Eliciting cultural heritage values: landscape preferences vs representative images of the city

Abstract

Purpose

In 2011, UNESCO recommended the application of a value-based landscape approach to cultural heritage conservation. In this framework, culture in its manifold expressions is considered as an embrace for the social, economic, and environmental pillars of sustainable development. There is a need to unveil the different cultural values generated from the interaction between people and their environment since these values will help cities maintain their unique identity and integrity. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to present the results of a survey method intended to assess the range of cultural values attributed by people to the historic urban landscape (HUL).

Design/methodology/approach

This paper is an experimental enquiry that combines a qualitative and a quantitative approach. It is designed to distinguish the different interpretations and outlooks of people to the HUL. It integrates landscape preference studies with investigation on representative images of the city and assesses these in relation to activities, feelings, and valued aspects of landscapes.

Findings

The main finding is that the most preferred scenes of the city are not the ones that best represent the city. Results exposed two sides of the HUL and related heritage values. The first is associated with the scenic beauty of the landscape and its aesthetic values, while the second is reflected in ordinary landscapes and everyday practices.

Originality/value

This paper provides an insight into the different interpretations and meanings of the HUL throughout the city. It provides an empirical evidence that ordinary landscapes are of great heritage value as they surpass all aspects of human environmental interaction to contribute to the image that societies make of themselves.

Citation

Ginzarly, M. and Teller, J. (2018), "Eliciting cultural heritage values: landscape preferences vs representative images of the city", Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 257-275. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-06-2017-0031