research on cultural heritage conservation

• Open access
• Published: 06 February 2024

Large-scale cultural heritage conservation and utilization based on cultural ecology corridors: a case study of the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin in Guangdong, China

• Ying Sun 1 ,
• Yushun Wang 2 ,
• Lulu Liu 3 ,
• Zhiwei Wei 1 ,
• Jialiang Li 1 &
• Xi Cheng 1  

Heritage Science volume  12 , Article number:  44 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

671 Accesses

Metrics details

In the field of world heritage conservation, there has been broad consensus on carrying out heritage conservation research on the basis of spatial integration and interregional and international cooperation. However, there are still many deficiencies in the integration of culture with the environment, regional economic and social development, and the regional, holistic and multimodal conservation and utilization of cultural heritage sites. In China, the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin is a representative area of substantial cultural and ecological value for both Guangdong Province and the whole country. This paper uses the morphological spatial pattern analysis and the minimum cumulative resistance model to integrate cultural ecology sources and establish a cross-regional and large-scale cultural ecology network system that includes 1 main corridor, 22 important corridors and 17 secondary corridors. In addition, based on identified cultural landscape nodes and cultural ecology services, the economy of the cultural ecology corridor could be developed with large-scale co-construction, co-governance and shared working mechanisms to overcome administrative limits and realize the conservation and utilization of multimodal and large-scale heritage sites. This approach has strong theoretical and practical significance for innovative methods in cultural ecology research, as well as for new content in the research of Lingnan culture, ecosystem restoration, and the economic and social development of towns and villages. This article supplements unilateral studies of regional culture and ecology and demonstrates an in-depth application of cultural ecology theory.

Introduction

Cultural heritage, characterized by its longevity, diversity, rich artifacts, wide distribution and exceptional value to society [ 1 , 2 ], is an important carrier of historical lineage that supports national pride and historical cultural inheritance. Many regions rely on similar natural geographic environments, important regional transportation corridors (rivers, historical trails, railroads, etc.), or the needs of historical migrations, military defense, and economic development. Many of the strong commonalities and intrinsic links between cultural heritage, culture and the environment still maintain a strong level of vitality and continue to evolve temporally and spatially [ 3 ]. In the field of world heritage conservation, there has been broad consensus that heritage conservation research should be carried out on the basis of spatial integration with interregional and international cooperation [ 4 ]. However, at present, China's cultural heritage traditions face the following challenges: (1) the isolation and separation of heritage from the environment [ 5 , 6 ]; (2) a lack of connection between heritage traditions [ 7 ]; (3) a singular conservation and utilization mode for individual traditions, such as heritage museums and cultural tourism villages [ 8 , 9 ]; and (4) in addition, due to the limitations posed by administrative divisions and departments, governance tools at all levels, such as conservation policies, conservation works, and conservation funds, cannot be coordinated across the whole system, so that it is difficult to identify the objects of conservation, including material and nonmaterial cultural resources, and coordinate conservation and utilization plans [ 10 ]. Therefore, an important part of the conservation and utilization of cultural heritage in China at this stage is to carry out broad investigations, analyses and plans based on unique regional culture that will break through the prevailing style of “classification” research in cultural heritage of the past few decades [ 11 ] and construct an “overall” framework for research on a large scale across regions [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ].

The essence of the decline and demise of cultural heritage is the incompatibility between heritage and environmental development. In the conservation of historical and cultural heritage, international attention on the historical environment began very early. The conservation criteria included “urban or rural setting” (ICOMOS, Venice Charter, 1964) [ 16 ]; “historic areas and their surroundings” (UNESCO, Nairobi, 1976) [ 17 ]; “the town or urban area and its surrounding setting” (ICOMOS, Washington Charter, 1987) [ 18 ]; and “historic cities, towns and urban areas as important elements of urban ecosystems, noting that conservation not only entails the enhancement and management of these areas but also a synergistic development that promotes sustainable and holistic conservation and the harmonious development of historic towns as integral parts of urban ecosystems” (ICOMOS, Valletta Principles, 2011) [ 19 ]. The trend of regionalization and integration of heritage conservation is further manifested in the integration of heritage sites with the surrounding environment. In 1955, Julian H. Steward, an American cultural anthropologist, proposed the term "cultural ecology", which emphasizes the interaction between culture and the environment, focusing on the relationships among the environment, biological organisms and cultural elements [ 20 ]. It focuses on the mutual “adaptation” of culture and environment, which is a methodology of cultural research [ 21 ]. On this basis, the cultural ecology system further emphasizes the organic unity of the cultural community and its environment. There are three characteristics of adaptability, variability and integrity between culture and the environment. Adaptability refers to the cultural factors that shape a good living and development environment for one’s own needs; variability refers to the adjustment and change in cultural factors according to changes in the natural and social environment, which may manifest as the variation and integration between cultures or cultural adaptation and decline under changes in the natural environment; and integrity refers to the mutual influence and adjustment of cultural and environmental factors in an open cultural ecosystem. Through the adjustment of the development direction of the two systems, cultural ecology factors are integrated into a stable system, that is, the cultural ecology system [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ].

In recent years, research on cultural ecology in the study of cultural heritage has involved the following aspects, among others: heritage corridor construction [ 26 , 27 , 28 ], ecological network construction [ 6 , 29 , 30 ], delineation of heritage conservation areas [ 31 ], cultural landscape mapping of traditional villages [ 32 , 33 , 34 ] and cultural landscape security patterns [ 35 , 36 ]. The importance of holistic heritage conservation and the integration of heritage and the environment has been widely recognized worldwide. However, several issues still need to be discussed continuously, such as the following: (1) How can cultural heritage be better integrated into the regional environmental network and an organic network that closely combines culture and the environment be formed? (2) How can a single heritage point and a single pathway for tourism utilization be multiplied to promote the overall and multimodal cultural and environmental conservation, restoration and utilization of the heritage site? (3) How can the constraints of administrative boundaries be overcome, convenient channels for the flow of resources between regions be established, and the overall conservation and utilization of heritage regions be realized?

With the above questions, from the perspective of cultural ecology, this paper draws on the method of constructing heritage corridors [ 14 ] to focus on the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin in Guangdong Province, which features a concentration of Lingnan culture. The understanding of the geography of linear space and place has deepened and expanded. Combined with the cultural ecology of the study area, the adaptability, variability and integrity are discussed from the perspective of the system, and a large-scale conservation and utilization system with a transadministrative boundary integrating cultural heritage and the environment is established. We believe this work has made certain contributions to the conservation of cultural heritage at both the theoretical and practical levels.

Study area and methods

Guangdong Province, located in the southernmost part of mainland China, is one of the three major gathering places of Lingnan culture in China. Lingnan culture has made indelible contributions to the formation and development of the Han nationality, the main ethnic group in China, as well as to national unity. This culture occupies an important position in the history of Chinese national culture. Lingnan culture in Guangdong Province has three main subgroups: Guangfu culture, Hakka culture and Chaoshan culture (Table  1 ) [ 37 , 38 ]. At present, there are approximately 38 million Guangfu people, 16 million Chaoshan people and 14 million Hakka people in the world. In terms of geographical space, this population is mainly distributed in the Pearl River Delta (Guangfu) and the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin area in the northeastern part of Guangdong Province (Chaoshan and Hakka). In this paper, the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin is taken as the scope of study (Fig.  1 ). The geographical area represents the great cultural and ecological value of the whole country.

The geographical location of the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin and the spatial distribution of its cultural heritage resources. a Location of the study area, b Ancient buildings, c Arcade streets in characteristic villages and towns, d Chinese traditional villages

In terms of culture, the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin is the main gathering place for Chaoshan and Hakka cultures. The Dongjiang and Hanjiang Rivers run through the core area and subregion of Hakka culture, the subregion of Guangfu culture, and the core area of Chaoshan culture. High-value, numerous and widely distributed Lingnan cultural heritage sites have survived along the river thus far.

In terms of ecology, the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin is rich in water and biological resources. It is the water supply source for eastern Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Dongguan, Hong Kong and other places; furthermore, it supports economic and social activities in the northeastern region of Guangdong Province. This basin plays an important ecological role in terms of resource supply, ecological services and environmental regulation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and the northeastern region of Guangdong Province.

The data used in this study include land use data, road network data, water network data, elevation data and cultural heritage data from the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin. The following types of data are included:

The land use data were derived from the GlobeLand30 global land cover data from 2020 ( http://globeland30.org/ ), and three partitions—N49_20, N50_20, and N50_25—were selected.

Vector water and road network data were derived from the Open-Street Map ( https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ ).

The 30 m resolution DEM elevation data were obtained from the Geospatial Data Cloud Platform of the Computer Network Information Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences ( http://www.gscloud.cn/search ).

Data on immovable tangible cultural heritage sites were obtained from the “Guangdong Cultural Heritage Immovable Cultural Relics List” (2013), which included attributes such as protection level, age, and heritage type of the five types of heritage objects, including grottoes and rock carvings, ancient tombs, ancient ruins, ancient buildings, and modern historical sites and buildings, within the scope of the study area. The characteristic village, town and historical trail data were obtained from “the Conservation and Utilization Master Plan for the Historical Trails in Guangdong Province” (2017). The Chinese traditional village data were derived from the “List of Chinese Traditional Villages” (first to sixth batches). Together, they constitute the data of cultural heritage sites.

Morphological spatial pattern analysis

The morphological spatial pattern analysis (MSPA) model proposed by Vogt et al. is a bias measure structural connectivity method used to identify the source and construct the resistance surface [ 39 ]. The forestland, grassland and water land types in the study area in 2020 were used as foreground data, and the MSPA method was used to divide them into seven green landscape structure types, namely, core area, islet, perforation, edge, loop, bridge and branch. According to the integral index of connectivity (IIC), the probability of connectivity ( PC ) and the delta of PC ( dPC ) in the landscape index, the patches in the core area were quantitatively evaluated [ 29 , 40 ] to determine the ecological source in the basin.

In the formula, n is the total number of patches; a i and a j are the areas of patches i and j, respectively; nl ij is the number of connections on the shortest path between patches i and j; \(p_{ij}^{*}\) represents the maximum probability of species diffusion between patches i and j; A L is the total area of the landscape; and PC remove represents the PC value after removing a patch in the study area. 0 ≤ IIC ≤ 1 and IIC = 0 indicates that there is no connection between patches, and IIC = 1 indicates that the whole landscape is connected. When 0 <  PC  < 1, the greater the PC value is, the greater the degree of patch connection. The greater the dPC value is, the greater the importance of the patches.

Analytic hierarchy process and composite index method

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) refers to the decision-making method that decomposes the elements that are always related to decision-making into levels such as goals, criteria, and programs and conducts qualitative and quantitative analysis on this basis [ 41 ]. In this paper, the AHP method is used to evaluate and classify the importance of cultural heritage and the influencing factors that are resistant to the conservation and utilization of cultural ecology sources. The evaluation indices are determined as follows:

Importance of cultural heritage. The age, type and conservation level of cultural heritage sites reflect the time value, existence form and conservation value of heritage, respectively, which can reflect the importance of heritage. The number of heritage sites in the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin is large and scattered. Proximity can reflect the degree of aggregation between heritages and facilitate interaction between heritages. The scale of a heritage site can reflect the availability of cultural activities carried out by the heritage site, and the type of heritage has a direct correlation with the scale. Finally, the existence age, conservation level, proximity and area scale of cultural heritage are selected as the evaluation indices of heritage importance.

Resistance surface. From the perspective of the conservation and utilization of cultural ecology sources, the main aspects of resistance are geographical conditions and accessibility. In terms of geographical conditions, evaluation factors include elevation, slope and land use type. The greater the elevation and slope are, the greater the resistance cost. The types of land use are divided according to the intensity of human activities. The activity intensity of construction land is the highest, and the resistance cost is lower. In terms of accessibility, the evaluation factor is the distance from the main roads, rivers and historical trails. The closer the distance is to the source point, the greater the accessibility and the lower the resistance cost. Finally, the terrain, land use, road network, water network and historical trail data were selected to construct resistance factors.

The relative importance of the evaluation indicators is determined by the Delphi method. According to the selection criteria for the Delphi method of consulting experts, a total of 15 scholars and government staff members working in traditional villages and Lingnan culture research were selected; these included 2 professors, 3 associate professors, 5 government staff members and 5 researchers at the Institute of Geography. The judgment matrix is obtained through expert judgment. The weights of the two parts of the evaluation index are calculated by Yaahp 12.3, and the matrix CR is less than 0.1, which is consistent with the consistency test.

Minimum cumulative resistance

The minimum cumulative resistance (MCR) mainly refers to the minimum work or cumulative cost of simulating various landscapes with different resistance values from the “source”. This model usually combines a gravity model, mapping theory, and a connection index to evaluate and optimize ecological corridors [ 42 ]. In 2004, Yu introduced the least resistance model into the field of heritage corridors for the first time when discussing a new suitability analysis method for heritage corridors [ 43 ]. The MCR model can also help explain the distribution of biodiversity in ecosystems and provide a scientific basis for the conservation and restoration of biodiversity. In this paper, the MCR model is used to construct potential cultural-ecological corridors, connect cultural-ecological resources, and carry out conservation and utilization activities.

In the formula, D represents the distance between landscape units i and j , and R i represents the resistance coefficient of landscape unit i .

Evaluation of the corridor network structure

The network closure index (α index), network connectivity index (β index) and network connectivity rate (γ index) were used to quantitatively analyze and evaluate the structure of the constructed corridor network to determine the rationality of the network structure [ 44 ]. This paper uses the α, β and γ indices to evaluate the structural rationality of the cultural ecological corridor network system.

In the formula, the α index takes the value of [0,1]; when close to 0, no loop is formed; when close to 1, the loop in the ecological corridor network reaches the peak value. The β index takes the value of [0,3]; β > 1 means that the complexity of the corridor network structure is high; β = 1 means that only a single-loop ecological corridor network is generated; and β < 1 means that the corridor structure is single and that only a tree-like ecological corridor network is generated. The γ index takes the value of [0,1]; the larger the value is, the greater the network connectivity.

Selection of cultural ecology points

Cultural source points.

A total of 5688 tangible cultural heritages in 8 categories were investigated and organized, including grottoes and stone carvings, ancient tombs, ancient ruins, ancient buildings, modern historical sites and buildings, traditional Chinese villages, ancient cities, characteristic villages and towns (Table  2 ). The selected cultural source points should have the characteristics of high historical and cultural value, outstanding conservation value, and ease of carrying out subsequent cultural ecology activities. The four index factors, including the area scale, existence age, conservation level and proximity of the heritage site, are selected, and the factor weight is determined by the AHP (Table  3 ). A comprehensive evaluation of the importance of cultural heritage sites in the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin was carried out. According to the evaluation score, there were 1–2 general heritage sites (5015 sites), 2–3 more important heritage sites (553 sites), 3–4 important heritage sites (112 sites), and 4–5 core heritage sites (8 sites). Initially, 120 important and core heritage points were selected as representative cultural source points in the river basin. On this basis, considering the accessibility of the heritage site and the distance from the cultural route, the main rivers and historical trails in the river basin were used as the skeleton and natural substrate of the cultural route. A 2 km buffer zone was established with the help of ArcGIS to further screen 79 heritage sites as the final representative cultural source points (Fig.  2 ). The important cultural source points are located mainly in the Chaoshan area, followed by Meizhou and Heyuan cities, with fewer sites distributed in Dongguan and Huizhou cities.

Distribution of important cultural source points

Ecological sources

According to the MSPA, the landscape core area of the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin is 34,026.87 km 2 , accounting for 91.10% of the total ecological source area and 67.23% of the total study area. The core areas mainly distributed in Heyuan, Huizhou, Chaozhou and Meizhou city, and the landscape connectivity is good, which is conducive to the flow of biology and material. The connections to the basin are less common in Dongguan and Shantou city. The edge and perforation areas account for 3.79% and 3.64%, respectively, of the total ecological resources. There is a certain transition between the external edge and the internal edge in the core area. The proportions of islets, loops, bridges, and branches were all low, indicating that there were fewer isolated small patches in the study area and fewer channels available to alleviate internal barriers and strengthen patch connections (Table  4 ).

In the analysis of ecological sources, considering the spatial scale of the basin, the suitability of habitat patches, and the diffusion ability of wild animal composite groups, referring to Meurk’s (2017) research on Yujiang County, a 500-m patch distance threshold was set, and the connectivity probability was selected as 0.5 [ 45 ]. Through MSPA, the core area of the landscape was used as a potential ecological source. Conefor was used to evaluate the landscape connectivity of potential ecological source patches through the IIC, PC and dPC landscape indices. dPC is a representation of the importance of patches; the larger the value is, the greater the contribution of patches to the overall landscape. Referring to Chen's (2023) research on Fujian Province, 21 core areas with dPC  > 1 [ 29 ] were ultimately selected as the ecological sources in the basin (Fig.  3 ). These ecological sources cover almost all important ecological control areas and scenic spots in the study area.

Distribution of ecological source points

Cultural-ecological coupling

The above cultural source points and ecological sources are coupled and analyzed. Spatially, the historical and cultural attributes and the ecological environment attributes are superimposed, and most of the cultural source points are distributed within the ecological sources; however, some are not superimposed in the surrounding areas of urban centralized construction land but are clustered.

First, the number of cultural source points in a single ecological source is greater than or equal to 3, and the source is identified as a dual attribute of culture and ecology; that is, the cultural ecology group and the cultural source point in the group are regarded as the source points of cultural ecology. Second, for sources with fewer than 3 cultural sources in a single ecological source, the cultural and ecological attributes are not considered to fully overlap, and the single attribute is still maintained, that is, the cultural source and the ecological source are separated. Finally, 40 cultural ecology points, 36 cultural source points, 21 ecological sources and 5 cultural ecology groups were identified. In addition, Dongguan city and Shantou city currently lack ecological resources, but the cultural sources are more concentrated and identified as cultural groups (Fig.  4 ; Table  5 ).

Distribution of cultural ecology points

Construction of the cultural ecology corridor

Resistance surface analysis.

In the construction of the minimum resistance surface, the factors influencing resistance to the conservation and utilization of cultural ecology sources are considered, and the natural ecological environment and economic and social conditions in the basin are combined. Then, the elevation, slope, land use, and distance from roads, rivers and historical trails are selected to construct the resistance factor. The resistance value is set to 1–5, the 'unfavorable' method is adopted [ 46 ], and each resistance factor is assigned (Table  6 ). The AHP is used to determine the weight of factors, and the grid calculator of ArcGIS 10.8 software is used to construct the comprehensive resistance surface (Fig.  5 ). Next, based on the cultural ecology source points and the comprehensive resistance surface, the MCR is used to construct the minimum cumulative resistance surface, and the minimum resistance surface between each cultural ecology source point is calculated (Fig.  6 ).

Comprehensive resistance surface

Minimum cumulative resistance surface

Construction of a cultural ecology corridor network system

Preliminary construction and classification of the network

The MCR model is used to calculate the minimum cost route between the source points, and preliminary corridor construction is carried out according to the groups obtained from the previous analysis. Construction rules: A corridor connected to two cultural ecology groups is identified as an important corridor; a cultural ecology group and any single functional group (culture or ecology) are identified as important corridors; and two single functional groups are identified as secondary corridors. A total of 22 important corridors and 17 secondary corridors were formed. Source points were combined with highly accessible corridors to create important corridors, and the corridor with the most source points was taken as the main corridor. The relevant authorities should prioritize the implementation and construction of the main corridor. There is a strong overlap between the main corridor and the main river systems of the Dongjiang River and Hanjiang River (Table  7 ). The Dongjiang River Basin section has two rings, namely, the “Dongguan-Heyuan Dongjiang Corridor Ring” and “Huizhou-Heyuan-Meizhou Dongjiang Corridor Ring”, which include Pingtan Town, Meizhou Ancient City, Tuocheng Ancient City, Luofu Mountain, Fengshuba Nature Reserve and other important cultural ecology sources. The Hanjiang River Basin contains two parts, namely, the “Meizhou-Chaozhou Hanjiang Corridor Ring” in the north-central region and the “Shantou Hanjiang Corridor” in the southern region, including Songkou town, Dapu County, Dahao Ancient City, Yinna Mountain, Xiyan Mountain and other important cultural ecology sources.

Finally, a preliminary map of the cultural ecology corridor in the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin was generated (Fig.  7 ). The preliminary analysis showed that the important corridors were mainly distributed in the central and eastern regions of the basin and were in line with the cultural ecology groups. The secondary corridors further enhanced the connectivity of various cultural ecology patches in the basin.

Improvement of the network

The main cultural ecology corridor

On the basis of the preliminary construction and classification of cultural ecology corridors, it is also necessary to construct a general corridor between the source points in each remaining patch, forming the structure of the main network and the branches of the nerve endings, to improve the completeness of the network. These general corridors connect cultural source points, ecological sources, cultural ecology source points and patch groups to form a complete cultural ecology corridor network (Fig.  8 ). The construction of this network is conducive to improving the information and material exchange of cultural and environmental elements in the basin and promoting the connectivity of cultural routes and ecosystems between regions.

Analyzing the network structure

The cultural ecology corridor network

The number of potential cultural ecology corridors in the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin is L = 1231, and the number of corridor nodes is V = 537. This basin includes 1 main corridor, 22 important corridors and 17 secondary corridors. The α, β, and γ indices were used to analyze and evaluate the generated cultural ecology corridor network structure and showed that α = 0.65, β = 4.58, and γ = 0.77, indicating that the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin has formed a composite network structure with many corridors, good connectivity and high density, which is conducive to the comprehensive overall conservation and interaction of culture and ecology.

In the 1980s, the United States of America proposed the conservation and utilization of canal areas via the heritage corridor model. The heritage corridor includes four constituent elements: green corridors, walking trails, heritage sites, and interpretation systems. It emphasizes the conservation of the natural environment and the lining and linking of cultural heritage; this conservation method pursues the multiple objectives of heritage preservation, regional revitalization, residents' recreation, cultural tourism and education [ 47 ]. Currently, heritage corridor research focuses on corridor construction methods, industrial development, tourism development, and conservation and management [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]. However, studies on the comprehensive conservation and utilization of corridors are rare. This paper draws on the practical operation of heritage corridors. On the basis of the cultural ecology corridors in the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin, the construction of cultural landscape nodes assists with the development of cultural ecology services, large-scale co-construction, co-governance-sharing working mechanisms, and a corridor-based cultural-ecology economy. This will further promote the utilization of cultural heritage, natural ecological restoration, regional coordination and development and promote regional economic and social development through the conservation and utilization of cultural and environmental resources.

In addition, the overall conservation awareness induced by cultural heritage and its combination with the environment has been widely valued by scholars. However, the integration of culture and environment, culture and regional economic and social development, and the regional, holistic and multimodal conservation and utilization of cultural heritage sites need to continue to be supported by related research and discussion. The comprehensive construction of the cultural ecology corridor system in this paper, on the one hand, is a solution to the three discussion questions; on the other hand, this is in line with China's current national policy requirements for building a cultural power and harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature.

Developing cultural ecology services and inheriting Lingnan culture

Cultural landscape nodes should be built. The cultural ecology source point is combined with its surrounding character stories, folklore, rituals, food and other content to create a "cultural landscape node" that integrates the elements of "material culture + natural ecology + nonmaterial culture" to promote the conservation and utilization of cultural heritage. We will construct a system of “slow paths (multiple linear carriers such as historical trails, greenways, scenic roads, and blue roads), interpretation and education, and recreation and experience” in the cultural ecology corridors of the river basin. Through the systematic coordination of cultural and ecological resources, we will promote the recreational, ornamental, and research activities of cultural landscape nodes in the corridor.

Historical stories, architectural features, village development, folk culture and other content along the corridor are clarified to educate and disseminate Lingnan culture, improve the public's understanding of the traditional culture of Chaoshan and Hakka cultures, and promote 'holistic' conservation and utilization of cultural heritage.

