Cities 29 (2012) 379–388

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Heritage conservation in Rosetta (Rashid): A tool for community improvement

and development
Dalia A. Elsorady ⇑
Department of Architecture, Pharos University, Alexandria, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research focuses on the role of heritage conservation in contributing to community improvement,
Received 30 May 2011 development and revitalization goals. It seeks to understand why communities conserve their heritage
Received in revised form 17 August 2011 and their role in this conservation. The evolution of a heritage conservation ethic and its relationship with
Accepted 28 November 2011
urban planning are subsequently explored, along with an explanation of the concepts of physical, eco-
Available online 22 December 2011
nomic and social revitalization. The role and significance of development within heritage conservation
areas are also examined. The integration between urban planning, development and heritage conservation
Keywords:
in Rosetta (Rashid) is investigated. Community improvement indicators are consequently devised to mea-
Heritage conservation
Community improvement
sure the success of heritage conservation and to determine progress toward community improvement.
Indicators Finally, the impact of heritage conservation on community improvement and development is emphasized.
Development Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Revitalization

Introduction
Maintaining and managing heritage assets are part of a political
and economic process. Effective conservation policy takes into ac-
count public involvement, public and private initiatives, the plan-
ning process, cultural and economic needs and the maintenance
of public openness during the decision-making process (Cohen,
1999). Within these aspects, this research seeks to define the role
of heritage conservation and the outcome of physical, economic
and social revitalization goals. In addition, it attempts to provide
a greater understanding of the successful integration of urban
planning and heritage conservation. Three research objectives are
thus established. The first is to explore the reasons for and values
associated with the desire for communities to conserve their archi-
tectural heritage. The second is to define community improvement
by devising a set of indicators for determining progress toward
community improvement and development. The third objective
is to determine the impact of heritage conservation on community
improvement and development.
This current research reviews the relevant literature to examine
key concepts such as heritage conservation versus preservation,
the correlation between conservation and urban planning, and
the role of heritage planning and legislation in Egypt. The practice
of heritage conservation is explored in the present work because it
is related to physical, economic and social revitalization and the
significance of new developments within heritage areas such as
Rosetta. Key findings from plans, policies and documents, informa-
⇑ Tel.: +20 122 350 8081.
E-mail address: dsorady@gmail.com
tive interviews and field observations are also examined. Finally,
conclusions outlining the effectiveness of heritage conservation
as a tool and its role in achieving community improvement and
development goals are provided.
Heritage conservation
Heritage is defined not only through value and demand, but also
the uses of historical buildings and sites in a society. Throsby (2001)
considers heritage a capital asset. Graham (2002) defines it as a so-
cial construct that is defined within cultural and economic practice.
In this way, it fulfills both capital and cultural functions. As such,
heritage does serve an economic function, and can be considered a
product or resource for consumption. Graham (2002) adds that her-
itage can be interpreted differently between and within cultures at
any given time. A further complexity in defining heritage is that it
exists as both a tangible (i.e., the built environment) and intangible
resource (i.e., traditional or folk culture). From a practical perspec-
tive, heritage has been defined by Smith (2006) as a ‘‘process of
engagement, an act of communication and one of making meaning
in and for the present’’ (p. 3). Cantacuzino (1990) suggests that the
act of preservation is often associated with individual buildings
(Ashworth, 1991; Fram, 2003; Tyler, 2000). Graham charges the
act of preservation with creating a rift between stakeholders be-
cause it leaves little flexibility for planning decisions (Graham,
2002). As opposed to preservation, conservation allows for more
development options and fewer constraints. Tyler (2000) suggests
that conservation can be defined as the process that maintains
properties without significantly altering their existing condition.

0264-2751/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.11.013
380 D.A. Elsorady / Cities 29 (2012) 379–388

