Process-led value elicitation within built heritage management:
a systematic literature review between 2010 and 2020
Citation for published version (APA):
Chen, D., & Li, J. (2021). Process-led value elicitation within built heritage management: a systematic literature review between 2010 and 2020. Journal of Architectural Conservation, 27(1-2), 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2021.1909900
Document license: CC BY
DOI:
10.1080/13556207.2021.1909900 Document status and date: Published: 01/01/2021 Document Version:
Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers) Please check the document version of this publication:
• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.
• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.
• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.
Link to publication
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.
If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:
www.tue.nl/taverne
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at: openaccess@tue.nl
providing details and we will investigate your claim.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raco20 ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raco20
Process-led value elicitation within built heritage
management: a systematic literature review
between 2010 and 2020
Dan Chen & Ji Li
To cite this article: Dan Chen & Ji Li (2021) Process-led value elicitation within built heritage management: a systematic literature review between 2010 and 2020, Journal of Architectural Conservation, 27:1-2, 1-16, DOI: 10.1080/13556207.2021.1909900
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2021.1909900
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Published online: 17 Apr 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 259
View related articles
REVIEW ARTICLE
Process-led value elicitation within built heritage
management: a systematic literature review between 2010
and 2020
Dan Chenaand Ji Lib a
Department of Architecture and Urban planning, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China;bDepartment of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands
ABSTRACT
The UNESCO 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) states community participation is an essential tool to elicit values attributed by diverse stakeholders in built heritage, to better prioritise actions based on public interests and needs. Traditional value elicitation often takes place in an expert-driven process following value typology frameworks, which is, however, widely criticised under the self-examination and reflection within built heritage protection and management. Therefore, it is still not adequately explored how values of built heritage can be identified through a process-led methodology of inclusive public participation. Using the method of a systematic literature review, this paper collected and analysed documents published between 2010 and 2020, from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives. The findings show that process-led value elicitation has been widely discussed and applied within the international practices of built heritage management, asfive main themes are synthesised in this paper. This review could be inspiring and pioneering in thefield of international built heritage management, pushing methodological changes to focus more on the use and significance of heritage in local residents and their living experiences.
KEYWORDS Built heritage; value typology; process-led; public participation
1. Introduction
Current heritage management is going through a process of change, wherein the focus is not only the conservation of monuments, buildings or sites but also the protection of their cultural significance, values, attributes and associated communities.1 The Burra
Charter recognises heritage conservation as‘a dynamic process of change management that should be conducted through a value-based approach’2; therefore, the significance
or value evaluation has been widely acknowledged as the cornerstone of both manage-ment and conservation of heritage.
In recent decades, the expanding of built heritage concept, from architectural struc-ture to site and from urban texstruc-ture to landscape, becomes the direct cause of broadening
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT Ji Li j.li3@tue.nl
values that are considered to have cultural significance, and these new values are now part of all decisions taken to protect and safeguard built heritage properties.3For example, social values have become an important consideration in built heritage management as decisions have a strong impact on the daily lives of local people. In international policies, the scope of built heritage has expanded progressively from outstanding to representative historical places, from tangible to intangible, and from universal value to cultural diver-sity.4The UNESCO Recommendation5on the Historic Urban Landscape also reminds that built heritage is not solely considered as objects but resources integrated into broader urban contexts.
The inevitable turn has led people to question the limits of heritage areas as well as the closed categories used for identification of cultural values, and re-exam the ways of value assessment from a bottom-up approach, and more effectively take account of non-expert values and priorities in heritage and conservation decision-making.6The traditional pro-fessional understanding of built heritage value as intrinsic and universal is re-considered towards the view that heritage value is a social construction imposed upon physical struc-tures and artefacts.
More importantly, the results of bottom-up studies in recent years have proven that non-experts do not recognise values of built heritage according to what the typology set created by experts. Manal, Pereira Roders and Teller7 have studied ‘viewpoint locations-view scenes-tags’ data of photos posted on Flickr to provide insights into the perceived landscape characters and identify people-centered heritage at the city level. The results show that great differences are featured between experts’ and users’ perspec-tives when defining built heritage while the latter express personal reflections without fol-lowing a specific typology system.
However, current value typology, which is the most basic and commonly used tool of valuation, still regards built heritage as masterpieces with historical and artistic values. The origins of formalised values-based approaches in built heritage management prac-tices and policies are often traced to Alois Riegl and Burra Charter. The value typology brings efficiency to both academic and practice works8: (1) facilitate discussion of the different valuing processes; (2) create a common starting point from which a modified typology can be constructed in a variety of heritage conversations and planning situ-ations; (3) establish some grounds for comparison among many types of built heritage projects and deriving best practice guidance; (4) support decision-making about what to conserve, how to conserve, where to set priorities, and how to handle conflicting interests.