Enhancing ecological connectivity and the repair of natural ecosystems

Dongguan and Shantou should be added as ecological sources, and ecological corridors were restored. In 2021, China proposed the idea of systematic management of mountains, rivers, forests, fields, lakes and sands, with river basins serving as the main unit. The ecological sources of Dongguan and Shantou in the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin are relatively lacking, and additional additions are recommended: in the Dongguan area, the corresponding locations are Dalingshan Forest Park and Lianhuashan Country Park; in the Shantou area, the corresponding sites are the Dafeng Scenic Area and Xihuanshan Forest Park. Through natural restoration, artificial restoration and external constraints, the ecological service quality of the two ecological sources is gradually improving, and on this basis, the ecological corridor is further supplemented. Moreover, ecological resources such as mines, ecological forests and waterfront landscape belts around the corridor are being continuously restored, and 44 ecological breakpoints caused by urban construction have been repaired to ensure animal migration and network connectivity.

Cultural ecology-sensitive areas should be established to restore biodiversity. The cultural ecology-sensitive areas are set around the cultural ecology corridors, of which the main corridors and important corridors are set to be no less than 1 km and the secondary corridors are set to no less than 0.8 km. The sensitive area of cultural ecology is the intersection of human activities and wildlife migration, habitat and activities in villages and towns. These corridors control urban construction, production and living activities in sensitive areas and create good migration and living environments for wildlife.

Developing the “corridor cultural ecology economy” and promoting the development of villages and towns along the route

The development momentum should be transformed, and a corridor-based cultural ecology economic belt built. The slow path, interpretation and education, recreation and experience systems of cultural ecology corridors are inseparable from the conservation and utilization of hotels, restaurants, transportation and other commercial and service facilities in villages and towns along the line. The construction of a cultural ecology service system, the construction of a corridor cultural ecology economic belt, and the promotion of economic and social development of villages and towns along the corridor are important. Taking the villages and towns passing by the main corridor as the key construction areas in northeast Guangdong, we should strengthen the delivery of resources, the supply of facilities and the restoration of ecology; vigorously develop cultural ecology recreation, viewing, research and other activities around the cultural landscape nodes; develop a modern cultural ecology industrial system; and build a demonstration area for coordinated urban and rural development.

Establishment of the department of natural ecology and cultural heritage of Guangdong Province: co-construction, co-governance and sharing of cultural ecology resources

A large-scale co-construction, co-governance and sharing working mechanisms that breaks through administrative boundaries and eliminates the local monopoly of resources should be established. A department of natural ecology and cultural heritage for Guangdong Province should be established as part of the provincial government to coordinate the provincial cultural heritage and natural ecological protection areas. On this basis, in view of cultural heritage conservation and utilization, natural ecological restoration, regional coordination and development of the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin, the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin Cultural Ecology Corridor Management Committee has been established. This committee is responsible for the investigation and registration of cultural ecology resources and the construction and management of cultural ecology corridors (Table  8 ); additionally, it bypasses the constraints of administrative boundaries, realizes the conservation and utilization of cross-regional and large-scale cultural ecology corridors at the basin level and promotes the cross-regional flow of resources.

Conclusions

The Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin represents the substantial cultural and ecological value of both Guangdong Province and China. First, the cultural heritage source points and ecological sources in the basin are extracted via heritage importance evaluation and MSPA. On this basis, spatial coupling of cultural and ecological elements is carried out to determine the source of cultural ecology to ensure the full coverage of important cultural and ecological elements. Finally, 40 cultural ecology composite sources, 36 cultural source points, 21 ecological sources, 5 cultural ecology groups and 2 cultural groups were identified. On this basis, the MCR model, which is based on the conservation of cultural ecology elements and the development of cultural ecology activities, is used to construct the cultural ecology corridor network system via the 'unfavorable' method; this system includes 1 main corridor, 22 important corridors and 17 secondary corridors. The α, β and γ indices are used to analyze and evaluate the corridor network structure, and α = 0.65, β = 4.58, and γ = 0.77 indicate that the number of corridors is large, the connectivity is good, and the density is high, which is conducive to the comprehensive overall conservation and interaction of culture and ecology.

This study can supplement unilateral regional research on culture and ecology at home and abroad and provide an in-depth application of cultural ecology theory in the construction of the cultural ecology corridor of the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin by coupling cultural ecology source points, establishing a cross-regional and large-scale cultural ecology network, integrating regional culture and ecological resources, dismantling the “classification” discussion of cultural heritage used in the past, and discussing the adaptability, variability and integrity of culture and ecology. In addition, the selection of cultural source points overcomes the disadvantages of determining source points by considering a single heritage point or by performing a kernel density analysis of cultural clusters; moreover, this paper comprehensively considers the importance, availability and proximity of heritage sites, which is conducive to strengthening the operability of heritage conservation and utilization. This approach is also conducive to strengthening the continuity and integrity of the ecological environment between heritage sites. The article further proposes that, based on the cultural ecology corridor, through the construction of cultural landscape nodes and cultural ecology services, the development of the corridor’s cultural ecology economy, the establishment of large-scale co-construction, co-governance, and shared working mechanisms, etc., will overcome the constraints of administrative boundaries and realize the multimodal and large-scale conservation and utilization of heritage. This study has strong theoretical and practical significance in both content and methods for research in this field and represents a new contribution to the research area of Lingnan culture inheritance, ecosystem restoration, and economic and social development of villages and towns along the line.

The researchers hope to use the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin as a pilot to carry out the value realization mechanism of cultural ecology products and use the rich Lingnan culture and ecological resources in the basin to create a base for understanding the conservation and economic value of Chinese cultural ecology. At both the national and international levels, these actions address current human conservation and construction requirements for better cultural and ecological environments; furthermore, they are important for achieving sustainable development.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Pang F, Shi C. A study of important discourses on the protection and utilization of historical and cultural heritage. Hunan Soc Sci. 2022;01:156–63.

Google Scholar  

Zhang Y, Yuan X, Zhang H, Wang Y. We will protect the eternal roots of the Chinese national spirit. People's Daily 2022,03-20(001).

Zhang S. Urban conservation planning: from historic environments to historic urban landscapes. Beijing: Science Press; 2020.

Huang Y, Shen S, Hu W, Li Y, Li G. Construction of cultural heritage tourism corridor for the dissemination of historical culture: a case study of typical mountainous multi-ethnic area in China. Land. 2023;12:138.

Article   Google Scholar  

Wen Y. Semantics of authenticity and cultural ecology model of heritage. City Plan Rev. 2022;46(3):115–24.

Li J, Shan M, Qi J. Coupling coordination development of culture-ecology-tourism in cities along the grand canal cultural belt. Econ Geogr. 2022;42(10):201–7.

Deng W, Hu H, Yang R, He Y. A study on the dual-structure characteristics of traditional rural settlements and implications. Urban Plan Forum. 2019;06:101–6.

Shao Y, Hu L, Zhao J. Integrated conservation and utilization of historic and cultural resources from the regional perspective—the case of Southern Anhui. Urban Plan Forum. 2016;03:98–105.

Zhang D, Zhang W, Chen D. Analysis and exploration of the concept of traditional settlement protection and development cluster mode in the new period. Urban Dev Stud. 2022;29(04):16–21+39.

Chen X, Yan H. The rural spatial planning under the construction of territorial spatial planning system—take Jiangsu as an example. Urban Plan Forum. 2021;01:74–81.

Yang J. Protection of urban and rural cultural heritage based on cultural ecology and complex system. City Plan Rev. 2016;40(04):103–9.

Zhang B. Historic urban and rural settlements: a new category towards regional and integral conservation of cultural heritage. Urban Plan Forum. 2015;06:5–11.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Zhang S, Liu J, Pei T, Chan C, Wang M, Meng B. Tourism value assessment of linear cultural heritage: the case of the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal in China. Curr Issues Tour. 2021;1–23.

Conzen MP, Wulfestieg BM. Metropolitan Chicago’s regional cultural park: assessing the development of the Illinois & Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor. J Geogr. 2001;100:111–7.

Murray M, Graham B. Exploring the dialectics of route based tourism: the Camino de Santiago. Tour Manag. 1997;18:513–24.

ICOMOS. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter) [EB/OL]. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/venice_e.pdf .

UNESCO. Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas. [EB/OL]. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001140/114038e.pdf#page=136 .

ICOMOS. Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter) [EB/OL]. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/towns_e.pdf .

ICOMOS. The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas (Valletta Principles) [EB/OL]. https://civvih.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Valletta-Principles-GA-_EN_FR_28_11_2011.pdf .

Steward JH. Theory of culture change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 1979, vol. 7, pp. 39–40.

Jiang J. Discussion on the theory framework of cultural ecology. Hum Geogr. 2005;04:119–24.

Zhang S. Research on the regional integrated conservation strategy for cultural ecology: a case study of Huizhou Cultural Ecology Zone. J Tongji Univ Soc Sci Sect. 2009;3:2735.

ADS   Google Scholar  

Head L. Cultural ecology: the problematic human and the terms of engagement. Prog Hum Geogr. 2007;31(6):837–46.

Ma J. A review of studies on cultural ecology in China in recent ten years. Hunan Soc Sci. 2011;1:26–31.

Kent M. Cultural Landscape and ecology 1995–96: of oecnmenics and nature. Prog Hum Geogr. 1998;22(1):115–28.

Severo M. European cultural routes: building a multi-actor approach. Mus Int. 2017;69:136–45.

Boley BB, Gaither CJ. Exploring empowerment within the Gullah Geechee cultural heritage corridor: implications for heritage tourism development in the lowcountry. J Herit Tour. 2016;11:155–76.

Shao Y, Huang Y. Planning and governance of regional historical and cultural space conservation and development: a case study of the Loire Valley in France. Urban Plan Inter. 2022;37(04):111–21.

Chen J, Zhao C, Zhao Q, Xu C, Lin S, Qiu R, Hu X. Construction of ecological network in Fujian Province based on Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis. Acta Ecol Sin. 2023;43(2):603–14.

Connell J. Film tourism—evolution, progress and prospects. Tour Manag. 2012;33(5):1007–29.

Tao L, Wang H, Li J, Zhang L. Construction of CCSPM model for spatial definition of cultural corridor: a case study of cross-border cultural corridor in Southwest Yunnan. Sci Geogr Sin. 2022;42(4):602–10.

Liu P. Traditional settlement cultural landscape gene: deep understanding of the genetic map of traditional settlement landscape. Beijing: The Commercial Press; 2014.

Yin L, Liu P, Li B, Qi J, Hu Z. Map of traditional settlement landscape morphology gene: a case study of the Xiangjiang River Basin. Sci Geogr Sin. 2023;43(6):1053–65.

Hu Z, Liu P, Deng Y, Zheng W. A novel method for identifying and separating landscape genes from traditional settlements. Sci Geogr Sin. 2015;35(12):1518–24.

Wang F, Jiang Ch, Wei R. Cultural landscape security pattern: concept and structure. Geogr Res. 2017;36(10):1834–42.

Wang F, Prominski M. Urbanization and locality: strengthening identity and sustainability by site-specific planning and design. Heidelberg: Springer; 2016.

Book   Google Scholar  

Pan Y, Zhuo X. Comparative study on traditional settlement patterns of Guang-fu Area and Chao-Shan Area. South Arch. 2014;03:79–85.

Sun Y, Wang Y, Xiao D. The spatial distribution and evolution of Hakka traditional villages on GlS in Meizhou Area. Econ Geogr. 2016;36(10): 193200.

Vogt P, Riitters KH, Estreguil C, Kozak J, Wade TG, Wickham JD. Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image processing. Landsc Ecol. 2007;22:171–7.

Saura S, Pascual HL. A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan. 2007;83:91–103.

Deng X, Li J, Zeng H, Chen J, Zhao J. Research on computation methods of AHP wight vector and its applications. Math Prac Theory. 2012;42(07):93–100.

Lookingbill TR, Elmore AJ, Engelhardt KA, Churchill JB, Gates JE, Johnson JB. Influence of wetland networks on bat activity in mixed-use landscapes. Biol Conser. 2010;143:973–83.

Lin F, Zhang X, Ma Z, Zhang Y. Spatial structure and corridor construction of intangible cultural heritage: a case study of the Ming great wall. Land. 2022;11:1478.

Chen Z, Kuang D, Wei X, Zhang L. Developing ecological networks based on MSPA and MCR: a case study in Yujiang County. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin. 2017;26:1199–207.

Meurk CD, Chen C, Wu S, Lu M, Wen Z, Jiang Y, Chen J. Effects of changing cost values on landscape connectivity simulation. Acta Ecol Sin. 2015;35:7367–76.

Li W, Yu K, Li D. Theoretical framework of heritage corridor and overall conservation of the great canal. Urban Probl. 2004;01:28–31+54.

Oikonomopoulou E, Delegou ET, Sayas J, Moropoulou A. An innovative approach to the protection of cultural heritage: the case of cultural routes in Chios Island, Greece. J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2017;14:742–57.

LaPoint S, Gallery P, Wikelski M, Kays R. Animal behavior, cost-based corridor models, and real corridors. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28:1615–30.

Zhang D, Feng T, Zhang J. Discussion on the construction of heritage corridors along Weihe River system in Xi’an Metropolitan Area. Chin Landsc Arch. 2016;32:52–6.

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Byrne D. Heritage corridors: transnational flows and the built environment of migration. J Ethn Migr Stud. 2016;42:2360–78.

Xi X, Chen L. The preservation and sustainable utilization approach of the American Erie canal heritage corridor and its inspirations. Urban Plan Inter. 2013;28(04):100–7.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the research group for the financial support and the reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions.

"Chaozhou Culture Research Special Project": Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Project of Guangdong Province in 2023 (GD23CZZ03).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Culture Tourism and Geography, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, Guangzhou, 510320, China

Ying Sun, Zhiwei Wei, Jialiang Li & Xi Cheng

Jiantong Design Co., Ltd., Guangzhou, 510010, China

Yushun Wang

School of Mechanics and Construction Engineering, Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

YS, conceptualization, methodology, investigation, funding acquisition, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; YSW, methodology, investigation, writing—review and editing. LLL, conceptualization, methodology, investigation. ZWW, methodology, software, writing—original draft, visualization, validation; JLL and XC, data curation, software, visualization, validation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yushun Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors of this article declare no potential competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sun, Y., Wang, Y., Liu, L. et al. Large-scale cultural heritage conservation and utilization based on cultural ecology corridors: a case study of the Dongjiang-Hanjiang River Basin in Guangdong, China. Herit Sci 12 , 44 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-024-01162-z

Download citation

Received : 07 September 2023

Accepted : 27 January 2024

Published : 06 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-024-01162-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cultural ecology
• Corridor network system
• Lingnan culture

• Member Directory
• Jobs  

Celebrate With Us

• Discover our 2024 Award Recipients!
• Learn more about our awards and the nomination processes

Climate Resilience

• Discover how climate change may impact your site and develop resilience strategies with our newly-launched Climate Resilience Resources for Cultural Heritage.

Support FAIC

• The Foundation supports emergency response, free collection resources, and moderated forums for nearly 20,000 people!
• Donate today!

What is Conservation?

The profession that melds art with science to preserve cultural material for the future. Conservation protects our heritage, preserves our legacy, and ultimately, saves our past for generations to come.

Foundation for Advancement in Conservation

We conduct conservation education, research, and outreach activities through the Foundation for Advancement in Conservation, which specifically supports the care of collections and assists with disaster preparedness and response. Learn how to support our work.

Professional Development & Continued Education

We promote material and technological expertise in the mastery of conservation techniques and are dedicated to sharing that knowledge with the conservation field and allied professions through research and continued education.

• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility

Our core values include equity, inclusion and access, and we are committed to increasing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) throughout both organizations. Learn more about our key DEIA initiatives.

• Land Acknowledgement

Our headquarters are in Washington, DC, the ancestral home of the Piscataway Conoy Tribe, Piscataway Indian Nation, the Nacotchtank People, and other Chesapeake Indigenous Tribes. Read our full  acknowledgement.

Update your information

Search Members

Connect with colleagues

See what we offer

• Advocate for Conservation

You are the voice for cultural materials preservation. Advocate for public policy that values the enduring evidence of human imagination, creativity, and achievement. Join our efforts.

Friends of Conservation

Conservators play a vital role in protecting and preserving the art, objects, and historic sites that tell the story of our lives. Become a Friend to support their work and learn how conservation affects the world around us.

Emergency affecting your collection?

Get immediate assistance from our team of National Heritage Responders.

• Board of Directors
• Internal Advisory Group
• 2024 Election Slate
• Our History
• Held in Trust Report
• Areas of Study
• Held in Trust Project Updates
• Held in Trust Project Groups
• Life Cycle Assessment
• Climate Resilience Resources
• Join Friends of Conservation
• Our Supporters
• Planned Giving
• Logos & Rules for Use
• Press Release Archives
• Conservation Terminology
• Conservation Specialties
• Ask a Conservator Day
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Related Organizations
• Pre-program
• Post-graduate
• Continued Education
• Our Code of Ethics
• Caring for Belongings
• Find a Professional
• Post Graduates
• Institutions
• Professional Membership
• Awards & Honors
• Communications
• Education & Training
• Affinity Groups
• Ethics & Standards
• Financial Advisory
• Health and Safety
• Membership Designations
• Member Engagement
• Sustainability
• Ethics Core Documents Review Task Force
• Archaeological Heritage Network
• Member Community
• Architectural Conservation Wiki
• About the BPG
• BPG Executive Council Responsibilities
• BPG Education & Programs Committee
• BPG Nominating Committee
• BPG Publications Committee
• BPG Discussion Groups
• Get Involved
• BPG Guidelines
• Business Meeting & Program
• Art on Paper Discussion Group
• Library and Archives Conservation Discussion Group
• Author Index
• Title Index
• Grants and Scholarships
• Networks & Allied Groups
• Online Community
• Conservators in Private Practice Group
• Publications
• Optical Media Pen
• Electronic Media Review
• Standing Charge
• Current Officers
• Network Structure & History
• Update from the Chair
• Liaison Program News
• Archived News
• ECPN at the Annual Meeting
• Liaison Program
• Digital Programs
• ECPN-CIPP Mentorship Program
• Pre-Program Internships
• Specialty Groups
• International Education
• Tips Sheets
• Informational Materials
• Compensation Resources
• Relevant AIC Resources
• ECPN on the AIC Blog
• AIC Wiki: Resources for Emerging Conservation Professionals
• AIC News Articles
• Conference Posters
• How to Get Involved
• Articles & Guides
• Historic House Hazards
• Outreach Resources
• Paintings Specialty Group
• Albumen: History, Science,Preservation
• Coatings on Photographs Book
• Photographic Materials Conservation Wiki
• Guide to Digital Photography and Documentation
• JAIC Articles
• Photographic Print Sample Sets
• Photographic Information Record
• Platinum and Palladium Photographs Book
• Topics in Photographic Preservation
• Preventive Care Network
• Imaging Working Group Community
• Achievement Award
• Become a Member
• Rules of Order
• WAG Postprints
• Annual Meeting
• Volunteer Opportunities
• Professional Development Grants & Scholarships
• Publication Fellowships
• Outside Funding Sources
• Emergency Grants
• External Courses
• REALM Project
• Current Response Efforts
• Disaster Response & Recovery Guides
• Plan an Alliance for Response Forum
• Build Relationships with Emergency Responders
• Develop a Local Assistance Network
• Engage Your Network with Education, Training, and Activities
• Find Support for Network Projects
• Leadership Events
• Berks-Lehigh-Northampton
• Central Pennsylvania
• Central Virginia
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi Gulf Coast
• New Orleans
• New York Capital Region
• New York City
• North Carolina
• Northeast Pennsylvania
• Northwest Pennsylvania
• Philadelphia
• Sarasota Manatee
• South Central Pennsylvania
• South Florida
• Suburban Philadelphia
• U.S. Virgin Islands
• Washington D.C.
• Past Responses
• Deployment Procedures
• Risk Evaluation and Planning Program
• Getting Ready in Indian Country
• Emergency Planning Toolkit for Tribal Cultural Institutions
• Connecting to Collections Care
• Eligibility
• Meeting the Match
• Participating Museums
• Funding Resources
• State Grants
• Assessor Resources
• Assessor FAQs
• Emergency CAP
• Outreach Resources for Members
• Language Hub
• Climate and Sustainability
• Registration Policies
• Refund Policy
• How to Register Online
• Green Attendee Pledge
• 2024 Virtual Access
• Attendee Information
• Speaker Information
• Call for Submissions
• Exhibitor Packages
• Sponsor and Advertise
• Exhibitor Policies
• Accommodations & Travel
• Future Meetings
• Program and Schedule
• 2023 Posters
• Exhibit Hall
• Support Florida Organizations
• 2022 Posters
• Meet the Exhibitors
• 49th Virtual Annual Meeting (2021)
• 48th Virtual Annual Meeting (2020)
• 47th Annual Meeting in New England (2019)
• 46th Annual Meeting in Houston (2018)
• 45th Annual Meeting in Chicago (2017)
• 44th Annual Meeting in Montreal (2016)
• 43rd Annual Meeting in Miami (2015)
• Earlier Meetings
• Past Events
• Propose a Professional Development Program
• Code of Conduct
• Current Issue
• Style Guide
• Tips for Preparing Articles and Notes
• Special Call for Papers
• Common Misconceptions About Publishing in JAIC
• Past Issues
• Editorial Policy
• Content Schedule
• Lead Article Lineup
• Digital Products
• Shippable Products
• Annual Conference Publications
• Global Conservation Forum
• Social Media
• Survey Reports
• CoOL, Blog, & Wiki
• Advertise with Us

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.6(1); 2022 Jan

Heritage Conservation Future: Where We Stand, Challenges Ahead, and a Paradigm Shift

Jorge otero.

1 Department of Mineralogy and Petrology, University of Granada, Fuentenueva s/n, Granada 18002 Spain

Global cultural heritage is a lucrative asset. It is an important industry generating millions of jobs and billions of euros in revenue yearly. However, despite the tremendous economic and socio‐cultural benefits, little attention is usually paid to its conservation and to developing innovative big‐picture strategies to modernize its professional field. This perspective aims to compile some of the relevant current global needs to explore alternative ways for shaping future steps associated with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. From this perspective, it is conceptualized how emerging artificial intelligence (AI) and digital socio‐technological models of production based on democratic Peer‐2‐Peer (P2P) interactions can represent an alternative transformative solution by going beyond the current global communication and technical limitations in the heritage conservation community, while also providing novel digital tools to conservation practitioners, which can truly revolutionize the conservation decision‐making process and improve global conservation standards.

Cultural heritage is a lucrative asset. However, despite its tremendous worldwide economic and socio‐cultural benefits, little attention is usually paid to reflect on novel big‐picture strategies to modernize the conservation field. This perspective reviews some of the relevant current global challenges and conceptualizes how emerging digital‐social‐movements based on Peer‐2‐Peer interactions can represent a truly transformative solution to go beyond current needs.