According to Fram (2003), conservation refers to neighborhood or tion (Fram, 2003; Venice Charter, 1964). This led to a change in
district planning. Khirfan adds ‘‘the spatial spirit becomes symbolic global attitude and an increasing convergence between planning
but free from nostalgia, contemporary but continuing from the past, and conservation (Hamer, 2000). Moreover, Al-Kheder et al. and
collective but respectful of the individual, distinctively local but Al-Hagla acknowledge the importance of the presence of an urban
inclusive of the diverse’’ (Khirfan, 2010, p. 324). Thus an under- system in a sustainable way, that balances the preservation of the
standing of the various meanings and interpretations associated existing heritage and the sufficient planning of the modern urban
with heritage can contribute to providing an effective framework fabric (Al-kheder, Haddad, Fakhoury, & Baqaen, 2009; Al-Hagla,
within which conservation decisions are made. 2010). Since then, it has become recognized that heritage planning
Moreover, heritage conservation is also recognized as an inher- cannot be treated in isolation from other aspects of heritage
ent development tool. Loulanski agrees with Graham’s theoretical conservation (Fram, 2003). Heritage conservation should not be se-
framework to explain the role of heritage development. First, heri- cluded from municipal plans; rather, it should be an integral part of
tage is identified as ‘‘an economic sector in itself. . .using resources, land use policy and planning. As such, general planning strategies
producing products, and generating returns in profits, [incomes] recognize the importance of the urban context, the coherence be-
and jobs’’ (Graham, Ashworth, & Tunbridge, 2000, p. 155; Loulanski, tween the elements of a built environment, both old and new,
2006, p. 56). Second, it is also considered ‘‘one element in economic and the need for all of these aspects to be thoroughly analyzed
development alongside others, frequently exercising a catalytic or and understood before effective planning can be established.
integrating role in development projects’’ (Graham et al., 2000, p.
155; Loulanski, 2006, p. 56) due to its capacity to attract economic
Heritage conservation and its role in achieving revitalization and
activities and accommodate economic functions. Finally, it is con-
development
sidered as ‘‘an instrument in the management of economies at var-
ious spatial scales from the international to the local’’ (Graham et al.,
Heritage areas must be places that people want to use and in-
2000, p. 155; Loulanski, 2006, p. 56). Heritage conservation in this
vest in. This is achieved by means of both the revitalization and
context serves to solve urban problems and achieve development
development of such areas. Tyler defines physical revitalization
as well as bridge the gap between preservation, development and
as the act of improving the condition of a built environment and
urban planning, as it seeks to resolve differences created by past
the elements found within it (Tyler, 2000). According to Doratli
decisions while moving forward into the future.
(2005), there are several possible courses of action, such as refur-
bishment, adaptive re-use, and rehabilitation. Bullen and Love
Community engagement in conservation
(2010) present a building viability process model that can be used
by owners, occupiers and planners to meet changing commercial
Through community engagement in conservation, communities
and regulatory demands required by buildings. Doratli (2005)
address the importance of heritage conservation to the public.
develops the work of Teisdall et al. (1996) by means of providing
Elements of the past are essential components in promoting both
three strategic approaches to achieving economic revitalization.
an individual and a communal sense of identity (Graham, 2002).
These approaches are functional restructuring, diversification and
Individuals, local groups and grassroots organizations are often
regeneration. While economic development remains a key consid-
concerned with protecting their neighborhoods and active involve-
eration in heritage areas, there is a shortage of models that explain
ment indecisions made about their communities (Tyler, 2000).
the economic context of decision-making regarding heritage. This
Moreover, Hodges and Watson (2000) emphasize the importance
may prove to be an unattractive prospect for many developers
of group organization, communication, consensus and manage-
who expect a swift return for their investments. Doratli (2005)
ment when realizing heritage conservation goals. More recently,
suggests that there are two contextual elements, obsolescence
Smith (2006) acknowledges the growing body of literature regard-
and development dynamics that create a need for revitalization
ing public engagement and community participation in heritage
in historic districts. Obsolescence occurs when buildings are ne-
management and conservation work (Smith & Waterton, 2009;
glected or fall into disrepair. Development dynamics contribute
Waterton & Watson, 2010). Furthermore, capacity building appears
to creating a need for revitalization. Proper identification of devel-
as a means to successful conservation practices, and is defined as
opment dynamics and their associated needs would increase the
‘‘the ability of individuals, organizations and societies to perform
likelihood of implementing revitalization projects successfully.
functions, solve problems and set and achieve objectives in a sus-
Although the values associated with heritage were once only
tainable manner’’ (UNDP, 2006, p. 3). Key players who contribute
cultural and scientific, planners must now consider social and eco-
to and benefit from conservation initiatives include interest groups
nomic realities and sustainability (Jokilehto, 2006). The integration
that may have a stake in heritage buildings, whether for financial
of heritage structures with new development can be attractive and
or personal gain (Teisdall, Oc, & Heath, 1996). It is difficult to
economically viable if proper guidelines are set in place. As such,
