**5. Discussion on the implementation of sustainable development and protection for the cultural heritage in spatial plans**

In order to consider the issues of implementing the sustainable development and protection of cultural assets in the spatial plans analyzed, the authors use and build on previous research on the implementation model for spatial plans [11, 12, 23], as follows:


*The Implementation of Sustainable Development and Protection of Cultural Heritage… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99056*

addition to the mentioned planning elements, they also include "postplanning elements" defined by the plan (carried out later) and all the necessary elements of monitoring;

• Depending on the type and method of planning, several types of spatial plan implementation models have been singled out, and the implementation model of spatial protection has been analyzed and applied in practice for the purpose of spatial protection.

According to the authors, the research presented in this paper has a special significance, because it refers to the issues of sustainable development and protection of cultural property that have not been subject to such analyses so far. Previous analyses of the implementation model have included protected areas of natural resources and water sources, but not protected areas of cultural heritage.

Furthermore, in their analysis, the authors thematically separate and analyze three aspects (**Table 2**), namely: (1) the protection of cultural heritage and its environment in a narrower sense (P); (2) the development of cultural heritage, i.e. primarily those elements related to the rules of their arrangement, presentation and inclusion in tourist activities (D); and (3) integrating the protection and development of cultural assets into landscape planning and protection (L).

*The Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia* has applied the largest number of elements of the implementation model, those relating both to protection and to developing cultural heritage and landscape planning (a total of 27 elements). The specificity this plan is the large number of recognized elements relating to landscapes from all three plans, as well as the definition of the monitoring elements that are missing in other plans. Therefore, it can be concluded that a general approach has been applied in this plan, which is justified having in mind that it belongs to the national level of planning.

In *The Regional Spatial Plan for the area of Kolubara and Mačva administrative districts*, the fewest elements of the implementation model were applied (a total of 17 elements). The specificity of this plan is that it does not integrate the protection and development of cultural heritage in the planning and protection of landscapes, that is, there is a complete lack of any elements related to the theme of landscapes. Elements of the protection and development of cultural heritage are equally applied in this plan. Since this type of plan is focused on the goals and projects of regional development, i.e. the regional approach to planning, further elaboration on all missing elements is possible and necessary through the local level of planning.

In The Spatial Plan for the Special Purpose Area of the Landscape of Outstanding Features Ovčar-Kablar Gorge, a combination of the implementation elements of all three aspects (a total of 21 elements) was applied. However, the fewest elements are related to the integration of cultural heritage in landscape planning and protection, and they refer only to the general strategic framework, general goals, and planning and program measures for implementation, indicating that these were not sufficiently considered. Elements that relate to the protection and development of cultural goods are relatively evenly distributed. This kind of approach to planning can be characterized as special (as indicated by the name and subject of the plan) and is determined by the need to protect and plan the development of both the protected natural area and the future protected area of cultural monuments.

After analyzing all three plans, the basic conclusion is that general planning elements (strategic framework, goals, planning solutions) are dominant, that there are fewer post-planning elements (dynamics, implementation measures), and that there is a marked lack of elements related to the implementation of monitoring. Further analysis in this direction is not necessary, as it would be largely focused on


**Table 2.**

#### *The Implementation of Sustainable Development and Protection of Cultural Heritage… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99056*

the legislative framework, procedures and assessment of the quality of the plans, which is not the subject of this paper.

In the opinion of the authors, the most important conclusion concerns the relationship between aspects of protecting cultural heritage, its sustainable development and its integration into planning and protecting landscapes. Out of all these elements recognized in the plans, most concern the protection of cultural heritage, of which there are 31, followed by the elements of development (rules of arrangement, presentation and tourism), of which there are 23, but only 11 elements concerning the integration of cultural heritage in landscape planning and protection. This points towards the basic conclusion of the research, that protecting cultural assets and their environment in the narrower sense dominates the planning practice of Serbia, which is in itself justified and necessary. However, this does not sufficiently consider and plan for the sustainable development of cultural heritage, because there is insufficient elaboration of elements that would indicate the rules of construction and spatial planning in their environment, along with their unification and further planning development integrated with tourism (cultural routes, tourist areas, etc.). This is even more pronounced when considering the aspect of integrating the protection and development of cultural heritage into the planning and protection of landscapes, which is not developed in the practice of planning in Serbia. Indeed, it is considered only in a general and declarative manner, and only in individual cases.