1. Introduction

Cultural heritage refers to the legacy of tangible items (i.e., buildings, monuments, landscapes, books, textiles, paintings, or archaeological artifacts) and their intangible attributes (i.e., folklore, traditions, language, or performance arts) that are inherited from the past by a group or society and conserved for future generations due to their artistic, cultural, or historic value. [ 1 ] The act of preserving cultural heritage is known as Heritage Conservation, and it mostly focuses on doing everything possible to delay the natural laws of deterioration on tangible items to guarantee the transmission of its significant heritage messages and values for future generations. Current heritage conservation practice activities, which are mostly carried out by conservation practitioners (i.e., conservators–restorers and conservation technicians) in worldwide museums, conservation laboratories and monuments; widely involve activities such as the implementation of preventive actions (i.e., controlling the surrounding environmental conditions of items to mitigate damage), remedial activities (i.e., applying a conservation treatment to strengthen item's properties) or the application of a restoration process to bring decayed items as nearly as possible to their former condition. Conservation scientific research activities, which are mostly carried out by conservation scientists in worldwide universities and heritage research institutions, support the conservation practice providing scientific advances in the characterization of materials, the investigation of the material's degradation phenomena and the development of materials and technologies for their conservation and restoration. [ 2 ]

Cultural heritage represents nowadays one of the most important global industries and a substantial economic benefit for host countries, regions, and local communities. According to the latest studies made by the World Travel and Tourism Council, in 2019, cultural tourism represented 40% of all European tourism, generating 319 million jobs and producing more than 30 billion € in revenues every year. [ 3 ] Besides the economic asset and tourist attraction, cultural heritage also has a significant value as an identity factor contributing to social cohesion. [ 4 ] Despite the tremendous economic and socio‐cultural benefits, little attention and investment are usually taken on its conservation and/or to develop new strategies to modernize its practice activities. Machu Picchu, Taj Mahal, Petra or Angkor, among many other monuments with irreplaceable cultural heritage significance, are currently eroding at a noticeable rate [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ] and current global conservation activities are not completely succeeding in the implementation of quality conservation strategies to stop damage. [ 9 ] According to the latest heritage at risk report made by ICOMOS in 2020, [ 10 ]  ≈65% of the world's buildings with artistic and/or cultural interest currently present lack of maintenance and are in a poor state of conservation, which leads structures to a constant loss of its cultural, artistic, and economic value. Such loss has drawn recently the attention of the international political community, which has recognized the need to safeguard this heritage, as represented by one of the 169 specific targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 11.4). Inadequate environmental conditions, climate change, the massification of tourism, and insufficient management and resources are nowadays the major conservation threats to World Heritage Sites. [ 11 ] Considering that the cultural tourism industry has been globally growing, at a rate of 20–25% in the last 10 years before the COVID‐19 pandemic eruption, [ 12 ] added to the effect of global warming and the current high levels of pollution in urban areas, the decay of heritage items is expected to increase considerably in the next 10 years. [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ] This rapid deterioration is expected to be even more exacerbated in developing countries since conservation activities are often carried out by inexpert and/or untrained practitioners [ 18 ] which, in several cases, can increase damage up to 50%. [ 19 ] In this context, there is a pressing need to envision innovative solutions to develop different global strategies to go beyond the current global challenges in the heritage conservation community for better conservation outcomes and to continue enjoying the tremendous economic benefits derived from heritage more efficiently and sustainably for the benefit of global future generations.

On the other hand, cultural heritage conservation can also serve as a worldwide economic driving force, but especially in economically and socially marginalized communities in developing countries since it helps to generate local jobs, creation of opportunities for income‐generation and jobs (especially for youth and women), better learning opportunities for all, reducing inequality between social status or communities, improving professional competitiveness in skilled jobs and promoting cooperation between stakeholders and professional entities, increase tourism, and improve the quality visitor experience. [ 20 ] Besides the economic growth in developing countries, cultural heritage conservation enables sustainable development by enhancing the inhabitants’ sense of identity, feeling of connection, and improves people's well‐being. [ 21 ]

This communication aims to assemble some of the current global challenges in heritage conservation and propose an alternative paradigm for shaping up future steps associated with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

2. Global Challenges Ahead in Heritage Conservation

2.1. analysis of the heritage conservation scientific data.

The ability to uncover insights and trends in large amounts of data has been around since ancient times. Ancient Egyptians used the analysis of data to increase efficiency in tax collection or accurately predict the flooding of the river Nile every year. [ 22 ] However, data science, or “big data analysis,” has especially emerged in the last decade as a key new area of study having a tremendous impact in other scientific areas such as biology, medicine, or the development of smart‐green cities, which is able to extract new value from large complex unstructured data coming from differences sources. [ 23 , 24 , 25 ] The interest to study heritage materials is an old field of research, which started back in the XIX century where scientists such as Michael Faraday (1791–1867), [ 26 ] Friedrich W. Rathgen (1862–1942), [ 27 ] or A. W. von Hofmann (1818–1892) [ 28 ] had already drawn the attention to the study of the degradation phenomenon of heritage materials. However, to date, there has not been a single work on any macroperspective analysis or data science applied to the understanding and management of the conservation data from heritage. This is surprising especially for three reasons: i) studies of the heritage conservation are incredibly data‐rich and spread in a vast number of sources; ii) current research is still progressing without macroperspective directions; iii) most excellent scientific findings lack nowadays the adequate dissemination and are rarely transferred into practice.

I believe that, at this point, heritage conservation data requires the appropriate analysis in order to derive meaningful information crucial to help scientists and conservation research institutions to find new key areas of research and optimize research activities. At this point, should the emphasis of heritage conservation be placed on the development of new materials and new application procedures? Are most of the damage mechanisms already precisely understood and linked to visible decay patterns? Has there been significant uncover work that needs to be transferred to real practice? Have similar studies obtained similar results? Are the techniques and methods for evaluating heritage materials and decay processes accessible to conservation practitioners and is this methodology universally accepted by the scientific community? Can this methodology and findings be implemented by conservation practitioners also in developing countries? Does science need to provide more research to evaluate the long‐term durability of treatments? etc. In this light, I believe there is an urgent need to analyze the existing scientific data before continuing with more incremental research data to evaluate the direction in which research has been progressing and whether or not the current direction is proving fruitful.

But, how can we tackle such complex and macroscopical analysis? Big data technologies (software and data warehouse), together with the increased use of cloud‐based, high‐performance computing (algorithms), and artificial intelligence (AI), can create new opportunities for data analysis with tremendous benefits to any multidisciplinary and data‐rich fields as health, [ 29 ] history, [ 30 ] or even heritage conservation. [ 31 ] However, although these big data technologies could be very useful to extract unknown correlations, detect hidden patterns, detect areas of overproduction, areas that lack research or help us to obtain similarities or differences on similar projects, [ 32 ] those algorithms have currently difficulties to establishing qualitative analyses to highlight crucial findings, which can help us answer the mentioned questions; especially considering diverse and complex environments, [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ] such as the conservation of cultural heritage, which requires frequently the consensus/input of professionals with very different angles based on diverse expertise, context, and environments. Moreover, considering that the big data analysis is usually carried out by only one researcher or by a selected group of experts, this analysis has been found to be highly unconsciously biased by the researcher's previous experience/scientific position and often this big data analysis is not unanimously accepted on multidisciplinary environments involving different fields, academic positions, and research interests. [ 37 , 38 , 39 ] So, how can we provide the first step to create a summary of the conservation existing scientific findings that could be accepted consensually by both its scientific and practice community?

2.2. Reduce Inequalities: Bridge the Gap between Developed and Developing Countries

Scientific journals are still nowadays the principal channel for disseminating research results across the global scientific community. However, access to those scientific journals is highly expensive and also restricted to some developing countries, which is called by UNESCO “the information gap.” [ 40 ] In the developed world, the majority of research institutions and universities provide their scientists with unlimited updated online access to most scientific journals. [ 41 ] However, in developing countries, where most conservation is needed, most research institutions cannot afford them and scientists suffer from a serious lack of access to advanced and up‐to‐date peer‐reviewed scholarly literature. [ 42 ] A World Health Organization (WHO) survey conducted in 2000 [ 43 ] reported that ≈65% of research institutions in developing countries have no subscription to any international scientific journals. Another relevant survey published in Nature [ 44 ] revealed that only eight nations in the world produce 85% of total publications globally. Unfortunately, this isolation is unconsciously promoted by developed‐country scientists who are usually encouraged and expected to publish research in “high profile” journals to increase competitiveness. This, in turn, facilitates access to further research funding, but this also further accentuates the information gap between developed and developing countries. If such asymmetry in research output and access to up‐to‐date information remains a characteristic of the scientific world, then conservation practitioners and scientists in developing countries will remain isolated and their work will continue to have an important lack of updated technical expertise, which will affect directly the conservation of their cultural heritage. In this light, further initiatives in conservation should aim, as much as possible, to promote open‐science and provide a better, wider, and more equal access to knowledge.

2.3. Increase the Synergetic Exchange of Knowledge between Science and Practice: Promoting Interdisciplinary

It is widely accepted within the heritage conservation community that there is a considerable gap between science and practice. Closing this gap has been the theme of several conferences, books and international debates. [ 45 , 46 , 47 ] There are many reasons why this gap exists. First, a high number of papers published by conservation scientists in scientific journals are seldom read outside of the academic world and there are few incentives for researchers to bring their science into practice. On the other hand, conservation practitioners rarely publish and/or document any of their field/hands‐on experiences and experiments in a manner that can meaningfully inform conservation scientists. Other reasons, such as the lack of access to scientific literature (high cost of journals, as previously mentioned), the fact that each field has different professional goals and the limited relevance of conservation practitioners in the decision‐making process within heritage multidisciplinary projects, are factors that really exacerbate the divide. This is obviously added to a fear of a critical analysis at all levels of the conservation theory and practice by both sides. Additionally, since conservation science is a relatively new discipline, most conservation scientists are trained in one of the natural sciences (e.g., Physic, chemistry or engineering) who specialized in heritage conservation directly through employment or personal interest in cultural heritage. [ 48 ] They publish most of their findings in scientific Journals specialized in other disciplines, where practitioners have usually no connection to them and/or have no technical knowledge to correctly extract the information they need from them. During the last decade, new digital professional networks (mostly LinkedIn, Academia, and Research gate) have improved interdisciplinary global interactions between conservation peers, and are currently used as the main digital communication medium between heritage conservation professionals outside main international heritage organizations (i.e., ICON: Institute for Conservation; AIC: American Institute for Conservation; ECCO: European Confederation of Conservator‐Restorers’ Organizations; ENCORE: European Network for Conservation‐Restoration Education; ICOM‐CC: International Council of Museums; IIC: International Institute for Conservation; and ICOMOS: International Council on Monuments and Sites). However, although those networks are very effective platforms to share new research and new published experiences, neither of them allows high levels of user's interaction in order to create discussion/dialogue on research outputs or consensually organize and summarize findings to create new knowledge. Additionally, they barely allow documenting any unpublished experiences of remarkable observations obtained by practitioners (or scientists) on their hands‐on experience in a manner that can be useful to other heritage professionals. In this context, it is clear that new strategies are needed to create a greater synergy between science and practice.

2.4. Document, Transmit, and Preserve the Current Knowledge Contained in Practice Activities

Conservation practice activities carried out by practitioners are highly observational, “knowledge gained by experience” and require a high level of manual dexterity for the use of tools and analytical methods. Furthermore, success or failure in interventions is often highly influenced by the practitioner's skill and experience. [ 49 , 50 , 51 ] In several cases, conservation practice activities are traditional methods passed from generation to generation, such as the Mughal‐era tile conservation method in India [ 52 ] or earthen architectural conservation skills in Mali, [ 53 ] which present the serious risk to disappear without being properly documented. [ 54 ] In this context, global conservation online forums within international heritage organizations currently provide the main communication vehicle where practitioners can organize in professional groups based on their expertise to share knowledge and create discussion on specific topics. However, although those conventional digital forums are effective as a knowledge‐sharing vehicle, this conventional way of professional interactions do not allow users to document, organize into categories, and summarize experience and knowledge that can create new added value. This is added to other factors such as the lack of open‐access accessibility to those forums (membership) and that rarely contemplate accessible video tutorials to stimulate training for other professionals.

2.5. Create a More Participatory System to Understand and Disseminate the Current Scientific Knowledge

“Dissemination of research ensures that research communities are able to build on existing knowledge, highlight new discoveries, and do not duplicate efforts in either research or implementation” (UNESCO, 2008). [ 55 ] The amount of currently available heritage scientific data is overwhelming. The conservation science field, as in other scientific fields, went from a significant lack of data to a data deluge in just 30 years. [ 56 ] Large heritage research databases exist (e.g., AATA, JTOR, or ICOMOS library) at different scales, but can conservation scientists efficiently track this large amount of unstructured new data? And, are the most remarkable findings really reaching the practitioners? In reality, few researches are properly disseminated beyond academia to make a real impact in the practical field. However, even when research is accordingly disseminated through professional platforms (e.g., Research‐gate or Academia), indexed in online repositories (e.g., Scopus or Web of Science), presented in heritage recognized conferences (e.g., ICOM‐CC or IIC) and included in heritage digital libraries, due to the high complexity of the conservation field, it is difficult to establish reliable comparisons among current research and data. I have to constantly face this complexity in my professional scientific field. For example, one of my current research interests studies the consolidation effectiveness of nanolime when applied to a historic structure. However, its effectiveness has been discovered to be influenced by many factors such as its concentration (g L −1 ), solvent, application method, amount of product applied, application procedure, crystallinity, size and surface area of the nanolime particle, type of substrate, product storage time, pore size distribution, and mineralogical composition of the substrate or relative humidity conditions during the curing time. [ 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 ] This wide range of variables makes it extremely difficult to draw accurate and reliable comparisons among current research findings, which often requires a personal communication (e.g., videoconference meetings, phone calls, or emails) between involved scientists to draw common conclusions on specific topics. Conventional mentioned e‐libraries and networks allow the visualization of our new research findings, but do not allow us high levels of user's coordination in order to discuss, compare, and classify while building on a commonly agreed shared knowledge for the benefit of other scientists and the practice.

2.6. Assist Global Practitioners with Tools to Enhance Their Conservation Activities

According to a well‐known work carried out by the heritage architect J. Fidler in 2005, [ 18 ] about 60% of global conservation and maintenance activities are nowadays carried out by inexpert and/or untrained practitioners, which in several cases, can increase damage up to 50%, especially in developing countries. [ 19 ] This is obviously the result of the mentioned high complexity of the heritage conservation field, the importance of the practitionerś skills and experience and the lack of a consensus scientific knowledge to support practice activities. One of the most difficult tasks that practitioners face in their activities is the identification of decay patterns and the decision about what type of protective treatment should be applied based on the huge complex context (type of substrate, material's properties, decay processes involved, and compatible products), which requires a comprehensive study. However, in practical cases, decisions about interventions are usually left to the last possible moment and sometimes they are made without a thorough study. [ 62 ] In this context, there is an urgent need to develop new strategies to organize, summarize, and disseminate existing knowledge that could assist practitioners (conservation encyclopedia) during their decision‐making process on the field.

3. The Possible Way Forward: A Paradigm Shift to Overcome Current Limitations in Heritage Conservation Based on the Commons‐Based Peer Production Model (CBPP)

CBPP is a term coined by Harvard Law School professor Yochai Benkler, [ 63 ] which describes a model of socio‐economic production in which large numbers of people work cooperatively for common benefits, especially over the internet (e.g., Wikipedia). This new model has been previously described by Prof. Elinor Ostrom (Nobel Prize Winner in Economics for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons, 2009) who claimed at her well‐known communication at Science [ 64 ] that these Peer‐to‐Peer (P2P) networks were a promising strategy for addressing several contemporary professional problems as they stimulate dialogue among peers which favors consensus, connects millions of users from all over the world and creates new shared value. One of the major characteristics of these commons‐based peer production communities is its usually nonprofit scope, open‐access aim, reduced hierarchy among peers, and that participation is mostly voluntary based on the complementary professional expertise of their users who work together to create new common shared value in an ecosystem of cooperation where all can benefit from it. [ 65 , 66 ]

Over the last 10 years, studies on P2P networks have enjoyed a meteoric rise. [ 67 ] This new model of production seems to be a prevailing driving force in Europe and grasped already the attention of the European Commission (EC), which funded several initiatives (mostly around Culture) to study the transformative potential these communing practices might have toward the improvement of economic dynamics and working and living conditions in Europe. [ 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ] This new socio‐technological model is clearly expected to fully flourish in this following decade and is expected to create new models of production, novel forms of society, and innovative social aggregation for community shared benefits. [ 64 , 65 ]

4. Conclusions and Outlook

4.1. the transformative potential of cbpp in heritage conservation.

I believe that this new way of production could represent a transformative solution to go beyond our conventional working method and to solve some of the current global challenges in heritage conservation since it could allow heritage professionals, from all over the world, to organize into digital communities and cooperatively and horizontally work to create a completely new shared value. These digital communities can be specifically created to document, exchange, transmit skills; preserve unpublished remarkable conservation practice observations or organize current knowledge (e.g., Wikipedia). I specifically hypothesize that, inspired by the Wikipedia initiative, the heritage conservation community could create similar initiatives to organize current scientific knowledge in a wiki‐like conservation encyclopedia. This initiative could provide a solution to tackle the complex and macroscopical analysis of the current large and unstructured scientific knowledge. This is because of the nature of content production in these types of platforms. Since content is constantly created and self‐controlled by the complementary and multidisciplinary expertise of all users, the organization and analysis of knowledge are undertaken consensually taking into consideration the input of all heritage professionals (i.e., scientists, conservators, architects, surveyors, technicians, archaeologists, curators, etc.) with very different angles in terms of professional vision (practice or science), environmental weather conditions issues, accessibility of materials or resources. This new way of production could allow evading the current “bias issues” concerning the traditional big data analysis while providing a representative vision of the global common knowledge, being also in a constant update. Additionally, considering the current accuracy of Wikipedia—Nature investigations found that Wikipedia is very close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries [ 73 ] —this initiative could also provide significant levels of data quality, precision, and accuracy.

This new way of production based on peer cooperation and consensus‐driven structures can also help to mitigate the other existing global heritage challenges. For example, it can contribute to reducing the current inequalities between developed and developing countries since the access to knowledge could be less restrictive reducing the UNESCO‐called “information gap.” It can also improve the synergetic exchange of knowledge between science and practice promoting a real horizontal interdisciplinary interaction of all heritage professionals based on different geographical regions, socio‐economic environments, and environments. Additionally, possible initiatives such as this open‐source conservation encyclopedia can also help mitigate other global heritage challenges since it could contribute to creating a more participatory system to disseminate the current scientific knowledge (open‐science). These initiatives could also assist global heritage practitioners with new tools to enhance their conservation activities while increasing the capabilities and skills of other unskilled practitioners, promoting better learning opportunities for all, reducing inequality, and improving global competitiveness in skilled jobs.

Besides the direct benefits to the conservation practice global community, the successful implementation of Peer‐to‐Peer digital professional networks in the form of open‐source encyclopedia or a sharing‐information network can also represent a universal benefit for economically and socially marginalized communities in developing countries, since it could allow local communities to better self‐organize, self‐train, and self‐manage their cultural heritage; especially in areas with no Heritage Management Plan or with a serious lack of resources. This is contrary to the conventional working method within the conservation community, which has been largely criticized in the past for mostly benefiting the professional conservation community without considering its influence on local communities. [ 74 , 75 , 76 ]

This emerging socio‐professional production ecosystem is completely aligned with the fundamental values and main goals of the UN Agenda2030 for Sustainable Development in terms of promoting democratization, open science, open‐access learning opportunities, productive work, equitable quality interdisciplinary, assist with economic development, and also reducing inequalities within and among countries (Goals 4, 8, 10, and 17).

I believe that these emerging socio‐technological networks can serve our cultural heritage conservation professional field as innovative strategies to transform the professional field. It could provide a better, wider, and more equal access to knowledge while assisting global scientists and practitioners with new tools (e.g., a conservation encyclopedia created by its own community that professionals can check during conservation decision processes), which could truly revolutionize how heritage conservation professionals currently face heritage interventions; for the benefit of global conservation standards.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

J.O.'s current research was funded by the European Commission on the Marie Skłodowska‐Curie Actions (MSCA‐IF) from the European Union's Horizon 2020 on research and innovation, grant agreement no. 893762 (NANOMORT). The author thanks his professional mentors in Heritage Conservation Prof. A. Elena Charola (Smithsonian Institution, USA), Prof. Heather A. Viles (University of Oxford, UK), and Prof. Carlos Rodriguez‐Navarro (University of Granada, ESP) who helped him in one way or the other to develop some of the critical reasonings included in this communication. The author especially thanks Prof. Koenraad Van Balen (KU Leuven, BEL) for initializing him into Prof. Ostrom's research, and in this novel ecosystem of production based on the commons and especially its possible impact on heritage conservation future. The view and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the University of Granada, the European Commission, or the mentioned mentors.

Jorge Otero is a research‐fellow at the University of Granada (UGR, ESP). He holds a Ph.D. in civil engineering from Sheffield Hallam University (UK). He specializes in the characterization of masonry materials, their degradation phenomena, and the development of technologies for their conservation. He is now the PI of the Horizon2020‐funded NANOMORT‐project. Before joining UGR, he was a postdoc researcher at the Getty Conservation Institute (USA), an intern at the Smithsonian's Museum Conservation Institute (USA) and the Institute of Conservation (ICON, UK). He is a member of ICOMOS and coauthor of the open‐access “Built Heritage Evaluation Manual” published by the Smithsonian Scholarly Press.

Otero J., Heritage Conservation Future: Where We Stand, Challenges Ahead, and a Paradigm Shift . Global Challenges 2022, 6 , 2100084. 10.1002/gch2.202100084 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Dedicated to Prof. A. Elena Charola (Emeritus Research Scientist at the Museum Conservation Institute of the Smithsonian Institution, formerly Research Scientist at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, ICCROM, and the University of Pennsylvania) on the occasion of her retirement

• Review article
• Open access
• Published: 09 October 2023

The development of the concept of architectural heritage conservation and its inspiration

• Wen Liang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2844-8881 1 ,
• Yahaya Ahmad 1 &
• Hazrina Haja Bava Mohidin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1439-1896 1  

Built Heritage volume  7 , Article number:  21 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

3521 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Over recent decades, heritage conservation has developed in concept and scope. This paper uses a systematic literature review approach to collect charters and documents on heritage conservation issued by UNESCO and ICOMOS, divided into two periods, before 2000 and from 2000 to the present, for analysis from a qualitative perspective. The study results show that the scope of architectural heritage is expanding, and the definition of conservation is changing from individual to holistic conservation and from holistic to sustainable conservation. The focus of conservation has evolved from tangible to intangible attributes. The changing scale of conservation, from object to landscape, incorporates a more comprehensive range of heritage values, and the status of conservation has changed from static to living conservation. This study systematically structures the development of the concept of architectural heritage conservation, providing insight in the international field of architectural heritage conservation and encouraging reflection on the conservation of architectural heritage in historic cities.

1 Introduction

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) and ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) have been exploring and guiding the conservation of the environment, cities, and buildings since their establishment. They have accumulated a wealth of experience. Since the start of this century, experts from the UNESCO World Heritage Committee have thought it was time to shift the process of architectural heritage conservation. They are gradually becoming aware of the objective reality of urban development, that historic cities are facing conflict between conservation and development and that architectural heritage conservation can no longer focus only on the conservation of buildings. The conflict between sustainable development and heritage conservation is a balancing act between preserving the importance of heritage and allowing sustainable development (Fouseki and Cassar 2014 ; Adams et al. 2014 ; Arumägi and Kalamees 2014 ; Broström et al. 2014 ; Eriksson et al. 2014 ; Fabbri 2013 ). Thus, the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape was created.

In 2011, UNESCO adopted the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape , which addresses the negative impact of urban development on heritage conservation and the contradictions and problems between architectural heritage conservation and modern urban development. It argues that rigid and dogmatic conservation strategies need to be adapted to a city’s social context and economic environment (UNESCO 2011 ). History and development should not be opposites but rather mutually beneficial (Najd et al. 2015 ). The historic urban landscape is an approach that incorporates both the historical environment and contemporary space into the conceptual scope (Yang, Brumana and Previtali 2019 ). The conservation of architectural heritage in urban spaces is not only about preserving the historical buildings of the past but also about uniting stakeholder groups, identifying architectural heritage, gaining a collective cultural identity, finding a sense of place and civic pride for residents, allowing everyone to appreciate the cultural values of the city today, and creating a cultural identity for future urban planning through this process (Cauchi-Santoro 2016 ).

Before 2000, the definition and scope of architectural heritage conservation were based on a series of ICOMOS charters, resolutions, and declarations surrounding The Venice Charter in 1964. In 1987, the definition and scope of architectural heritage conservation in The Washington Charter were gradually extended beyond protecting the building itself. The charter provided a new concept of architectural heritage conservation, defining the concept of architectural heritage and its historic location and larger historic urban areas. In addition, it defined the notion of holistic conservation.

In 2005, the historic landscape of cities was first introduced in the Vienna Memorandum adopted by UNESCO (UNESCO 2005 ), stimulating a new way of thinking. In 2011, the term was formally introduced in the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (UNESCO 2011 ), which pointed out that change is considered part of the urban tradition and was widely discussed. Reviewing and summarising the evolution of architectural heritage conservation reveal that the definition and scope of architectural heritage conservation have changed from The Venice Charter to the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape .

How has the concept of architectural heritage conservation developed from the Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments to the present? How has the scope of architectural heritage conservation changed accordingly?