Traditionally, experts specify several values and then build up typology sets according to their comprehensive considerations on built heritage entities and research. For example, Pereira Roders et al.9define eight primary values as a typology set: social, econ-omic, political, historic, aesthetical, scientific, age and ecological, and each involves some secondary values. This typology set comprises the four cultural values recognised at UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention (1972) – historic, aesthetical/artistic, scientific and social – and the three aspects of sustainable development – ecological, social and economic, and the political and age value.10 Analogously, a wealth of value typology sets has been created (see Figure 1). However, it is increasingly evident and generally acknowledged that a comprehensive, universally applicable value typology set is almost an impossibility.11
Mason13argues that buildings and places have various values among different stake-holders, so the UNESCO 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape states community participation is an essential tool to elicit values attributed by diverse stake-holders in built heritage, to better prioritise actions based on public interests and needs. Heritage as a heterogeneous process brings the perspectives of marginalised people and communities to the table of debates about how built heritage can be defined and used.14An alternative method to current heritage value assessment needs to be propounded for identifying stories through a reliable process instead of following pre-determined typologies.15
Using the method of a systematic literature review, this paper collected and analysed documents published between 2010 and 2020, from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives. It aims to inspect the main aspects and viewpoints of international scholars in their discourses and practices of heritage value evaluation. Finally, with five main themes synthesised in this paper, the research suggests a process-led value elicitation method, to get closer to the local life and communities. Focusing on the valuation pro-cesses, thesefive elicitation themes serve as an inclusive and compatible platform that inspires various stakeholders to express their experiences and perceived emotions, instead of formulating a set of clear heritage value typologies in advance and then search-ing for the correspondsearch-ing attributes.
2. Methodology
The aim of this paper is to re-examine the existing value typology sets through ana-lysing academic articles published in 2010–2020, seeking out value types and per-spectives the authors have chosen for heritage value evaluation and trying to create a more resilient, comprehensive, open and bottom-up value elicitation method from critical literature research. It can contribute to the understanding of value diversity and improve the efficiency of heritage valuation across different geo-graphic or cultural areas.
The systematic literature review starts with retrieving and collecting related articles. Three steps of literature retrieval are performed to collect publications from popular aca-demic databases Scopus. Keywords are identified, including ‘heritage’ and ‘value’. The first search strings in Scopus are finalised as ‘TITLE (heritage AND value) and ABS-KEY (heritage AND value)’, and the retrieval returned 547 documents.16 A set of inclusion criteria are drawn up to help eliminate the low-relevance publications, includ-ing published from 2010 to 2020, English, article document type and open access. In this phase, 58 articles were selected.
Next, we conduct a quality assessment by looking through abstracts and full texts. We further limited the documents to the foci of built heritage (urban, architecture, landscape, site) and the contents needed to comprise evaluations of heritage value, and then17 articles were excluded. Finally, 41 articles were identified for the subsequent analysis of the full-text review. The chronological, geographical, scale, heritage level distributions of these articles are presented inFigure 2.
Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to review the 41 included articles based on classification according to scales of the built heritage, which are urban, architecture, landscape, sites and built heritage. Through the full-text reading, the typologies, criteria and perspectives adopted for heritage value evaluation by the authors were extracted and listed, as well as the principal views about heritage value. For the quantitative analysis, the frequencies of the typologies/criteria/perspectives were counted and comparatively analysed. Regarding the qualitative analysis, the main points of articles were summarised according to the categorised heritage scales.
3 Results
3.1. Quantitative overview
AsFigure 3presented, 28 value types are discussed in the collected papers, in which his-toric/historical value ranks the first and far surpasses the others. History is widely regarded as the most essential characteristic of built heritage, meanwhile, the topfive value types included architectural/tectonic, cultural, economic and identity, followed by social, memory, aesthetic/artistic and landscape/view.
Furthermore, significant differences in value types are found between the three main kinds of built heritage. Architectural heritage involves the most value types, a total of 22, in which historical and architectural value rank far ahead, followed by cultural and social values. As for urban heritage, a relatively smaller group of types were mentioned. 16 value types were in quite balanced distribution and the topfive were history, economy, culture, identity and social values. Finally, a total of 18 value types are referred to about landscape heritage, also in quite balanced distribution, and landscape value ranks thefirst (contain-ing multiple indicators based on landscape discipline), followed by historical, economic, identity and memory values.
Overall, historical/historic is the most commonly used value type, followed by archi-tectural, cultural, economic, identity, social, aesthetic/artistic and memory values. It can be seen that: (1) history remains the core and base attribute with highest concerns; (2)
Although not included in popular typology sets, the architectural value is still an impor-tant factor in value assessment; (3) Values revolve around identity and memory, which used to be included in social or cultural value, have been listed out and become popular discussion points for built heritage value evaluation in the past ten years.
3.2. Qualitative overview
Through qualitative reviews of included articles, it is evidenced that scholars have a high degree of consensus about value evaluation of built heritage in the following aspects.
