You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Peer Reviewed
Heritage-Based Urban Development
This is a peer-reviewed entry published in Encyclopedia Journal, full entry can be found at 10.3390/encyclopedia5020082

The purpose of this entry is to introduce the concept of Heritage-based Urban Development and explain its evolution and implications for historic urban landscapes. The term Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) refers to an integrated understanding of historic cities that goes beyond individual monuments or architectural ensembles to encompass the broader spatial, cultural, and functional relationships within the urban fabric. It reflects a shift toward viewing historic areas as dynamic systems with a role in sustainable development. Heritage-based urban development refers to development approaches that take urban heritage—typically within historic urban landscapes—as the starting point, valuing these landscapes in all their specificities, processes, and cultural meanings as resources to be embraced rather than obstacles to be overcome.

heritage and sustainable development urban heritage management heritage as a resource heritage-based urban development
The concepts of value and landscape are fundamental to this entry; thus, a crucial initial stage of analysis necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the processes through which historic landscapes are identified and their significance evaluated. The term historic urban landscapes became popular after 2012 when UNESCO adopted the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape [1]. It caused a significant shift in the understanding of historic urban fabric that emphasises functions and connections between different heritage buildings and goes well beyond the notion of ensembles to reflect a systemic understanding [2][3][4][5][6][7]. This entry aims to explore the limitations of reductionist approaches to heritage valuation and to advocate methodologies that acknowledge the dynamic, iterative, and embodied nature of people’s relationships with the historic environment—both in the present [8] (p. 22) and with a forward-looking perspective towards sustainable urban development. While this entry takes UNESCO’s 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape [1] as its conceptual foundation, it moves beyond the HUL’s integrative framework to explore how heritage can serve as a strategic basis for shaping urban development. In doing so, heritage is reframed from a passive element to an active resource.
Accordingly, this entry is guided by the following key questions:
(a) How can the historic urban landscape (HUL) approach be expanded upon and operationalised to position cultural heritage as a catalyst for sustainable urban development?
(b) What are the opportunities in integrating heritage-led strategies into existing urban planning and development frameworks at the local level?

The Rise of the “Landscape” Concept

The concept of “landscape” has evolved significantly over time, reflecting shifts in both artistic representation and academic thought. Historically, the term encompassed the interaction between human culture and the environment, referring to environments altered by humans. In the realm of art, from the 16th century onwards, European artists began emphasising natural scenery over human figures, leading to the prominence of landscape painting [9] (p. 31). Academically, geographer Otto Schlüter is credited with introducing “cultural landscape” as a formal term in the early 20th century, aiming to define geography as a “landscape science” (Landschaftskunde). Building upon this, Carl O. Sauer’s seminal work, “The Morphology of Landscape”, further developed the idea by highlighting the role of human activity in shaping the physical environment, proposing that “the cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a cultural group” [10] (p. 46). This perspective underscored the dynamic interplay between culture and nature, positioning landscape as a central object of study in geography. More recent scholarly discourse underscores the interdisciplinary nature of landscape studies, with Mon noting that “different disciplines, such as art, architecture, archaeology, ecology, and geography have developed and defined the concept of landscape in different ways” [11] (p. 21). Similarly, de Souza and de Oliveira describe landscape as “a present and essential object for the human being in its geographical location”, emphasising its integral role in human–environment interactions [12] (p. 1). These perspectives illustrate the evolving understanding of landscapes, moving beyond mere visual representations to encompass complex socio-environmental systems.
Most people would almost certainly agree with Janet Stephenson that landscape is “a place and a concept in which insiders and disciplines meet, collide and, increasingly, interact” [13] (p. 137) and that, as a result, a comprehensive approach to the understanding and management of a given landscape is the way forward. The dynamic nature of landscape is widely accepted by researchers, policymakers, and practitioners and incentivises those responsible for a place to acknowledge and accommodate the evolving demands of our society while simultaneously preserving the cherished elements of the environment that hold particular significance. In recent decades, the processes of urbanisation and globalisation have instigated drastic transformations in our environments that undoubtedly have an impact on socio-economic, cultural, and environmental sustainability within the built landscape, at the same time having brought to the agenda of urban planners a continual choice, as flawlessly framed by Arfa et al., “between conservation and change, between blending and contrast, and between continuity and partial renewal” [14] (p. 155) (Figure 1).
It has become clear that the socio-economic reshaping and the depletion of natural resources that have arisen from unprecedented urban expansion have correlated with increasing issues for the historic urban landscape. It is within this context that this entry finds its place—where traditional heritage conservation meets a complex and multifaceted version of itself in confronting the intricacies of urban space in relation to the legacies of our cities.