2 Research aim

This study aims to analyse the development of architectural heritage conservation and discuss changes in the concept of architectural heritage conservation by analysing the charters and documents on architectural heritage conservation issued over the years by ICOMOS and UNESCO to gain a deeper understanding of the concept of architectural heritage conservation. On this basis, it reconceptualises and clarifies the systematic nature of the concept of architectural heritage conservation, reveals the development of architectural heritage conservation, and identifies its implications for the conservation of architectural heritage in historic cities. Architectural heritage conservation is not static and changes with time and the development of society. Therefore, systematically examining the development of the concept of architectural heritage has far-reaching guiding significance for the definition of architectural heritage, the determination of its scope, and the stimulation of its value.

This study adopts a systematic literature review approach to collect charters and documents on architectural heritage conservation issued by UNESCO and ICOMOS for analysis from a qualitative perspective and compiles statistics for two periods: before 2000 and from 2000 to the present. The full texts of the charters and documents on architectural heritage conservation were read so that views adopted in the concept of heritage and leading views on the scope of heritage could be extracted and listed and the four aspects of definition, focus, scale, and status of architectural heritage conservation could be analysed. Finally, the study elaborates on the inspiration for architectural heritage conservation in historic cities, leading to reflection on the conservation of architectural heritage.

3 Development of the concept of architectural heritage conservation

3.1 development of the definition of architectural heritage conservation.

In 1931, the Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments was established. It proposed the need to study the suitability of decorative flowers and trees for certain monuments or groups of monuments, to eliminate all forms of advertising and the erection of unpleasant electric poles in the vicinity of monuments of artistic and historical value, to prohibit the construction of noisy factories and towering pillars, and to better protect the monuments themselves (ICOMOS 1931 ). The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments was the first official document on the protection of cultural heritage to be accepted at the international governmental level. In a sense, it was the beginning of the formation of an international consensus.

Subsequently, in 1964, The Venice Charter was formed. It argues that monuments cannot be separated from the history they represent and the environment in which they were created (ICOMOS 1964 ). Historic monuments include the monuments themselves and their historical environment. The charter was an essential moment in the cultural debate, as it expanded the definition of historic monuments, emphasised the protection of the environment in which these monuments are located, and accelerated the expansion of conservation standards from individual buildings and groups of buildings to buildings and the environments with unique civilisations that they contain (Jokilehto 2013 ; Goetcheus and Mitchell 2014 ; Ahmad 2006 ). Based on the Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments , it reaffirmed the scope and significance of heritage conservation. More important, it expanded the definition of heritage conservation and provided a complete definition of architectural heritage conservation. However, it is not perfect, as it focuses on single historic site conservation, ignoring the problem of the city, and therefore the macro-level.

In the stage, the focus was on historical heritage conservation of a single substantial space, and the scope of conservation attention was narrowed. However, the scope of monument conservation has changed as the understanding of conservation value has changed and expanded. The object of conservation has gradually expanded from a single historical building to the level of historical areas. The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments formed a preliminary understanding of the environment surrounding historical buildings.

The concept of architectural heritage conservation has been widely promoted and accepted through the definition of the historic urban landscape in the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape , which expanded the scope of architectural heritage. Moreover, the scope change in architectural heritage conservation documents triggered changes in programmatic documents for architectural heritage conservation. In terms of connotation, some critical changes occurred in architectural heritage conservation documents after 2000.

3.1.1 Quantity and proportion

The charters adopted by the general assembly of ICOMOS as well as resolutions and declarations issued every two years are consensus documents for the heritage conservation academic community and influence the conservation practices of governments. Since its establishment in 1965, ICOMOS has issued or endorsed 49 documents. Among them, 19 charters were adopted by the general assembly of ICOMOS, 17 resolutions and declarations, 7 charters were adopted by ICOMOS national committees, and 6 other international standards were issued. There are 45 documents on architectural heritage conservation (Table 1 ).

Regarding the number and type of documents the period before 2000 was a significant era of development. There were 26 documents related to architectural heritage conservation, accounting for 96.30% of all documents; from 2000 to the present, there were 19 documents, accounting for 86.36% of all documents. Most of these documents were promulgated between 1980 and 1990, with 11 documents related to architectural heritage, more than in any previous period.

UNESCO’s conventions, recommendations and declarations are the programmatic and guiding documents for architectural heritage conservation. Since its establishment in 1946, UNESCO has issued 12 documents related to architectural heritage conservation, accounting for 13.58% of the total number of documents (Table 2 ).

The number of UNESCO documents on architectural heritage was significantly higher after 2000 than before. There were 2 conventions, accounting for 25%. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003 and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in 2005 emphasise the importance of culture for social cohesion, not only protecting and safeguarding people but also enhancing the diversity of cultural expression. There was 1 recommendation, the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape issued in 2011, accounting for 12.5%, and 2 declarations, accounting for 28.57%.

3.1.2 Cognition of heritage setting

The ‘setting’ of heritage is originally derived from the concept of the surrounding environment or natural environment. In the Charter of Athens (CIAM  1933 ) and the Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites , the word ‘surrounding’ refers to the natural environment (UNESCO 1962 ). The first use of the term ‘setting’ was in The Venice Charter for heritage conservation. The historical environment at this stage referred mainly to artificial physical constructions and ancient remains (ICOMOS 1964 ). Along with developing the understanding of heritage value, many charters provided different definitions of the ‘setting’ of heritage, resulting in different connotations of ‘environment’. The Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas clarified that ‘Architecture adapts harmoniously to the spatial organisation and setting of the groups of historic buildings’ (UNESCO 1976 ). The Washington Charter paid attention to the relationship between the neighbourhood and the surrounding environment. ‘Setting’ is the surrounding environment, both natural and artificial (ICOMOS 1987 ). In The Burra Charter , ‘setting’ refers to the area around a heritage site, including the scope of vision (Australia ICOMOS  1999 ). The European Landscape Convention proposes that all landscapes are important and that landscape is a cultural concept (Council of Europe  2000 ). The Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas elaborates on the ‘setting’ of heritage from the perspective of heritage integrity. The environment includes the immediate environment of heritage and the extended surrounding environment that affects its importance and uniqueness, or the components of its importance and uniqueness. It reflects the connotation of the relevance of heritage, and the continuity of the heritage environment from past to present, emphasising the integrity of heritage (ICOMOS 2005 ; Patiwael, Groote and Vanclay 2019 ; Jokilehto 2007 ).

Therefore, we believe that the ‘heritage environment’ is the relevant setting of heritage and should incorporate the connotation of ‘setting’ from the Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas . It covers the internal and external, individual and mutual, historical and present-day, objective and multifaceted interrelationships of heritage, and emphasises the outstanding contribution to heritage values.

3.2 Development of the focus of architectural heritage conservation

A major underlying force in the evolution of heritage conservation is the shift in focus from the physical structure of heritage itself to the meaning that heritage conveys. The Burra Charter states that cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, settings, use, association, meaning, recording, related places, and related objects (Australia ICOMOS  2013 ). Such significance is an essential aspect of an object assigned by an individual or society. Meaning is why heritage is valued and why it is preserved (Bracker and Richmond 2009 ; Pye 2001 ; Olukoya 2021 ).

The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity in 2001, the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003, and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in 2005 regarded the conservation of architectural heritage as an essential part of cultural diversity and emphasise the importance of culture. Culture has become the conceptual basis for the conservation of architectural heritage. Architectural heritage is the concept not only of material heritage but also of culture. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003 recognised that intangible and material cultural heritage are interdependent. Such heritage is also a crucible of cultural diversity and a guarantor of sustainable development. The Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas in 2005 further extended the scope of the conservation and continuation of architectural heritage to relevant intangible heritage (Gregory 2008 ; De Silva 2023 ). The Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape in 2011 recognised the correlation between heritage and environmental background. It provided a new perspective and methodology for architectural heritage conservation. This shift from focusing on tangible attributes to including intangible attributes is an essential aspect of the evolution of conservation concepts.

3.3 Development of the scale of architectural heritage conservation

In terms of the content of the documents, the architectural heritage conservation documents show a trend of systematisation and development. Starting with The Venice Charter in 1964, the scale of conservation has been constantly updated with the development of the times.

In 1976, UNESCO adopted the Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas , which stated that new development can destroy the environment and features of historic areas and that architects and city planners should exercise care to ensure that monuments and views of historic areas are not destroyed and that historic areas can be integrated harmoniously into contemporary life as a whole (UNESCO 1976 ). Moreover, it emphasised that historic areas can be integrated into contemporary life as an integral part of the city as a whole. In 1987, The Washington Charter was formed. It points out that all cities and communities, whether developed gradually over a long period or intentionally created, contain the history of all sorts of social manifestations, and their natural and artificial environments (ICOMOS 1987 ). These entities embody the value of traditional urban culture. Building on the Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas , it expanded the concept and content of the conservation of architectural heritage. It established the concepts of historical sites and larger historic urban areas. Compared to The Washington Charter , the recommendation placed more emphasis on buildings and the relationship between green space and open space, the relation between towns and urban areas and the surroundings, updating the evolution of history and the relationship between historic areas and urban development. In 2000, the European Landscape Convention recognised that all landscapes should be viewed as valuable and vital in the healthy development of individuals and societies (Council of Europe 2000  2000 ). The convention emphasised that all landscapes have significance and provide a sense of identity for urban development (Priore 2001 ). In 2005, ICOMOS issued the Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas . It pointed out that the concept of heritage, in addition to the protection of the material body, should include the relationship between that body and nature, intangible heritage, the sociocultural environment, and the relationship with the environment itself as indispensable parts of heritage value (ICOMOS 2005 ). It allowed the architectural heritage to be protected together with the environment, emphasising the cultural importance of the environment (Xie, Gu and Zhang 2020 ). It systematically declared that the relevant setting is an indispensable component of the integrity of the heritage value, not an optional appendage. In 2011, the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape defined the concept of a historic urban landscape as an urban area generated by the historical accumulation of cultural and natural values and attributes. It extended beyond the concept of a ‘historic centre’ or ‘whole’ to include a broader urban background and its geographical environment (UNESCO 2011 ). The Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape held that architectural heritage conservation is systematic and sustainable, rather than static conservation for a specific type of material heritage. It emphasised the inherent relevance of various heritage elements. It was a living exploration of architectural heritage conservation in the field of urban planning, intending to maintain a balance between architectural heritage and contemporary needs. Its purpose was to integrate the whole development of history and culture into each part and area of conservation, ensure the inheritance and sustainable development of history and culture, treat architectural heritage and urban space as a system, establish identity from the individual to the whole, and strengthen the spirit of place. In 2014, the Florence Declaration elaborated landscape as a rich concept encompassing heritage as a synthesis of nature and culture (ICOMOS 2014 ). Therefore, landscape is increasingly becoming a paradigm for harmonious development, offering new ideas for integrating economic, social, and environmental development.

With the development of the times, heritage conservation documents have elaborated on the heritage concept of historic buildings and monuments and included concepts of historic towns, historic gardens, and historic areas. The relationship with the city, from architectural objects to landscapes, is increasingly important.

3.4 Development of architectural heritage conservation

As the concept of architectural heritage conservation has developed, it has put forwards new conservation notions and values.

3.4.1 Highlight of local value

The Venice Charter for the first time explicitly introduced authenticity to cultural heritage to enable cultural heritage to be inherited with complete authenticity. The Venice Charter stressed the conservation of cultural heritage in its original state and the valid contributions of all periods (ICOMOS 1964 ). It fully expressed the original concept of the connotations of cultural heritage conservation, that is, the initial state and the environment at that time. To highlight the local value of heritage is to respect its authenticity.

In 1994, the Nara Document on Authenticity proposed the principle of the local value of heritage. Heritage assets must be considered and evaluated in the cultural context to which they belong in order to respect all cultures (ICOMOS 1994 ); thus, recognition of heritage value must be related to local social life. At the same time, respect for the diversity of culture and heritage is necessary to determine the authenticity (ICOMOS 1994 ) of architectural culture. The diversity value of heritage comes from its locality as historic remains in a specific space, and the local value of architectural heritage comes from the value of cultural diversity. Then, Australia issued The Burra Charter based on the concepts of fabric and place, distinction and connection (Australia ICOMOS  1999 ), repurposing the Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments in terms of the basic orientation towards historical building protection. From the perspective of a single individual, space as a whole, highlights the emphasis on heritage conservation in the spirit of the integrity of cultural significance. In 2005, the Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas also emphasised the importance and uniqueness of heritage are in the social, spiritual, historical, artistic and aesthetic, natural, scientific, or other cultural value (ICOMOS 2005 ). Additionally, the spirit of heritage is related to the physical, visual, and cultural aspects of the vital link to the background environment (ICOMOS 2005 ). Heritage is a specific and unique cultural form, and the recognition of its value should first be based on respect for its locality, which is a dialectical value principle in the sense of authenticity.

3.4.2 Study of living conservation

The Venice Charter defined the concept of architectural heritage as including not only a single building but also a unique civilisation and the development of a meaningful or historical witness of an urban or rural setting (ICOMOS 1964 ). It began to pay attention to the meaning of development, and the conservation of architectural heritage was not confined to static conservation. The European Charter of the Architectural Heritage systematically discussed the social significance of the conservation of architectural heritage and proposed the concept of holistic conservation (Council of Europe  1975 ). The practical significance of protecting architectural heritage was clarified, and the vital role of architectural heritage in providing living environmental quality, maintaining social harmony and balance, and supporting culture and education was recognised. The charter also pointed out that the future of architectural heritage depends to a large extent on its integration into people’s daily living environment and its importance in regional and town planning and development (Živaljević-Luxor, Kurtović Folić and Mitković 2020 ). The Washington Charter put forwards the relationship between the conservation of historic cities, urban areas, and urban development. The conservation of historic cities should be an integral part of social and economic development policy (ICOMOS 1987 ). The charter contained the most comprehensive definition to date of urban conservation. The conservation of historic towns and cities means that various steps are necessary for their protection, preservation, and restoration as well as their development and harmonious adaptation to modern life (ICOMOS 1987 ). It suggested that architectural heritage conservation not only involves museum-based protection but also must adapt to modern life. The modern concept of conservation is based on the conservation of historical blocks and urban context. The conservation of architectural heritage extends to the preservation of cultural and regional characteristics, which involves a shift from simple protection to the updating and development of the city. The Vienna Memorandum considered the natural and ecological environment of any buildings or structures. It pointed out that architectural heritage is the core of the challenges and development trend of coordinated interaction (UNESCO 2005 ) and put forwards coordinated conservation as a new way of thinking about architecture, sustainable urban development and landscape, and careful consideration of urban heritage conservation, urban modernisation and social development. The Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas pointed out that the environment creates and forms the environmental space as well as the current dynamic cultural, social, and economic background (ICOMOS 2005 ). It regarded heritage as a dynamic and composite whole rather than a static and independent state and recognised the impact of environmental dynamics on heritage value. The Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape pointed out that positive conservation of urban heritage and its sustainable management is essential for development (UNESCO 2011 ). These changes are beginning to be regarded as part of the tradition, and conservation has become sustainable based on the balance between urban growth and quality of life (Bandarin and Van Oers 2012 ). A strategy in the context of broader thinking about urban historic landscape conservation, emphasises the dynamic, continuous, living and holistic understanding of this way of thinking. While the dynamic nature of this strategy should be recognised, the sustainable use of urban space should be improved and the architectural heritage conservation goal combined with urban development. The results of living conservation can achieve economically sustainable, socially harmonious and environmentally friendly development (Cooper 2001 ).

From The Venice Charter to the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape , the status of architectural heritage conservation has been changing. This change involves the vision of how people view the relationship between architectural heritage and the contemporary world, from the initial emphasis on the harmony between them to the gradual and profound recognition that architectural heritage is an important resource for contemporary development. Architectural heritage is moving from static to living conservation, from mere conservation to focusing on the development of the era of generating architectural culture.

4 Inspiration for architectural heritage conservation in a historical city

The Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape in 2011, which proposed that architectural heritage conservation should be viewed systematically, is a conservation document with historical significance. Over time, the definition of architectural heritage conservation has gradually developed, from representative buildings in human history to important relics of human cultural exchanges to important assets closely related to urban development. At present, the contradiction between architectural heritage protection and urban development in historical cities is becoming increasingly severe. Therefore, it a breakthrough from the traditional protection mode is urgently needed. Undoubtedly, the development of the scope of architectural heritage conservation can provide inspiration.

4.1 Reaching a consensus on the holistic value of architectural heritage

With the development of the definition, focus, scale, and status of architectural heritage conservation, the emphasis is increasingly on the holistic value of architectural heritage, from a single building to a focus on the surrounding environment and urban development. The concept of architectural assets has moved from a single building to a focus on the surrounding environment and urban development, with increasing emphasis on the overall value of architectural heritage. Understanding the authenticity of architectural heritage is first based on recognising the overall scenario in which it is situated. This totality goes far beyond heritage as an object. We must realise that architectural heritage, as a form of cultural heritage, naturally contains inherent temporality and spatiality in its historical generation. We must pay attention to the relationship between architectural heritage as a specific object and its natural, social and cultural contributions. Thus, the value of heritage cannot be separated from the social framework in which it is historically generated.

4.2 Attaching importance to the investigation and utilisation of architectural heritage

Different cities have different cultural forms and physical and geographical conditions, so they will approach the preservation of their heritage culture and achievements in different and diverse ways. Therefore, it is essential to carry out an extensive survey and assessment of architectural heritage and understand the distribution of heritage resources in each city, as this is an important measure to ensure the most efficient conservation of heritage achievements. From focusing on individual heritage to the conservation of the city as a whole, the protection of architectural heritage will be the result. Focusing on the interactions of architectural heritage will enable the conservation of heritage to be closely integrated into the development strategy, thus making the conservation of architectural heritage systematic and strategic. The use of heritage based on resource investigation adapts to the material and spiritual needs of modern society, enhances the cultural characteristics and vitality of the city, and at the same time promotes sustainable urban development.

4.3 Exploring the holistic conservation of specific areas

As the product of a specific environment, architectural heritage is a cultural form that cannot stay in isolation for conservation; rather, conservation should be based on more extensive context and planning, as such heritage is inseparable from people’s lives. Space is a human creation, dependent on the existence of people and interaction with them, and the conservation of architectural heritage space is the conservation of architectural heritage as a whole. Spatial analysis can lead to a more scientific recognition and better understanding of the nature of architectural heritage in urban space. It also shows that architecture is the science of art and the geometric forms of architecture (Alnaim 2020 ). Based on the above theory, architectural heritage space can be analysed and studied from a holistic perspective to grasp the overall characteristics of the spatial system. Second, the integration of architectural heritage should be studied dynamically to identify the essence and causes. Finally, the focus should be on the stages of the spatial development of architectural heritage and its interaction with the city.

5 Findings and discussion

In recent decades, the definition of architectural heritage has expanded from the building itself to the site and from the surroundings to the urban background. It has become the direct cause of broadening values that are considered to have cultural significance, and these new values are now part of all decisions taken to conserve architectural heritage (De la Torre 2013 ). This evolution has moved from the traditional view of conservation, protecting the material fabric of objects that are assigned monument status, to the current view, which aims to protect the values represented by architectural heritage ranging from objects to landscapes. This shift is depicted in Table 3 , which compares the definition and scales of the traditional conservation paradigm to the definition and scales of the current conservation paradigm.

This study outlines recent developments in the definition and scope of heritage and provides an overview of them from the perspective of sustainable development. It aims to provoke reflection on the conservation of architectural heritage in historic cities to adapt to the needs of sustainable development and contribute to heritage conservation. The scope of what constitutes heritage is expanding, shifting from the physical to the landscape and the environment, and the definition of heritage is also expanding. Additionally, heritage studies are becoming more tolerant of change. Therefore, the current paradigm of conservation of architectural heritage is a balance between conservation and development.

6 Conclusion

The scope of conservation of architectural heritage has expanded from historic areas to historical urban areas and their surrounding areas, emphasising the holistic conservation of the surrounding area, historical relics, and historic urban areas. The Washington Charter emphasised the conservation of historic districts, summarised experiences and practices in many countries, and clarified historical area conservation content because the historical block initially formed a relatively complete protection research system. Nevertheless, with many urban renewal practices and contradictory architectural heritage conservation practices deepening the frequency and various social problems of architectural heritage, the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape paid more attention to architectural heritage conservation to coordinate with the development of the surrounding area and to realise the sustainable conservation of architectural heritage and development.

The analysis of the architectural heritage conservation documents promulgated by ICOMOS and UNESCO reveals that the definition of architectural heritage conservation is no longer limited to material objects. Rather, architectural heritage has been conceptualised in terms of conservation connotations, objects, and scope. In this context, the definition of architectural heritage conservation has changed from The Washington Charter to the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape .

This study focuses on the historical lineage and conceptual development of architectural heritage conservation. However, it is not a purely theoretical study; rather, it starts from the theory and identifies its implications for the conservation of architectural heritage in historical cities. The in-depth analysis of the development of the concept of architectural heritage can be helpful for the planning and design of urban renewal, coordination between urban development and conservation, and the practice of architectural heritage conservation in urban design and urban management. Additionally, this study can add to the applicability of architectural heritage conservation in urban development, thus contributing to developing architectural heritage conservation principles applicable to cities. As articulated by UNESCO, architectural heritage conservation is a form of urban conservation that does not replace established doctrines and conservation methods but integrates environmental protection, policy development, and heritage conservation practices. However, architectural heritage conservation in cities involves all levels of urban history and is a comprehensive and extensive system that requires multidisciplinary participation. This study briefly reviews UNESCO and ICOMOS documents and conferences. It analyses the conceptual development of architectural heritage conservation to provide architectural design, urban conservation, and urban planning practitioners with an understanding of the historical context of architectural heritage conservation, promoting cross-collaboration in urban architectural heritage conservation research and enhancing the importance of architectural heritage conservation in more fields.

With the deepening and updating of understanding and concepts, the value of architectural heritage and the concepts of heritage conservation are no longer limited to the building but have expanded to include the historical and cultural framework, comprehensive values and roles, and sustainability. Architectural heritage conservation has developed into a specialised science involving architecture, planning, history, archaeology, and sociology. Therefore, the challenges are to learn from the current conceptual development of architectural heritage conservation in historical cities, to explore and develop conservation theories and methods in line with the characteristics of historical cities and architectural heritage, and to balance the relationship between conservation and development.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

International Council on Monuments and Sites

Adams, Charlotte, Rachel Douglas-Jones, Adrian Green, Quentin Lewis, and Thomas Yarrow. 2014. Building with history: exploring the relationship between heritage and energy in institutionally managed buildings. Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 5 (2): 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1179/1756750514Z.00000000053 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmad, Yahaya. 2006. The scope and definitions of heritage: from tangible to intangible. International Journal of Heritage Studies 12 (3): 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600604639 .

Alnaim, Mohammed Mashary. 2020. The hierarchical order of spaces in Arab traditional towns: the case of Najd, Saudi Arabia. World Journal of Engineering and Technology 8 (3): 347–366. https://doi.org/10.4236/wjet.2020.83027 .

Arumägi, Endrik, and Targo Kalamees. 2014. Analysis of energy economic renovation for historic wooden apartment buildings in cold climates. Applied Energy 115: 540–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.041 .

Bandarin, Francesco, and Ron Van Oers. 2012. The historic urban landscape: managing heritage in an urban century . Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bond, S., and D. Worthing. 2016. Heritage values and cultural significance. In Managing Built Heritage: The Role of Cultural Values and Significance , edited by. S. Bond and D. Worthing, 49–83. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118298718.ch3 .

Bracker, A., and A. Richmond. 2009. Conservation: principles, dilemmas and uncomfortable truths . Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann in Association with the Victoria & Albert Museum.

Google Scholar  

Broström, Tor, Petra Eriksson, Linn Liu, Patrik Rohdin, Fredrik Ståhl, and Bahram Moshfegh. 2014. A method to assess the potential for and consequences of energy retrofits in Swedish historic buildings. Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 5 (2): 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1179/1756750514Z.00000000055 .

Cauchi-Santoro, Roberta. 2016. Mapping community identity: safeguarding the memories of a city’s downtown core. City Culture and Society 7 (1): 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2015.12.003 .

CIAM (Congrès International d’Architecture Modern). 1933. The Athens Charter . Athens: CIAM.

