Archaeology and nature: hyblean cultural landscape and territorial ...

emember our past. The relationship of these three categories takes place in the construction of the
community, which is considering the essential environment for interrelation of every human being.
Contemporary scholars argue conceptions of Place are premised on memory, identity and the relation of
people to their territory. Thus, Place can be understood as the consequence of the multiple discourses,
subjectivities, interactions and power relations in specific time and space (26). It is also defined as a singular
fact determined by its space and time, by the topographic dimension, by its form and by its memory (10).
Place is where social relationships occur, where everyday life is unwrapped, where the people celebrate,
make rituals and other cultural and social constructions necessary for their life (7).
The notion of “spirit” corresponds to the immaterial elements of a person’s relation to Place, composed by
the “social and spiritual practices, costumes, traditional knowledge and other intangible forms and
expressions” (19). Spirit also encompasses the relationship between tangible and intangible social and
cultural mechanisms.
“The Spirit of Place is ultimately the intensity of wholeness one experiences in the place” (6). This wholeness
is related to unique and distinctive aspects of a place and its habitability, but only because of the soul of the
human being that inhabit each place (5). It involves “aesthetic, historical, social or spiritual value of cultural
significance” (30 p.2). Spirit of Place is the language that becomes material but dynamic, tangible but
ephemeral, is the expression of the memory, the identity and the cultural heritage.
2.2. Sustainable Development and Social Sustainability
Sustainable development and heritage planning face a constant struggle between preserving cultural
heritage and achieving economic growth and modernization. Currently, approaches for sustainable urban
planning are focused on creating liveable built environments, disregarding a holistic perspective for
community developments and specifically culture. This absence of social and cultural perspectives is evident
in heritage planning research where the physical forms are the main focus (25). For the viability of
sustainable urban and cultural heritage planning it is necessary to emphasize the interaction between
citizens, physical environment, social organization and public policies (13).
Social sustainability “concerns how individuals, communities and societies live with each other and set out to
achieve the objectives of the development models that they have chosen for themselves, also taking into
account the physical boundaries of their places and planet earth as a whole” (9 p. 24). It involves specific
cultural or social relationships, social structures, customs and values, which represent the social constrains
on development. In this context, social sustainability combines the traditional social policies (equity, health,
poverty reduction, livelihood, etc.) with emerging concerns about participation, social capital, needs,
economy, environment and “more recently, with the notions of happiness, well-being and quality of life” (9 p.
24). These last issues, more intangible and less measurable involve concepts such as identity, social
networks and most importantly Spirit of Place. Furthermore, these issues have become more and more
important within government and policy maker debates (9) (23).
Analyzing sustainability requires addressing four principles: equity, inclusion, adaptability and security. Equity
refers to the opportunities of access to sufficient resources to participate in community; inclusion relates to
an individual’s opportunities to participate in community processes; adaptability refers to the resiliency of
communities to respond to change; security includes both the communities’ economic security and
confidence that they live in environmentally safe and supportive places. These principles are guided by
seven dimensions of action: living, working, playing, engaging, learning, moving and importantly, Spirit of
Place. Compared with traditional methodologies and perspectives for measuring welfare, the interaction
between those principles and dimensions bring alternative social sustainability parameters of measures,
where “soft themes” such as happiness and Spirit of Place, among others, can be also qualified (9).
Cultural heritage can contribute to the well-being and quality of life of communities, while also can mitigate
the impacts of cultural globalization, becoming an incentive for sustainable economic and environmental
development (15). In this light, “the loss of a sense of place in communities became a factor of vital concern
in the context of cultural globalization and the main aspect striving for sustainable communities and
sustainable historic environment” (15 p. 75). “The notion of sustainable includes understanding of need, in
the true sense of necessity (…) [that] requires that needs be met within our social, economic and
1170