3.3. Combining the Authorised Heritage Discourse with the lay discourse
For quite a long time, heritage valuation means understanding how particular values are prioritised and usually proposed in an expert-driven process led by architectural and art historians, as the Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD) states. In the last decades, there is a lively ongoing debate on Critical Heritage Studies against the AHD17and then new concepts of authenticity, which are commonly referred as dynamic authenticity, are being developed and widely acknowledged.18It can be seen from the literature review that experts often have different preferences/understandings from local communities and even local experts in terms of heritage value and impact assessment. Part of this is due to the conflict between the international conservation disciplines and the attempts to access appropriate economic and social development by locals.19 The other reasons are even more complicated as intertwined with the local ethnic, cultural, religion charac-teristics and collective memories.
Parkinson, Scott and Redmond20 have explored the role of the lay discourse of built heritage and its inter-relationship with the AHD of conservation plannings in Ireland, and they conclude that the lay discourse emphasises ‘character’, while makes no mentions of architectural details, authentic materials, outstanding signifi-cances, or other factors central to the AHD. Lay discourses of built heritage are characterised by two principal inter-related themes: collected memory and local place distinctiveness.21
The authorised discourse and the lay discourse have great differences in terms of methods and ways of value elicitation. They are irreplaceable and complement each other through a balanced methodology.22 From a macro perspective, experts conduct value evaluation through comparative analysis, concern authenticity and integrity as principles, aiming to make a better resource allocation for built heritage conservation. While non-expert conduct heritage valuation from a relatively micro perspective and based on collective or passed on memory, usually perceive deeper and more holistic understandings of cultural and emotional values.
Groote and Haartsen23point out that little attention has been given to the implications of lay discourses of built heritage and advocate a new approach which is participatory, bottom-up and fundamentally grounded in local concerns and interests, or a platform for non-experts to communicate’ their interactions with built heritage in their personal contexts and associations with the place.24People-centred heritage approach provides a view that can help to bridge the gap between‘expert’ and ‘non-expert’, enable reconcilia-tion of value judgment and interest conflicts among experts, politicians and the locals, for
reaching maximum consensus, making built heritage more enjoyable by communities, as well as enhancing their multi-temporal dimensions.25
3.4. Respecting both international and local communities
UNESCO proposed the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, aiming to improve the participatory decision-making processes among stakeholders and promot-ing a holistic approach from national to the local sphere.26However, Lindström27 indi-cates that while numerous international documents underline identity value of built heritage for local communities and its potential for sustainable development, the inclusion into UNESCO’s World Heritage List depends on the outstanding universal value which presumes a global community and global values before local communities and values. In many cases, especially when designating heritage levels like ‘regional’, ‘national’ and ‘municipal’, historic and aesthetic values are given preference, yet local values suffer.
Furthermore, international communities tend to emphasise the visual form of built heritage, yet the local communities identify with the functions and practices embodied in local heritage.28The Liverpool Waters project is a representative example because it results in the Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site being placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger 2012, although Liverpool City Council explains that those high-rise constructions in the Liverpool’s historic harbour are a continuation of local traditions. When describing the controversy, the difference between local and non-local knowledge and their understandings of Liverpool’s heritage values are two main reasons indicated by practitioners and stakeholders.29The Liverpool Waters case also shows that the involvement of the local stakeholders in the decision-making process is essential because a lack of involvement could result in the dissonance between international and local communities. Legnér30 also reminds the conflict between CHwB (Cultural Heritage without Borders) restoration ideology and the Kosovar architects’ view deepened and irreconcilable, according to the latter there is no reason to restore the authentic form, using the traditional materials and methods endorsed by the‘Swedish model’ with support from international charters.
International scholars generally agree that built heritage is used in everyday con-struction of the local community and it is more forward-looking to demonstrate the significant social role of heritage, rather than identifying the physical expression of heritage from an international perspective.31 Some places of significance to local people may even have little physical manifestations and are not easy to understand from an outsider’s perspective.32 Thus, collecting the stories of a region or group, which are passed on by local communities, can form the primary mechanism for identifying values of built heritage.
3.5. Moving from static to dynamic valuation based on place, people and time
Beyond historic and aesthetic, the particular significance of built heritage is determined by the values that are attributed to it.33Simultaneously, values of built heritage are not fixed even in the same place and groups of people but changes in trace of time.34 Life
been preserved till today exactly because they can adapt to the changing societies, needs and identities.35
The above concepts serious challenge the‘authenticity’ which is widely criticised for static. Value encompasses the understanding of the valued object and the nature of the value expressed by the object, which is defined as dynamic authenticity.36Dynamic
auth-enticity is about perception, action, experience and social practice, about values in the context of time and place.37It should be avoided that local communities are‘re-educated’ about the value of their heritage, like Murayama-Yamamiya legends of Mount Fuji, part of their identities are declared historically inauthentic as incompatible with the author-ised one. Such landscape heritage is in danger of becoming‘mummies’, which maintain a perfectly authentic form but no life-sustaining functions and processes that would nurture heritage identity.38 Preservation of historical and cultural monuments is no good reason to separate heritage from people, the preservation and revival of historic and traditional values, as well as creation of new memorial and signs, can lead to identity for new values and direct creative relationship between the past and future.39
The literature review reveals that process-led dynamic method is more prospective to guide the value evaluation of built heritage. Through a narrative approach, it includes multiple aspects of stories shared across space and time, regional and cultural diversities, chronological changes and continuities, and it links heritage with contemporary commu-nities, inspires the pass-on and up-gradation of heritage stories.