Clavir, Miriam. 2002. Preserving what is valued: museums, conservation, and First Nations, UBC Museum of Anthropology research publication . Vancouver: UBC Press.

Cooper, I. 2001. Post-occupancy evaluation - where are you? , 158.

Council of Europe. 1975. European charter of the architectural heritage . Amsterdam. https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/research_resources/charters/charter21.html .

Council of Europe. 2000. Europe landscape convention . Florence. https://rm.coe.int/1680080621 .

Dastgerdi, Ahmadreza Shirvani, and Giuseppe De Luca. 2018. The riddles of historic urban quarters inscription on the UNESCO world heritage list. International Journal of Architectural Research: Archnet-IJAR 12: 152–163. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v12i1.1315 .

De la Torre, Marta. 2013. Values and heritage conservation. Heritage & Society 6 (2): 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1179/2159032X13Z.00000000011 .

De Silva, Wasana. 2023. Comprehending genius loci, towards spiritual sustainability: lessons from Buddhist heritage city Anuradhapura. International Journal of Heritage Studies 29 (1–2): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2023.2169333 .

Eriksson, P., C. Hermann, S. Hrabovszky-Horváth, and D. Rodwell. 2014. EFFESUS methodology for assessing the impacts of energy-related retrofit measures on heritage significance. Historic Environment: Policy and Practice 5 (2): 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1179/1756750514Z.00000000054 .

Fabbri, Kristian. 2013. Energy incidence of historic building: leaving no stone unturned. Journal of Cultural Heritage 14 (3): e25–e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2012.12.010 .

Fouseki, Kalliopi, and May Cassar. 2014. Energy efficiency in heritage buildings - future challenges and research needs. Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 5 (2): 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1179/1756750514Z.00000000058 .

Goetcheus, Cari, and Nora Mitchell. 2014. The Venice charter and cultural landscapes: evolution of heritage concepts and conservation over time. Change over Time 4 (2): 338. https://doi.org/10.1353/cot.2014.0018 .

Gregory, Jenny. 2008. Reconsidering relocated buildings: ICOMOS, authenticity and mass relocation. International Journal of Heritage Studies 14 (2): 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250701844027 .

ICOMOS. 1931. The Athens Charter for the restoration of historic monuments . Athens: ICOMOS.

ICOMOS. 1964. International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (The Venice Charter 1964) . Venice: ICOMOS. https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/research_resources/charters/charter12.html .

ICOMOS. 1987. Charter for the conservation of historic towns and urban areas . Washington: ICOMOS. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/towns_e.pdf .

ICOMOS. 1994. The nara document on authenticity (1994) . Nara: ICOMOS.

ICOMOS. 2005. Xi’an declaration on the conservation of the setting of heritage structures, sites and areas . Xi’an: ICOMOS.

ICOMOS. 2014. The Florence declaration on heritage and landscape as human values . Florence: ICOMOS.

Jokilehto, Jukka. 2007. International charters on urban conservation: some thoughts on the principles expressed in current international doctrine. City & Time 3 (3): 2.

Jokilehto, Jukka. 2013. The context of the Venice Charter (1964). Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 2 (4): 229–233. https://doi.org/10.1179/135050398793138762 .

Najd, Meysam Deghati, Nor Atiah Ismail, Suhardi Maulan, Mohd Yazid Mohd. Yunos, and Mahsa Dabbagh Niya. 2015. Visual preference dimensions of historic urban areas: the determinants for urban heritage conservation. Habitat International 49: 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.05.003 .

Olukoya, Obafemi AP. 2021. Framing the values of vernacular architecture for a value-based conservation: a conceptual framework. Sustainability 13 (9): 4974. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094974 .

Parrinello, S., F. Picchio, R. De Marco, and A. Dell’Amico. 2019. Documenting the cultural heritage routes. The creation of informative models of historical russian churches on upper Kama Region. In The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-2/W15, 27th CIPA International Symposium “Documenting the past for a better future” ,887–894. Ávila, Spain, September 1–5. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W15-887-2019 .

Patiwael, Patrick R., Peter Groote, and Frank Vanclay. 2019. Improving heritage impact assessment: an analytical critique of the ICOMOS guidelines. International Journal of Heritage Studies 25 (4): 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1477057 .

Priore, Riccaro. 2001. The background to the European landscape convention. In The Cultural Landscape: Planning for a sustainable partnership between people and place , edited by R. Kelly, L. Macinnes, D. Thackray, and P. Whitbourne, 31–37. London: ICOMOS-UK.

Pye, Elizabeth. 2001. Caring for the past: issues in conservation for archaeology and museums . London: James & James.

Australia, I.C.O.M.O.S. 1999. The Burra Charter . Burra: Australia ICOMOS.

Australia, I.C.O.M.O.S. 2013. The Burra Charter . Burra: Australia ICOMOS.

UNESCO. 1962. Recommendation concerning the safeguarding of beauty and character of landscapes and sites . Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. 1976. Recommendation concerning the safeguarding and contemporary role of historic areas . Nairobi: UNESCO.

UNESCO. 2005. Vienna memorandum . Paris: UNESCO. https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/5965 .

UNESCO. 2011. Recommendation on the historic urban landscape . Paris: UNESCO. https://whc.unesco.org/document/160163 .

Veldpaus, Loes, and Ana Pereira Roders. 2017. Historic urban landscape approach as a tool for sustainable urban heritage management. In Culture in sustainability: towards a transdiciplinary approach , edited by S. Asikainen, C. Brites, K. Plebańczyk, L. Rogač Mijatović, and K. Soini, 62–74. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

Xie, Shuyi, Kai Gu, and Xiaoling Zhang. 2020. Urban conservation in China in an international context: retrospect and prospects. Habitat International 95 (January): 102098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.102098 .

Yang, M., R. Brumana, and M. Previtali. 2019. “Heritage & development” strategy on historic urban landscape (HUL): the added value of multi-Temporal hub application. In The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-2/W11, GEORES 2019 – 2nd International Conference of Geomatics and Restoration, 1151–1158. Milan, Italy, May 8–10. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W11-1151-2019.

Živaljević-Luxor, Nataša, Nadja Kurtović Folić, and Petar Mitković. 2020. Role of built heritage in 20th century planning and development of Eurocentric urban areas. Facta Universitatis-Series: Architecture and Civil Engineering 18 (2): 113–129. https://doi.org/10.2298/FUACE171202009Z .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Author information, authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Wen Liang, Yahaya Ahmad & Hazrina Haja Bava Mohidin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualisation, Wen Liang; writing—original draft preparation, Wen Liang; supervision, Yahaya Ahmad and Hazrina Haja Bava Mohidin. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yahaya Ahmad or Hazrina Haja Bava Mohidin .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Liang, W., Ahmad, Y. & Mohidin, H.H.B. The development of the concept of architectural heritage conservation and its inspiration. Built Heritage 7 , 21 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-023-00103-2

Download citation

Received : 27 December 2022

Accepted : 16 September 2023

Published : 09 October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-023-00103-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• architectural heritage
• conservation
• heritage value

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Applied Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Biological Anthropology
• Histories of Anthropology
• International and Indigenous Anthropology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Sociocultural Anthropology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Heritage conservation in west africa.

• Ishanlosen Odiaua Ishanlosen Odiaua ICOMOS
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190854584.013.288
• Published online: 20 June 2022

The conservation of heritage in west Africa is carried out at different levels—local and national. Communities continue to have the primary responsibility for heritage conservation, as the custodians of such heritage. The variety of heritage in the region, as in other parts of Africa, is largely assured by communal practices or traditional management systems, structured through various levels of community participation, sometimes gendered, with each member of society contributing to the conservation of a common cultural good. These cultural management systems operate contemporaneously with the official government systems set in place to reflect the international heritage discourse, whose practitioners promote it as superior to the traditional systems. However, these two systems are not harmonized, and the alienation of communities from the mainstream discourse could be detrimental to the conservation of heritage. The increase in urbanization and infrastructural development across the region, in line with the aspirations of national and regional development programs, has an impact on cultural heritage and its conservation. With efforts underway to be more inclusive, the traditional and official systems should both be encouraged to innovate and develop systems that are best adapted for ensuring the effective management of west African heritage.

• social cohesion
• development

Introduction

The heritage of west Africa is rich and diverse, produced from centuries of cultural exchanges across this vast region and beyond. The creators and custodians of this heritage are primarily responsible for the conservation of this cultural heritage. The region, though not monolithic, has seen the development of precolonial states—organized as empires and kingdoms—such as the Ghana, Mali, Songhay, Oyo, Benin, Kanem-Borno, Ashanti, Mossi, and Hausa. The contemporary west African states are culturally defined by the cultural heritage of these preceding civilizations. The contemporary political and administrative governing structures in west Africa have established heritage conservation policies and systems primarily based on a colonial legacy. When taken as a whole, one thing is evident—the reality is that heritage conservation in the region is assured by the sum total of a series of protective measures that include traditional, endogenous practices and the official heritage legislations and “systems.” An appreciation of heritage conservation in west Africa must be approached from a historical perspective, to take a step back in time to examine precolonial and colonial periods to trace the evolution of cultural heritage conservation to the contexts of the contemporary postcolonial African state. 1 Thus, understanding the diversity of this heritage and the myriad of the norms and systems requires examining texts in all the available languages and understanding culture beyond the political borders established from the colonial period.

The west African landscape testifies to a long record of human occupation—and the archaeological record of west Africa points to a long period of human occupation, from the burial sites in Gobero, Niger, which date from about 8500 bc ( Garcea 2018 ), till the emergence of the first Sahelian states of Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Ife, Oyo ( Ogundiran 2020 ), Benin, and Dahomey . Sites such as Niani, Old Oyo, Jenne-Jeno, Tadmekka (name of the site in ancient texts, corresponding to the contemporary settlement of Essouk), Walata (or Oualata), Timbuktu, and Gao bear evidence to the various human occupations in the region. Several of these places—such as Essouk, Benin, Oualata, Timbuktu, and Gao—have survived up to the 21st century .

Heritage Conservation Practice in West Africa

The precolonial era was characterized by traditional, endogenous practices that dictated the necessary customs and actions that communities in west African societies developed to safeguard their cultural heritage. As in other parts of Africa, west African societies invested in the protection of their cultural heritage based on established traditional norms. Evidence shows that these societies actively preserved their heritage prior to colonial interventions, through the social structures that facilitated practices for conserving cultural heritage in west African societies. The political economies and structures of the time-empowered political and community leaders were geared toward mobilizing the populations to ensure the conservation of community structures, whether it was the Kano city wall, the Benin moats, or the earth mosques of the west African savannah. However, the interruption to the customary political systems and economies of the colonial period—from the 19th century —destroyed the cultural infrastructure that united communities.

Colonial heritage legislations were an extension of colonial rule, and this led to a gradual alienation of local communities whose cultural activities ensured the protection of the heritage. The contemporary practice of heritage conservation in west Africa was founded closely on the models of the colonizing powers—particularly France and Great Britain—who established legal and administrative frameworks for the protection and conservation of heritage on their territories. In French West Africa, the emergence of heritage conservation practice was closely linked to the emerging heritage frameworks in France. Similarly, in English-speaking west Africa, heritage policy was influenced by British legislations.

Colonial officers collected objects according to their aesthetic tastes—which evolved between 1880 and 1960 —fascinated by their “exotic” nature. The approaches adopted by the colonizing powers were not carried out with the perspective to present the cultural features of the colonized societies, but rather to transpose the “known” of their own cultures onto the “unknowns” of these new ones, in order to transform them according to their own criteria and visions. Their interest in the cultural heritage, particularly architecture, of the colonized was only to advance their own ideologies and domination and to reinforce an archaic, picturesque image of the colonized societies as being in need of the “civilizing” forces of the colonizers. Thus, French colonial officers were interested in conserving public buildings and civil works such as palaces, mosques, and fortifications while destroying modest residences. This coincided with what was happening in France, for example, where post-Revolution attempts to democratize the appreciation of works of art and monuments were underway in an effort to promote social equality.

By the early 21st century , heritage conservation agencies in Francophone countries were structured in a manner that separates museum management from that of sites, while in Anglophone countries, the same entities manage the conservation of sites, monuments, and museums. Whatever the structure adopted by individual countries, once a site was listed as national heritage, there was a gradual alienation of local communities whose cultural activities had primarily ensured the protection of the heritage.

Across the region, museums were established in large urban centers to house cultural objects from the different societies, far away from their places of origin. It was not unusual that some of these objects—such as wooden pillars from palaces and places of worship—had been discarded by the custodian communities, who often replaced them as part of the customary practices of renewal, which enabled them to renew the skills required to produce these pieces. These museums, conceived as places of conservation and display, present an altered image of the artistic heritage of the continent, displaying ethnographic pieces often distanced from and unrelated to the sites and places of their origin. This disconnection of cultural objects from cultural context is not limited to museums in west African capital cities. Many cultural heritage objects were also carried off—sometimes through violent interventions such as the Benin and Ashanti expeditions of the late 19th century —into museum collections in Europe. Within the cultural vacuum of museums, the interpretation of these cultural objects is often limited to the materials—wood, metal, leather, or stones—of the objects.

With the growth of the international heritage movement gaining momentum in the 1960s, coinciding with the period that many African countries gained political independence, newly independent African states not only adopted the policy frameworks for heritage conservation, but also joined the international discourses on heritage. In west Africa, Ghana and Nigeria were early actors on the international heritage scene. Nigeria in particular was represented on the organizing committee set up in 1964 to oversee the creation of the International Council for Monuments and Sites ( ICOMOS 1966 ). The Nigerian representative, Mr. Ekpo Okpo Eyo, went on to become the first Nigerian head of the national institution, the Federal Department of Antiquities, charged with overseeing museums. Ghana, in particular, used this opportunity to share its experience on safeguarding African architecture, starting with the famous forts and castles along its coastline that were managed by the Ghana Museums and Monuments Board. By 1969 , traditional Ashanti buildings appeared on the national list of monuments.

ICOMOS became operational in 1965 and, along with the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)—established in 1959 2 —served as an international platform for sharing experiences and building capacity for cultural heritage conservation at the international level. With the adoption of UNESCO’s Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972 , the stage was further set for the development of the cultural heritage discourse at the international level. By 1979 , six west African countries—Ghana, Guinea, Niger, Nigeria, Mali, and Senegal—had ratified the 1972 Convention. In the subsequent decades, all countries in the region became fully involved in the international movement, which promotes the listing of heritage as a standard for heritage conservation. In spite of the involvement of African countries in these international movements and organizations, by 2020 Africa accounted for less than 10 percent of the sites on UNESCO’s World Heritage List, with twenty-eight World Heritage sites in west Africa. To address this imbalance, African Member States of UNESCO and the African Union supported the launch of the African World Heritage Fund (AWHF) in 2006 to enhance the implementation of the 1972 World Heritage Convention in Africa.

The representation of Africa on the World Heritage List raises questions about the effectiveness of the formal conservation systems in place in these countries; and further raises the question of whether listing heritage is the best way to go: Is unlisted heritage any less important to its custodians than listed heritage? The exclusion and estrangement of traditional practices and conservation systems from the official systems established by the postcolonial states—or lack of recognition and imagination on how to integrate them—has not facilitated inclusive heritage conservation. African academics trained in Europe, the Americas, and even in Africa, shape and transfer the formal heritage conservation discourse in Africa. In fact, it has been suggested that the systems, and African experts, of the postcolonial period have more affinity with colonial authorities than with the general population ( Ndoro and Wijesuriya 2015 ).

What Cultural Heritage Is Being Protected in West Africa?

Heritage conservation includes all actions aimed at maintaining the cultural significance of a heritage object or place, a process that starts the moment a place is attributed cultural values and singled out for protection ( Torre 2013 ), and within the mainstream heritage discourse, there are various notions of the conservation of cultural heritage. This ranges from all measures and actions aimed at safeguarding cultural heritage while ensuring its accessibility to present and future generations ( ICOM-CC 2008 ) to “all actions or processes that are aimed at safeguarding the character-defining elements of a cultural resource so as to retain its heritage value and extend its physical life.” It is clear from the various definitions within the “formal” heritage discourse, that there is a large focus on maintaining some originality of that which is physical, tangible, and can be touched, with the perspective of transmitting it to coming generations.

The reality is that the cultural heritage of west Africa is not limited to stones and mortar, even if these are visible landmarks of past human cultural activity, but encompasses the cultural practices, beliefs, and spirituality that links people to the natural landscapes. This cultural heritage is codified by the society, and is at the core of cultural identities and social cohesion, defining and attributing value to that which can or cannot be seen—tangible or intangible heritage. Whether it is the annual festival for the conservation of the Djenne mosque in Mali, or the celebrations of bounteous harvests, initiation and coming-of-age rites associated with specific places in the landscapes, sacred forests, and rivers.

African heritage is neither tangible nor intangible—it is tangible and intangible—as the tangible is meaningless, without the interpretation that can only be done through the intangible ( Munjeri 2004 ). The separation of heritage into the tangible and intangible, as promoted in mainstream heritage discourse, does not exist in most African cultures—animals as well as plants within a tangible cultural heritage area also exude the same sacredness that is within the place ( Kiriama and Onkoba 2020 ). Most African languages have no word that is translatable to “heritage” because the notion of heritage is embedded in their culture and landscape —the idea transmitted by the English word “heritage” is conveyed through various phrases and words that portray different worldviews and philosophies. Sinamai (2019 ) reminds us that, in Africa, the intangible is key to preserving the tangible, as heritage is not simply a place, or an object, but a state of mind. There is also the notion that the conservation of this heritage involves a selection, making choices—the fathers select that which is worth transmitting to the next generation and not everything can be transmitted across generations.

The protection and caretaking of the heritage is often linked to custodial rights and links to the past, anchored in customs and tradition. Oral histories are integral to the shaping of the narratives and worldviews of west African societies. This is distinct from the official mainstream approach that is anchored in the international heritage discourse driven by Western concepts, and as promoted through the UNESCO system. The established institutionalization of the heritage in the region must evolve to bring together the various facets of African reality—the intersections between community narratives and the material witnesses of the 21st century and the past.

Spiritual and Religious Heritage

Traditional beliefs and practices remain significant and influential across urban and rural communities in west Africa, for the conservation of heritage in its many forms. However, the impact and level of influence may, however, differ with location—stronger within rural areas and to varying degrees within cosmopolitan urban centers that are heterogeneous in nature.

The taboos of traditional African religions have been at the heart of the conservation of cultural heritage. These taboos often consist of prohibitions and restrictions that are imposed by the leadership of any community, for religious reasons and societal well-being. These restrictions could be of two types: either closely related to religious or ceremonial usage, or more broadly to the use of cultural heritage, including natural resources for socioeconomic and political applications.

Cultural heritage in west Africa is also associated with nature—it is not limited to that which is man-made. The relationship between west African people and their natural environment is encapsulated in the rich oral traditions that map the landscape, making cultural heritage of place. Spiritual beliefs are at the heart of the management of natural features, such as sacred groves, rivers, pools—believed to be inhabited and protected by gods (totem animals or ancestors)—often associated with old settlements. Sacred, secret, and often private places such as sacred forests are only accessible to initiated members of secret or ritual societies. Sacred forests, or groves, are often remnants of ancient forests, of great cultural and biodiversity value, and their conservation is highly dependent on religious and cultural beliefs. Some sacred forests were considered to be “evil forests” because of the belief that they were inhabited by malevolent forces—they were also the burial places for people who died in an untimely manner. 3

Among the Akan of Ghana, sacred places such as the Akyem Abuakwa traditional area is home to a wide range of biodiverse and geologic formations, which are ascribed spiritual values, and to several deities in the Akan religion ( Awuah-Nyamekye 2019 ). In the specific example of the Akan, the community is motivated by the need to not deprive future generations of rare plants and animals, but to maintain the delicate balance between plants, animals, and humans with their needs for food, medicine, space, clean water, and clean air. This is similar to the situation at the Osun Osogbo sacred grove where the Osun River defines the heritage value of the forest. Local communities have their own rules prohibiting reckless harvesting of timber and game, which have protected the sacred forests over many generations. Ironically, what was once condemned as fetish—and often destroyed—are now recognized as central to the preservation of the rain forests of west Africa. Research ( Campbell 2005 ; Ceperley, Montagnini, and Natta 2010 ) increasingly demonstrates how these heritage sites are rich biodiverse areas and carbon sinks, often better protected by the very nature of their sacred value than the formal government protected areas.

Among the Moaga of Burkina Faso, a tree is the living image of man ( Yameogo 2015 ); for instance, entrusting a child to the locust bean tree ( Parkia biglobosa ), also called néré , confers on the child the characteristics of an entity that possesses mysterious beneficial virtues. In some communities in the Lake Chad region, when the remains of a deceased person cannot be brought back to the village because of excessive distance, drowning, or during conflicts, their remains are replaced by a symbolic piece of wood from a very specific tree species such as Vitex doniana or Adenium obaesum ( Seignobos 1997 ).

In the Gambia, the Kachikally pool , located close to the capital city of Banjul, is revered for its sacred crocodiles and its associated fertility properties. It gives the local community an ontological security that ensures that water as an entity on its own is not harmed, and that the community is not harmed by the landscape.

The mainstream heritage discourse drives the divergence between intangible and tangible heritage ( Rudolff 2010 ). Within the formal, global perspectives of heritage, “intangible” practices are objectified, as with the Kankurang or Manding initiatory rite of Senegal and The Gambia—associated with sacred forests—which was named a Masterpiece of Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO in 2005 . De Jong (2007 ) argues that that such commodification and international recognition might be mutually beneficial, even if there are perceptions that such recognition trivializes the sacredness of the Kankurang.

A significant aspect of west African cultural heritage is its urban heritage, which can be categorized into three major types: precolonial, such as Djenne in Mali or Chinguetti in Mauritania; hybrid towns emerging from colonial add-ons to existing African towns such as Segou in Mali ( Dembele 2006 ); and new cities of the 20th century , including Abuja, in Nigeria, and Bamako, Mali. The variety of this urban heritage and its continued utility and adaptability to contemporary life over time, has often led to the challenge of first recognizing and then appreciating this built heritage.

Urban areas of the first type, such as Djenne and Kano, illustrate the careful choices that are made to conserve them—adapting to change sometimes through the destruction and reconstruction of the existing urban fabric. The conservation of this urban heritage was primarily the responsibility of the inhabitants, even when they had turbulent periods in their histories. In Djenne, Mali, the annual crepissage festival of the central mosque is a major event that has taken place for over a hundred years. The festival mobilizes the entire community to plaster the mosque with earthen plaster within a single day, under the guidance of the masonry guild, the barey-ton . Such federating sociocultural events testify of the choices made by the various societies that inhabited and continue to inhabit these settlements.

The example of Djenne contrasts sharply with that of Kano, in the eastern part of the Sahel, where the change in the political economy largely affected the conservation of Kano’s famed city walls and its earthen architectural heritage. Following the Fulani Jihad of the 19th century , the political economy of the northern Nigerian city of Kano, allowed for the conservation of huge civil works of the city walls and the palaces of the emir, as well as the conservation of domestic residences around the city. Labor for the public works was assured through the mobilization of communal and enslaved labor, overseen by a professional guild of masons ( kungiyar magina ) and the near absolute power of the emir. The annual maintenance works were also an opportunity for the master masons ( babban gwani ) to display their creative prowess not only in construction but also in the finishing of the wall plasters that adorned the completed walls. The arrival of the British in Kano at the beginning of the 20th century , initially led to the weakening of the emir’s powers and the establishment of the indirect rule model, through the “native administration” within the walled city, or birnin . With the sarki’s powers greatly diminished under the colonial administration, and no longer able to mobilize voluntary or forced labor, the once regular annual maintenance of the city’s urban heritage could no longer be guaranteed ( Sa’ad 1989 ).