pinpoint how a society determines what will and will not be
urban policymakers must recognize heritage conservation as a
conserved. However, it is important to note the passion and com-
form-function phenomenon that is affected by a series of interven-
mitment that the public often demonstrates when actively con-
tion decisions (Ashworth, 1991). Wang and Lee (2008) draw atten-
serving a heritage that best represents the unique characteristics
tion to the importance of the local history, traditions and the
of their communities.
unique cultures of cities in attracting tourists and promoting econ-
omy as a way of managing sustainable urban development. There-
Integration between heritage conservation and urban planning
fore, to manage urban growth appropriately, heritage conservation,
development, social and economic factors, and physical factors
By the middle of the twentieth century, urban expansion and
(e.g. forms and function) must be appreciated and understood by
renewal projects redefined the urban fabric of cities and towns.
both planners and developers.
As a result, society’s reaction to the destruction of heritage assets
laid the foundations for the contemporary conservation movement
(Jokilehto, 2006). Thus, heritage professionals agreed that conser- Heritage conservation in Egypt
vation, restoration and preservation should follow a set of princi-
ples and guidelines. This resulted in the recognition of Little attention had been given to the protection and conser-
international documents and charters that guide heritage protec- vation of the cultural heritage of later periods of Egyptian his-
 D.A. Elsorady / Cities 29 (2012) 379–388
tory, especially the medieval Islamic heritage throughout the last
two centuries. One modest effort to address the conservation of
Islamic monuments was the foundation of the Committee for
Maintaining Arab Monuments (Comité de Conservation desMonu-
ments de L’ArtArabe) in 1881. The mission of this foundation is
to record, register, survey and preserve Islamic monuments when
necessary. The responsibilities of the committee were transferred
in the 1920s to the Department of Antiquities of the Ministry of
Culture. For many years, historical and cultural heritages suffered
destruction and alteration inthe name of planning and political
order. Lack of coordination between various governmental orga-
nizations concerned with planning and heritage protection re-
sulted in the restoration of isolated monuments rather than the
incorporation of conservation in the planning and development
schemes.
The first Egyptian law to address heritage conservation in Egypt
(Law 4) was issued in 1912. It showed a clear bias in favor of
ancient Egyptian monuments and did not mention Islamic monu-
ments. This law was replaced by a second (Law 215), which was is-
sued in 1951 by the late King Farouk. The criteria for selection
stated in Law 215 were not dynamic, as its implementation was
limited only to ensuring that major ancient monuments were re-
stored for the sake of international tourism. With the issuing of
Law 215 in 1951, medieval Islamic heritage was placed in the
hands of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA). Since 1951,
the SCA inspectorates (Tafteesh in Arabic) have been responsible
for safekeeping and managing historic sites and ensuring that
inhabitants and land-use planners respect the legal boundaries of
these sites as indicated by the Egyptian Antiquities Information
System (EIAS, 2006, p. 2).
Urban planning in Egypt
None of the planning initiatives made provision for the conser-
vation of the historic fabric and character of the Islamic heritage
until the last few years, when the General Organization for Physical
Planning (GOPP) implemented many projects within the overall
development strategy of Egypt. The GOPP mission was to establish,
follow up and undertake integrated strategies for urban develop-
ment (GOPP website). The Egyptian Cities Strategic Plan Project
is the main project that is currently in use (Ministry of Housing,
Utilities and Urban Development Projects, 2009). Of note, commu-
nity participation does not exist in Egyptian legislation as a legal
requirement in the Egyptian political system. Nevertheless, com-
munity participation has recently been supplemented compulso-
rily by the GOPP throughout the preparation of Egyptian city
plans after the creation of the Construction law 119 in 2008. The
law requested the preparation of strategic plans with a participa-
tory approach and the aim of complying with UN-HABITAT project
requirements in Egypt (GOPP, 2008).
Heritage conservation local practices
At the end of the 1990s, two conservation programs operated in
Islamic Cairo. These programs are the Historic Cities Restoration
Program (HCRP) and the Aga Khan Trust for Culture’s (AKTC)
Historic Cities Support Program. The mandate of the HCRP was to
create an ‘open-air museum’ and to restore one hundred and forty
nine listed mouments on Al Muizz street, whereas the AKTC in
Darb Shoughlan incorporated the restoration of historic structures
while improving the social and economic conditions of the local
community (Elsorady, 2010). The HCRP reliance on single monu-
ment conservation does not address broader socio-economic and
infrastructure issues, where as the AKTC focuses on the seissues,
with a lower priority given to traditional monument restoration
(Aga Khan Trust for Culture, 2005). HCRP-restored buildings are
381
used as tourist sites or locked up in an attempt to prevent further
damage (Ministry of Culture, 2002). On the contrary, the AKTC con-
servation project promoted the continuous repair and adaptation
of the traditional vernacular and historic structures.
There is a major disparity between the top-down approach of
the national government, adopted by the Egyptian Ministry of Cul-
ture, and the bottom-up participatory approach, adopted by the
Aga Khan Trust for Culture. Because the HCRP ignores the needs
of local residents and lacks community participation, many stake-
holders consider it as a failure in protecting heritage resources