3.6. Admitting holistic values of architectural/ urban/ landscape designing
The values which derive from architectural/ urban/ landscape designing and planning are core and basic values of built heritage that distinguishes them from other heritage cat-egories. Therefore, it is necessary to prevent this part of values from being divided into material and non-material or even fragmented into types of historical, aesthetic, cul-tural, technology and scientific value.
Although aesthetical and historic values are traditionally used for labelling architec-tures and places as heritage, they are the subjective and individualistic ones of
sociocul-tural values.40 Meanwhile, the scientific value focuses on the design and
conceptualisation process of the built heritage as a masterpiece of technology and engin-eering.41 In other words, although aesthetic and technology values contain much of architectural/ urban/ landscape values, they still differ significantly in both boundaries and connotations. Adopting the value of architecture/ urban/landscape enables the inte-gration of these parts which are ordinarily divided into historical, aesthetic, cultural and scientific value, and conducting built heritage value evaluation from a holistic perspective of disciplinary characteristics and theories, instead of treating them just as antiques.
Regarding urban heritage, Belmessaoud42indicates that the Islamic urban model has succeeded in creating a balance between communitarian values and individual freedom by givingflexibility in some architectural mechanisms and rigidity in others. The tra-ditional Islamic urban model as a whole embodies the Islamic ethical and ideal envision and succeeds as an intelligent urban designing in producing a harmonious society. It is a design or planning wisdom rather than an aesthetic purpose. This should be generally recognised as‘urban value’ rather than ‘aesthetic value’. Also, Capelo, Barata and de Mas-carenhas43point out that values of landscape heritage should be assessed using specific
landscape method, and a range of criteria are identified within their interdisciplinary studies.
Architects are committed to the perfect fusion of art and technology through design-ing, while the heritage conservators evaluate some of the best architectures (heritage) from divisive aspects of aesthetic, social, economic and technology, resulting in a lack of holistic perspective of designing or planning. Simultaneously, there are explicit differ-ences among the value of architectural, urban and landscape heritage based on their pro-fessional theoretical discourses and these all should be recognised and evaluated comprehensively.
4 Discussion: typology or not?
It is undeniable that value typology sets bring significant benefits to built heritage con-servation and management while it also encounters conceptual and practical difficulties from the very beginning. Firstly, nearly everyone– citizen, scholar, writer, professional, or organisation– has a slightly different conception of typologies and attributes related to them.44Secondly, selecting several ones among complex and diverse values of built heri-tage, giving them priorities over others, can lead to conflicts of cultivating certain values at the expense of others.45
Considering the complexity of the heritage value, experts generally use purposely vague and malleable definitions of the concept.46 Despite this, it is infeasible to cover all aspects of the heritage value, let alone the heritage value is dynamic with time, place, and communities. In fact, only one of the 41 reviewed articles conducted value evaluation based on a complete typology set,47while all the rest carried out valuations based on frameworks created or combined by the authors themselves, especially articles about landscape and urban heritage.
Walter48has recently indicated that the focus on value is itselfflawed, and he suggests that the pluralism values of heritage might be better reflected through narratives. Heri-tage has always been with us and has always been produced by people according to their contemporary concerns and experiences.49From this perspective, an effective approach instead of typology for understanding the value of built heritage at local and national scales, community-context and time-specific, needs to be proposed.50
Secondly, although in some cases local heritage professionals attempt to reconcile lay and professional discourses, they still tend to overlook and to imprecisely articu-late the more intangible aspects of heritage value that stakeholder interviews centre on.51 This is because the current value-typology-based method is still dominated by experts. Most of the circumstances, experts have the authority to decide the stage, method, and what type of value the public participate in, usually social and spiritual value, even including the degree of absorption of the participation results.52 It is a systematic disparity of speaking rights, the voice of weaker groups could be ignored or squeezed easily.53
Thirdly, existing studies have indicated that value and impact assessments are subjec-tive and the framing plays an important role in the process.54However, the various typol-ogy sets proposed by experts have some orientations by implying certain attributes, such as ‘history’ and ‘art’ are valuable while those excluded from the typology set are less valuable.
Overall, inverting the usual process offirst identifying a built heritage for listing and then seeking communities for support,55 a more open and realistic approach should guide all groups of stakeholders to express their value judgments and emotions equally and freely rather than assessing or valuating andfinally sum up the real values of built heritage from the whole process. Therefore, these paper advocates adopting a process-led value eliciting method to stimulate collective memory and perceived values through themes that with no value implications and support various heritage valuations of different communities. It thus achieves a better understanding of the relation between attributes and values, and grasps comprehensive supports for conservation and revitali-sation decisions, from tangible to intangible, taking account of the current and future interests of various stakeholders.
