Framing the Values of Vernacular Architecture for a Value ...
18
sustainability Article Framing the Values of Vernacular Architecture for a Value-Based Conservation: A Conceptual Framework Obafemi A. P. Olukoya 1,2 Citation: Olukoya, O.A.P. Framing the Values of Vernacular Architecture for a Value-Based Conservation: A Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13094974 Academic Editors: Marc A. Rosen, Ana Pastor Pérez, David Barreiro Martínez and Eva Parga Dans Received: 18 March 2021 Accepted: 27 April 2021 Published: 29 April 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- iations. Copyright: © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1 Department of Environmental Planning, Brandenburg Technical University, 03046 Cottbus, Germany; [email protected] or [email protected] or [email protected] 2 Department of Research and Development, Olukoya Obafemi & Associates, 900241 Abuja, Nigeria Abstract: While a growing number of researchers have provided series of tough critiques of the typology-led heritage value assessment over the recent years, the impacts have been constrained by the continued obsession with expanding the list of the predetermined value typologies rather than escaping its limitations. While these sustained debates have provided important insights, this article argues that operationalizing these predetermined ‘one-size-fits-all’ value typologies is symptomatic of a number of shortcomings, especially in the context of capturing the pluralities of values in contextualized heritage such as vernacular architecture. It also often undermines inclusivity and participation in the valuing processes. However, rather than simply rejecting the values-based paradigm, this article proposes a conceptual value assessment framework that is informed by the theorization of vernacular architecture as a contextualized heritage. The proposed Vernacular Value Model (VVM) puts forward the ‘when(s)’ and ‘how(s)’ of amalgamating both technical and normative processes to capture the range of contextual values present in built vernacular heritage. To this end, this article posits that by drawing on such a proposed flexible framework, the conservation strategy for built vernacular heritage can be propagated as an inclusive and participatory process which captures the wide range of values for a more sustainable practices for conservation. Keywords: vernacular architecture; value typologies; value assessment; vernacular value framework 1. Introduction Heritage conservation is consistent with the understanding of sustainability as the reduction of environmental impact by preserving nonrenewable heritage resources, en- couraging the continued use of old buildings, maintaining social capital and generating economic resources while preserving the human skills and creativity inherent in cultural heritage resources [1]. In this regard, since the last recent decades, values-based approaches to heritage conservation have procured prime significance and dominated professional and academic conservation debates [2], (p. 1), [3]. It has been discussed under different appella- tions such as “value-based management” [4], (p. 27) “significance-driven approach” [5], “value-based assessment of cultural heritage” [5], (p. 77) or “values-based conservation” [5], (p. 5). To achieving the aim of this article however, ‘value-based conservation’ is adopted and defined as an approach which aims to identify, sustain and enhance the significance of a cultural heritage property. As such, since the value-based approach rose to prominence, protecting values has been central to the idea of conservation activity [2]. Therefore, value assessment has grown to become an imperative activity in determining the significance of heritage objects/places and the attendant conservation decisions [2,5]. By value assessment or evaluation, this article refers to assigning certain names to the perceived values of the material objects from the past. In this vein, the assessment process refers to two important aspects, namely: the object being evaluated and the name of the value assigned to it [6]. Cultural significance here is defined as the importance a heritage property determined by the totality of value attributed to the heritage [7], or in other words, the entirety of Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094974 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Transcript of Framing the Values of Vernacular Architecture for a Value ...
sustainability
Article
Framing the Values of Vernacular Architecture for aValue-Based Conservation: A Conceptual Framework
Obafemi A. P. Olukoya 1,2
�����������������
Citation: Olukoya, O.A.P. Framing
the Values of Vernacular Architecture
for a Value-Based Conservation: A
Conceptual Framework. Sustainability
2021, 13, 4974. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su13094974
Academic Editors: Marc A. Rosen,
Ana Pastor Pérez, David
Barreiro Martínez and Eva
Parga Dans
Received: 18 March 2021
Accepted: 27 April 2021
Published: 29 April 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1 Department of Environmental Planning, Brandenburg Technical University, 03046 Cottbus, Germany;[email protected] or [email protected] or [email protected]
2 Department of Research and Development, Olukoya Obafemi & Associates, 900241 Abuja, Nigeria
Abstract: While a growing number of researchers have provided series of tough critiques of thetypology-led heritage value assessment over the recent years, the impacts have been constrainedby the continued obsession with expanding the list of the predetermined value typologies ratherthan escaping its limitations. While these sustained debates have provided important insights,this article argues that operationalizing these predetermined ‘one-size-fits-all’ value typologies issymptomatic of a number of shortcomings, especially in the context of capturing the pluralities ofvalues in contextualized heritage such as vernacular architecture. It also often undermines inclusivityand participation in the valuing processes. However, rather than simply rejecting the values-basedparadigm, this article proposes a conceptual value assessment framework that is informed by thetheorization of vernacular architecture as a contextualized heritage. The proposed Vernacular ValueModel (VVM) puts forward the ‘when(s)’ and ‘how(s)’ of amalgamating both technical and normativeprocesses to capture the range of contextual values present in built vernacular heritage. To this end,this article posits that by drawing on such a proposed flexible framework, the conservation strategyfor built vernacular heritage can be propagated as an inclusive and participatory process whichcaptures the wide range of values for a more sustainable practices for conservation.