(Williams, 2002). In contrast, inhabitants view the AKTC project
as essential to urban rehabilitation and the sustainability of phys-
ical improvements (Elsorady, 2010). This criticism of the work of
the Ministry of Culture was overcome by the adoption of the Con-
struction law 119 in 2008. The law imposed a participatory ap-
proach that involves the public, private and community partners.
Consequently, community participation was integrated into the
Planning Strategy for Rashid (Rosetta) 2027 (Azzam, 2009).
History of Rosetta
Rosetta (in Arabic Rashid and in French Rosette) is the name by
which the city was referred by the French during Napoleon Bona-
parte’s campaign in Egypt. It is a port city near the Mediterranean
coast of Egypt, situated at a latitude of 31°240 N and longitude of
30°240 E, on the western bank of the western branch of the Nile
and at a distance of 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Alexandria
(see Fig. 1). Rosetta has a rich history that dates back to 1517,
the beginning of the Ottoman era, which lasted until 1848. With
the decline of Alexandria, following the Ottoman conquest of Egypt
in 1517, Rosetta boomed. However, it waned in importance after
the revival of Alexandria. During the nineteenth century, it became
popular due to its charming Ottoman mansions. Rosetta is re-
nowned as the site where the ‘‘Pierre de Rosette’’ (the Rosetta
Stone) was found in 1799. Most of the city extension at the end
of the nineteenth century was towards the North and the North
West (Lamei, 2006). Many historic buildings suffered from the lack
of maintenance then. The population in 1907 was 16,660. At the
beginning of the twentieth century, the city began to extend itself
towards the South (Lamei, 2006). Five slum areas are on the
periphery of the old city center (Ezbit Hassan Ali, Abou El-Reesh,
Katkat, El-Kassara and Bhind Transformers) with a total area of
2.15 km2. The estimated population of the slum areas in 2005
was approximately 20,391 (RUSPS, 2006). According to Statistics
Egypt (2006), the estimated population of the historic city of Roset-
ta in 2005 was 70,314 (RUSPS, 2006). Although Law 113 in 1986
declared Rosetta a tourist city, it did not fully make use of its tour-
ist potential. The city lacked adequate sanitation. This caused an
increase in the groundwater level, which in turn, affected historic
buildings (RUSPS, 2006). The city also had numerous informal ped-
dlers and markets scattered throughout the streets of the historic
area, which led to traffic-clogged streets and the accumulation of
garbage (Azzam, 2009).
Heritage conservation in Rosetta
Rosetta is the second city (after Cairo) known to house Islamic
monuments. The number of these monuments decreased from 52
in 1963 to 37 in 2005, which reflects poor conservation measures
(RUSPS, 2006). The importance of Rosetta as a tourist destination
was announced in Law 113 in 1986. It was then that the Supreme
Council for Antiquities began the process of historic building pres-
ervation in the city. Rosetta currently includes 22 houses, twelve
mosques, a public bath, a mill, a castle and a city gate (EIAS,
2006). In a typical historic house, the first floor generally includes
382 D.A. Elsorady / Cities 29 (2012) 379–388
Fig. 1. Listed buildings and buildings built since 1986 around Historic Rosetta. Source: Author’s adaptation of available local and google maps of Rosetta.
a caravansary,1 a stable, a sabil2 and a cistern.3 The second floor is
designated for men, and the main living room is named dihliz.4 The
second and/or third floor often includes a main room called the
Al-Aghani5 room (Lamei, 2006). Famous examples include the Uthmā-
nAghā Al-Amasyalli house (see Fig. 2) and the Arab Killi house
(12th century H./18th A.D.). Within conservation projects, Rosetta
successfully conserved many magnificent houses, public and reli-
gious buildings (see Figs. 3–6).
The role of heritage conservation in development
Rosetta, like many Egyptian cities and towns, made a concerted
effort to conserve the built heritage of the community while adapt-
ing to rapid development. In May 2005, one of the Ottoman houses
1
A Caravansary: storehouse for keeping the goods and receiving.
2
A Sabil: public drinking fountain.
3
A Cistern is located below the house and was used for keeping water. It was
supported on columns or brackets and covered with vaults and shallow domes.
4
A dihliz has a courtyard surrounded by rooms.
5 struction of both a town for craftsmen and the new town of
An Al-Aghani room is the main living room located on the second and/or third
floor. It is distinguished by wooden cupboards on one of its walls, with niches and
wood screens.
collapsed. This house had been in the official safekeeping of the
SCA since 1951. Consequently, a team from the universities of Bari
and Paris-Belleville identified threats to historic buildings in Roset-
ta (EIAS, 2006). The team stressed the fact that registration with
the SCA should lead to the creation of long-term plans for the man-
agement of such registered buildings. The Rapid Urban Sector
Profiling for Sustainability (RUSPS) study also addressed heritage
conservation in Rosetta. This study adopted a participatory
approach through consultative processes (RUSPS team, 2006).
The General Organization for Physical Planning realized the
need for implementing policies and programs to promote heritage
conservation and development, requested in the Construction law
119 in 2008 and followed by Rosetta’s official announcement as an
open-air museum in 2007. The local association and community
members (see Fig. 7) proposed projects for Rosetta’s development.
Rosetta’s strategy was laid out by Prof. Azzam and his technical
team (i.e., private partner), who were appointed by the General
Organization of physical planning (i.e., public partner). The strat-
egy is based on four core fundamentals. These involved the con-
Rosetta, an appraisal of projects to support tourism on the Nile
River, and conservation of the built heritage environment. The
 D.A. Elsorady / Cities 29 (2012) 379–388 383