According to the qualitative research results, the various values of the built heritage mentioned by international authors can be divided into 5 themes: surroundings, archi-tectural/ urban/ landscape, affiliation, emotional and economic. It is explicit and concise for diverse groups of stakeholders to fully comprehend and participate in (see Table 1). At the same time, the value elicitation is an iterative process by each stakeholder group to express their own experiences, perceived emotions and expectations.
5. Conclusion
The systematic literature review performed an overview of international researches and practices about the viewpoints and methods of value evaluation of built heritage. Through this work, a more comprehensive understanding of the value evaluation methods and processes adopted by national scholars in research and practice in the past ten years can be better understood. The results will encourage researchers focused
Table 1.Process-led value elicitation method.
Theme Instruction E.g. References
Surroundings Natural and artificial environmental features
Natural environmental characteristics, urban fabric, public space, pathway, surrounding land use and settings that create a sense of continuity, etc.
Zin et al.56; Eliasson
et al.57; Han and Kim58; Sofia et al.59, etc.
Architectural/ Urban/ Landscape
Integration of tangible and integrate aspects based on the comprehensive value of design, planning and construction attributes, focused on the design process
Architectural: façade, style, space, typology, technology, tectonic, structure, craftsmanship, material, ornament, composition, etc.
Bottero et al.60; Moschella
et al.61; Vongvilay et al.62;Šantrůčková
et al.63, etc.
Affiliation values that express significant connections with people, events, places, practices, traditions, stories, objects, etc.
Historic, age, cultural, ethic, political, symbolic, etc.
Patiwael et al.64;
Belmessaoud-Boukhalfa65; Chu66;
Wang and Duan67; Chen68, etc.
Emotional mainly associated with collective memory and perceived distinctiveness, contributing to a sense of identity
Identity, memory, religious, spiritual, belonging, attachment, etc.
Boeri et al.69; Irani70; Gociman et al.71;
Ashley72; Lindström73, etc.
Economic Interest and equality expectations from the built heritage
Use/reuse, functions, tourism, creative arts, recreation, property, etc.
Capolongo et al.74; Tulla75; Lu et al.76, etc.
on built heritage to further explore the diversity and richness of heritage value from a more open perspective, based on specific geographical or ethnic contexts, rooted in the communities and various stakeholders.
Within the international practices, intangible value has gained greater significance in built heritage valuation. Identity and memory value have become hot topics of discussion and it also implies that scholars have reached a consensus on establishing a closer relationship between built heritage and the contemporary communities. At the same time, rather than emphasising international communities only, giving respect to local communities and their values of the heritage they have been living with, become a growing focus for scholars. Heritage values are dynamic and change according to places, groups and time. Accordingly, local stories become important resources for exploring heritage value, and a people-centred and process-led dynamic approach is more far-reaching to guide the elicitation of heritage value.
Dialogue is essential and open discussions and participation from the community must be embraced. Self-examination and reflection on the weaknesses and limitations of current valuation typologies should also be encouraged.77Through quantitative and qualitative analysis applied to review papers, this article summed up five themes and suggested a process-led iterative value elicitation, which is characterised with people-centred, de-standardised, open and with no implications, aiming to encourages all par-ticipating stakeholders to sufficiently express their collective or individual experienced stories and perceived emotions, in order to efficiently grasp comprehensive understand-ings of built heritage values, facilitate heritage (impact) assessments, and support decision-making and concrete applications.
Each built heritage has multiple associations and meanings for different people,78
as Eurocentric concepts have been profoundly internalised, a more vigorous push is necessary to campaign for less standard definitions and values.79 Local people should
have the right to tell their perceived values, emotions and memories according to their own value frameworks, rather than searching for attributes that reconcile with the Eurocentric value typologies. The built heritage is incomparable both in material and immaterial aspects, hence what we need is not a comparative frame-work, but a method that inspires people to tell and share their stories and emotions, both freely and equally.
Notes
1. ICOMOS, The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter) (Australia: ICOMOS, 2013).
2. Ibid.
3. Marta de la Torre,‘Values and Heritage Conservation’, Heritage & Society 6, no. 2 (2013): 155–66,https://doi.org/10.1179/2159032X13Z.00000000011(accessed November 1, 2013). 4. Yahaya Ahmad,‘The Scope and Definitions of Heritage: From Tangible to Intangible’,
Inter-national Journal of Heritage Studies 12, no. 3 (2006): 292–300, https://doi.org/10.1080/
13527250600604639(accessed March 15, 2006).
5. UNESCO, ‘Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, Including a Glossary of Definitions’ (2011).
6. Arthur Parkinson, Mark Scott, and Declan Redmond,‘Competing Discourses of Built Heri-tage: Lay Values in Irish Conservation Planning’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 22, no. 3 (2016): 261–73,
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84959496329&doi=10.1080%2f13527258.2015.1121404&partnerID=40&md5=
e06bd86d1bff36ab91aa04bb07914e8e.