Keywords: vernacular architecture; value typologies; value assessment; vernacular value framework
1. Introduction
Heritage conservation is consistent with the understanding of sustainability as thereduction of environmental impact by preserving nonrenewable heritage resources, en-couraging the continued use of old buildings, maintaining social capital and generatingeconomic resources while preserving the human skills and creativity inherent in culturalheritage resources [1]. In this regard, since the last recent decades, values-based approachesto heritage conservation have procured prime significance and dominated professional andacademic conservation debates [2], (p. 1), [3]. It has been discussed under different appella-tions such as “value-based management” [4], (p. 27) “significance-driven approach” [5],“value-based assessment of cultural heritage” [5], (p. 77) or “values-based conservation” [5],(p. 5). To achieving the aim of this article however, ‘value-based conservation’ is adoptedand defined as an approach which aims to identify, sustain and enhance the significance ofa cultural heritage property. As such, since the value-based approach rose to prominence,protecting values has been central to the idea of conservation activity [2]. Therefore, valueassessment has grown to become an imperative activity in determining the significance ofheritage objects/places and the attendant conservation decisions [2,5]. By value assessmentor evaluation, this article refers to assigning certain names to the perceived values of thematerial objects from the past. In this vein, the assessment process refers to two importantaspects, namely: the object being evaluated and the name of the value assigned to it [6].Cultural significance here is defined as the importance a heritage property determinedby the totality of value attributed to the heritage [7], or in other words, the entirety of
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094974 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 2 of 18
constituents of ‘heritage values’ [3]. Recognizing this importance, values and its perceptionhas inspired a plethora of perspective and provided a locus for growing body research inrecent decades [2,8–13]. Informed by a predetermined perception of value, heritage expertsand institutions determine the value of heritage based on preconceived criteria called valuetypologies [5], (p. 5).
However, several years of assessing heritage values through the lens of predeterminedcriteria have demonstrated a handful of failures and relegated the understanding of heritagevalue to a partial and standardized one [3,14,15]. Predetermined criteria in this contextrefers to set of pre-selected value typologies and standards which are used as guidance orprinciple for evaluating the values of a heritage object or site. Based on these preselected list,judgment or decision as to what qualifies to be heritage or not are made by value assessors.In this regard, the last few decades have witnessed a growing number of academic heritagescholars who have provided staunch criticism of the typology-led value assessment andits consistent failure at capturing the complexity of heritage values for conservation. Inspite of the rising awareness (for example, [16–20]), comparatively, not sufficient researchadvancement has been made in the direction of valuing vernacular architecture specificallyas a cultural heritage typology.
As a point of departure, therefore this article advances the existing research awarenessby arguing that the established ‘one-size-fits-all’ value typologies are simply incompat-ible with capturing the holistic dimensions of contextualized cultural heritage such asvernacular architecture. By the term ‘one-size-fits-all’ this article simply refers to the innateassumption that the value of all heritage should operate within the published list of valueswithin the academic sphere as such, they are considered to be suitable for a wide range ofcontexts and cultural heritage typologies. Values that do not resonate with the publishedlist are therefore not considered or trivialized. As a result, this article argues that there is aneed for a different framework for framing the potential ranges of values in vernaculararchitecture for a sustainable value-based conservation practice. This argument proceedsfrom the fundamental assumption that vernacular architecture is a contextualized culturalheritage typology which is a product of contextual processes and practices of a people, bya people and for a people acting under a common heritage in a particular space and in aspecific time [21–32]. In this regard, its distinctiveness and entanglement with its social,cultural and environmental contexts put it in a position to reject predetermined typologies.
In the view of the outlined assumption, this article is tailored by the following researchquestions (1) what are the characterizations of tangible and intangible values in vernaculararchitecture? (2) what type of assessment framework can be used to assess and appropriatethe value characterization of vernacular architecture? Guided by the research questions andthe identified challenges of conferring predetermined value typologies on vernacular her-itage, the main aim of this article is to propose a value assessment framework as guidancefor assessing the ranges of values in vernacular architecture for value-based conservationpurposes. Value assessment framework in this case is a tool to be employed for amalga-mating both the normative participatory process and technical expert analysis procedurefor capturing the potential ranges of values in vernacular architecture for a sustainableand participatory value-based conservation. It is considered prudent at this juncture topoint out that economic values are not within the scope of this research. Economic valuesare considered to require different set of processes that have been well documented andwell-rehearsed both in recent literature and classic research (for example, [33,34]).
2. Methodology
To achieve the stated aim and structure the argumentations, this research is organizedinto four main aspects. The first aspect (Section 3) is the literature appraisal which is doneto describe the research background, terminologies, definitions and to identify the gapin knowledge as regards value and value assessment within the heritage discourse. Thisfirst aspect draws on secondary data collected through desk research and also text-basedreview [35,36]. The second aspect (Section 5) provides the conceptual framing of vernacular
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 3 of 18
architecture and its value characterization. This aspect also draws mainly on text-basedcontent analysis [35,37] of the theories and concepts of vernacular architecture and thecharacterization of its tangible and intangible values in books by prominent scholars mainlyPierre Bourdieu in: “The Logic of Practices” and Amos Rapoport in: “The Meaning ofthe Built Environment”, among others. Further elaborations on the choice of theories areprovided in Section 5. The third aspect is the development of the proposed VernacularValue Model (VVM).
The Section 5 is based on the conceptual framing described in aspect 2. The differentconstituent parts of the framework are highlighted and elaborated upon. The last aspect(Section 6) of this article draws on the discussion of the proposed framework to concludeand suggest recommendations on its empirical applications. The different aspects, theobjective, undertakings and methods of the research are explained in Table 1 below.
Table 1. The aim, objectives, undertakings and methods used to structure the article.
Aim To Propose a Value Assessment Framework as Guidance for Assessing the Ranges of Values inVernacular Architecture for Value-Based Conservation.
Aspects Objectives Undertakings Method
1. Background andthe State-of-the-art
(1). To define value typologies in the context ofheritage value assessment.(2). To determine the knowledge gap as regardsthe challenges associated with value typologiesin the value assessment process.
(1). Examine relevant literature (books,journals, articles, libraries and databases,etc.) to define value, value typology and itslimitations in the context of vernaculararchitecture.
LTR
2. ConceptualFraming
(1). Examine the conceptualization of vernaculararchitecture as contextualized heritage whichrejects universal value typologies.(2). Develop criteria and categories for the valuecharacterization of vernacular architecture.(3). To describe the criteria and their relations toas to determine the approach to the assessmentof each category.