The Relational Nature Between Landscape and Cultural Heritage

For a considerable time, values have formed the foundation of heritage interpretations and its conservation within the built environment. In the literature, the reason for this is that cultural heritage and landscape constitute two interrelated concepts [15]. Where Massey depicted archaeological sites as “fluid temporal and spatial constructions embedded in specific sociohistorical contexts” [16] (p. 9), Knapp and Ashmore called attention to the emotional and reflexive view of landscape as the “materialization of memory, fixing social and individual histories in space” [17] (p. 13). The relational nature between heritage and space is simplified in Crumley and Marquardt’s introduction to the concept of “definitive elements of landscape” [18] (p. 74), suggesting that landscape formation results from a combination of natural physical structures (such as climate and topography) and constructed sociohistorical structures (e.g., political, legal, and economic). The landscape character is then determined by the manner in which these structures are understood and valued by individuals and groups—and its significance is manifested as the totality of the dynamic tension between “the infrastructure (the realm of material production and social relations) and the superstructure (the realm of ideas)” [18] (p. 73). If it is such that landscape value is fashioned from a natural landscape by a sociocultural group, Rowntree in Stephenson [13] (p. 128) notes the inherent subjectivity in landscape interpretation where disciplines variously portray landscapes as “an ecological artefact, material culture, visual resource, a metaphor, an artistic depiction, ideology, and agent of power relations”, amongst others. As a result, most researchers would agree with Wu [19] (p. 1147) that landscapes are “endowed with, and continue to foster the development of, cultures, legacies, and stories”, where the categories of self and other, past and present, constantly solicit one another [20] (p. 232).
A recurring theme in the literature is that both individual self-identity and collective identity are profoundly spatial—closely intertwined with the sociohistorical narratives affiliated with the physical environment [13][21][22]. The extent to which cultural identity is associated with the nature and range of cultural values that are identified by people for a landscape, or element of landscape, has been extensively studied since the second half of the twentieth century in relation to the rise of the term “cultural landscape”. The popularity of the term was heightened at the time of the World Heritage Convention (International Convention for the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage) adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1992 [23] as the first international legal instrument to recognise and protect cultural landscapes. The recognition of cultural landscapes within heritage discourse has been significantly shaped by the World Heritage Committee’s Operational Guidelines in 2008 [24], which identify three main categories of cultural landscapes based on their formation and character. First, designed landscapes are those consciously created by humans for aesthetic or functional purposes, such as parks, gardens, or planned estates. These reflect formal design intentions and cultural ideals of landscape organisation. Second, organically evolved landscapes emerge from socio-economic, administrative, or religious imperatives over time. They are subdivided into two subtypes: relict (or fossil) landscapes, where an evolutionary process has ended but remains materially legible (e.g., abandoned agricultural terraces), and continuing landscapes, which retain an active social or functional role while preserving historical structures and patterns (e.g., working vineyards or pastoral systems). Third, associative cultural landscapes are inscribed primarily for their intangible cultural, spiritual, or symbolic values, where the landscape holds profound meaning for communities. These categories underscore the relational and layered qualities of landscape, reinforcing the understanding that cultural landscapes are not merely physical terrains but dynamic, lived environments shaped through ongoing human–nature interaction and interpretation. It is therefore essential that those entrusted with making decisions that impact landscapes have an awareness of the potential diversity of cultural values, in particular where these values are not encompassed by conventional landscape character assessments (e.g., Historic England’s 2008 Conservation Principles [25]) having become ill-equipped to assess the values of different layers of the heritage landscape [14][26][27][28][29].
The valuation of cultural heritage within landscapes must be situated in a relational and processual understanding of space. As Paul Vidal de La Blache [30] and Alfred Hettner [31] proposed in their early geographical work, landscape is not a static backdrop but a living palimpsest shaped by human agency and environmental interaction. Cultural heritage, in this view, cannot be reduced to discrete monuments or sites but must be understood as part of the evolving socio-spatial fabric. Robert Gradmann [32] and, later, Johannes Wimmer [33] elaborated on this by conceptualising landscape as a cultural–historical continuum, wherein values are layered through ongoing practices and collective memory. This systemic view resonates with UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape [1] paradigm, which emphasises interconnections between tangible and intangible dimensions, economic systems, and governance structures. Heritage values are not merely assigned but are co-produced through spatial negotiation and institutional mediation. Thus, the challenge lies in establishing value hierarchies that reflect the lived significance of heritage across different stakeholder groups while remaining sensitive to functional pressures such as urban densification, mobility restructuring, and demographic shifts. Integrating heritage into systems thinking—especially within urban planning—requires procedural tools that allow for reflexivity, contestation, and co-management.