Fig. 2. Uthmān Aghā Al-Amasyalli house drawings. Source: Author’s adaptation of Egyptian Antiquities Supreme Council drawings.

overall planning and development strategy known as ‘Planning
Strategy for Rashid (Rosetta) 2027 – A Case Study’ won the Islamic
Capitals and Cities Prize in May 2010. To further investigate the
role of heritage conservation in development, several sources of
information, such as plans, development guidelines, heritage con-
servation legislations and policies for Rosetta, were collected.
Moreover, forty open-ended interviews were structured in two
stages to determine the role of heritage conservation policy imple-
mentation in achieving community improvement and develop-
ment goals. Interviewees were all stakeholders, beneficiaries and/
or decision-makers for Historic Rosetta. These interviewees were
public partners, community or private partners (see Fig. 7). The
first twenty interviewees were residents, property owners, shop-
keepers, members of the Investors Society and officials of the Gen-
eral Organization for Physical Planning as well as Prof. Azzam, as
consultant in charge. Twenty additional interviews included com-
munity partners, such as members of the Local Council, non-gov-
ernmental organizations, contracting companies’ engineers, more
members of the Investors Society and members of City Council.
Interviewees were asked the same basic questions in the same
order, thereby increasing the comparison of responses. Interview
questions considered topics such as heritage conservation (i.e., its
importance, its role within the community and the latter’s contri-
bution), physical/economic/social revitalization (i.e., how heritage
conservation affects local business), new development (i.e., how
it can be integrated with heritage areas, what works, what does
not), the decision-making process (i.e., methods that might facili-
tate or improve the process), and the role of public participation
(i.e., in planning and decision-making processes). Four community
improvement indicators were selected as a means to assess the
384 D.A. Elsorady / Cities 29 (2012) 379–388
Fig. 3. Arab Killi House (Rosetta National Museum). Photo: Author.
Fig. 4. Domaqsis (Al-Muallaq) Mosque. Photo: Author.
effectiveness of heritage conservation in enhancing the community
of Rosetta. These were derived from several sources such as Doratli
(2005), Shipley, Reeve, Walker, Grover, and Goodey (2004), Hoer-
nig and Seasons (2004) and Teisdall et al. (1996). The indicators
were selected to signify the four core fundamentals of Rosetta’s
strategy and process (GOPP and Azzam, 2009). The first indicator
is the maintenance of the urban fabric/physical improvement. At
this point, improvements to buildings and the surrounding envi-
ronment are being considered (Doratli, 2005; Teisdall et al.,
1996). The second indicator is economic revival and development.
This is measured by considering investment in new and existing
development (i.e., how buildings are being used), local business
activity in terms of the number and types of businesses within
an area and the role and involvement of local groups (Hoernig &
Fig. 5. Shahin Mill and Uthmān Aghā Al-Amasyalli House. Photo: Author.
Fig. 6. Al-Maizouni House. Photo: Author.
Seasons, 2004; Shipley et al., 2004). The third indicator examines
the quality of life and social well-being. Factors such as employ-
ment, income and a sense of community are considered in order
to provide a socio-economic profile of the area (Shipley et al.,
2004, p. 533; Hoernig & Seasons, 2004). The fourth indicator exam-
ines the change process within heritage conservation. Community
satisfaction with the process of change is examined in terms of
time and transparence (Doratli, 2005; Hoernig & Seasons, 2004)
(see Tables 1 and 2). These indicators are measured primarily in
terms of documented information and guidance provided by pub-
lic, private and community partners (see Fig. 7).
Survey results
The interview results supported the notion that heritage conser-
vation and urban development were directly correlated with
 D.A. Elsorady / Cities 29 (2012) 379–388 385