(1). Search for appropriate author andtheory for conceptualizing vernaculararchitecture as contextualized heritage(2). Examine relevant theory for theorizingthe relationships between cultural practice,traditional process and form creation.(3). Search the literature to develop a set ofindicators and different categories of valuecharacterization
LTR/CA
3. Development ofthe VVM
(1). To develop a framework that demonstratesthe relationship between cultural practices,traditional processes in the creation ofvernacular form are the intangible and tangiblevalues in vernacular architecture.(2). To suggest the approach for assessing thevaluing the characterization of vernacular values(3). Suggest the participation approach for eachvalue characterization.(4). To develop the Vernacular Value Model byintegrating all the suggested fragments
(1). Search for appropriate documents tobuttress the assumptions concerning thefragments of the framework.(2). Search for an appropriateepistemological approach to assessing theassumptions about the value.(3). Search the criteria for selection ofparticipants for each level of valueassumptions.(4). Draft the vernacular value modelwhich incorporates all the fragment parts.
CA/DA
4. Conclusion Discuss the implication of results and suggest the recommendations on its empirical application for aparticipatory conservation approach for vernacular architecture.
LTR: Literature review, CA: Content Analysis, DA: Document Analysis.
3. Value, Value Typology and Value Assessment: A Rapid Literature Review
Mason [5], (p. 7) suggested that “values often evoke dual parallel senses: first, asmorals, principles or other ideas that serve as guides to action (individual and collective);and second, in reference to the qualities and characteristics seen in things, in particu-lar the positive characteristics (actual and potential)”. Adopting the second definition,heritage value in a narrow sense can also be understood in accordance with de la Torreand Mason [5], (p. 4) who described it as “a set of positive characteristics or qualitiesperceived in cultural objects or sites by certain individuals or groups”. In this regard,Avrami et al. [38], (p. 7) suggested that “the ultimate aim of conservation is not to conserve
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 4 of 18
material for its own sake but rather to maintain (and shape) the values embodied by theheritage—with physical interventions or treatment being one of many means towards thatend.” Buttressing this explanation, Munjeri [39] suggested that “I here point [out] that atthe heart of it all is the issue of values: our understanding of them; what to make of them;what to ascribe to them; all this determines the policies, strategies and practices’ that eithersave or condemn our cultural heritage.” (Cited in [15], p. 55). Thus, values and valuingprocesses play an irreducible role in identifying what constitutes heritage and it is “a veryimportant activity in any conservation effort, since values strongly shape the decisions thatare made” [5], (p. 5).
Therefore, in this logic, the effectiveness of a value-led conservation activity is to alarge extent dependent on the success of a value assessment which addresses what is to beprotected, how to protect it and the prioritization of actions. Mason and Avrami ([40], p. 15)also suggested that “clarifying what is meant when we speak of values is a necessary firststep in the explanation of values in conservation”. Given that the values representedby the cultural heritage remain complex and diverse, the last few years have witnessedan increasing debate about the values—embodied in and represented by—the culturalheritage and how these can be identified, assessed and evaluated [40]. While the origins offormalized values-based approaches within heritage management practices and policiesare considered to be the Burra Charter [41], (p. 51), [14], (p. 60), it has now grown todominate professional and academic conservation discourses [2], (p. 1).
3.1. The Idea of Value Typologies
To frame the values of heritage for value-led conservation, heritage experts andinstitutions determine the value of heritage based on limited preconceived criteria [5], (p. 5).These preconceived criteria are called ‘value typologies’ and are an effective guide tovalue characterization and provides a lingua franca in which values can be expressedand significance can be broken down into constituents [5], (p. 15). Suggesting further,Mason [5] argued that “finally, the typology is both an analytical tool and a way to advancewider participation in the planning process” [5], (p. 10). Walton [42] explained that “valuetypologies are indeed an interesting phenomenon, as all cultural significance assessmentmethodologies are aided by specified value categories or criteria” (cited in [12], p. 60). “Theuse of a well-tried set of criteria is also recommended” because “a typology of heritagevalues would be an effective guide to characterization [ . . . ] in which all parties’ valuescan be discussed” [4], (p. 9). Worthing and Bond [43] also buttressed these positions bysuggesting that in spite of the concerns and difficulties of value assessment, it is importantto work with a range of stated values, that is, it is essential to have a more definite referencepoint for measuring, articulating and justifying the case for suggesting that a particularplace is important and should be protected. Roders and van Oers [44], (p. 92) also explainedthat “[ . . . ] this typology of values was proposed to complement the four cultural values—historic, aesthetic/artistic, scientific and social values—recognized in UNESCO’s WorldHeritage Convention (1972, 2008) [ . . . ] as conveyed in cultural heritage assets”.
