Research data underlying the PhD thesis "Shared Tools, Divided Discourse: Heritage Conservation and Spatial Planning Integration in Portuguese Urban Management"

CONTEXT AND PURPOSE This dataset contains the research data underlying the PhD thesis "Shared Tools, Divided Discourse: Heritage Conservation and Spatial Planning Integration in Portuguese Urban Management" (Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Chair of Heritage and Values).The research examines how heritage conservation (HC) and spatial planning have been integrated into urban management policies and practices, using Portugal as the primary case study. It addresses one main research question through three sub-questions, concerning respectively the urban management tools applied, the heritage categories, cultural values and heritage attributes addressed by policies and actors, and how integration dynamics are perceived by those who implement them.The analytical framework is the Sector-Factor-Vector (SFV) model, adapted from Janssen et al. (2017) and operationalised here for policy analysis, complemented by the policy integration degrees of Nadin et al. (2021) and the facilitators and inhibitors of integration of Stead and Meijers (2009). STRUCTURE OF THE DEPOSIT The deposit consists of two linked records. This record holds all openly available material, organised by chapter. The anonymised survey microdata are deposited separately under restricted access, for the reason given below; everything needed to interpret them — codebook, analysis syntax and questionnaire — is in this record and openly available. CONTENTS BY CHAPTER Chapters 2 and 6 are conceptual and generate no primary data. Chapter 1 — Systematic literature review. Records on the integration of heritage conservation and urban development planning policies were retrieved from Scopus and screened in stages: 677 retrieved, 562 after title and abstract screening, 213 after further abstract screening, 212 at eligibility, 188 after quality assessment, and 88 included. The included records were coded for research approach, method, geographic scale, heritage category, affecting factors, subject and region, followed by a detailed extraction covering research design, heritage attributes, cultural values, actors and planning policy view. Chapter 3 — International case studies. Semi-structured interviews with municipal officers in Ballarat (Australia) and Amsterdam (the Netherlands), selected as internationally recognised good practices, combined with content analysis of planning and heritage policy documents. Four interview transcripts are deposited, together with the interview protocol and a blank copy of the information sheet and consent form. Chapter 4 — Portuguese national policies. Statutory analysis of Portuguese planning and heritage legislation, producing a chronology of laws, policy instruments and institutions coded by field (heritage conservation, urban planning, or both) and by type (instrument or actor), which underlies the taxonomy of urban management tools presented in the thesis. The source material is publicly available legislation and published secondary literature. Chapter 5 — Survey of municipal officers in Porto and Faro, the core empirical component. A structured questionnaire was administered online via Qualtrics, in Portuguese, between 6 December 2021 and 22 February 2022, covering professional profile and education background, functional responsibilities, use of urban management tools and the functions attributed to them, involvement across the stages of the planning process, heritage scope and the sources informing decision-making, recognition of heritage attribute categories and of cultural values, and perceived degrees of integration between heritage conservation and urban planning. A total of 59 valid responses were obtained, 37 in Porto and 22 in Faro. Participation was voluntary and no question was mandatory, so response rates vary by item. This record holds the questionnaire as administered and its English translation, a codebook documenting all 655 variables, the analysis syntax, and the workbook documenting the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. TAXONOMIES AND ANALYSIS Taxonomies applied: the eight cultural values categories established by Pereira Roders (2007) and the eighteen heritage attribute categories established by Veldpaus (2015). Survey analysis: descriptive statistics, derived diversity indices, cross-tabulations, Spearman's rho rank correlations, Mann-Whitney U tests for independent samples, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for paired samples. Non-parametric methods were used throughout, given the sample size and the ordinal and dichotomous nature of the variables. Analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics and are reproducible from the syntax file included here. The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were computed manually against tabulated critical values of T, one-tailed at a significance level of 0.05, and are documented in a separate spreadsheet. In these tests the unit of pairing is the category — 12 urban management tools, 18 heritage attribute categories and 14 cultural values categories — each addressed by both professional profiles, rather than the individual respondent. That spreadsheet records the input counts and the ranking procedure, so that each result can be verified step by step. A README describes every file. ETHICAL AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE Data collection was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of Delft University of Technology on 12 May 2023, application number 3159. A Data Management Plan was reviewed by the Faculty Data Steward. The legal ground for processing personal data is informed consent. Survey respondents were informed at the outset about the purpose of the research and the associated risks, that participation was voluntary, that no question was mandatory, that they could withdraw at any time, and that responses would be treated anonymously. As stated in that information, the IP address was recorded while the survey was active, for the single functional purpose of allowing a respondent to leave the questionnaire and resume it later from the same device. The IP address was retained during the analysis phase and has been deleted from the deposited dataset as part of the anonymisation measures. Seven further identifiers generated by the survey platform were also removed, and free-text responses are not included. No name, e-mail address, IP address or geolocation data is present in any deposited file. The survey microdata are shared under restricted access, in the linked record. With 59 respondents, and 22 in Faro, cross-tabulations of municipality with professional profile and education variables produce cells of one or two respondents, which would permit the re-identification of individual officers. All files in the present record are openly available. Each of the four interview participants whose transcript is deposited signed an informed consent form permitting the interview to be archived in a TU Delft data repository and deposited as a transcript identified by affiliation, and each transcript was reviewed, edited and approved by the participant concerned. Participants are identified by affiliation and professional domain only, and personal names have been removed. One further interview was conducted, with a Heritage Conservation officer of the City of Amsterdam, who did not consent to being quoted, named, or to the archiving of the interview; no material from it is included, and as a result the deposited transcripts do not cover the Heritage Conservation perspective in Amsterdam. In accordance with the consent given, the audio and video recordings were transcribed and are not retained. The coding and content-analysis workbooks for that chapter are not deposited, because the excluded participant's material is integrated into them and cannot be separated without altering the analysis reported in the thesis. Signed consent forms are retained in secure institutional storage. The literature records for Chapter 1 were identified through Scopus (Elsevier). Fields generated by the Scopus export — abstracts, author and index keywords, affiliations, references, funding details, publisher, ISSN, ISBN, document type, EID and related metadata — are not redistributed. What is provided is the citation information needed to identify each publication, together with the author's own screening decisions and coding. RELATED RECORD Survey microdata, restricted access: 10.4121/c2d3ed35-f8e2-44d1-93f4-9a696266f40c