Fig. 7. Partners in Rosetta’s Planning and Development Strategy Illustration: Author.

Table 1
Selected Community Improvement Indicators, as suggested by various authors.

Indicators Measures Data Sources Author(s) reference

Maintenance of the urban fabric/physical Buildings in need of repair Maps Doratli (2005)
improvement Streetscape Interviews Teisdall et al. (1996)
Observations
Documents
Economic revival and development Investment in new and existing Interviews Shipley et al. (2004)
development
Local business activity Observations Hoernig and Seasons (2004)
Quality of life and social well-being Employment and income Maps Shipley et al. (2004), Hoernig and Seasons
Access to services and amenities Interviews (2004)
A sense of community Documents
Change process Satisfaction with process, timing Interviews Doratli (2005)
Transparence of process Documents Hoernig and Seasons (2004)

community improvement efforts. One interviewee noted that
Rosetta was a rapidly growing community that faced significant
pressure from developers. This can be an issue when the land value
rises such that it is difficult to justify development at a lower density
for the sake of conserving the urban fabric. On the other hand, 63%
agreed that heritage conservation could be an economic incentive
due to visitor and resident spending. It also helps the local economy
through the hiring of local labor and expertise. Twenty-five intervie-
wees affirmed that restoration typically utilizes local labor and
depends heavily upon the local economy. The importance of revital-
ization within heritage conservation was supported by 70% of the
interviewees. Sixty percent of them stated that revitalization is
achieved when people actively enhance, maintain and put value
back into their property. As such, revitalization efforts can build
on a sense of identity and community. Sixty-three percent of the
interviewees agreed that, on the whole, conservation had been
positive for local business. Forty-five percent indicated that there
were certain restrictions in terms of business flexibility. Moreover,
they noted that guideline information had not always been easily
accessible. Sixty-three percent of interviewees agreed that certain
businesses located in a historic area become more successful while
other businesses may eventually be excluded due to market
demands. Fifty percent of interviewees mentioned that they appre-
ciated being in a beautiful, charming historic area and believed that
it enhanced the quality of life. Thirty percent felt that adhering to
the concept of heritage conservation could be more trouble than it
was worth. Interviewees discussed their experiences and opinions
related to the role that public participation played in the process
as well as its timing and transparence. It was largely agreed upon
(70% of interviewees) that consultation played a key role in improv-
ing the decision-making process. Furthermore, they emphasized
that people were aware of the changes in their communities
through public engagement during open meetings. A criticism that
arose by 30% of interviewees was that people did not always under-
stand the heritage conservation goals or terms. Generally, heritage
conservation provides a platform that brings local business and
property owners together with the support of the municipality to
organize, finance, improve and promote economic development.
Discussion
Based on the work of several authors, community improvement
indicators were selected as a means of evaluating and measuring
community enhancement. Moreover, these authors indicated that
community improvement and development are achieved through
appropriate heritage conservation measures that recognize the
importance of addressing proper key indicators in conservation
areas (Doratli, 2005; Hoernig & Seasons, 2004; Ross, 1996; Shipley
386 D.A. Elsorady / Cities 29 (2012) 379–388

Table 2
Selected community improvement indicators and measures in Rosetta related to interview questions and results.

Indicators Interview questions addressing measures Interviewees Evidence from interviewees comments
in Table 1 responses%
Yes No Not
sure
Maintenance of the urban fabric/  Importance of heritage conservation 60 30 10 Effect on community improvement
physical improvement  Conservation of facades 63 20 17 A visible number of maintained, restored and adaptively
reused heritage buildings
 Cleanliness and Improvements 55 20 25 Successful physical improvements such as sidewalk
treatment, signage and pavement
Economic revival and development  Effect on area revitalization/development 70 30 0 Conservation key role in promoting economic revival and
development
 Effect on Property Value 60 30 10 Investment occurred in both new and existing areas
 No. of visitors and tourists 50 370 23 Maintenance and putting value back into properties
More visitors and tourists
 Effect on local business and jobs 63 32 5 More hiring of local labor and expertise. More spending
Types of local business
Conservation had, on the whole, been positive for local
business
Quality of life and social well-being  Satisfaction living/working in a heritage 50 30 20 Appreciation of a beautiful, charming historic area
area Physical improvements
 Attractive streetscape 55 25 20 Access to services and amenities is viable
Pedestrian flow
 Occupied spaces 50 20 30 More occupied spaces
Change process  Clear strategy 63 20 17 Outcomes in relation to priorities
 Understand how heritage conservation 35 30 35 Insufficient understanding of heritage conservation goals
works or terms
 Community participation in process and 70 23 7 Consultation is a key role in improving the decision-
type of participation making process
 Process transparency 70 23 7 Public awareness and open meetings

et al., 2004; Teisdall et al., 1996). The four selected community
improvement indicators in this research are urban fabric mainte-
nance, economic development, social well-being, and change
process. Such indicators and their measures were derived from
the literature. They were chosen due to their local relevance to
Rosetta’s strategy. Interview questions examined significant mea-
sures of the indicators (see Tables 1 and 2). Interview responses
demonstrated the appropriate use of such measures (see Table 2).
Selected indicators reveal that physical improvement and urban
fabric maintenance have been successful. Conservation played a
role in promoting economic development. While this factor
remains a key consideration in heritage areas, it differs from most
forms of investment, as the return is not always immediate. Inter-
viewees affirmed the use of economic development as an economic
draw that benefited the community in terms of property value and
local business. Sixty-three percent of interviewees indicated that
local business activity is successful (see Fig. 8). The employment
of local labor in restoration and its effect on local business was
confirmed by 25 interviewees. They also acknowledged that
investment occurred in existing development areas.
Whereas some historic buildings were not in use, the Rosetta
planning and development strategy suggested their adaptation
into local craft workshops and tourist gift shops. Moreover, certain
types of businesses were eventually excluded due to market
demands. Hence, the local community approved and facilitated
the replacement of some inappropriate local businesses such as
the fish market. Although 50% of interviewees agreed that the
number of tourists and visitors in 2010 increased compared to
2009, a decrease followed in 2011 due the organization of the
Egyptian January 25th 2011 revolution. Community interviewees
hoped that heritage conservation would regain the 2010 number
of tourists and retain the economic development acceleration.