As such, there have been diverse attempts to categorize these heritage ‘value typolo-gies’ over the years. On the one hand, these typologies, in some cases are enshrined inlegislative contexts such the Australia Burra Charter [45], Heritage Collections Council [46]the English Heritage [47] and the ICOMOS New Zealand [48] which have institutionalizedvalue typologies and thus, typologies perform crucial institutional roles in formally des-ignating heritage [3], (p. 469). On the other hand, as early as the onset of the twentiethcentury, Riegl [9], was the protagonist who attempted to simplify and categorize valuesin heritage [16]. Subsequently, a growing number of academic writings have posited animmense variety of value categories over the years. Since Riegl [9], an ever-increasing num-ber of scholars have proposed various value typologies [4], [48], (p. 86), [49], (p. 57), [50],(p. 25) [51–53]. The summary of the various typologies of value that has been posited overthe years is illustrated in Table 2 below.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 5 of 18
Table 2. An overview of published value typologies for cultural heritage (Adapted from [3], (p.9,)and [5], (p. 468))
Author/Year Proposed Value Typologies
Riegl, 1901 Age; Historical; Commemorative; Use; Newness
Lipe, 1984 Economic; Aesthetic; Associative/Symbolic; Informational
Carver, 1996 Market Value Community Value Human Value
Capital/Estate;Production;Commercial;Residential
Amenity; Political;Minority/Disadvantaged/Descendant;Local Style
Environmental;Archeological
Frey, 1997 Monetary; Option; Existence; Bequest; Prestige; Educational values
Ashley, 1998 Economic; Informational; Cultural; Emotional; Existence values
Throsby, 2001 Aesthetic; Spiritual; Social; Historical; Symbolic; Authenticity values
Mason, 2002
Economic Sociocultural
use values. historicalnon-use values: cultural/symbolicexistence socialoption spiritual/religiousbequest aesthetic
Feilden, 2003 EmotionalValue Cultural Value Use Value
Wonder;Identity;Community;Spiritual andSymbolicvalues
Documentary; Historic; Archeological;Age and Scarcity; Aesthetic andSymbolic; Architectural; Townscape,Landscape and Ecological; Technologicaland Scientific
Functional; Economic; Social;Educational; Political andEthnic
Keene, 2005 Social; Aesthetic; Spiritual; Historical; Symbolic and Authenticity values
Appelbaum,2007
Art; Aesthetic; Historical; Use; Research; Age; Educational; Historic; Newness; Sentimental;Monetary; Associative; Commemorative; and Rarity
Orbaslı, (2008)Age and Rarity; Architectural; Artistic; Associative; Cultural; Economic; Educational;Emotional; Historic; Landscape; Local distinctiveness; Political; Public; Religious andSpiritual; Knowledge; Social; Symbolic; Technical; Townscape
Stubbs, 2009 Universal; Associative; Curiosity; Artistic; Exemplary; Intangible; Use
Gomez Robies,2010
Typological; Structural; Constructional; Functional; Aesthetic; Architectural; Historical;Symbolic
Szmelter,(2010) Cultural Contemporary/Socio-Economic
Identity; Emotive; Artistic/Technical,Evidence; Rarity; Administrative
Economic; Resources; Functional;Usefulness; Educational; Tourism; Social;Awareness; Political; Regime
Lertcharnrit,(2010) Informational; Educational; Symbolic; Economic; Entertaining/Recreational
Yung andChan, (2012) Economical Socio and Cultural Environmental and
Physical Political
economic viability sense of place and environmental community
job creationtourismcost efficiencycompliance withstatutory regulations
identitycontinuity ofsocial lifesocial cohesionandinclusiveness
performanceretain historical settingand patternsinfrastructuretownscape
participationsupportivepoliciestransparencyandaccountability
Gielen, et al.,(2014) economic cognitive health experience
As demonstrated in the literature review, a plethora of researchers have recommendedvarious lists of value typologies as lingua franca in which heritage values can be assessed
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 6 of 18
and significance can be broken down into constituents which form basis for heritagevalue appropriation. However, years of operationalizing these recommended lists hasdemonstrated a handful of failures at capturing contextualized values and at the sametime, it has heightened the hesitations heritage value assessors at articulating values notfitting into the preconceived scheme. However, the awareness of the challenges of thesevalue typologies is not new in research. Some of the criticisms, research advancements andgaps in the context of rural vernacular heritage which prompted this current research arereviewed and discussed in the next Sections 3.2 and 3.3.
3.2. Associative Challenges of Value Typologies
The traditional assessment methods which focus on discipline-specific value typolo-gies may fall short of revealing the stratified complex and intrinsic values held by thecommunity who own the stewardship of particular heritage and according to which it hasmodified the space and/or settlement [54,55]. It is important that those making decisionsare aware of the potential nature and range of values, especially in situations where thesevalues are not revealed by drawing on the standardized assessment techniques [56]. In thisregard, the typologies may simply trivialize the pivotal aspect of whom to involve in valueassessment, and how to negotiate the decision making that follows. The awareness of thisshortcoming is not new in research, it has generated diverse criticism in contemporaryresearch [15,57,58] for example. As a caveat, however, the literature sketch of the studieswhich have criticized value typologies in this section is not exhaustive as that will require abook-length treatment at the risk of leaving the focus of the article. Such criticisms includebut not limited to the following which are demonstrated in Table 3.
Table 3. Criticism of value typologies over the years.
Author Criticism of Value Typologies
Rudolff [15],(p. 60, 149)
“[ . . . ] presented typologies might help people articulate some value concepts—thoseclearly fitting into the respective categories—but at the same time aggravate reluctancesto articulate values not fitting into the scheme. This means that heritage professionals,entering a participatory value assessment process with a set of value typologies havealready pre-selected the value types they expect to hear”
Leif HaraldFredheim & ManalKhalaf, [3], (p. 465)
“Value typologies are often designed and implemented without understanding theimplicit consequences of the inclusion and omission of values [ . . . ] and thus resultingin decisions being based on implicit, rather than explicit, value assessments in practice”.
Avrami et al. [38],(p. 8)
“Though the typologies of different scholars and disciplines vary, they each represent areductionist approach to examining very complex issues of cultural significance”.
Mason [5], (p. 10)
“Typologies implicitly minimize some kinds of value, elevate others, or foregroundconflicts between the cultivation of certain values at the expense of others”. This is incoherence with the observation of Rudolff ([12], p. 60, 147) who argued that [ . . . ]heritage professionals, entering a participatory value assessment process with a set ofvalue typologies have already pre-selected the value types they expect to hear”
Stephenson, [56],(p. 128, 137–138)
“It is apparent that the application of assessment typologies may also fail to reflect thenature and range of values expressed by those who feel they ‘belong’ to the landscape [. . . ] Traditional landscape assessment methods which focus on discipline-specificvalue typologies may fall short of revealing the richness and diversity of cultural valuesin landscapes heldby insiders”.
Nara Documenton Authenticity,[59], (p. 9, 11)
“[ . . . ] All judgements about values attributed to heritage [ . . . ] may differ fromculture to culture and even within the same culture. It is therefore not possible to basejudgements of value [ . . . ] on fixed criteria.” (Cited in [15], p. 57).