References

  1. UNESCO. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2011; Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/document/160163 (accessed on 11 May 2025).
  2. Vinken, G. Zone Heimat: Altstadt im Modernen Städtebau; Deutscher Kunstverlag: Berlin, Germany, 2010.
  3. Bandarin, F.; Oers, R. The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban Century; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.
  4. Jiang, J.; Zhou, T.; Han, Y.; Ikebe, K. Urban Heritage Conservation and Modern Urban Development from the Perspective of the Historic Urban Landscape Approach: A Case Study of Suzhou. Land 2022, 11, 1251.
  5. Cunha Ferreira, T.; Rey-Pérez, J.; Pereira Roders, A.; Tarrafa Silva, A.; Coimbra, I.; Breda Vazquez, I. The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Governance of World Heritage in Urban Contexts: Reflections from Three European Cities. Land 2023, 12, 1020.
  6. Fayad, S.; Buckley, K. The Historic Urban Landscape approach in the Australian context: Evolving heritage practice and city management frameworks. In The Routledge Handbook on Historic Urban Landscapes in the Asia-Pacific 2020; Routledge: London, UK, 2020.
  7. Bonfantini, B. Historic Urbanscapes for Tomorrow, Two Italian Cases: Genoa and Bologna. Eur. Spat. Res. Policy 2015, 22, 57–71.
  8. Jones, S. Wrestling with the Social Value of Heritage: Problems, Dilemmas and Opportunities. J. Community Archaeol. Herit. 2017, 4, 21–37.
  9. Balik, G.; Lökçe, D.B. On the Relationship of Landscape and Painting. AM J. Art Media Stud. 2019, 19, 29–44.
  10. Sauer, C.O. The Morphology of Landscape. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geogr. 1925, 2, 19–54.
  11. Mon, P.R. An Introduction to the Concept of Landscape in Geography. Asian Rev. Civ. Eng. 2021, 10, 20–25.
  12. de Souza, M.S.; de Oliveira, M.A. The Concept of Landscape in Geography: From Its Genesis to the Classroom. Contrib. Las Cienc. Soc. 2023, 16, 3490–3510.
  13. Stephenson, J. The Cultural Values Model: An integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 84, 127–139.
  14. Arfa, F.H.; Zijlstra, H.; Lubelli, B.; Quist, W. Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings: From a Literature Review to a Model of Practice. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2022, 13, 148–170.
  15. Solomon, E. Introduction: Contested Antiquity in Greece and Cyprus. In Contested Antiquity: Archaeological Heritage and Social Conflict in Modern Greece and Cyprus; Solomon, E., Ed.; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2021; pp. 1–50.
  16. Massey, D. For Space; Sage: London, UK, 2005.
  17. Knapp, B.; Ashmore, W. Archaeologies of Landscape; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1999; p. 13.
  18. Crumley, C.; Marquart, W. Landscape: A Unifying Concept in Regional Analysis. In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology; Taylor and Francis: Abingdon, UK, 1990; pp. 73–79. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285031284_Landscape_A_Unifying_Concept_in_R egional_Analysis (accessed on 11 May 2025).
  19. Wu, J. Landscape of culture and culture of landscape: Does landscape ecology need culture? Landsc. Ecol. 2010, 25, 1147–1150.
  20. Della Dora, V. The rhetoric of nostalgia: Postcolonial Alexandria between uncanny memories and global geographies. Cult. Geogr. 2006, 13, 207–238.
  21. Kearsley, G.; Middleton, M. Conflicted Heritage: Values, Visions and Practices in the Management and Preservation of Cul-tural and Environmental Heritage. Public Hist. Rev. 2006, 13, 23–34.
  22. Avrami, E.; Mason, R. Mapping the Issue of Values. Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Approaches and Research Directions , (Getty Conservation Institute). 2019. Available online: https://www.getty.edu/publications/heritagemanagement/part-one/2/ (accessed on 11 May 2025).
  23. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. In Proceedings of the World Heritage 1992. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  24. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. 2008. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  25. Historic England. Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment). Text Prepared for English Heritage by Paul Drury and Anna McPherson of The Paul Drury Partnership. London. 2008. Available online: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/conservation-principles-sustainable-management-historic-environment/conservationprinciplespoliciesandguidanceapril08web/ (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  26. Lesh, J. Values in Cities: Urban Heritage in Twentieth-Century Australia, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022.
  27. Van Balen, K. The Nara Grid an Evaluation Scheme Based on the Nara Document on Authenticity. APT Bull. 2008, 39, 39–45.
  28. Mason, R. Assessing values in conservation planning: Methodological issues and choices. In Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage; Torre, M.D.L., Ed.; The Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2002.
  29. Pereira Roders, A.R. Re-Architecture: Lifespan Rehabilitation of Built Heritage—Basis; Technische Universiteit Eindhoven: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2007.
  30. Vidal de La Blache, P. Principes de Géographie Humaine; Armand Colin: Paris, France, 1922.
  31. Hettner, A. Die Geographie: Ihre Geschichte, ihr Wesen und ihre Methoden; Ferdinand Hirt: Wrocław, Poland, 1927.
  32. Gradmann, R. Der Kultur- und Wirtschaftsraum; Teubner: Stuttgart, Germany, 1927.
  33. Wimmer, J. Der Landschaftsbegriff in der Kulturgeographie: Eine Einführung; Steiner Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 1992.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Regional & Urban Planning
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Matthias Ripp
,
Jonquille Clifford
View Times: 129
Entry Collection: Encyclopedia of Urban Planning
Online Date: 23 Jun 2025
Table of Contents
    Academic Video Service
    Feedback