#### **6. Conclusions**

Alongside the starting point that spatial (and urban) planning is of key importance for the sustainable development and protection of cultural heritage, this paper aimed to, based on the analysis of previous experiences, point out the need and possibilities for further improving the spatial planning process.

The fact is that in the current practice, cultural heritage is not clearly articulated as a development resource, and the connection and harmonization of policies for protection, arrangement and use of cultural heritage has not been achieved, especially in the case of the cultural landscapes and areas mentioned here. The Law on Cultural Property is not sufficiently harmonized with international recommendations, and does not recognize categories of the cultural landscape. The plans mainly include data on the number and category of cultural assets, as well as measures for their protection, obtained from the competent protection services.

The case study of three spatial plans confirmed the basic hypothetical assumptions of the research, that the methods used to plan areas of cultural heritage differ depending on the type and level of the spatial plan. The plans identify aspects of protection and the sustainable development of cultural heritage, and also in part their integration with landscape planning, but with obvious important shortcomings.

A key conclusion was reached based on this analysis, namely that there is no dominant and developed concept of protecting cultural heritage that has evolved into a system of comprehensive and adequate planning for its sustainable development. Therefore, in the coming period, it is necessary to improve planning methods and techniques in order to fully consider the sustainable development of cultural heritage in spatial plans. The first step in this can be the detailed planning and definition of all of the necessary rules for the arrangement and construction of space (urbanistic rules) in the vicinity of cultural heritage (protected or wider), the application of which would enable the construction of traffic and infrastructure systems, tourist facilities and infrastructure, and even those elements which reinforce the very aspect of protection from new activities in the environment. This would enable adequate presentation of cultural heritage, and the spatial connection

and definition of cultural areas and cultural routes at the international, national, regional and local levels.

Such spatial planning would be a really key instrument in the implementation of European policies, which emphasize a contextual approach and expansion with regard to the subject of protection, from individual monuments to wider spatial units, as well as the need to integrate conservation and protection strategies with development and planning documents, and others.

In addition to the above, it can be further concluded that the lack of integration between protection policy and the development of cultural heritage in the planning and protection of landscapes is even more pronounced. It is interesting to note that the analysis indicated that this type of integration is only found in the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia, i.e., at the national level of planning. The planning and protection of landscapes are not considered in other spatial plans. This further raises issues and needs for improvement, not only with regard to planning, but also legal regulations that should make integrated aspects of protection and development of cultural assets mandatory in landscape planning.

Based on the examples analyzed here, one gets the impression that in practice only the integration of the protection and development of cultural heritage with the protection of natural heritage has been truly achieved, that is, the integration of different aspects of protection.

Finally, all the above findings presented by the authors in this paper need to be further researched and scientifically shaped. The shortcoming of this research could be its small scientific sample of three spatial plans. With an increase in the number of spatial plans analyzed, i.e. the number of cultural assets and the area where they are located, it is certain that the research results would be more precise and significant. Indeed, that is the imperative of the planner in the period ahead.

Finally, in the opinion of the authors, this analysis of models and elements of implementing plans also highlights those general shortcomings in the plans that need to be eliminated and solved by improving planning methodology. This relates not only to the issue of the protection and sustainable development of cultural heritage, but also to numerous other aspects and subjects of planning (the economy, traffic, settlement networks, regional development, rural development, etc.). It especially refers to the concretization of planning solutions, determination of priorities, measures and instruments of implementation, and in particular elements for monitoring the implementation of spatial plans. The more precisely defined the implementation framework of spatial plans, the greater their role in integrating the protection and sustainable development of cultural heritage with other aspects of development.

## **Conflict of interest**

There is no conflict of interest.

*The Implementation of Sustainable Development and Protection of Cultural Heritage… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99056*