Stephenson [56],(p. 129) andEmerick [60],(p. 225)
They also suggested that value typology has the tendency to be driven bynon-Aboriginal global society and national values in contrast to local and regionalAboriginal values that are not ‘authorized’ may be delegitimized. Thus, theoperationalized ‘authorization’ of value operationalizes implicit professionalpreference and may cause the impoverishing of heritage [60], (p. 225), [61], (p. 36), [62]
Affelt, [6], (p. 10)
“the valuation itself will bear the mark of such expert, depending on the methodologyused, personality traits stemming from the expert’s knowledge and experience inevaluation procedures, his aesthetic sensitivity, the ability of lateral thinking andemotional attitude towards the object of research” [6], (p. 10) “rather than integratingthe values of people” [6] cited in [63], (p. 756).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 7 of 18
As demonstrated above, a growing number of researchers have provided a series oftough critiques of the typology-led heritage value assessment over the recent years. Someof the proposed alternatives to the value typologies are as follows.
3.3. Proposed Alternatives to Value Typologies?
Stephenson [59] proposed the Cultural Values Model (CVM) as a response to theperceived shortcomings of value typologies in the management of heritage landscapesin New Zealand. The model classified landscapes into ‘forms’, ‘relationships’ and ‘prac-tices’ [59], (p. 134). However, study [3], (p. 473) explained that “while the potential forapplying the Cultural Values Model to other types of heritage is compelling, it does notidentify why features are significant”. Against this identified weakness, study [3], (p. 476)suggested a framework for assessing and communicating the significance of the value of asite. However, while their position remains one of the most significant progressions againstvalue typologies, the proposed framework does not concern itself with how to value aheritage, how to ensure participatory process or how to make decisions which does notfavors a particular value in the sight of an expert over that of the community members andstakeholder. The framework only premises three steps to identifying significance.
Furthermore, Rudolff [15] suggested a more theoretical argumentation as to whyvalue should not be universalized by drawing on Thomas [64]. While her argumentationremains compelling, it somewhat circumvents precise focus on non-official heritage sitessuch as places without statements of Outstanding Universal Value and the approach doesnot demonstrate the empirical means of overcoming the challenge value typologies. Addi-tionally worth mentioning is Worthing and Bond, [43], (p. 74–76) who suggested that thedemocratization of value typologies in the decision making of the valuing process is veryimportant. The impacts of the proposed participatory process as a means of overcomingdeterminism in value typologies are again constrained by the set of value typologies whichhave already been pre-selected and expect to hear on the field [56], (p. 128), [60,65]. Asexplained by Stephenson [59], a few sites may have ‘universal’ or ‘outstanding’ values,but other heritage sites will be valued in multiple ways by those people who are closelyassociated with them. “It is important that those making decisions affecting landscapes areaware of the potential nature and range of cultural values, particularly where these valuesare not accounted for using standardized landscape assessment techniques” [59], (p. 127).
As demonstrated in the overview, the impact of the awareness has been constrainedby several factors. On the one hand, the impact has been limited by a narrow focus onexpanding the list of the predetermined value typologies by proposing newer ones [66–73].On the other hand, the impacts of the awakened awareness have been constrained by thelack of precise focus on the methodological issues of how to abandon preconceived ideasthrough a participatory framework. In addition, it is important to mention that since therecognition of cultural landscape as a category of heritage property by the World HeritageCommittee in 1992 [74,75], vernacular architecture has risen to prominence and a numberof research have been done in this direction within the heritage sphere. Nonetheless, ascompared with other elitist cultural heritage, not sufficient advancement has been made inthe direction of valuing rural vernacular architecture. Therefore, the following section isconcerned with making a case for vernacular architecture within the heritage discourseand the need for a contextual framework which can potentially be applied as a basis forvaluing vernacular heritage which has been identified to be trivialized and treated with aone-size-fit-all approach.
3.4. The Case for Valuing Vernacular Architecture
This article draws on the definition of vernacular architecture according to a study [76]which defines it as buildings that are regionally representative, regionally distinctive andregionally understood [76]. By extension, this definition includes the architecture of aprecinct and/or a people or of an ethnic group, who lives in a particular geographicallocation [77], (p. 4). The ‘contextualized’ dimension of this typology of cultural heritage is
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 8 of 18
described by a study [78], (p. 132) which explains that it is a “communal art, not producedby a few intellectuals or specialist but by the spontaneous and continuing activity of awhole people with a common heritage, acting under a community experience.” Againstthis background, vernacular architecture emerges from the ‘genius loci’ which is the ‘beingto the place’ and of the sense of ‘being of the place’ [79].
Having given a background to the simple dimension of vernacular architecture, itis important to reiterate that such everyday heritage has long been trivialized within thewhole idea of heritage valuing processes. In line with this argument, for example, theframework laid down in the Venice Charter of 1964 places substantive focus on the coursesof action that were acceptable on how to protect ‘monuments’ and works of art rather thanthe more ‘every day and other’ heritage. Illustrating this point is the article 3 which stated,“intention in conserving and restoring monuments is to safeguard them no less as worksof art than as historical evidence” [80], (p. 1). However, in the latter part of the 1960s andthrough the 1970s there was an increasing awareness for the inclusion and importanceof the ‘everyday’ and the ‘other’ cultural heritage which were not considered importantunder the criteria of art history [43]. Additionally, it is important to mention that since therecognition of cultural landscape as a category of heritage property by the World HeritageCommittee in 1992 [74,75], vernacular architecture has risen to prominence and a numberof international documents have been published in this direction within the heritage sphere.Example of such international awareness and advancement in the direction of vernaculararchitecture and diversity of values within the heritage sphere are [81–83]. However, themost significant breakthrough concerning vernacular architecture as a typology of culturalheritage was evidenced by the ICOMOS Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage [21],(p. 1) which explained that: “The built vernacular heritage [ . . . ] is the fundamentalexpression of the culture of a community, of its relationship with its territory and, at thesame time, the expression of the world’s cultural diversity. Vernacular building is thetraditional and natural way by which communities house themselves. It is a continuingprocess including necessary changes and continuous adaptation as a response to socialand environmental constraints” This document remains the most referred internationaldebate which acknowledges the intangible dimensions, rootedness and autochthonousauthenticity of vernacular heritage and why its value is context-dependent. In this regard,its distinctiveness and rootedness with its contextual social, cultural and environmentalparameters put it in a position to reject predetermined typologies. To assess its values forconservation purposes, this article argues that there is a need for a framework which ispremised on this theoretical understanding of vernacular architecture, such that it can beapplied as a lingua franca for assessing its values with the community who created andown its stewardship. Therefore, the first fundamental question in this article is: what is thecharacterization of the values of vernacular architecture?
