Here are reported the main results of the word done during the first year of the project:
• Consortium underwent an extensive review of the research literature and related policies in the 4 domains (social, cultural, environmental, economic) to implement a map of existing research, policies and practices relating to impact assessment of intervention in cultural heritage in Europe. Moreover, an analysis of gaps and main issues related to the impact assessment and quality of interventions on cultural heritage (related to the four domains) was implemented.
• Consortium organized the first workshop with a select group of stakeholders and the Advisory Board and to prioritise the types and areas of interventions and policies that will be analysed throughout the project. It was supposed to be held in Athens in M5 but, due to the Covi-19 pandemic, it had been moved online.
• The Consortium developed a holistic impact assessment model draft. It is a three-axes framework (people-time-domains) proposed by the Consortium and it adopts an intersectoral approach to the impact analysis. It reports 9 themes, 50 subthemes and a great number of qualitative and quantitative indicators and tools, chosen by partners to ensure an adequate impact measurement process.
• In order to map best practices related to both impact assessment and quality of interventions taking into account the 4 domains, the Consortium underwent an extensive analysis of the information retrieved during the first months of the research work and engaged stakeholders and ABs by sharing a sharing a questionnaire on best and bad practices, in order to collect information from their personal experience.
• The Consortium selected relevant case studies of interventions to test the impact assessment model draft. Partners discussed the criteria for the selection of the case studies and chose the following: location (urban context), nature of cultural heritage intervention, type of cultural heritage, access of the partner to the case, data availability, stage of implementation of the intervention, typology of funding (from different donors), financial dimension value, and physical dimension.
• The Consortium started to test the impact assessment draft model in different contexts through the analysis of relevant case studies. Partners started to collect data and documents related to the selected case studies.
• The Consortium built and reinforced the network of relations and interactions among Consortium partners, ABs and stakeholders.
• Despite the Covid-19 pandemic, partners managed to consolidate their relations with relevant ABs and stakeholders through a diverse set of activities and tools. In particular:
- ABs and stakeholders were invited to the Athens Virtual Workshop and in in-person meetings with partners. The Consortium produced working documents to actively engage them during these events.
- ABs and stakeholders were invited to use SoPHIA platform and website.
- ABs and stakeholders had received information and newsletter on the SoPHIA project.
• The Consortium designed a coherent and solid visual identity for the project, its website and all its deliverables to be easily recognised by the general public, stakeholders, policy makers, etc. and to strengthen the sense of belonging to the SoPHIA community.
• Consortium communicated, disseminated and socialised the project outputs and deliverables within the Social Platform (partners and stakeholders) and beyond to reach a wide range of people and professionals using the projects’ channels (website and online platform) and main social media platforms.
• Partners disseminated SoPHIA’s finding by participating to other international projects’ events.
• Despite the ongoing pandemic, the Consortium ensured high-quality coordination and delivery of the project outputs according to the proposed work plan.