7. Manal Ginzarly, Ana Pereira Roders, and Jacques Teller,‘Mapping Historic Urban Land-scape Values through Social Media’, Journal of Cultural Heritage 36 (2019): 1–11, <Go to ISI>://WOS:000460311800001 (accessed Mar–Apr).
8. Marta de la Torre, Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage (Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2002).
9. A.R. Pereira Roders, J. Post, and P.A. Erkelens, How Sustainable Rehabilitation Designers Really Are, Portugal Sb07 – Sustainable Construction, Materials and Practices: Challenge of the Industry for the New Millennium, Pts 1 and 2, eds. L. Braganca et al. (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2007).
10. A. Silva and A. Roders,‘Cultural Heritage Management and Heritage (Impact) Assessments’ (paper presented at Proceedings of the Joint CIB W070, W092 & TG International Confer-ence: Delivering Value to the Community, Cape Town, South Africa, January 23–25, 2012). 11. B. Rudolff, ‘“Intangible”and “Tangible” Heritage: A Topology of Culture in Contexts of Faith (Inaugural Dissertation)’ (Phd Thesis, Institute of Geography, and Faculty for Chemistry, Pharmacy and Geo-sciences (09), Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz, 2006).
12. L.H. Fredheim and M. Khalaf,’The Significance of Values: Heritage Value Typologies Re-Examined’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 22, no. 6 (2016): 466–81; de la Torre, ‘Values and Heritage Conservation’; Silva and Roders, ‘Cultural Heritage Management and Heritage (Impact) Assessments’.
13. Randall Mason,‘Be Interested and Beware: Joining Economic Valuation and Heritage Con-servation’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 14, no. 4 (2008): 303–18,https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13527250802155810(accessed July 1, 2008).
14. Laurajane Smith,‘Editorial’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 18, no. 6 (2012): 533– 40,https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.720794(accessed November 1, 2012).
15. Celmara Pocock, David Collett, and Linda Baulch,‘Assessing Stories before Sites: Identify-ing the Tangible from the Intangible’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 21, no. 10 (2015): 962–82, https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2015.1040440 (accessed November 26, 2015).
16. Conducted this literature retrieval on 23 April 2020.
17. Juan Antonio García-Esparza,‘Re-Thinking the Validity of the Past. Deconstructing What Authenticity and Integrity Mean to the Fruition of Cultural Heritage’, VITRUVIO – Inter-national Journal of Architectural Technology and Sustainability 1, no 1 (2016), https:// polipapers.upv.es/index.php/vitruvio/article/view/4595.
18. Cornelius Holtorf and Troels Myrup Kristensen,‘Heritage Erasure: Rethinking “Protection” and “Preservation”’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 21, no. 4 (2015): 313–7,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2014.982687(accessed April 21, 2015). 19. García-Esparza,‘Re-Thinking the Validity of the Past’.
20. Parkinson, Scott, and Redmond,‘Competing Discourses of Built Heritage’.
21. Emma Waterton and Laurajane Smith,‘The Recognition and Misrecognition of Community Heritage’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 16, no. 1–2 (2010): 4–15,https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13527250903441671(accessed January 1, 2010).
22. Tianhang Liu, Richard J. Butler, and Chunyan Zhang,‘Evaluation of Public Perceptions of Authenticity of Urban Heritage under the Conservation Paradigm of Historic Urban Land-scape– a Case Study of the Five Avenues Historic District in Tianjin, China’, Journal of Architectural Conservation 25, no. 3 (2019): 228–51.
23. P. Groote and T. Haartsen,‘The Communication of Heritage: Creating Place Identities’, in The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, ed. P.J. Howard and B. Graham (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012).
24. Elisa Giaccardi, Heritage and Social Media: Understanding Heritage in a Participatory Culture (London: Routledge, 2012).
26. UNESCO,‘Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape’.
27. K. Lindström, ‘Universal Heritage Value, Community Identities and World Heritage: Forms, Functions, Processes and Context at a Changing Mt Fuji’, Landscape Research 44, no. 3 (2019): 278–91,https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85062997655 &doi=10.1080%2f01426397.2019.1579899&partnerID=40&md5=
2954f3933063a9da06e951b8f020d002.
28. Ibid.; Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Natural and Cultural Heritage and World Heritage Center,‘Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention’ (2012).
29. P.R. Patiwael, P. Groote, and F. Vanclay,‘The Influence of Framing on the Legitimacy of Impact Assessment: Examining the Heritage Impact Assessments Conducted for the Liver-pool Waters Project’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (2020),https://www.scopus. com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85080986881&doi=10.1080%2f14615517.2020.
1734402&partnerID=40&md5=c67f3d4d7727eca7dbacee05258f7576.
30. M. Legnér,‘Post-Conflict Reconstruction and the Heritage Process’, Journal of Architectural Conservation 24, no. 2 (2018): 78–90,https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2. 0-85045260562&doi=10.1080%2f13556207.2018.1463663&partnerID=40&md5=
14a82f45a39ac7e85b41f5f860344626.