4. Conceptual Framing and Framework Development4.1. Guiding Contexts for Valuing Vernacular Architecture: The Practice, Process and the Form
Beyond the simplistic characterization of vernacular architecture which suggeststhat it is responsive to place, people and time, vernacular architecture is also a tangi-ble heritage (form) which is forged in the presence of intangible cultural processes andpractices [84], (p. 151), [85], (p. 46). To operationalize this description, three guidingcontexts are adopted based on the appraisal of relative literature on vernacular architecturecharacterization [28,86–96], for example. From the literature review, three guiding contextsnamely: ‘practice’, ‘processes and ‘form’ are the three analytic categories that are adoptedas a guide to analyze and tailor the relationships of the tangible and intangible values inthe built vernacular heritage [86–96]. Furthermore, to tailor the description of the guidingcategories, they are divided into two broad dimensions namely: the static and the dynamicdimension. Table 4 demonstrates the three guiding contexts, the brief explanations andthe value characterization of each. The static dimension deals with understanding theconstituents of tangible material form which is recognized as vernacular architecture. The
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 9 of 18
dynamic dimension premises the understanding of the evolutionary and generational prac-tice and process and their interrelations in the evolutionary process of creating vernaculararchitecture (see Table 4).
Table 4. The three guiding contexts: practice, process and form for analyzing value relationships invernacular architecture.
Dimensions GuidingContexts Characterization and Indicators Value
Characterization
StaticDimension Form
The tangible, measurable aspect of vernaculararchitecture otherwise known as a materialsymbol (cosmological or esotericanthropomorphic) or objectification of processand practice of a people (Bellushi, 1955;Rapoport, 1969; Rudofsky, 1965; Niels Fock,1986; Griaule and Dieterlen, 1954; ICOMOS,1999; Oliver, 1997)
Tangible andIntangible value
DynamicDimension
Process
The concept of ‘process’ provides a means bywhich we can begin to explore a typologicallyambiguous and hybrid-built environment.The human-nonhuman relationship, the man-landscape dialogue which informs thecreation of the vernacular architecture(Rapoport, 1969; Levi-strauss, 1982; Stender,2017; ICOMOS, 1999)
Intangible value
Practice
The person-to-person tradition informedrelationship drawing on a common culturaland heritage capital to construct a vernacularbuilding (Durckheim, 1925; Rassers, 1940;Schefold, 1997; Griaule and Dieterlen, 1954;Morgan, 1965; Karakul, 2007)
Intangible value
Concerning how these three aspects interrelate to emerge as tangible and intangiblevalues, this research draws on Karakul [84] who explained explicitly how two main the-oretical approaches namely the structuralist approach of Bourdieu [97] and the semioticapproach of Rapoport [98], respectively, are of importance in such case. It is important tomention that this study draws theoretical explanation draws considerably on the extensivetheoretical explanation of Karakul [84,85]. As illustrated in Figure 1, the vernacular societydraws cultural practices in the presence of environmental constraints and opportunities toengage in the process of building the vernacular form. In this logic, therefore vernaculararchitecture represents the ‘form’ which is an embodiment expressing the processes andpractices (based on Karakul [84]).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 10 of 18Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Figure 1. Illustrating the dialogue between the practice, process and the form (Adapted based on Karakul 2007 based on Rapoport 1982 and Bourdieu 1990).
4.2. Approach to Assessing Vernacular Value Characterizations The described value characterization of vernacular architecture has two implications
(among others) on assessing its values. First, the values of vernacular architecture are not universal, static, equal, self-evident and absolute, instead, it is a dynamic intrinsic abstraction which varies from context to context. Thus, the approach which is known as ‘situational analysis’ [97], (p. 54), [99,100] would be beneficial in this context. Second, a dialogical framework for integrating both experts and community members in a vernacular setting (stakeholders, associations as well as representatives of the public) to address the localized and nuanced value of vernacular heritage would be beneficial. In this logic, valuing vernacular architecture requires an approach which integrates both normative and technical process. That is, the heritage experts on the one hand, and the community members on the other as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. A conceptual approach to valuing the vernacular.
In the view of these implications and assumptions, the distinction between emic and etic is adopted as a mainstay for the argument in this research. These terms designate two levels of analysis; “An emic model is one which explains the ideology or behavior of
Figure 1. Illustrating the dialogue between the practice, process and the form (Adapted based on Karakul 2007 based onRapoport 1982 and Bourdieu 1990).
4.2. Approach to Assessing Vernacular Value Characterizations
The described value characterization of vernacular architecture has two implications(among others) on assessing its values. First, the values of vernacular architecture arenot universal, static, equal, self-evident and absolute, instead, it is a dynamic intrinsicabstraction which varies from context to context. Thus, the approach which is known as‘situational analysis’ [97], (p. 54), [99,100] would be beneficial in this context. Second, adialogical framework for integrating both experts and community members in a vernacularsetting (stakeholders, associations as well as representatives of the public) to address thelocalized and nuanced value of vernacular heritage would be beneficial. In this logic,valuing vernacular architecture requires an approach which integrates both normativeand technical process. That is, the heritage experts on the one hand, and the communitymembers on the other as illustrated in Figure 2.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Figure 1. Illustrating the dialogue between the practice, process and the form (Adapted based on Karakul 2007 based on Rapoport 1982 and Bourdieu 1990).
4.2. Approach to Assessing Vernacular Value Characterizations The described value characterization of vernacular architecture has two implications
(among others) on assessing its values. First, the values of vernacular architecture are not universal, static, equal, self-evident and absolute, instead, it is a dynamic intrinsic abstraction which varies from context to context. Thus, the approach which is known as ‘situational analysis’ [97], (p. 54), [99,100] would be beneficial in this context. Second, a dialogical framework for integrating both experts and community members in a vernacular setting (stakeholders, associations as well as representatives of the public) to address the localized and nuanced value of vernacular heritage would be beneficial. In this logic, valuing vernacular architecture requires an approach which integrates both normative and technical process. That is, the heritage experts on the one hand, and the community members on the other as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. A conceptual approach to valuing the vernacular.