Timbuktu in Mali presents an interesting example of the scope of conservation from the perspective of communities and mainstream international heritage practice. Prior to the colonial period, Timbuktu was a cosmopolitan urban center that brought together various groups from across the region for the purpose of learning. The existence of this heterogeneous urban center is contrary to the claim that the colonial period enabled the formation of plural societies under the benevolent eye of the colonial protector ( Freund 2007 ). The citizens of Timbuktu were primarily responsible for the conservation of its rich educational heritage, particularly its mosques and famed manuscripts. The conservation of the mosques was carried out through annual festivals in which the entire community was mobilized while manuscripts were often jealously guarded in private homes and libraries. These manuscripts gave Timbuktu its international renown and contain important information on the history of the west African region. The Malian government established the Ahmed Baba Centre for Documentation and Research (CEDRAB) in Timbuktu in 1973 , for the preservation of Timbuktu’s Arabic scripts. In 1988 , Timbuktu became a UNESCO World Heritage site, becoming firmly entrenched in the international heritage discourse. Following its inscription on the list, the South African and Malian governments collaborated on the Timbuktu Rare Manuscripts project for the conservation of African heritage. This cooperation resulted in the construction of a new building for the Ahmed Baba Centre for Advanced Study and Islamic Research. With the growing agitations in the Sahel region, the town experienced a difficult period in 2012 , when rebels took it over and occupied it for several months. During the 2012 occupation, the massive destruction of heritage was widely reported . While the world feared for the heritage, the community was strongly involved in the safeguarding of its precious manuscripts, finding ingenious ways to smuggle them to safety.

Following the liberation of the town, the perpetrators of the attack on Timbuktu’s cultural heritage were prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC) on account of the destruction to this World Heritage site. The entire process exposed once again the divergence between approaches of the international community, the state, and the local community regarding cultural heritage, values, and conservation. The community on whose behalf the proceedings were carried out at the ICC perceived that the destruction of the shrines was upheld more than the atrocities committed against those who owned and cared for the heritage.

Another example of an urban center that encompasses the precolonial urban center is Ibadan, which was created in 1829 as a city-state whose positions were reinforced during the colonial era, with “add-ons” to accommodate colonial activities. The historic core of Ibadan is densely populated and consists of the oldest residential neighborhoods in the city with passageways and alleys that separate large compounds inhabited by extended families, with strong social connections. The land and buildings—many of which are earth buildings—are considered sacred, and are often at the center of the identity of the families that occupy them. Though characterized by high levels of poverty, the residents of this historic core reject the classification of “slums.” Their attachment to the area is linked to place dependence and place identity, which is central to their very existence.

In Ghana, the Ga urban traditions—dating from the 16th century —founded the modern city of Accra. With the establishment of British colonial rule, the colonial city grew, reducing Ga influences and establishing large commercial and administrative areas.

The capital of Sierra Leone, Freetown, was established in 1788 as a center for former slaves returned to Africa. By 1864 , the Fourah Bay College was central to the education of a new crop of intelligentsia on the west African coast, producing several professionals who eventually served in the British colonial service across west Africa. By 2021 , the Old Fourah Bay College building was no longer in use but gives its name to a modern university that bears its name. The original building, mostly in ruins, is on Sierra Leone’s tentative list of World Heritage sites. Known as the Saro , the Sierra Leoneans, served in various parts of west Africa, up to northern Nigeria. In Lagos, the Shitta-Bey mosque was financed and built by a Saro , and its conservation is guaranteed primarily by its continued use and its inclusion on the Nigerian national heritage register.

The state of urban heritage in the region leaves much to be desired. Whatever form and type in which this heritage presents itself, its conservation is hampered by various factors such as lack of continuity of use of buildings from the various historic periods, weak synergy between the various policies and frameworks that regulate urban spaces leading to confusion, the lack of relevant public planning tools and, most importantly, the indifference of the urban stakeholders to the built heritage of their urban environment.

Communities at the Heart of Cultural Heritage Conservation in West Africa

The role of women in heritage conservation in west Africa is important, even if it is often less visible. At the community level, women often play a significant role in the transmission of cultural heritage—as in the case of Yoruba women who are said to have “carried the state and their households on their heads, in their wombs, and on their backs.” ( Ogundiran 2020 )

In Igbo societies, women also play a major role in the conservation of the practices and production related to rites of passage. In the Abakaliki area, they are involved in the production of pottery for ritual purposes and continue to play a critical role in the conservation of practices, such as the production of raffia fiber cloth for sacred rituals.

In matrilineal societies such as the Bijagos in Guinea Bissau, the role of women in heritage conservation is even more nuanced through association with spiritual roles that impact on economic issues, and ultimately in the management and conservation of the natural resources. Women negotiate their positions in society through everyday acts such as fishing, gathering crustaceans, and their processing and sale, which are essential to sustaining their ways of living while reinforcing continuity with the past.

In Benin, the descendants of the legendary Amazons of Abomey, who were famed for their military and leadership exploits, continue to play a ceremonial role in Abomey by taking part in religious rituals and being an integral part of the cultural life of Abomey. The royal palace of Abomey has mostly been uninhabited since the late 19th century . However, one section, the Dossoémé , which has been likened to a convent ( Joffroy, Ahonon, and Djimasse 2013 ) is inhabited by the Dadassi , women of royal lineage who carry out rituals and embody the spirit of the dead kings. Their continued occupation and presence in this section of the Abomey palace is the only remaining evidence of the spatial organization of the Abomey palaces. Kassena women in Burkina Faso and Ghana annually renew the mural decorations of their buildings, just before the start of the rainy season.

Whether conservation activities are carried out along strict lines of division of labor between men and women or as gender exclusive, their communal nature fosters a sense of community, strengthens social cohesion, and presents an opportunity for the transmission of technical knowledge from older to younger generations, thus guaranteeing continuity.

Since the late 20th century , several African and Africanist researchers have begun to look closer at the traditional management systems in Africa. ICCROM and the AWHF have supported some of this work, encouraging researchers and heritage practitioners to explore traditional management systems to promote inclusive heritage conservation.

Heritage Conservation in the Face of Development Needs

Several authors ( Baillie and Sorenson 2020 ; Ndoro and Wijesuriya 2015 ) have highlighted the tension between heritage conservation and development. Although the clear poverty and need for basic infrastructure has to be considered amid the much-touted “wealth” of African heritage, African and non-African heritage experts consider that the development process is often a threat to heritage; at the same time, the development discourse considers that African cultures and traditions constitute a barrier to “development” (see Decker and McMahon 2021 ). These opposite views are paradoxically similar as they parachute ideas from elsewhere into the African context. And so, even when the communities in need of the infrastructure show a preference for an opportunity to improve their livelihoods and access to basic social infrastructure, the heritage expert does not consider this expressed need; and when the community expresses a preference for saving their heritage, their voices are not heard by the development expert, as economic returns on investment could be the deciding factor. With the focus on sustainable development, there are arguments against the development of large dams in the region on the basis that heritage will be destroyed and that renewable energies be promoted instead. On the other side of the spectrum, today’s infrastructure is tomorrow’s heritage (see Ndoro and Wijesuriya 2015 ) in much the same way that industrial sites in developed countries—such as the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin in France —are today considered to have universal significance, despite the harm they might have caused to the environment (including to cultural heritage) during their active periods.

In the face of growing infrastructural development activities, the risk to heritage resources in west Africa is very real. This risk can be managed through careful planning. Development activities could be considered an opportunity and a threat: development activities could either make available scarce resources for the eventual management of heritage or lead to their destruction. The aspirations for “modernity” and comfort in these historic centers often lead to neglect or the outright destruction of built heritage. In Kano, the change to the historic urban fabric has been rapid with the destruction of the historic earthen gates leading into the historic urban center; this demolition was carried out despite a lack of clear conservation policies and implementation for this nationally significant heritage.

The conservation of heritage in west Africa has also benefitted from initiatives such as the CultureBank (banque culturelle) that explore the relationship between conservation and microcredit. The scheme was first initiated in Fombori, Mali, in 1997 , to conserve cultural heritage through the provision of microcredit loans. Citizens could apply to obtain credit to support small enterprises using cultural objects as collateral; these objects were then later conserved and exhibited in a community museum collection.

Challenges and Perspectives for the Future

African countries might be involved in the international heritage discourse, through adhesion to UNESCO, ICCROM, or ICOMOS, however the impression is that they—or their designated experts—continue to dance to a tune whose music they are unfamiliar with. The outcome of this is that there are growing challenges to heritage conservation that the official sector is unable to address. At the same time, there is an increasing movement to decolonize the heritage discourse in Africa, to “kill” Western models of conservation ( Wozny and Cassin 2014 ), and to look closer at customary practices to promote inclusion. The communities that actively conserved, and continue to protect, their heritage before they were “discovered” by Europeans or “officialdom” are conscious of their own heritage.

As west African heritage institutions grapple with the notions of heritage and conservation set up by national heritage legislations, the dichotomy between the formal and informal expands. The regulatory frameworks are often geared toward the creation of a “national” heritage identity, established as they are in nation states comprised of several ethno-nationalities. This central vision targets national unity but is unable to reconcile the primary identity of citizens first as members of their cultural groupings, then as members of a national group. Heritage is at the heart of every community’s identity, serving to make the distinctions between different groups. If the heritage is directly linked to the cultural identity of the group, its conservation can be assured, with the concerned community defining its form and methods. The notion of space as defined by a society could be static, yet the planes and materiality that define these spaces are dynamic. Where space has a significant spiritual value for the concerned society, its conservation can be guaranteed. In a rapidly urbanizing context, the challenge for both citizens and the states will be how to leverage heritage for societal and national identity while avoiding the pitfalls of nationalism or “ethnicism.”

We cannot overlook the fact that the growth in urbanization will have a significant impact on the protection of cultural heritage, especially for smaller communities. It is this dilemma that mandates a different approach to heritage conservation in the region—one that responds to the context(s) and is relevant to the people it seeks to serve. To do this, the formal must meet the informal on equal terms, encourage creativity and be open to adaptation, particularly as part of the intergenerational exchanges that are critical for heritage conservation. An outreach to stakeholders in the heritage sector is important to build the critical mass to support heritage conservation, with the desired effect of breaking existing molds to embrace new ideas from all sides. It is possible to develop new methods by integrating Western approaches with the knowledge from other, non-Western, knowledge systems ( Chirikure, Ndoro, and Deacon 2017 ).

The heritage of the region provides a picture from the distant past; it shows the evolution of ideas over time and is crucial in building a future. It contributes to our understanding of the history of west Africa, the relationships between its different peoples, and their understanding of the various landscapes they settled in. The famed kingdoms and empires of the west African past were created by these ideas and their understanding of the landscape. Connecting the dots and decolonizing the history will require reliance not only on written sources, but will also draw upon rich oral traditions.

Much of the heritage in west Africa is functional in nature—even when it is of a spiritual nature. As long as the heritage is functional in the daily lives of the communities, its conservation can be ensured—this is particularly the case for built heritage. The interruption of the sociopolitical methods of production and conservation led to changes in political economy. That which is not used will decay and could be lost.

Cultural heritage conservation in west Africa also faces the challenges of loss of objects due to the illicit global trade in African cultural property. Cultural objects forcefully obtained as bounty from Benin, Ashanti, Abomey, and other west African places end up in markets where they command large sums. The attendant multibillion-dollar global trade has the perverse effect of inducing looting. The cycle of demand and supply, coupled with weak enforcement of legal frameworks, perpetuates this illicit trade. As long as the objects remain part of the daily life of the custodian communities that produce them, they have no monetary value. However, they garner incredible value once on the international market, a value that does not in any measure return to the communities. As pieces are lost or stolen, the knowledge systems that are associated with them invariably disappear over time. This has an impact on other aspects of the heritage, including intangible aspects such as language. The debates around the relevance of museums in Africa, in their current forms, is gaining ground—to develop ways in which the role of museums in contemporary Africa society goes beyond housing objects to relating objects to place, creating community spaces in the multicultural contexts of west African urban centers.

The protection of cultural heritage resources is not a priority for many African governments. This has led to the commodification of heritage, particularly through tourism—where cultural heritage becomes a commodity to be sold to an international audience. The public health emergency of the global Covid-19 pandemic obliges a rethink of this form of commodification.

The fine line between conserving for posterity, and governments faced with the task of providing basic services for their burgeoning populations, will continue to require dialogue. At the micro level, communities constitute the critical mass of heritage custodians responsible for frontline decisions on the selection of that which will be passed on to future generations and how that heritage will be conserved. With the myriad “communities” that make up the national “macro” community, the challenge becomes that of federating these conservation perspectives with a view to advancing a distinct approach to heritage conservation that best serves local and national communities.

Further Reading

• Abungu, George Okello ., Ndukuyakhe Ndlovu , Foniyama Thiombiano , John Zulu , and Souayibou Varissou , eds. 2016. Traditional Management Systems at Heritage Sites in Africa . Midrand, South Africa: African World Heritage Fund.
• Adán, Carmen Moreno , Raquel Peña López , and Oriol Domínguez Martínez . 2020. “Restoration of the Historic Libraries of Chinguetti, Mauritania.” Journal of Traditional Building, Architecture and Urbanism 1: 222–234.
• Bukola, Adewale , A., Eziyi . O. Ibem , Samuel A. Amole , and Albert B. Adeboye . 2020. “ Place Attachment in Nigerian Urban Slums: Evidence from Inner-City Ibadan .” Cities 107.1–14.
• Cyr, Descamps . 1997. “Le patrimoine archeologique de l’afrique de l’ouest, avant, pendant et après l’AOF.” In AOF realites et heritages: societies oust-africaines et ordre colonial, 1895–1960 , edited by Charles Becker , Saliou Mbaye , and Ibrahima Thioub , 890–899. Dakar, Senegal: Direction des Archives du Senegal.
• David, Conrad . 2008. “ From the ‘Banan’ Tree of Kouroussa: Mapping the Landscape in Mande Traditional History .” Canadian Journal of African Studies/Revue Canadienne des Études Africaines 42 (2–3): 384–408.
• Ekpo, Eyo . 1994. “Conventional Museums and the Quest for Relevance in Africa.” History in Africa 21: 325–337.
• Emery P. Effiboley . 2017. “Les musées africains de la fin du XIXe siècle a nos jours: des apparats de la modernité occidentale.” Afrika Zamani Nos 22 and 23: 19–40.
• Garaba, Francis . 2012. “ The Incunabula of African Intellectualism and Civilization: Some Reflections on the Preservation of the Timbuktu Manuscripts .” Journal of the South African Society of Archivists 45: 1–8.
• Garcea, Elena A. A. ed. 2018. Gobero: The No-Return Frontier; Archaeology and Landscape at the Saharo-Sahelian Borderland . Frankfurt, Germany: Africa Magna Verlag.
• Gerard, Chouin . 2002. “Sacred Groves in History: Pathways to the Social Shaping of Forest Landscapes in Coastal Ghana.” IDS Bulletin 33 (1): 39–46
• Hise, Greg . 2008. “Architecture as State Building: A Challenge to the Field.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 67 (2): 173–177.
• Joffroy, Thierry . ed. 2005. Traditional Conservation Practices in Africa . Rome: ICCROM.
• Jopela, Albino . 2011. “Traditional Custodianship: A Useful Framework for Heritage Management in Southern Africa?” Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 13 (2–3): 103–122.
• Kankpeyong, Benjamin W. and DeCorse, Christopher R. . 2004. “Ghana’s Vanishing Past: Development, Antiquities and the Destruction of the Archaeological Record.” African Archaeological Review 21 (2): 89–128.
• Lundy, Brandon , Raul M. Fernandes Jr ., and Keziah Lartley . 2016. “The Integrity of Women in Re-making a Nation: The Case of Guinea-Bissau.” Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective 11 (1): 59–76.
• Makinde, Olusola O. 2012. “Housing: Central City Slums, a Case Study of Ibadan.” Journal of Environment and Earth Science 2 (9): 21–31.
• Maretti, Cláudio . 2003. “The Bijagós Islands: Culture, Resistance and Conservation.” In Community Empowerment for Conservation , edited by Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend , Alex de Sherbinin , Chimère Diaw , Gonzalo Oviedo , and Diane Pansky , 121–131. Tehran, Iran: Gland, IUCN—The World Conservation Union, Commission on Environment, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP).
• Mayor, Anne , Daouda Keita , and Boureima Tessougue . 2015. “La banque culturelle de Dimbal au Mali: un exemple de gestion locale du patrimoine.” In African Memory in Danger: Mémoire africaine en peril , edited by Anne Mayor , Vincent Négri , and Eric Huysecom , 134–148. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Africa Magna Verlag.
• Minicka, Mary . 2006. “ Timbuktu Rare Manuscripts Project: Promoting African Partnerships in the Preservation of Africa’s Heritage .” Journal of the Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Branch of the International Council on Archives 26: 28–51.
• Minicka, Mary . 2008. “Towards a Conceptualisation of the Study of Africa’s Inidigenous Manuscript Heritage and Tradition.” Tydskrif vir Letterkunde 45 (1): 143–163.
• Moukala, Edmond , and Ishanlosen Odiaua , eds. 2012. World Heritage for Sustainable Development in Africa . Paris: UNESCO.
• Neveux, Christelle . 2003. Le mur de l’Atlantique: vers une valorisation patrimoniale? Paris: L’Harmattan.
• Okechukwu, Kenechukwu Chidiogo . 2014. “Women and Heritage Preservation in Old Nsukka Division.” (MA thesis, University of Nsukka.
• Ouallet, Anne . 2003. “Perceptions et réutilisations patrimoniales en Afrique.” In Regards croises sur le patrimoine dans le monde a l’aube du XXIe siècle , edited by Maria Gravari-Barbas and Sylvie. Guichard-Anguis , 59–76. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris-Sorbonne.
• Oumar, Ba . 2020. “ Contested Meanings: Timbuktu and the Prosecution of Destruction of Cultural Heritage as War Crimes .” African Studies Review 63 (4): 743–762.
• Peterson, Derek R. , Kodzo Gavua , and Ciraj Rassool . 2015. The Politics of Heritage in Africa: Economies, Histories, and Infrastructures . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pibot, Jacques . 2001. Les peintures murals des femmes Kasséna du Burkina Faso . Paris: L’Harmattan.
• Sanganyado, Edmond , Charles Teta , and Busani Masiri . 2018. “ Impact of African Traditional Worldviews on Climate Change Adaptation .” Integrated Environmental Assessment Management 14 (2): 189–193.
• Schmidt, Peter R. , and Innocent Pikirayi , eds. 2016. Community Archaeology and Heritage in Africa: Decolonizing Practice . New York: Routledge.
• Stanley, Alpern . 1998. “ On the Origins of the Amazons of Dahomey .” History in Africa 25: 9–25.
• Vernet, Thomas , Camille Lefevbre , and Robin Seignobos , eds. 2013. Histoire et archéologie du Sahel ancien: nouveaux regards, nouveaux chantiers . Paris: Institut des mondes africaines (IMAF).
• Wright, Gwendolyn . 1987. “Tradition in the Service of Modernity: Architecture and Urbanism in French Colonial Policy, 1900–1930.” Journal of Modern History 59 (2): 291–316.
• Awuah-Nyamekye, Samuel . 2019. “ Climate Change and Indigenous Akan Religio-Cultural Practices .” Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 23 (1): 59–86.
• Baillie, Britt , and Marie Louise Stig Sørenson , eds. 2020. African Heritage Challenges: Communities and Sustainable Development . Singapore: Springer.
• Campbell, Michael O. 2005. “ Sacred Groves for Forest Conservation in Ghana’s Coastal Savannas: Assessing Ecological and Social Dimensions .” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 26 (2): 151–169.
• Ceperley, Natalie , Florencia Montagnini , and Armand Natta . 2010. “ Significance of Sacred Sites for Riparian Forest Conservation in Central Benin .” Bois et Forets des Tropiques 303 (1): 5–23.
• Chirikure, Shadreck , Webber Ndoro , and Janet Deacon , eds. 2017. Managing Heritage in Africa: Who Cares? London: Routledge.
• Decker, Corrie , and Elisabeth McMahon . 2021. The Idea of Development in Africa: A History . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• de Jong, Ferdinand . 2007. “A Masterpiece of Masquerading: Contradictions of Conservation in Intangible Heritage.” In Reclaiming Heritage , edited by Ferdinand de Jong and Michael Rowlands , 161–184. New York: Routledge.
• Dembele, Moussa . 2006. “ Colonial Legacy and Changes of West African Cities: Comparative Studies between Bamako and Segou Cities, Rep. of Mali .” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 5 (2): 285–292.
• Freund, Bill . 2007. The African City: A History . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• ICOM-CC . 2008. Terminology to Characterize the Conservation of Tangible Cultural Heritage . Resolution to Be Submitted to the ICOM-CC Membership on the Occasion of the XVth Triennial Conference, New Delhi, September 22–26, 2008.
• ICOMOS . 1966. Report on the Constitutive Assembly Held in Warsaw the 21st and 22nd June 1965/Compte rendu le l’assemblée constitutive tenue a Varsovie les 21 et 22 juin 1965 . Paris: ICOMOS.
• Joffroy, Thierry , Leonard Ahonon , and Gabin Djimasse . 2013. Les Dadassi du quartier Dossoémé . Grenoble, France: Editions CRATerre.
• Kiriama, Herman Ogoti , and Edith Nyangara, Onkoba . 2020. “ Significance in African Heritage .” In Heritage , edited by D. Turcanu-Carutiu . London: IntechOpen.
• Munjeri, Dawson . 2004. “ Tangible and Intangible Heritage: From Difference to Convergence .” Museum International 56 (1–2): 12–20.
• Ndoro, Webber , and Wijesuriya Gamini . 2015. “Heritage Management and Conservation: From Colonization to Globalization.” In Global Heritage: A Reader , edited by Lynn Meskell , 131–149. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
• Ogundiran, Akinwunmi . 2020. The Yoruba: A New History . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Rudolff, Britta . 2010. “Intangible” and “Tangible” Heritage: A Topology of Culture in Contexts of Faith . New York: Scientia Bonnensis.
• Sa’ad, Tukur. 1989. “Continuity and Change in Kano Traditional Architecture.” In Kano and Some of Her Neighbours , edited by Bawuro M. Barkindo , 59–77. Kano, Nigeria: Bayero University.
• Seignobos, Christian . 1997. “Les arbres substituts du mort et doubles du vivant.” In L’homme et le milieu végétal dans le bassin du Lac Tchad , edited by Daniel Barreteau , René Dognin , and Charlotte von Graffenried , 23–24. Paris: Editions de l’Orstom.
• Sinamai, Ashton . 2019. “‘ We Are Still Here’: African Heritage, Diversity and the Global Heritage Knowledge Templates .” Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 16 (1): 57–71.
• Torre, Marta de la . 2013. “ Values and heritage conservation .” Heritage & Society 6 (2): 155–166.
• Wozny, Danièle , and Barbara Cassin , eds. 2014. Les intraduisibles du patrimoine en Afrique subsaharienne . Paris: Demopolis.
• Yameogo, Lassane . 2015. “ Le patrimoine méconnu des bois sacrés de la ville de Koudougou (Burkina Faso): De la reconnaissance à la sauvegarde .” Cahiers de Géographie du Québec 59 (166): 71–90.

1. Reference to Africa in this paper refers to countries south of the Sahara. It excludes North African countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia.

2. Ghana and Nigeria were the first African countries to adhere to ICCROM in 1958 and 1961 respectively.

3. Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart gives us an insight into the place of the evil forest in Igbo society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Related Articles

• Heritage Management in East Africa

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Anthropology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 30 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|45.133.227.243]
• 45.133.227.243

Character limit 500 /500

• Volunteer Abstractors
• Archaeological Site Protection & Management
• Characterizing Materials
• Conservation of Collections
• Conservation of Photographic Materials
• Conserving Modern Materials
• Earthen Architecture Conservation
• Mosaics Conservation
• Stone Conservation
• Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage
• Conservation Perspectives, The GCI Newsletter
• GCI Reference Collection (for materials analysis)
• Research Assistance at GCI Information Center
• Conservation Collection at Research Library

Download PDF Find in WorldCat

All GCI Publications

Related publications, related projects.