31. Rodney Harrison,‘Heritage as Social Action’, in Understanding Heritage in Practice, chap. 7, ed. Susie West (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010).
32. Pocock, Collett, and Baulch,‘Assessing Stories Before Sites’.
33. Susan Pearce, ‘The Making of Cultural Heritage’, in Values and Heritage Conservation Research Report, ed. Randall Mason Erica Avrami and Marta de la Torre ( Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2000).
34. Pocock, Collett, and Baulch,‘Assessing Stories Before Sites’; J. Han and S. Kim, ‘Heritage Value Through Regeneration Strategy in Mapo Cultural Oil Depot, Seoul’, Sustainability 10, no. 9 (2018),https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85053598798&doi =10.3390%2fsu10093340&partnerID=40&md5=cbfbe2e5bfcb7a33e112628d17f7534d. 35. Lindström,‘Universal Heritage Value, Community Identities and World Heritage’. 36. García-Esparza,‘Re-Thinking the Validity of the Past’.
37. J. Pendlebury and L. Gibson,‘Valuing Historic Environments’, in Valuing Historic Environ-ments, ed. J. Pendlebury and L. Gibson (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009).
38. Lindström,‘Universal Heritage Value, Community Identities and World Heritage’. 39. M. Irani,‘Sustainable Development of Iranian Historical Cities with Focus on Cultural,
His-torical and Architectural Identities’, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5, no. 7 (2014): 647–55, https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84900456243&doi=10. 5901%2fmjss.2014.v5n7p647&partnerID=40&md5=415129fc60e5c84d3fbdcc9ba8bfaa2c. 40. Robin Mason, ‘Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and
Choices’, (2002): 5–30.
41. A.P. Roders,‘Revealing the World Heritage Cities and Their Varied Natures’, Heritage 2010: Heritage and Sustainable Development, 1-2 (2010): 245–53, <Go to ISI>:// WOS:000291664400028 (accessed 2010).
42. B. Belmessaoud-Boukhalfa,‘The Ethical Dimension of Islamic Urban Architectural Heritage as Sustainable Design’, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 155 (2011): 917–
28, https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84865717934&doi=10.2495%
2fSC120772&partnerID=40&md5=762169ba71f69514d2bc00af3e2b1e9e.
43. Capelo Sofia, Barata Filipe, and Mascarenhas José de, ‘Why Are Cultural Landscapes of Various Values? Thinking About Heritage Landscape Evaluation and Monitoring Tools’, Journal of Landscape Ecology 4, no. 1 (2011): 5–17, https://content.sciendo.com/view/ journals/jlecol/4/1/article-p5.xml.
44. Lidia E. Bonet, Margarita Greene, and Juan de Dios Ortúzar,‘Subjective Valuation of Tan-gible and IntanTan-gible Heritage Neighbourhood Attributes’, Habitat International 105 (2020): 102249, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197397519311154 (accessed November 1, 2020).
45. de la Torre,‘Values and Heritage Conservation’.
46. D.C. Harvey,‘Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: Temporality, Meaning and the Scope of Heritage Studies’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 7, no. 4 (2001): 319–38,https:// www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0013284543&doi=10.1080%
2f13581650120105534&partnerID=40&md5=68bc1792bb100961abef5c1d6ac802b1. 47. Y. Wang and Y. Duan,‘A Study on the Classification and Value of Ming Dynasty Paifang in
China: A Case Study of Paifang in Jinxi County’, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 15, no. 2 (2016): 147-54,https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2. 0-84968902269&doi=10.3130%2fjaabe.15.147&partnerID=40&md5=
d32837ceb22cefe83936dbe2ebe20dae.
48. Nigel Walter,‘From Values to Narrative: A New Foundation for the Conservation of His-toric Buildings’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 20, no. 6 (2014): 634-50,https:// doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2013.828649(accessed 2014/08/18).
49. Harvey,‘Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents’.
50. C. Canning, ‘The Gurdwara in Britain: Narratives of Meaning, Use and Development’, Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 26, no. 2 (2017): 52–78, https://www. scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85040919788&doi=10.3167%2fajec.2017. 260205&partnerID=40&md5=d13e10adddb5a481e3f47e0f8e795625.
51. Parkinson, Scott, and Redmond,‘Competing Discourses of Built Heritage’.
52. Ji Li et al., ‘Informing or Consulting? Exploring Community Participation within Urban Heritage Management in China’, Habitat International 105 (2020): 102268,http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197397520308390 (accessed November 1,
2020).
53. Ji Li et al., ‘State-of-the-Practice: Assessing Community Participation within Chinese Cultural World Heritage Properties’, Habitat International 96 (2020): 102107, http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019739751931029X (accessed February 1,
2020).
54. Patrick R. Patiwael, Peter Groote, and Frank Vanclay,‘Improving Heritage Impact Assess-ment: An Analytical Critique of the ICOMOS Guidelines’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 25, no. 4 (2019): 333–47,https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1477057(accessed April 3, 2019).