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Yes
%
No
%

Fig. 8. Individuals’ opinions regarding heritage conservation in Rosetta. Source: Author.

 D.A. Elsorady / Cities 29 (2012) 379–388
Less than one-quarter of the interviewees conveyed discontent,
whereas 70% expressed overall satisfaction with the implementa-
tion of heritage conservation and the timing of the process. The
inclusiveness and transparency of the decision-making process
was discussed by these interviewees. Rosetta’s strategy involved
community partners and adopted the bottom-up participatory
approach. Thirty percent of interviewees stated that heritage con-
servation goals or terms were not always comprehensible. This im-
plies the significance of developing capacity building by working
with the local community at ground level to strengthen its abilities
and skills (Ross, 1996). In general, the research results indicate that
Rosetta has taken steps to ensure that decisions about community
change are clearly communicated to stakeholders; however,
further work is needed on the capacity building development.
Conclusion
Heritage conservation goals and guidelines retain and conserve
heritage assets, guide change that encourages compatible develop-
ments, and ensure the endorsement of the maintenance and/or re-
use of historic buildings. Nevertheless, there is a major disparity
between the top-down approach adopted by the Egyptian Ministry
of Culture in the HCRP and the bottom-up participatory approach
adopted by the GOPP and applied by the Egyptian Ministry of cul-
ture after the adoption of the Construction Law 119 in 2008. The
latter resembles the participatory approach that was adopted by
AKTC in Islamic Cairo. Rosetta’s Strategy and AKTC involved com-
munity partners, using projects as catalysts for socio-cultural and
economic benefits.
Heritage conservation has contributed to urban fabric mainte-
nance, physical improvements, economic revitalization and devel-
opment, as well as a relatively high level of social well-being,
beautification and quality of life for Rosetta residents and visitors.
New business activities tend to cater to day tourists. Pedestrian
flow is a positive factor in contributing to local business and
economic activity. Furthermore, according to Rosetta Investors
Society, an effort to reduce business turnover is currently under-
way. This is being accomplished through research on market de-
mand to meet the needs of visitors and the community. In this
way, heritage conservation provides a long-term strategy for
achieving community improvement and development goals.
Heritage conservation is a core effective factor in policies and
strategies of old and historic areas. As such, this research signifies
that heritage conservation is a tool that plays a role in achieving
community improvement and development. With the aim of com-
prehending this role, a set of indicators was devised and applied in
Rosetta. The outcome indicates that community improvement may
be accomplished through heritage conservation that recognizes the
implication of addressing the appropriately selected key indicators.
Implementing a monitoring program that employs such indicators
to evaluate the output of policy goals would allow communities to
appreciate successful improvement efforts and to recognize short-
comings. Although generic heritage conservation plans and policies
provide a foundation for community improvement, historic areas
may require a level of attention that addresses the community’s
needs and the physical, economic and social character of the area
in question. If necessary, the framework devised for the current re-
search can be extended or adapted to meet the needs of historic
areas in Egypt or elsewhere.
Acknowledgements
The researcher wishes to acknowledge the guidance and sup-
port of Prof. Yousry Azzam (University of Alexandria and coordina-
tor of the Rosetta Planning and Development Strategy 2027).
387
Professor Azzam provided valuable information regarding heritage
conservation, both in Rosetta and Egypt as a whole. The researcher
also expresses her thanks to Architect Marwan Beiram and
Architect Mai Abdelsalam for their technical assistance.
References
Aga Khan Trust for Culture (2005). Cairo: Urban Regeneration in the Darb Al-Ahmar
district a framework for investment. Historic Cities Support Programme. <http://
www.akdn.org>.
Al-Hagla, K. S. (2010). Sustainable urban development in historical areas using the
tourist trail approach: A case study of the Cultural Heritage and Urban
Development (CHUD) project in Saida, Lebanon. Cities, 27(4), 234–248.
Al-kheder, S., Haddad, N., Fakhoury, L., & Baqaen, S. (2009). A GIS analysis of the
impact of modern practices and policies on the urban heritage of Irbid, Jordan.
Cities, 26(2), 81–92.
Ashworth, G. (1991). Heritage planning: Conservation as the management of urban
change. Netherlands: Geo Pers.
Azzam, Y. (2009). Planning strategy for Rashid (Rosetta) 2027 – A case study. Egypt:
General Organization for Physical Planning.
Bullen, P., & Love, E. D. (2010). The rhetoric of adaptive reuse or reality of
demolition: Views from the field. Cities, 27(4), 215–224.