• Armed Conflict and Heritage
• Culture in Emergencies
• Disaster Risk Reduction
• Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Property
• Revive the Spirit of Mosul
• Culture and Sustainable Development
• Culture and Climate change
• Culture and Biodiversity
• Culture and Education
• Culture and Africa
• World Heritage
• Intangible Cultural Heritage
• Underwater Cultural Heritage
• Memory of the World
• Diversity of Cultural Expressions
• Creative Cities
• Culture for Small Island Developing States
• World Book Capital Network
• COVID-19 pandemic
• UNESCO-MONDIACULT 2022 World Conference
• The Tracker Culture & Public Policy
• Culture in the G20
• Inter-Agency Platform
• International Funds for Culture
• Category 2 Centres and Institutes in Culture
• International Day of Nowruz
• World Art Day
• World Book and Copyright Day
• International Jazz Day
• African World Heritage Day
• International Day against Illicit Trafficking in Cultural Property
• International Day of Islamic Art
• World Olive Tree Day
• International Arts Education Week (20-26 May)
• 2023 - 20th Anniversary of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage
• 2021 - International Year of Creative Economy for Sustainable Development
• 2019 - International Year of Indigenous Languages
• 2017 - International Year of Sustainable Tourism
• 2010 - International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures
• Legal Instruments
• Publications

Cultural heritage: 7 successes of UNESCO’s preservation work

The power of preserving cultural heritage to build a better world

Why do we go to great lengths to preserve culture and make it bloom? Culture is a resource for the identity and cohesion of communities. In today’s interconnected world, it is also one of our most powerful resources to transform societies and renew ideas. It is UNESCO’s role to provide the tools and skills we need to make the most of its ultimate renewable energy.

Historical landmarks, living heritage and natural sites enrich our daily lives in countless ways, whether we experience them directly or through the medium of a connected device. Cultural diversity and creativity are natural drivers of innovation. In many ways, artists, creators and performers help us change our perspective on the world and rethink our environment. These are precious assets to respond to current global challenges, from the climate crisis to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The notion of culture has greatly evolved over the last 75 years. UNESCO’s actions over the past decades bear witness to the many ways in which humanity tried to understand how culture can strengthen the sense of who we are – from the awareness of the necessity to protect heritage from destruction at the end of World War II, to the launch of international campaigns to safeguard World Heritage sites and the concept of living and intangible heritage, a focus on creative economy and the need to sustain cultural jobs and livelihoods. Our relationship with culture has deeply evolved over the last century. If we look into the past, we might be better prepared to tackle further changes ahead.

The United States will be participating in an international effort which has captured the imagination and sympathy of people throughout the world. By thus contributing to the preservation of past civilizations, we will strengthen and enrich our own.

Abu Simbel – We do not have to choose between the living and the dead

A few minutes before sunrise, thousands of visitors line up inside the temple of Abu Simbel, holding their breath. They are about to witness a rare phenomenon that has taken place twice a year for the last 3,000 years. Every February and October at 6:29 am, the light of the rising sun pierces through the narrow entrance. The rays penetrate over 70 metres deep across the giant pillared hall up to the inner sanctuary, illuminating the statue of the man who built the temple during the 13th century BC, Pharaoh Ramses II.

Carved out of a rocky hill, the Temple of the Rising Sun had been conceived to show the might of Egypt’s greatest pharaoh to the Nubian people in the Upper Nile. Over time, the great temple and the smaller buildings became covered in sand and lay forgotten for centuries, until their rediscovery in 1813. The supreme example of ancient Egypt’s knowledge of astronomy and the skill of its architects could be admired again.

But just over a century later, the southernmost relics of this ancient human civilization were threatened with underwater oblivion and destruction by the rising waters of the Nile following the construction of the Aswan High Dam. The construction of the Dam was meant to develop agriculture as well as Egyptian independence and economy, and triggered a global debate that has fuelled media front pages and discussions ever since: should we have to choose between the monuments of the past and a thriving economy for the people living today? Why should people care for ancient stones and buildings when so many people need food and emergency assistance?

In the course of an unprecedented safeguarding campaign to save the temples of Egypt, UNESCO demonstrated that humanity does not have to sacrifice the past to thrive in the present – quite the opposite. Monuments of outstanding universal value help us understand who we are and also represent massive opportunities for development. Two millennia after a Greek author and scientist drew the famous list of the world’s seven wonders, the very notion of World Heritage came to life.

The race against time began in 1964 , when experts from 50 nations started working together under the coordination of UNESCO in one of the greatest challenges of archaeological engineering in history. The entire site was carefully cut into large blocks, dismantled, lifted and reassembled in a new location 65 metres higher and 200 metres back from the river, preserving it for future generations.

Today, the four majestic statues that guard the entrance to the great temple stare at the river and the rising sun every day. As they did 3,000 years ago. The success of the international cooperation to save Abu Simbel raised awareness about the fact that all over the world there are places of outstanding universal value. Just like the Nile valley temples, they must be protected from many threats such as armed conflict, deliberate destruction, economic pressure, natural disasters and climate change.

The World Heritage Convention was adopted in 1972 as the most important global instrument to establish this notion, bringing all nations together in the pursuit of the preservation of the World’s Natural and Cultural Heritage. With its 194 signatory Member States, it is today one of the world’s most ratified conventions.

How is a site inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List?

For a site to be inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, it must first be nominated by the country where it is located. The nomination is examined by international experts who decide whether the inclusion is justified. Finally, the World Heritage Committee, a body of 21 UNESCO elected Member States, takes a vote.

Venice – Can the safeguard of cultural heritage and global tourism coexist?

Launched only a few years after the Nubian temples initiative, the safeguarding campaign for Venice was a response to various challenges including the rising waters and the explosion of global tourism.

Stepping  outside the railway station early on an autumnal morning, visitors are met with the view of the chilly air colliding with the water, forming a thick, soft blanket of fog over the Grand Canal, the ‘main street’ of Venice. The church of San Simeone Piccolo, with its oversized dome and slender neoclassical columns, and the neighbouring buildings appear to be floating on the water of the lagoon. It’s a sight that has welcomed millions of visitors from all over the world since the heydays of the Serenissima, when the city ruled as one of Europe’s economic superpowers.

Yet, the breath-taking beauty that inspired countless painters, writers and artists over the centuries remains fragile and at risk of being lost forever. Like the Abu Simbel temples, the city’s survival is threatened by rising water levels. The inexorable increase in sea level has caused flooding to become a regular occurrence. Humidity and microorganisms are eating away the long wooden piles that early dwellers drove deep into the muddy ground of the lagoon to build the first foundations of Venice, 1,600 years ago.

After 1966, the year of the worst flooding in Venice’s history, UNESCO and the Italian Government launched a major campaign to save the city. An ambitious project involving giant mobile flood gates was undertaken to temporarily isolate the lagoon from the high tides and protect the lowest areas from flooding. Thirty years later there is unanimous agreement on the successful results both of the technical achievements and international cooperation.

But Venice still needs attentive care, and its continued survival calls for unflagging vigilance. The city remains threatened on several fronts – mass tourism, the potential damage of subsequent urban development and the steady stream of giant cruise ships crushing its brittle foundations.

International mobilization and pressure around the status of Venice led to the Italian Government’s decision in 2021 to ban large ships from the city centre, as a necessary step to protect the environmental, landscape, artistic and cultural integrity of Venice. This decision came a few days after UNESCO announced its intention to inscribe the city on its World Heritage in Danger list. Until a permanent big cruise docking place is identified and developed, liners will be permitted to pull up in Marghera, an industrial suburb of Venice. Such decisions illustrate the great complexity of protecting historic cities and cultural heritage urban centres, which in this particular situation called for tailor-made measures and techniques different from those implemented for the safeguarding of the fabled Egyptian temples.

If every museum in the New World were emptied, if every famous building in the Old World were destroyed and only Venice saved, there would be enough there to fill a full lifetime with delight. Venice, with all its complexity and variety, is in itself the greatest surviving work of art in the world.

Angkor – A successful example of longstanding international cooperation

Deep in the forests of Cambodia, in the Siem Reap Province, the five lotus-flower-shaped towers of majestic Angkor Wat soar towards the sky. When approaching from the main gate, the vast scale of the temple and the precise symmetry of the buildings are awe inspiring. This is the world's largest religious monument.

Angkor Wat was part of a sprawling city as big as London, the heart of an empire that between the 9th and 15th centuries extended from southern Vietnam to Laos, and from the Mekong River to Eastern Myanmar. By around 1500 A.D., the Khmer capital was abandoned, most likely after heavy floods and lengthy droughts. Its temples, buildings and complex irrigation network were swallowed by the surrounding forests and lay hidden until their rediscovery in 1860.

By the early 1990s, the site was under major threat, with many of the temples at high risk of collapse and several sites looted. Conservation work at Angkor had not been possible since the outbreak of the civil war, the rise of the Khmer Rouge regime and the following civil unrest.

Angkor Wat’s inclusion in UNESCO’s World Heritage List in 1992 marked a milestone in the country’s recovery after years of conflict. The UNESCO-backed preservation of the temples aimed to assist in nation-building and national reconciliation. The action of the International Coordinating Committee (link is external) (ICC-Angkor) for the safeguarding and development of this exceptional cultural site is a striking example of international solidarity and testifies to one of UNESCO's most impressive achievements for heritage. Thirty countries and an ad hoc experts group for scientific, restoration and conservation projects were brought together under an innovative approach, closely linking safeguarding operations to sustainable development efforts.

In 25 years, Angkor has thus become a living laboratory demonstrating the potential of sustainable tourism and crafts, with the mobilization of local communities for social cohesion in 112 villages. The gigantic site now supports 700,000 inhabitants and attracts some five million visitors whose flow must be managed each year. The park authorities are carrying out several projects aimed at improving the lives of communities through the implementation of sustainable tourism that respects local sensitivities. The removal from UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger just fourteen years later is a credit to the Cambodian people.

The fact that a project of such magnitude was successfully carried out in a country emerging from more than two decades of conflict in 1992 is a testament to the potential of the World Heritage Convention and the international solidarity led by UNESCO.

Walking through the temple, I saw reminders of the prosperous civilization that built it: hundreds of beautiful figures carved into the walls telling the stories of these ancient people; wide galleries they must have prayed in; long hallways lined with pillars they must have walked down.

No one knows for sure what caused the empire to abandon this temple and the surrounding city, but in the 15th century almost everyone left. Trees grew over the stones. Only Buddhist monks stayed behind to care for — and pray in — the hidden temples.

But that didn’t stop pilgrims and visitors from continuing to journey here to take in these incredible structures. And now, centuries later, I couldn’t be more thankful to count myself as one of these visitors

Mostar – Symbols do matter, in war and peace

It’s the end of July in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Peak summer means an influx of tourists to the cobbled alleys of Mostar. The cosy medieval town has a long, rich history marked by the peaceful coexistence of three communities: Muslim Bosniaks, Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats. Once they arrive in town, visitors from all over the world make a beeline for Mostar’s most emblematic monument, the Old Bridge.

A masterpiece of Ottoman architecture, Stari Most – as it’s known locally – is a symbol of the different communities that have existed side-by-side in the area. Since the 16th century, the bridge had brought them together across the Neretva river – until the Bosnian war. The bridge was a symbol of unity between the Bosnian community (Muslim), in the east of the city, and the Croats and Serbs to the west. The bridge of Mostar (of Ottoman, therefore Muslim origin) served as a link between all these communities – as a pedestrian bridge, it had no military or strategic value. Its destruction in 1993 was only meant to force the communities to separate, to deny their mixing with their neighbours. The bridge was in ruins and, with it, the values of peace and understanding this centuries-old structure had embodied.

Five years later, UNESCO coordinated a reconstruction project to rebuild the Old Bridge. Despite the scars of the war that are still visible today on the city walls, the reconstructed bridge has now become a symbol of reconciliation and post-conflict healing.

Today, the crowds jam the street to watch the traditional diving contest from the top of the bridge, a long-held custom resumed once Stari Most was restored to its former glory. Every July, young people of Mostar’s three communities compete with courage by jumping into the river 29 metres below, just like they did before the war.

For over four years after the ceasefire, former enemies worked together to retrieve the stones from the riverbed and rebuild their former symbol of friendship. Reconstructed in 2004 and inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list in 2006, Stari Most today is a bridge between a common past and a common future. It is certainly not enough to rebuild a bridge to restore confidence and rebuild peace in a war-torn society. But it certainly matters to care for the symbols of peace.

I was in my office, working to the sound of mortar fire, when we heard the cries in the street – cries that the bridge had fallen. And what happened then was so impressive that I will never forget it. Everyone came out to see. Grenades and bombs were falling everywhere, but still they came out of their hiding places: young and old, weak and strong, Muslim and Christian, they all came, all crying. Because that bridge was part of our identity. It represented us all.

Timbuktu – When warlords target heritage, peacemakers respond with more heritage

Sitting at the gateway to the Sahara Desert, Timbuktu conjures images of a mythical city at the end of the world, where Arab and African merchants would travel from afar to trade salt, gold, cattle and grain. In the English language, the city in northern Mali has come to represent a place far away. Undaunted, caravans still ply the cross-desert route and come to the city several times a year. They carry rock salt extracted from the northern Sahara, just like their ancestors did for centuries.

In its heyday, during the 16th century, the city had 100,000 inhabitants, as its mosques and holy sites played an essential role in the spread of Islam in Africa. The city became an important centre of learning in Africa and its libraries the repository of at least 700,000 historical manuscripts on art, science and medicine, as well as copies of the Qur’an. These manuscripts, written in ornate calligraphy, bear witness to the richness of African history and intellectual life.

During the conflict of 2012–2013, more than 4,000 of the 40,000 manuscripts kept at the Ahmed Baba Institute were lost. Some were burnt or stolen, while more than 10,000 remained in a critical condition. The inhabitants of Timbuktu helped save their precious heritage by secretly spiriting away more than 300,000 manuscripts to the capital, Bamako. Other texts were sheltered between mud walls or buried. Although protected from immediate destruction, the manuscripts are now preserved in conditions that may not safeguard them for future generations.

To help preserve Timbuktu’s cultural heritage and encourage reconciliation, UNESCO has been supporting the local communities to take part in ancient manuscript conservation projects and ensure their lasting preservation for humanity.

UNESCO has coordinated the work to rebuild the fourteen mausoleums inscribed on the World Heritage List, as well as the Djingareyber and Sidi Yaha mosques, that were deliberately destroyed by armed groups during the conflict.

The reconstruction of Timbuktu’s devastated cultural heritage aimed to foster reconciliation among communities and restore trust and social cohesion. An important aspect of the project was the drive to include the reconstruction of the mausoleums in an overall strategy aimed at revitalizing building traditions and ensuring their continuity, through on-the-job training activities and conservation projects.

To ensure the rebuilt shrines matched the old ones as closely as possible, the reconstruction work was checked against old photos and local elders were consulted. Local workers used traditional methods and local materials, including alhor stone, rice stalks and banco – a mixture of clay and straw.

The destruction of the mausoleums of Timbuktu has been a shock, and a clear turning point revealing the importance taken of culture and heritage in modern conflicts fuelled by violent extremism and fundamentalist ideologies. It has shown how strongly fundamentalists are willing to destroy other Islamic cultures, and any other vision which differs from their own. Similar direct destruction of Islamic, pre-Islamic, Christian or Jewish heritage, has then been seen in Iraq and Syria. The need to restore heritage has become far more than a mere cultural issue – it has become a security issue, and a key component for the resilience and further cohesion of societies torn by conflicts.

At present, the monuments in Timbuktu are living heritage, closely associated with religious rituals and community gatherings. Their shape and form have always evolved over time both with annual cycles (that of the rain and the erosion of the plastering); that of regular maintenance (every three to five years); repairs of structural pathologies, often adding buttresses; and at times more important works, including extensions and raising of the roof structure. How to take that into account while trying to guide and assist the local people in their self-capacity, their resilience in keeping their heritage as they have done for over 600 years? What should be done and to what extent? Who should be responsible for what? These are tricky questions of heritage preservation, far beyond the mere inscription of a site on the famous World Heritage list.

Salt comes from north, gold from south and silver from the land of Whites, but the Word of God, the famous things, histories and fairy tales, we only find them in Timbuktu.

Preserving cultural identity and Korean traditions: The bond of living heritage

It’s the end of November in the countryside near Jeonju, the capital of the North Jeolla Province. The weather is getting chilly and winter is just a couple of weeks away.

It’s time to prepare for the long, icy-cold season. It’s time to make kimchi.

The Republic of Korea’s staple food is a side dish of salted and fermented vegetables that makes its appearance at every meal. It’s not just the country’s emblematic dish: its preparation ( kimjang ) is a community event.

Housewives monitor weather forecasts to determine the most favourable date and temperature for preparing kimchi. Entire families, friends and neighbours gather together to make it. The process is rather laborious and requires many hands to process the large quantities of vegetables required to last throughout the winter months. They all work together, exchange tips and tighten their relationships through kimjang. Families take turns making kimchi to form closer bonds.

Today, the entire village will get together in one of the houses for the occasion. Together, they will wash the napa cabbage that was pickled in salt the night before and mix in the seasonings that will give kimchi its unique sour-and-spicy flavour. The specific methods and ingredients are transmitted from mother to daughter so that kimjang culture is preserved through the generations.

Since 2013, kimjang has been included in UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity as an important part of Korean culture, embodying the country’s cooperative and sharing team spirit. Kimjang is a vital cultural asset of a community and worth preserving and celebrating for the rest of humanity. Even though there may be regional differences in the preparation of kimchi, it transcends class, regional and even national borders.

Cultural practices often precede the instauration of national borders and the start of conflict among its citizens. Shared cultural practices may even be a path to reconciliation. 

Such hopes materialized in 2018, when the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea decided to work together to submit a joint submission for traditional wrestling as an element of UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

Ssirum/Ssireum (wrestling) is a physical game and a popular form of entertainment widely enjoyed all across the Korean peninsula. In the North, two opponents try to push each other to the ground using a satpa (a fabric strap connecting the waist and leg), their torso, hands and legs. Ssirum/Ssireum is distinguished by the use of the satpa and the awarding of a bull to the winner. In the South, Ssirum/Ssireum is a type of wrestling in which two players wearing long fabric belts around their waists and one thigh grip their opponents’ belt and deploy various techniques to send them to the ground. The winner of the final game for adults is awarded an ox, symbolizing agricultural abundance, and the title of ‘Jangsa’.

As an approachable sport involving little risk of injury, Ssirum/Ssireum also offers a means to improve mental and physical health. Koreans are widely exposed to Ssirum/Ssireum traditions within their families and local communities: children learn the wrestling skills from family members; local communities hold annual open wrestling tournaments; its instruction is also provided in schools.

Following UNESCO’s mediation, the two States Parties agreed for their respective nomination files to be jointly examined by the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage in November 2018. UNESCO welcomed this initiative of regional cooperation and, through a historic decision, inscribed "Traditional Korean wrestling (Ssirum/Ssireum)" on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, as a joint inscription from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea. While the Lists of the Convention include several examples of multinational nominations prepared by several States (from couscous to the art of falconry and the Mediterranean diet), the coming together of the two States Parties for the joint inscription of Korean traditional wrestling by the Committee is unprecedented. It marks a highly symbolic step on the road to inter-Korean reconciliation. It is also a victory for the longstanding and profound ties between both sides of the inter-Korean border, and for the role cultural diplomacy may have in international relations.

It was the time when the women would gather and gossip. There would be matchmaking. There would be some marriages that came about during the time of kimchi making.

Promoting culture in a post-COVID-19 world

The cultural and creative industries are among the fastest growing sectors in the world. With an estimated global worth of US$ 4.3 trillion per year, the culture sector now accounts for 6.1 per cent of the global economy. They generate annual revenues of US$ 2,250 billion and nearly 30 million jobs worldwide, employing more people aged 15 to 29 than any other sector. The cultural and creative industries have become essential for inclusive economic growth, reducing inequalities and achieving the goals set out in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

The adoption of the 2005 Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions was a milestone in international cultural policy. Through this historic agreement, the global community formally recognized the dual nature, both cultural and economic, of contemporary cultural expressions produced by artists and cultural professionals. Shaping the design and implementation of policies and measures that support the creation, production, distribution of and access to cultural goods and services, the 2005 Convention is at the heart of the creative economy.

Recognizing the sovereign right of States Parties to maintain, adopt and implement policies to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expression, both nationally and internationally, the 2005 Convention supports governments and civil society in finding policy solutions for emerging challenges.

Based on human rights and fundamental freedoms, the 2005 Convention ultimately provides a new framework for informed, transparent and participatory systems of governance for culture.

A constant rethinking of culture and heritage

The history of UNESCO bears witness to the deep transformation of the concept of culture over the past decades. From global Conventions mostly dealing with building and stones in the 60’s and 70’s, the international cooperation opened new fronts for the protection and promotion of culture, including intangible cultural heritage, cultural diversity and creative economy. The definition of "culture" was spearheaded by the committee led by former UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuellar and the Mondiacult Conference in 1982. In 2022, the global Mondiacult conference is expected to take stock of progress made in the past 40 years in cultural policies, and re-imagine its future in a post-COVID-19 world.

Have a look at these World Heritage sites

The 30,000-kilometre-long road system was built by the Inca Empire across mountains, valleys, rainforests and deserts to link the Inca capital, Cuzco, with distant areas of the empire, from the Amazon to the Andes. Thanks to its sheer scale, Qhapaq Ñan is a unique achievement of engineering skills, highlighting the Incas' mastery of construction technology.

The granting of World Heritage status in 2019 has made its trail – which every year sees thousands of visitors on their way to the area’s archaeological sites such as Machu Picchu in Peru – eligible for much-needed restoration funds.

Borobudur Temple Compound

Borobudur is the largest Buddhist temple in the world and one of the great archaeological sites of Southeast Asia. This imposing Buddhist temple, dating from the 8th and 9th centuries, is located in central Java. It was built in three tiers: a pyramidal base with five concentric square terraces, the trunk of a cone with three circular platforms and, at the top, a monumental stupa. The walls and balustrades are decorated with fine low reliefs, covering a total surface area of 2,500 m 2 . Around the circular platforms are 72 openwork stupas, each containing a statue of the Buddha. The monument was restored with UNESCO's help in the 1970s.

Bamiyan Valley, Afghanistan

This cultural landscape was simultaneously inscribed on the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2003. The property is in a fragile state of conservation, having suffered from abandonment, military action and dynamite explosions. Parts of the site are inaccessible due to the presence of anti-personnel mines.

Related items

• Lists and designations
• Intangible cultural heritage
• Intangible heritage
• Diversity of Cultural Expressions-2005 Convention
• Intangible Cultural Heritage-2003 Convention
• Underwater Cultural Heritage-2001 Convention
• World Heritage 1972 Convention
• Fight Illicit Trafficking-1970 Convention
• Armed Conflict and Heritage-1954 Convention
• Culture & Sustainable Development
• UNESCO Creative Cities Network

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Diverse Cultures and Shared Experiences Shape Asian American Identities

About six-in-ten feel connected to other asians in the u.s., table of contents.

• The making of Asian American identity and knowledge of Asian history in the U.S.
• Immigrant ties shape Asian Americans' identities and their life in the U.S.
• Asians in the U.S. share similar views among themselves and with the U.S. public on what it means to be American
• How Asians in the U.S. describe their identity
• Asian adults and the general public agree: U.S. Asians have many different cultures
• Whom do U.S. Asians consider Asian?
• A majority of Asian adults say others would describe them as Asian when walking past them on the street
• For many Asian adults, where they were born shapes friendships formed in the U.S.
• Most Asian adults are comfortable with intermarriage
• Some Asians say they have hidden their heritage
• Connections with other Asian Americans, politics and political parties
• Need for a national leader advancing the concerns of Asian Americans
• Asian American registered voters and political party
• About one-quarter of Asian adults say they are informed about U.S. Asian history
• What being ‘truly American’ means to U.S. Asians
• Fewer than half of U.S. Asians consider themselves typical Americans
• What do Asian Americans view as important for the American dream?
• Most Asian adults say the American dream is within reach, but about a quarter say they will never achieve it
• Acknowledgments
• Sample design
• Data collection
• Weighting and variance estimation
• Largest origin groups
• Educational attainment
• Immigration status
• Length of time living in the U.S. among immigrants
• Citizenship status among immigrants

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the rich diversity of people of Asian origin or ancestry living in the United States and their views of identity. The study is part of the Center’s multiyear, comprehensive, in-depth quantitative and qualitative research effort focused on the nation’s Asian population. Its centerpiece is this nationally representative survey of 7,006 Asian adults exploring the experiences, attitudes and views of Asians living in the U.S. The survey sampled U.S. adults who self-identify as Asian, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic ethnicity. It was offered in six languages: Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), English, Hindi, Korean, Tagalog and Vietnamese. Responses were collected from July 5, 2022, to Jan. 27, 2023, by Westat on behalf of Pew Research Center.