In the view of these implications and assumptions, the distinction between emic and etic is adopted as a mainstay for the argument in this research. These terms designate two levels of analysis; “An emic model is one which explains the ideology or behavior of
Figure 2. A conceptual approach to valuing the vernacular.
In the view of these implications and assumptions, the distinction between emic andetic is adopted as a mainstay for the argument in this research. These terms designate
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 11 of 18
two levels of analysis; “An emic model is one which explains the ideology or behavior ofmembers of a culture according to indigenous definitions. An etic model is one which isbased on criteria from outside a particular culture” [101] cited in [92], (p. 31). Supportingthis emic model and the need for involvement of the community, Heath [76] suggestedthat with the unconscious cognizance born of familiarity, a local community member is attimes not aware of the multiple dynamics at play in the creation of vernacular architecture.On the other hand, the attuned outsider which he describes as the ‘empathetic outsider’(but in this case, described as the ‘academic heritage expert’), due to the separateness ofthe experts from the locale, the vernacular setting is likely to describe from a critical pointof contradiction. Thus, the viewpoint adopted in this research borrows from both ends ofthis spectrum, that is, an etic and emic model is adopted for assessing the values. This is acombination of full involvements of both the perception of the local communities (emicand radical empiricism) and interpreting it through a secondhand experiential approachcontingent on scientific understanding (etic model).
5. Results and Discussion: Developing the Vernacular Value Model (VVM)
Against the given overview of vernacular architecture, this section aims to describethe components of the proposed framework which are compatible with the understandingof vernacular architecture according to this study. To achieve the drawn aim therefore, theproposed framework incorporates three conceptual fragments which are informed by aproposed four distinct levels of value categories. It is worth mentioning that most, if notall of the concepts used in this framework have been theorized and documented on theirown, in separate disciplines [102] but they have not been brought to bear with the expresspurpose of heritage value assessment.
Having given the background, therefore, the various fragments of the framework arediscussed firstly according to, concepts, epistemologies and operationalization. The termconcept in this regard refers to three guiding contexts described in the previous section;epistemology in this context refers to the sets of analytical lenses that are applied forassessing the concepts and lastly, operationalization refers to the mode of participation usedto operationalize the analytical models [102]. As summarized in Table 5, the conceptualpart of this framework is organized by the form, process and practice. The first aspecthinges on the material dimension of vernacular architecture which is termed the ‘form’.This is the material aspect of vernacular heritage which contains the attributes upon whichthe values are expressed and as such, drawn.
Table 5. The different fragments of the proposed model.
Concept Epistemology/Analytical Model Operationalization
Form Etic Disciplinary experts: Outsider
Process Emic Community and stakeholder: Insider
Practice Emic + etic Disciplinary experts, community andstakeholders: Insider and Outsider
The second aspect is the ‘process’ which is the human—nonhuman dialogue andinteraction between nature and culture in the creation of vernacular spaces. The thirdaspect of the framework is the ‘practice’ encapsulates the person-to-person relationships,customs and traditions, drawing on cultural capital upon which vernacular architecturewas created. Concerning the epistemologies, this is guided by the described individualconcepts, thus, the analytical model for assessing these concepts is contingent on the twobroad categories namely the etic and emic models [92,101]. In this proposed framework, itis argued that the material aspect of vernacular architecture can be interpreted through an‘outsider’ secondhand experience by drawing on disciplinary expertise. In other words,this aspect draws on the technical/positivist approach to assess it objectively. It is the firstlevel of inquiry in the proposed framework which requires lesser participation and thus, it
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 12 of 18
is the analytical model proposed to be suitable for the ‘form’ aspect and the identification ofmaterial attributes of the vernacular architecture. On the other hand, the emic model is onewhich explains the ideology or behavior of members of a culture according to indigenousperception. As such, to ‘interpret’ the process and practice aspect of the framework, itrequires the abandoning of preconception and necessitates the radical involvement of thecommunity and stakeholders who own the stewardship of the heritage and culture.
Therefore, having given the background to the concepts and analytical models itis important to describe the operationalization which is the participation approach asdescribed in Table 5. In this context, the disciplinary experts who are charged with the valueassessment are termed ‘outsiders’ while the owners of the heritage stewardship, otherwisegenerically called community is termed ‘insiders’. Furthermore, an insider in this contextbroadly incorporates stakeholder, organized interest. Hall and McArthur, [103] definedthe notion of stakeholders “as all individuals, group, organization and association thathas a common interest in heritage issue or can affect or be influenced by actions and non-actions taken to resolve the issue” (cited in [104], p. 384). In this regard, Mason [5], (p. 17)suggested that concerning involvement in assessment of values, “the simplest politicalguideline is trying, as a matter of equity and accuracy, to work toward wide participationand account for the views of all the relevant valuers”.
Having given the background to the determining fragments of the proposed frame-work, to appropriate the valuing process and the potential challenges, hypothetical cate-gories of value characterizations are developed. These categories are to be synthesized atthe end of the assessment procedure to develop a holistic unit of the value in the vernaculararchitecture. These categories are namely; (1) simple; (2) Complex; (3) Uncertain. It isimperative to mention that this categorization is adapted from Renn [102]. Table 6 demon-strates the different categories and how they relate to the explained concept, epistemologyand operationalization.
Table 6. Summary of the fragment of the framework and how they interrelate (adapted based onRenn, 2008).