55. Pocock, Collett, and Baulch,‘Assessing Stories Before Sites’.
56. N.M. Zin et al.,‘Critical Determinants of Heritage Property Value: A Conceptual Frame-work’, Planning Malaysia 17, no. 1 (2019): 219–31.
57. I. Eliasson, I. Knez, and S. Fredholm,‘Heritage Planning in Practice and the Role of Cultural Ecosystem Services’, Heritage and Society 11, no. 1 (2018): 44–69.
58. Han and Kim,‘Heritage Value Through Regeneration Strategy’.
59. Sofia, Filipe, and José, ‘Why Are Cultural Landscapes of Various Values?’.
60. M. Bottero, C. D’Alpaos, and A. Oppio, ‘Ranking of Adaptive Reuse Strategies for Aban-doned Industrial Heritage in Vulnerable Contexts: A Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding Approach’, Sustainability (Switzerland) 11, no. 3 (2019): 785.
61. A. Moschella et al., ‘A Methodology for an Integrated Approach for Seismic and Energy Refurbishment of Historic Buildings in Mediterranean Area’, Sustainability (Switzerland) 10, no. 7 (2018): 2448.
62. X. Vongvilay et al.,‘The Influence of French Colonial Rule on Lao Architecture with a Focus on Residential Buildings’, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 14, no. 2 (2015): 279–86.
63. M.Šantrůčková et al., ‘Map Analysis of Cultural Heritage Values in Designed Landscapes: A Case Study onČervený Hrádek, Czech Republic’, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silvicul-turae Mendelianae Brunensis 64, no. 2 (2016): 663–75.
64. Patiwael et al.,‘Improving Heritage Impact Assessment’.
66. W. Chu,‘Rebuilding of the Imperial Gardens: An Examination of Feudalism Production within the Objectives of the Chinese Modernization Project’, International Journal of Design and Nature and Ecodynamics 14, no. 3 (2019): 217–28.
67. Wang and Duan, ‘A Study on the Classification and Value of Ming Dynasty Paifang in China’.
68. T. Chen,‘The Rescue, Conservation, and Restoration of Heritage Sites in the Ethnic Min-ority Areas Ravaged by the Wenchuan Earthquake’, Frontiers of Architectural Research 1, no. 1 (2012): 77–85.
69. A. Boeri, G. Bortoli, and D. Longo,‘Cultural Heritage as a Driver for Urban Regeneration: Comparing Two Processes’, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 217 (2018): 587–98.
70. Irani,‘Sustainable Development of Iranian Historical Cities’.
71. C.O. Gociman, C.I. Moscu, and M.G. Ene, ‘Affective and Emotional Dimensions of Built Space: Assessment of the Risk Reduction Process - Heritage as a Stability Benchmark in the Sustainable City’, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 238 (2019): 369–82. 72. S.L.T. Ashley,‘Acts of Heritage, Acts of Value: Memorialising at the Chattri Indian
Mem-orial, UK’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 22, no. 7 (2016): 554–67,https://www. scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84962361676&doi=10.1080%2f13527258.2016. 1167107&partnerID=40&md5=230d1210228e9d3baf0ad82cd78a6e04.
73. Lindström,‘Universal Heritage Value, Community Identities and World Heritage’. 74. S. Capolongo et al.,‘How to Assess Urban Regeneration Proposals by Considering
Conflict-ing Values’, Sustainability (Switzerland) 11, no. 14 (2019): 3877.
75. A.F. Tulla,‘Sustainable Rural Development Requires Value-Added Activities Linked with Comparative Advantage: The Case of the Catalan Pyrenees’, European Countryside 11, no. 2 (2019): 229–56.
76. J. Lu, X. Luo, and P. Zhang,‘Rights-Values-Interests: The Conflict Betweenworld Cultural Heritage and Community: A Case Study of the West Lake Cultural Landscape Heritage in China’, Sustainability (Switzerland) 11, no. 17 (2019): 4560.
77. García-Esparza,‘Re-Thinking the Validity of the Past’. 78. Ashley,‘Acts of Heritage, Acts of Value’.
79. Lindström,‘Universal Heritage Value, Community Identities and World Heritage’.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the editors of this journal for a rigorous process and significant contribution of the anonymous reviewers which have produced a better article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by China Scholarship Council [No. 201908440534]; The 2019 ‘Guangz-hou Dadian’ and Guangzhou history and Culture Research [No. 2019GZY13]; Young Innovation Project of Guangdong Province Department of Education (Humanities and Social Sciences) [No. 2017WQNCX029].
Notes on contributors
Dan Chenis a lecturer in Department of Architecture and Urban Planning at Guangdong Univer-sity of Technology, Guangzhou, China, and a visiting scholar at Faculty of Architecture and the
Built Environment, TU Delft, the Netherlands. Her research interests include value evaluation, res-toration, revitalisation, and conservation planning of architectural heritage.
Ji Liis a PhD candidate of Urbanism and Urban Architecture at Eindhoven University of Tech-nology (TU/e), the Netherlands. His research interests include community participation in sus-tainable urban development and World Heritage management.