The Center recruited a large sample to examine the diversity of the U.S. Asian population, with oversamples of the Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Korean and Vietnamese populations. These are the five largest origin groups among Asian Americans. The survey also includes a large enough sample of self-identified Japanese adults, making findings about them reportable. In this report, the six largest ethnic groups include those who identify with one Asian ethnicity only, either alone or in combination with a non-Asian race or ethnicity. Together, these six groups constitute 81% of all U.S. Asian adults, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey (ACS), and are the six groups whose attitudes and opinions are highlighted throughout the report. Survey respondents were drawn from a national sample of residential mailing addresses, which included addresses from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Specialized surnames list frames maintained by the Marketing Systems Group were used to supplement the sample. Those eligible to complete the survey were offered the opportunity to do so online or by mail with a paper questionnaire. For more details, see the Methodology . For questions used in this analysis, see the Topline Questionnaire .

The survey research plan and questionnaire were reviewed and approved by Westat’s institutional review board (IRB), which is an external and independent committee of experts specializing in protecting the rights of research participants.

Even though the U.S. Asian population was the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in the country from 2000 to 2019 , it is still a relatively small population. According to the 2021 American Community Survey, the country’s Asian population constitutes 7% of the U.S. population (of all ages) and 7% of adults (those ages 18 and older).

Pew Research Center designed this study with these details in mind to be as inclusive as possible of the diversity of Asian American experiences. Even so, survey research is limited when it comes to documenting the views and attitudes of the less populous Asian origin groups in the U.S. To address this, the survey was complemented by 66 pre-survey focus groups of Asian adults , conducted from Aug. 4 to Oct. 14, 2021, with 264 recruited participants from 18 Asian origin groups. Focus group discussions were conducted in 18 different languages and moderated by members of their origin groups.

Findings for less populous Asian origin groups in the U.S., those who are not among the six largest Asian origin groups, are grouped under the category “Other” in this report and are included in the overall Asian adult findings in the report. These ethnic origin groups each make up about 2% or less of the Asian population in the U.S., making it challenging to recruit nationally representative samples for each origin group. The group “Other” includes those who identify with one Asian ethnicity only, either alone or in combination with a non-Asian race or Hispanic ethnicity. Findings for those who identify with two or more Asian ethnicities are not presented by themselves in this report but are included in the overall Asian adult findings.

To learn more about how members of less populous Asian origin groups in the U.S. identify, see the quote sorter based on our focus group discussions. There, you can read how participants describe their identity in their own words.

For this analysis, an additional national survey of 5,132 U.S. adults was conducted from Dec. 5 to 11, 2022, using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel . The survey of U.S. adults was conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses.

Pew Research Center has conducted multiple studies that focus on Asian Americans. Previous demographic studies examined the diversity of origins , key facts , and rising income inequality among Asians living in the U.S. and key findings about U.S. immigrants. Qualitative studies have focused on what it means to be Asian in America as well as barriers to English language learning among Asian immigrants. Previous surveys have focused on concerns over discrimination and violence against Asian Americans, as well as studies about their religious beliefs . Find these publications and more on the Center’s Asian Americans topic page .

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. The Center’s Asian American portfolio was funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from The Asian American Foundation; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, an advised fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Henry Luce Foundation; the Doris Duke Foundation; The Wallace H. Coulter Foundation; The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation; The Long Family Foundation; Lu-Hebert Fund; Gee Family Foundation; Joseph Cotchett; the Julian Abdey and Sabrina Moyle Charitable Fund; and Nanci Nishimura.

We would also like to thank the Leaders Forum for its thought leadership and valuable assistance in helping make this survey possible.

The strategic communications campaign used to promote the research was made possible with generous support from the Doris Duke Foundation.

The terms Asian, Asians living in the United States , U.S. Asian population and Asian Americans are used interchangeably throughout this report to refer to U.S. adults who self-identify as Asian, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic identity.

Ethnicity and ethnic origin labels, such as Chinese and Chinese origin, are used interchangeably in this report for findings for ethnic origin groups, such as Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese. For this report, ethnicity is not nationality. For example, Chinese in this report are those self-identifying as of Chinese ethnicity, rather than necessarily being a current or former citizen of the People’s Republic of China. Ethnic origin groups in this report include those who self-identify as one Asian ethnicity only, either alone or in combination with a non-Asian race or ethnicity.

Less populous Asian origin groups in this report are those who self-identify with ethnic origin groups that are not among the six largest Asian origin groups. The term includes those who identify with only one Asian ethnicity. These ethnic origin groups each represent about 2% or less of the overall Asian population in the U.S. For example, those who identify as Burmese, Hmong or Pakistani are included in this category. These groups are unreportable on their own due to small sample sizes, but collectively they are reportable under this category.

The terms Asian origins and Asian origin groups are used interchangeably throughout this report to describe ethnic origin groups.

Immigrants in this report are people who were not U.S. citizens at birth – in other words, those born outside the U.S., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents who are not U.S. citizens. I mmigrant , first generation and foreign born are used interchangeably to refer to this group.  

Naturalized citizens are immigrants who are lawful permanent residents who have fulfilled the length of stay and other requirements to become U.S. citizens and who have taken the oath of citizenship.

U.S. born refers to people born in the 50 U.S. states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.

Second generation refers to people born in the 50 states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories with at least one first-generation (immigrant) parent.

Third or higher generation refers to people born in the 50 states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories with both parents born in the 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.

The nation’s Asian population is fast growing and diverse. Numbering more than 23 million, the population has ancestral roots across the vast, ethnically and culturally rich Asian continent. For Asians living in the United States, this diversity is reflected in how they describe their own identity. According to a new, nationwide, comprehensive survey of Asian adults living in the U.S., 52% say they most often use ethnic labels that reflect their heritage and family roots, either alone or together with “American,” to describe themselves. Chinese or Chinese American, Filipino or Filipino American, and Indian or Indian American are examples of these variations.

There are other ways in which Asians living in the U.S. describe their identity. About half (51%) of Asian adults say they use American on its own (10%), together with their ethnicity (25%) or together with “Asian” as Asian American (16%) when describing their identity, highlighting their links to the U.S.

And while pan-ethnic labels such as Asian and Asian American are commonly used to describe this diverse population broadly, the new survey shows that when describing themselves, just 28% use the label Asian (12%) on its own or the label Asian American (16%).

The survey also finds that other labels are used by Asian Americans. Some 6% say they most often prefer regional terms such as South Asian and Southeast Asian when describing themselves.

Asian adults see more cultural differences than commonalities across their group as well. When asked to choose between two statements – that Asians in the U.S. share a common culture, or that Asians in the U.S. have many different cultures – nearly all (90%) say U.S. Asians have many different cultures. Just 9% say Asians living in the U.S. share a common culture. This view is widely held across many demographic groups among Asian Americans, according to the survey.

The view that Asian Americans have many different cultures is also one held by the general public, according to another Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults, conducted in December 2022. Among all U.S. adults, 80% say Asians in the U.S. have many different cultures, while 18% say they share a common culture. 1

Though Asian Americans’ identities reflect their diverse cultures and origins, Asian adults also report certain shared experiences. A majority (60%) say most people would describe them as “Asian” while walking past them on the street, indicating most Asian adults feel they are seen by others as a single group, despite the population’s diversity. One-in-five say they have hidden a part of their heritage (their ethnic food, cultural practices, ethnic clothing or religious practices) from others who are not Asian, in some cases out of fear of embarrassment or discrimination. Notably, Asian adults ages 18 to 29 are more likely to say they have done this than Asians 65 and older (39% vs. 5%).

Asian adults in the U.S. also feel connected with other Asian Americans. About six-in-ten (59%) say that what happens to Asians in the U.S. affects their own lives, at least to some extent. 2 And about two-thirds (68%) of Asian Americans say it is extremely or very important to have a national leader advocating for the concerns and needs of the Asian population in the U.S.

The new survey also shows that large majorities of Asian adults share similar views on what it takes to be considered truly American. And they consider many of the same factors to be important in their views of the American dream.

These are among the key findings from Pew Research Center’s new survey of Asian American adults, conducted by mail and online from July 5, 2022, to Jan. 27, 2023. This is the largest nationally representative survey of its kind to date that focused on Asian Americans. The survey was conducted in English and five Asian languages, among a representative sample of 7,006 Asian adults living in the United States. 

Asian Americans are 7% of the U.S. population, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the 2021 American Community Survey. Their population is diverse, with roots in more than 20 countries in East Asia, Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. About 54% of the national Asian population are immigrants. The six largest origin groups (Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese), a focus of this survey and report, together account for 79% of all Asian Americans.

Overall, about 34% of Asian Americans are the U.S.-born children of immigrant parents, and another 14% are of third or higher generation (meaning their parents were born in the U.S. as well), according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the 2022 Current Population Survey, March Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

This survey and report focus on Asian adults in the U.S. The six largest origin groups together account for 81% of Asian adults. And 68% of Asian American adults are immigrants, according to Center analysis of the 2021 American Community Survey. Additionally, 25% are the U.S.-born children of immigrant parents and 10% are of third or higher generation, according to Center analysis of government data.

The pan-ethnic term “Asian American” emerged in Berkeley, California, in the 1960s as part of a political movement to organize the diverse U.S. Asian population. The creation of an Asian American identity was in reaction to a long history of exclusion of Asians in the country, including the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and a pair of Supreme Court cases in the 1920s clarifying that Asians, including South Asians, are not “free White persons” and therefore were excluded from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. 3 Subsequently, the term was adopted by the federal government and today is the principal identity label used by media, academics, researchers and others to describe today’s diverse Asian American population.

In most cases today, someone is considered Asian or Asian American if they self-identify as such. But Asian Americans do not necessarily agree on which regional or ethnic groups from the Asian continent they consider to be Asian, according to the new survey. The vast majority of Asian adults say they consider those from East Asia, such as Chinese or Koreans (89%); Southeast Asia, such as Vietnamese or Filipinos (88%); and to a lesser extent South Asia such as Indians or Pakistanis (67%) to be Asian.

But Asian adults are split on whether they consider Central Asians such as Afghans or Kazakhs to be Asian (43% of Asian adults say they are). While about half of Indian adults (56%) say they would include Central Asians in the category Asian, fewer than half of Filipino (40%), Chinese (39%), Japanese (34%), Korean (32%) and Vietnamese (30%) adults consider them Asian.

Few Asians say they are knowledgeable about U.S. Asian history

Asian Americans have a long history in the United States. From Chinese laborers who helped build the first transcontinental railroad, to Japanese immigrants who arrived as plantation workers in what is now the state of Hawaii, to the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II, to Filipinos being treated as U.S. nationals while the Philippines was a U.S. territory, the Asian American experience has been a part of U.S. history.

With the passage of the landmark Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, a new wave of immigrants from Asia began arriving in the United States, creating a new, contemporary U.S. Asian history. The Vietnam War and other conflicts in Southeast Asia brought Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian refugees to the U.S. , first with the passage of the 1975 Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act and then with the Refugee Act of 1980. The 1990 Immigration Act raised immigration ceilings and set in place processes that allowed the flows of Asian immigrants, particularly of high-skilled immigrants, to continue and expand. The U.S. technology boom of the 1990s and 2000s attracted many high-skilled immigrants, particularly from India and China, to tech centers around the country.

This rich history, however, is little-known to Asian adults, according to the new survey. One-in-four (24%) say they are very or extremely informed about history of Asians in the United States, while an equal share (24%) say they are little or not at all informed.

The majority of those very or extremely informed about the history of Asians in the U.S. say they learned about this history through informal channels: internet (82%), media (76%) and family and friends (70%). In contrast, 49% learned about it from college or university courses and 39% from elementary through high school.

Immigrant ties shape Asian Americans’ identities and their life in the U.S.

Immigration experiences, connections with home countries, and how long someone has lived in the U.S. shape many Asian Americans’ identities. Among Asian adults in the U.S., immigrants are more likely than those who are U.S. born to describe their identity most often with their ethnic labels, either alone or together with the label American (56% vs. 41%).

Meanwhile, Asian immigrants are less likely than U.S.-born Asians (46% vs. 65%) to say they most often describe themselves as American in some way – whether by their ethnic label combined with American, as Asian American, or simply as American. Still, nearly half of Asian immigrants describe themselves in one of these three ways.

When it comes to identifying with the label Asian – either alone or as Asian American – immigrant and U.S.-born Asians are about equally likely to say they do so (28% and 29% respectively). Immigrant Asians are less likely than U.S.-born Asians to identify most often as Asian American (14% vs. 21%).

On the question of seeing themselves more as a “typical American” or “very different from a typical American,” Asian immigrant adults are far less likely than those born in the U.S. to think of themselves as a typical American (37% vs. 69%).

Nativity is also tied to how Asians in the U.S. develop their friendships. Those who immigrated to the U.S. are more likely to have friends who are Asian or of the same ethnicity as them than are U.S.-born Asians (56% vs. 38%).

Asian immigrants (15%) are also less likely than U.S.-born Asians (32%) to have ever hidden a part of their heritage from people who are not Asian. When asked in an open-ended question to explain why they hide aspects of their culture, some U.S.-born respondents mentioned phrases such as “fear of discrimination,” “being teased” and “embarrassing.”

Views of identity among Asian American immigrants are often tied to time spent in the U.S.

How long Asian immigrants have lived in the U.S. also shapes their identity and experiences. Those who arrived in the U.S. in the past 10 years are more likely than those who arrived more than 20 years ago to say they most often use their ethnicity, such as Filipino or Vietnamese, to describe themselves. And about two-thirds (65%) of those who arrived in the U.S. in the past decade describe their identity most often with their ethnicity’s name, either alone or combined with American, compared with 54% among those who have been in the country for more than two decades.

Roughly half (54%) of those who have arrived in the past 10 years say they most often use only their ethnicity to describe themselves, compared with just 21% of those who arrived more than two decades ago who say the same.

On the other hand, just 17% of Asian immigrants who arrived in the country in the past 10 years describe themselves most often as American, by their ethnic label combined with American, or as Asian American, while 59% of those who arrived more than 20 years ago do so.

When it comes to their circle of friends, 60% of Asian immigrants who arrived in the past 10 years say most or all of their friends are also Asian Americans, while 50% of those who arrived more than 20 years ago say the same.

And when asked if they think of themselves as typical Americans or not, Asian immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the past decade are substantially less likely than those who arrived more than two decades ago to say they are typical Americans (20% vs. 48%).

The new survey also explored the views Asian Americans have about traits that make one “truly American.” Overall, Asian Americans and the general U.S. population share similar views of what it means to be American. Nearly all Asian adults and U.S. adults say that accepting people of diverse racial and religious backgrounds (94% and 91%), believing in individual freedoms (92% and 94%) and respecting U.S. political institutions and laws (89% and 87%) are important for being truly American.

Similarly, Asian Americans and the U.S. general population share in their views about the American dream. They say having freedom of choice in how to live one’s life (96% and 97% respectively), having a good family life (96% and 94%), retiring comfortably (96% and 94%) and owning a home (both 86%) are important to their view of the American dream. Smaller shares of Asian and U.S. adults (30% and 27%) say owning a business is important to their view of the American dream.

Here are other survey findings highlighting the diverse views and attitudes of Asian adults living in the U.S.:

• Indian adults are the most likely of the six largest Asian origin groups to say they most often use their ethnicity, without the addition of “American,” to describe themselves. About four-in-ten Indian adults (41%) say they do this. By comparison, smaller shares of Korean (30%), Filipino (29%), Chinese (26%) and Vietnamese (23%) adults do the same. Japanese adults (14%) are the least likely among the largest groups to use their ethnic identity term alone.
• Japanese adults are the least likely among the largest Asian origin groups to say they have friendships with other Asians. About one-in-three Japanese adults (34%) say most or all their friends share their own ethnicity or are otherwise Asian. By contrast, about half of all Indian (55%), Vietnamese (55%), Chinese (51%), Korean (50%) and Filipino (48%) respondents say the same.
• One-in-four Korean adults (25%) say they have hidden part of their heritage from people who are not Asian. Some 20% of Indian, 19% of Chinese, 18% of Vietnamese, 16% of Filipino and 14% of Japanese adults say they have done the same.
• Across the largest ethnic groups, about half or more say that what happens to Asians in the U.S. affects what happens in their own lives. About two-thirds of Korean (67%) and Chinese (65%) adults say this. By comparison, 61% of Japanese, 54% of Filipino, 55% of Indian and 52% of Vietnamese adults say they are impacted by what happens to Asians nationally.
• Most Asian adults among the largest ethnic origin groups say a national leader advancing the U.S. Asian community’s concerns is important. Roughly three-in-four Filipino (74%) and Chinese (73%) adults say it is very or extremely important to for the U.S. Asian community to have a national leader advancing its concerns. A majority of Vietnamese (69%), Korean (66%), Japanese (63%) and Indian adults (62%) says the same.  
• About half of Vietnamese registered voters (51%) identify with or lean to the Republican Party. In contrast, about two-thirds of Indian (68%), Filipino (68%) and Korean (67%) registered voters identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. And 56% of Chinese registered voters also associate with the Democratic Party. 
• This finding is from a nationally representative survey of 5,132 U.S. adults conducted by Pew Research Center from Dec. 5 to 11, 2022, using the Center’s American Trends Panel . ↩
• In recent years, a major source of concern and fear among many Asian adults in the U.S. has been the rise in reported violence against Asian Americans . ↩
• For more on the history of the creation of an Asian American identity, see Lee, Jennifer and Karthick Ramakrishnan. 2019. “ Who counts as Asian .” Ethnic and Racial Studies. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Asian Americans
• Immigrant Populations
• Integration & Identity
• Racial & Ethnic Identity
• Racial Bias & Discrimination

Key facts about Asian Americans living in poverty

Methodology: 2023 focus groups of asian americans, 1 in 10: redefining the asian american dream (short film), the hardships and dreams of asian americans living in poverty, key facts about asian american eligible voters in 2024, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• Show search

Organizations launch a campaign to protect massive private property in Chilean Patagonia

Puelo Patagonia, The Nature Conservancy, Freyja Foundation, Patagonia Inc., and Wyss Foundation launch the Conserva Puchegüín initiative.

April 29, 2024 | Chile

Media Contacts

Paula Noé Scheinwald Communications Specialist Email: [email protected]

• Puelo Patagonia, The Nature Conservancy, Freyja Foundation, Patagonia Inc., and Wyss Foundation launch the Conserva Puchegüín initiative to acquire Hacienda Puchegüín, a property encompassing almost 133,000 hectares of pristine Patagonian wilderness in the Los Lagos region of southern Chile. Members of the initiative have entered into a purchase agreement with the property’s owners (with preferential option) to acquire the property, which has been listed for sale since 2022.
• ‘Conserva Puchegüín,’ the entity comprising the above organizations, seeks to raise USD 78 million to protect the unique ecological and cultural heritage of the remote Cochamó Valley and surrounding communities, promoting sustainable economic development and creating one of the largest biological corridors in Latin America.

Chile, April 28, 2024. Conserva Puchegüín – a collection of local and international conservation organizations led by Chilean NGO Puelo Patagonia – announced today that they have launched a campaign to acquire and protect Hacienda Puchegüín, a 132,995-hectare parcel of private land in the Cochamó region of Chilean Patagonia . Known throughout the world as “The Yosemite of South America,” Cochamó is home to thousand-meter granite walls; glaciers, rivers, and plunging waterfalls; massive groves of alerce trees; and many endangered and endemic species. The region is also home to a number of small communities whose traditional way of life still thrives. The Conserva Puchegüín campaign kicks off following the successful signing of an agreement between the current landowners, Puelo Patagonia and The Nature Conservancy , backed by Freyja Foundation , Patagonia Inc ., and Wyss Foundation .

Hacienda Puchegüín caught the attention of local and international conservation organizations when it was listed for sale in 2022. Though surrounded by 1,630,000 hectares of Chilean and Argentine parks, reserves and nature sanctuaries, the property has lacked the legal and environmental protection necessary to shield it from a wide variety of threats -such as land fragmentation- that have endangered the area in the past . Thus, the acquisition of Puchegüín represents not only an opportunity to protect the region’s ecological and cultural heritage, but also to ensure the integrity of one of the most important biological corridors in Latin America.

The campaign seeks to raise 78 million USD which, along with purchasing the entire property, will facilitate the planning and design of a conservation and management plan for the region , as well as fortify local infrastructure and services. The alliance aims to complete this project in phases over an estimated seven-year period.

Mountains of Cochamó

Puchegüín: a place of extreme ecological value for Chile and the world

The Puchegüín area, known the world over for its natural beauty and geologic grandeur, contains more than 58,000 hectares of primary forest – a resource disappearing at an alarming rate around the world. This figure includes 18,000 hectares of endangered alerce trees – one of the world's longest living species of trees – accounting for roughly 10% of the alerce habitat in Chile. These temperate forests contribute to transforming the region into a climatic refuge with its carbon sequestration capacity, the continent’s second-largest carbon sink, with Chilean Patagonia’s extensive forest cover, peatlands, and wetlands storing approximately twice the amount of carbon per hectare as the Amazon.

In addition, Puchegüín also encompasses an enormous reserve of freshwater and provides critical habitat for other endangered and endemic species such as the huemul, the Patagonian vizcacha, the Darwin’s frog, and the monito del monte, one of South America’s only marsupial.

Rivers of Cochamó

A locally-led initiative of sustainable cultural conservation and responsible economic development

Puchegüín is home to a unique mountain community with a deeply rooted Gaucho culture, characterized by horsemanship, agrarianism, and small-scale livestock farming. This initiative seeks to develop a model of sustainable economic growth that will support – not destroy – local traditions, culture, and ways of life. Building off of Puelo Patagonia’s local expertise and experience, Conserva Puchegüín not only centers the needs of the local communities as the foundation for any and all development, but also actively seeks their involvement . Conserva Puchegüín respects these communities’ long and successful tenure as stewards of this land, and recognizes their presence as a defense against irresponsible and unsustainable future development.

Thus, purchasing this property will generate a unique opportunity to develop a local economic model based on conservation and ecotourism , which will foster the types of sustainable businesses and trades linked to any new protected area – with the anticipated result being a reduction in poverty, an improvement of wellbeing, and a strengthening of the community’s social fabric.

Map of the area which Conserva Puchegüín aims to protect

Conserva Puchegüín : a unique alliance with a modern vision for the future of conservation

As far back as the early 2010s, NGOs in the Cochamó region have successfully halted a number of high-impact projects slated for this private property. Hacienda Puchegüín's 2022 sale listing sparked concern amongst local communities and conservation groups who have long protected the area, inciting fear that a new owner may lack the requisite knowledge or respect for the territory and its populace. Conserva Puchegüín was formed to combat this possibility. This alliance combines the deep knowledge and local experience of Puelo Patagonia with the global perspective and proven success in large-scale conservation and fundraising projects of The Nature Conservancy, Freyja Foundation, Patagonia Inc., and Wyss Foundation.

Andrés Diez, executive director of Puelo Patagonia, commented , “We are a group of organizations that share a dream: we want to conserve this critical land for its immense environmental and cultural value. For years, Puchegüín was threatened by projects with a different vision than the one held by the local community. This campaign is just the beginning of an even bigger project – a unique opportunity for Cochamó, the country and the world.”

Conserva Puchegüín now embarks on an extensive international campaign aimed at attracting potential donors to the initiative. Alongside international outreach, the alliance will continue to center local community members and authorities, encouraging their active participation and engagement in project design and planning.

The Nature Conservancy is a global conservation organization dedicated to conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends. Guided by science, we create innovative, on-the-ground solutions to our world’s toughest challenges so that nature and people can thrive together. We are tackling climate change, conserving lands, waters and oceans at an unprecedented scale, providing food and water sustainably and helping make cities more sustainable. Working in more than 70 countries and territories, we use a collaborative approach that engages local communities, governments, the private sector, and other partners. To learn more, visit nature.org or follow @nature_press on Twitter.