Analyzing the Components Affecting the Valuation of Architectural Heritage: A Comparative Study of Conservation Models in Europe and Beyond

Yazdanparast, Hoda; Abdi Ardekani, Hojatollah; Aliabadi, Mohammad

doi:10.22034/ijumes.2026.2092682.1378

Analyzing the Components Affecting the Valuation of Architectural Heritage: A Comparative Study of Conservation Models in Europe and Beyond

Document Type : Case Study

Authors

Hoda Yazdanparast ¹

Hojatollah Abdi Ardekani ²

Mohammad Aliabadi ²

¹ Ph.D. Student, Department of Architecture, Schools of Arts and Architecture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Schools of Arts and Architecture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

10.22034/ijumes.2026.2092682.1378

Abstract

Valuation lies at the foundation of the cultural-heritage conservation system: it guides listing, sets intervention priorities, and shapes policy. Yet the field lacks an integrated conceptual framework, and national and international approaches classify and interpret value in heterogeneous, often incomparable ways. This study re-examines the principal global models of architectural-heritage valuation and derives a shared conceptual structure that makes them comparable. The research adopts a qualitative comparative documentary design. A purposively selected corpus of international charters, national heritage laws and guidelines, agency reports, and peer-reviewed literature was subjected to qualitative content analysis using a coding frame derived from established value typologies and refined inductively. Eight European conservation systems were analyzed in depth and compared with a wider set of eleven international systems. Despite terminological and structural differences, valuation systems converge on four interdependent value dimensionshistorical- cultural, architectural-aesthetic, social-identity, and economic–functional. Crossnational divergence is not explained by these dimensions themselves but by three crosscutting mediating structures: the prevailing authenticity regime, the governance structure, and the authorized heritage discourse. These are consolidated into an integrative framework in which the four dimensions are weighted and interpreted through the three mediators to produce heritage significance. The framework offers a comparative lens that explains why similar value categories yield divergent conservation outcomes across nations, and provides a basis for developing more coherent, transparent evaluation models.

Graphical Abstract

Analyzing the Components Affecting the Valuation of Architectural Heritage: A Comparative Study of Conservation Models in Europe and Beyond

Highlights

· Most global heritage-valuation systems converge on four shared value axes.

· Governance structure shapes valuation outcomes more than stated criteria do.

· Both over-sanctification and commercialization detach heritage from daily life.

· A mixed method compares eight European and several global conservation models.

· An integrative framework links historical, aesthetic, social and functional values.

Keywords

Authorized heritage discourse

comparative conservation

heritage valuation

heritage significance

integrative framework

value typologies

· Athens Charter. (1931). The Athens Charter for the restoration of historic monuments. First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments.

· Avrami, E., Macdonald, S., Mason, R., & Myers, D. (Eds.). (2019). Values in heritage management: Emerging approaches and research directions. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.

· Avrami, E., Mason, R., & de la Torre, M. (2000). Values and heritage conservation: Research report. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.

· Carson, R. T., & Groves, T. (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37(1), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5

· Castaño, M., & Ruiz, J. (2019). Decentralization and cultural heritage management in Spain: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25(8), 813–828.

· Coaldrake, W. H. (1996). Architecture and authority in Japan. London: Routledge.

· de la Torre, M. (Ed.). (2002). Assessing the values of cultural heritage: Research report. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.

· Elshahed, M. (2021). Cairo since 1900: An architectural and urban history. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.

· English Heritage. (2008). Conservation principles, policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment. London: English Heritage.

· European Commission. (2021). Cultural heritage in EU regions: A comparative analysis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

· Feilden, B. M. (2003). Conservation of historic buildings (3rd ed.). Oxford: Architectural Press.

· Fredheim, L. H., & Khalaf, M. (2016). The significance of values: Heritage value typologies re-examined. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(6), 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2016.1171247

· Government of Ontario. (2021). Ontario Heritage Act: O. Reg. 9/06 — Criteria for designation. Toronto: Government of Ontario.

· Hamilakis, Y. (2007). The nation and its ruins: Antiquity, archaeology, and national imagination in Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

· Harrington, J. (2018). Living heritage and the politics of conservation: Buddhist monasteries in Ladakh. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 20(3), 189–206.

· Historic England. (2016). Post-war buildings: Listing selection guide. Swindon: Historic England.

· Hojjat, S. (2001). Conservation of cultural heritage. Tehran: SAMT Publications. [In Persian]

· ICOMOS. (1964). International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (The Venice Charter). Paris: ICOMOS.

· ICOMOS. (1981). Historic gardens (The Florence Charter). Paris: ICOMOS.

· ICOMOS. (1994). The Nara document on authenticity. Paris: ICOMOS.

· ICOMOS Australia. (1999). The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance. Burwood: Australia ICOMOS.

· Jokilehto, J. (2002). A history of architectural conservation. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

· Kaufman, N. (2009). Place, race, and story: Essays on the past and future of historic preservation. New York, NY: Routledge.

· Lennon, J., & O'Connor, M. (2014). Managing heritage: Principles and practices. London: Routledge.

· Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

· Mason, R. (2002). Assessing values in conservation planning: Methodological issues and choices. In M. de la Torre (Ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage: Research report (pp. 5–30). Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.

· Ministère de la Culture. (2021). Patrimoine: Labels et valorisation. Paris: Ministère de la Culture.

· Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. (2021). Heritage counts: The social and economic value of cultural heritage in the Netherlands. The Hague: Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.

· Navrud, S., & Ready, R. C. (Eds.). (2002). Valuing cultural heritage: Applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artifacts. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

· Oakes, T. (2013). Heritage as spectacle: Reimagining historic sites in contemporary China. In T. Oakes & J. Wang (Eds.), Heritage politics in China: The power of the past (pp. 105–124). London: Routledge.

· OECD/ICOM. (2019). Culture and local development: Maximizing the impact (OECD Local Economic and Employment Development Papers No. 2019/07). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9a855be5-en

· Pendlebury, J. (2013). Conservation values, the authorised heritage discourse and the conservation–planning assemblage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(7), 709–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.700282

· Rieger-Jandl, A., & Lanzinger, E. (Eds.). (2023). Heritage valuation in Germany: Between conservation and economic use. Basel: Birkhäuser.

· Riegl, A. (1982). The modern cult of monuments: Its character and its origin (K. W. Forster & D. Ghirardo, Trans.). Oppositions, 25, 21–51. (Original work published 1903)

· Sameh, A., & Babakhani, M. (2022). The role of human factors in the valuation of architectural heritage. [In Persian]

· Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. London: Routledge.

· Springer, F. (2011). Źle urodzone: Reportaże o architekturze PRL-u [Badly born: Reports on the architecture of communist Poland]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Karakter. [In Polish]

· Svensson, M. (2019). Heritage in China: Contradictions, transformations, and governance. London: Routledge.

· Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

· Yalouri, E. (2001). The Acropolis: Global fame, local claim. Oxford: Berg.