural-historical values facing the progress of economic development. Although all landscapes include cultural values, not all of them can be considered as cultural landscapes. It needs a singular association between nature and man that clearly identifies a culture: the landscape as a reflection of the action of a particular community on the territory.

Cultural heritage landscape is a superior stage from cultural landscape. It represents a cultural validity sustained over an ample period of time, and a recognised value. This designation derives from different institutions or organisms, at international or state level. And the nature of the framework that supports such designation may be support by a mandatory regulation or voluntary follow-up guidelines. This nature will provide the importance of the considered distinction. Cultural heritage always gives and adds value to the landscape. Cultural heritage cannot be conceived without its surroundings, and adjacent landscape help to delimitate and protect this heritage. The improvement of the cultural heritage has a favourable benefit over the landscape where it is inserted.

Therefore, despite their recent existence in general, some elements to consider within marinas' cultural heritage and their cultural landscape are identified, not only related to the conservation and re-utilization of elements from the past. And it is proposed three relationship models: integration, ranging from integration, to strengthen and evolution. These relationships depend on the relative weight between the marina's landscape and the component of the culture/heritage landscape.

**Integration** occurs when there is previous culture, and the weighted value of the last one is higher than the first one. The existences of a heritage site (old port) or an important previous culture (e.g. fishing culture) are examples of this relationship. In this case, the marina must integrate within the environment, becoming part of it without creating alterations or distortions. In any case, the marina should contribute to the promotion and support of this cultural heritage.

**Strengthen** is similar to previous one. There is a previous culture of heritage, but the relative weight of the marina's landscape is higher. The existences of a single historic building or feature (e.g. ancient fish market or lighthouse) are integrated in this case. The element considered is modified so that it can perform different functions, for which it was initially built, but retaining its aesthetics and historical value. The reuse of historic buildings is an important way to create new relationships between the city and the waterfront, and a strategy of adaptation.

**Evolution** is considered when some of the conditions that define the cultural/heritage character are not met. So, the marina managers must strengthen these aspects so that, over time, the marina can lead to this status.

Focusing on cultural heritage landscape, it is possible to identify a set of landscapes from across the experience:

**World Heritage List**. It is a designation for places with outstanding universal values to humanity that must be protected for future generations. This international distinction given by UNESCO implies a protection and management requirements. The Maritime Mercantile City of Liverpool (UK), the Port of Cartagena de India (VE), the Old Port harbour of Dubrovnik (HR), and the harbour of Valparaíso (CL) are examples of these singular elements. Marinas can be embodied into these singular places and they are platforms to appreciate and enjoy their uniqueness.

**Archaeological sites**. It is a place where there are physical remains of past human activities. Ports are reflection of construction technology, transport systems and port management in different periods. These elements must be preserved as footprints of the port activity and its identity.

**Protected elements** based on heritage register. This set can identify different categories of protection depending on the kind of relevance, uniqueness or cultural value. So, bellowed items may be considered as ones of the most important categories to be considered.

These models are relevant in the consideration of the cultural heritage and cultural landscape of marinas.

# **Conclusions**

The landscape represents a competitive advantage within the management of marinas. Among the elements that make up this landscape, cultural and historical resources are main topics, which also enhance the identity and character of the marina.

It is necessary to carry out an identification and evaluation of the cultural and patrimonial elements that embrace the port space. The subsequent analysis of the relationships of these elements within their environment provides a powerful tool for the establishment of strategies that enhance the image of the marina and its environment, and also providing the relationship between both. Moreover, the consideration of cultural and cultural heritage landscape represents an opportunity to improve the management of the marina and its surroundings.

# **References**


*over landscape analysis and its procurement in the Swedish road planning process*, Land Use Policy, 42, 48-57.