Cantacuzino, S. (1990). A policy for architectural conservation. In A. H. Imamuddin
& K. R. Longeteig (Eds.). Architectural and urban conservation in the Islamic world
(Vol. 1, pp. 12–24). Geneva: Aga Khan Trust for Culture.
Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics, Egypt (2006). Statistics Egypt.
<http://www.msrintranet.capmas.gov.eg> Accessed 04.04.11.
Cohen, N. (1999). Urban conservation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Doratli, N. (2005). Revitalizing historic urban quarters: A model for determining the
most relevant strategic approach. European Planning Studies, 13(5), 749–772.
Egyptian Antiquities Information System (EIAS) (December 2006). EIAS Newsletter,
5, 1–4. <http://www.eais.org.eg/pdfs/December_2006.pdf> Accessed 04.04.11).
EIAS/Case Studies/Rosetta <http://www.eais.org.eg/index.pl/rosetta> Accessed
04.04.11.
Elsorady, D. (June 2010). Sustainable heritage conservation of Islamic-Cairo district.
In 2nd international conference on heritage and sustainable development. Évora,
Portugal.
Fram, M. (2003). Well preserved: The Ontario heritage foundation’s manual of principles
and practice for architectural conservation (3rd ed.). Ontario: Boston Mills Press.
General Organization for Physical Planning (2008). The national urban development
plan in the Arab Republic of Egypt, Ministry of Housing, Utilities & Urban
Development. <http://www.gopp.gov.eg> Accessed 10.04.11.
General Organization for Physical Planning & Azzam, Y. (2009). General and Detailed
Planning Strategy Project for Rashid (Rosetta), El-Behaira Governorate: The
development perspective of the city. Egypt: General Organization for Physical
Planning. <http://www.gopp.gov.eg/MasterPages/Achievements/rosetta/Rosetta.
html> Accessed 16.04.11.
Graham, B. (2002). Heritage as knowledge: Capital or culture? Urban Studies,
39(5–6), 1003–1017.
Graham, B., Ashworth, G., & Tunbridge, G. (2000). A geography of heritage – Power,
culture and economy. London: Arnold.
Hamer, D. (2000). Planning and heritage: Towards integration. In R. Freestone (Ed.),
Urban planning in a changing world (pp. 194–211). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Hodges, A., & Watson, S. (2000). Community-based heritage management: A case
study and agenda for research. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 6(3),
231–243.
Hoernig, H., & Seasons, M. (2004). Monitoring of indicators in local and regional
planning practice: Concepts and issues. Planning, Practice and Research, 19(1),
81–99.
Jokilehto, J. (2006). A history of architectural conservation. Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Khirfan, L. (2010). Traces on the palimpsest: Heritage and the urban forms of Athens
and Alexandria. Cities, 27(5), 315–325.
Lamei, S. (2006). Rosetta (Rashid): A Mediterranean City: Past, Present & Future of a
living Heritage. A PowerPoint presentation. <http://lib.teekerk.gr/bitstream/
lib.teekerk.gr/164/1/ker_m311_lamei.pdf> Accessed 24.03.11.
Loulanski, T. (2006). Cultural heritage in socio-economic development: Local and
global perspectives. Environments Journal, 34(2), 51–69.
Ministry of Culture (2002). Development and urban conservation in historic Cairo.
Egypt: Supreme Council of Antiquities.
Ross, M. (1996). Planning and the heritage: Policy and procedures. London: E&FN SPON.
RUSPS Team, Egypt (2006). Rapid Urban Sector Profiling for Sustainability (RUSPS)-
Rosetta. UN-HABITAT-United Nations Human Settlements Program. <http://
163.121.56.10/habitat/RUSPS_Project_in_Egypt/Rosetta/ROSETTAENGLISH.pdf>
Accessed 24.02.11.
Shipley, R., Reeve, A., Walker, S., Grover, P., & Goodey, B. (2004). Townscape heritage
initiatives evaluation: Methodology for assessing the effectiveness of heritage
lottery fund projects in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning, 22(4),
523–542.
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. New York: Routledge.
Smith, L., & Waterton, E. (2009). Heritage communities and archaeology. London:
Duckworth.
Teisdall, S., Oc, T., & Heath, T. (1996). Revitalizing historic urban districts. Oxford:
Architectural Press.
388 D.A. Elsorady / Cities 29 (2012) 379–388

Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, N. (2000). Historic preservation: An introduction to its history principles, and
practice. New York: W.W. Norton and Co..
UNDP (2006). UNDP capacity development practice note. <http://www.undp.org/cpr/
iasc/content/docs/UNDP_Capacity_Development.pdf> Accessed 10.08.11.
Venice Charter (1964). International charter for the conservation and restoration of
monuments and sites. In Second international congress of architects and
technicians of historic monuments.
Wang, H. J., & Lee, H. Y. (2008). How government-funded projects have revitalized
historic streetscapes – Two cases in Taiwan. Cities, 25(4), 197–206.
Waterton, E., & Watson, S. (2010). Heritage and community engagement:
Collaboration or contestation? Special Issue of the International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 16, 1–2.
Williams, C. (2002). Transforming the old: Cairo’s new medieval city. Middle East
Journal, 56(3), 457–474.