ValueCharacterization
Assumptions onCharacterization
ConceptualIndicator
EpistemologicalApproach
Operationalization:Level ofParticipation
SimpleBased on materialevidence of thevernacular form
Form Positivist/technical/expert interpretive
Disciplinaryexperts
Complex
Based on synergisticvalues which are notevident or striking.There are tendencies forstochastic effects(variation of perceptions)due to the differentunderstanding of thesynergies between thetangible and theintangible
Form/Process Normative/radicalempiricism
Community andstakeholder
Uncertain
These are transitional/generation dependentintrinsic values. Theseare unspoken/temporal/abstract values based onthe congruence of theform, the process and thepractice in a particularsetting.
Form/Process/practice
Normative/radicalempiricism andpositivistparadigm.
Disciplinaryexperts,community andstakeholders
As shown in Table 6, the simple category is the hypothetical class of values that hardlyrequires any deviation from traditional scientific inference. It is of paramount importance tomention that the word simple is not used here in the literary dictionary sense to mean trivial,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 13 of 18
small or negligible. It only helps determine the first level of involvement and participation.This category is determined by the form aspect of the described concepts and uses the eticanalytical model, and it is guided by material evidence based on attributable attributes. Inthis case, the judgment of the attributable architectural features will thus be based on thebest scientific understanding of material attributes and quantitative characterization [102].Additionally, disciplinary experts can draw on best practices to determine this categorywith little or no community interference.
The complex category refers to values are based on the attempted interpretation of theattributes found in the ‘form’ aspect. That is, while the evidence of what is at stake is clearlygiven, the judgment needs to be based on a dialectical discourse between the disciplinaryexpert(s) and the community about values and their implications. It is thus guided by theemic level of the analytical model and it requires a combination of both disciplinary expertsand the community members. This can be considered what phenomenologists considereda combination of radical empiricism and secondhand experience [92]. This hypotheticalvalue is contingent on both the form and process aspects of the described concepts. Inaddition, the term complex should not be interpreted in its literary context and it does notattempt to elevate these values above any other. It is simply used as the next step after thesimple category which has been described.
Lastly, the uncertain category is based on ambiguities on both perceived values andthe attributable evidence [105]. That is, this case arises on the innate assumption that thevalues in this category are disputable, temporal, transitional and generation dependent.This category is based on the unknown, the less striking and salient which is informed bythe practices of the people. This would imply that assessors should engage in an activity tofind some common ground for characterizing and qualifying the evidence and establisha synthesis of both the simple and complex categories. In this case, the combination ofboth the interpretative and normative implications is useful (Ibid). Thus, it involves acombination of both the emic and the etic analytical model.
Therefore, as the last step on how to unify the various fragments of the frameworkand operationalize its constituent parts, Figure 3 was developed. The framework illustratesthe various hypothetical value categories, the analytical model used to access it and thelevels of participation envisaged to be required.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19
Figure 3. Proposed ‘Vernacular Value Model’ for assessing values of vernacular architecture.
6. Conclusions and Recommendation The appraisal of the literature in this article demonstrated that discipline-specific
value typologies have been symptomatic of a number of shortcomings in the context of capturing the ranges of values present in cultural heritage. The prevailing limitations of value typology are even more aggravated in the context of capturing the ranges of values in contextual heritage such as built vernacular heritage whose rootedness and autochthonous authenticity place it in a position to rejects one-size-fits-all typologies. By drawing on literature review, this article demonstrated that built vernacular heritage is a form which is created by the processes of a people in a specific location who drew on a particular cultural practice in the presence of the abundance of their climatic and topographical constraints and opportunities to meet their physical and social needs [21,32,75–96] Thus, it is a cultural heritage which is firmly rooted in its place and as such, the understanding of its value is firmly enshrined in the people that created it and own its stewardship in time. In this regard, value assessment in a vernacular settlement will, therefore, require the abandonment of preconceived criteria that privileges certain heritage values over the others.
As a point of departure, therefore this article argued that there is a need for a framework which is in coherence with this rooted characterization of vernacular architecture. Hence, this article proposes an integrative framework for value assessment in the case of vernacular architecture. The proposed Vernacular Value Model (VVM) integrate the following components: • Presents a robust and coherent characterization for the values of vernacular
architecture. • Abandons determinism and aims at discovering the unknown value rather than
inquire for values through the preconceived list of academic value typologies. • Premises approach to the ‘when’ and ‘how’ of creating synergies between the
perceptions of values according to disciplinary experts and community members to address the complexities and nuanced dimensions of value in vernacular architecture.
Figure 3. Proposed ‘Vernacular Value Model’ for assessing values of vernacular architecture.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 14 of 18
6. Conclusions and Recommendation
The appraisal of the literature in this article demonstrated that discipline-specificvalue typologies have been symptomatic of a number of shortcomings in the context ofcapturing the ranges of values present in cultural heritage. The prevailing limitations ofvalue typology are even more aggravated in the context of capturing the ranges of values incontextual heritage such as built vernacular heritage whose rootedness and autochthonousauthenticity place it in a position to rejects one-size-fits-all typologies. By drawing onliterature review, this article demonstrated that built vernacular heritage is a form which iscreated by the processes of a people in a specific location who drew on a particular culturalpractice in the presence of the abundance of their climatic and topographical constraintsand opportunities to meet their physical and social needs [21,32,75–96] Thus, it is a culturalheritage which is firmly rooted in its place and as such, the understanding of its value isfirmly enshrined in the people that created it and own its stewardship in time. In this regard,value assessment in a vernacular settlement will, therefore, require the abandonment ofpreconceived criteria that privileges certain heritage values over the others.
As a point of departure, therefore this article argued that there is a need for a frame-work which is in coherence with this rooted characterization of vernacular architecture.Hence, this article proposes an integrative framework for value assessment in the caseof vernacular architecture. The proposed Vernacular Value Model (VVM) integrate thefollowing components:
• Presents a robust and coherent characterization for the values of vernacular architecture.• Abandons determinism and aims at discovering the unknown value rather than
inquire for values through the preconceived list of academic value typologies.• Premises approach to the ‘when’ and ‘how’ of creating synergies between the percep-
tions of values according to disciplinary experts and community members to addressthe complexities and nuanced dimensions of value in vernacular architecture.
As such, the proposed conceptual VVM advances the existing valuing approachesby drawing on a theory-based approach on vernacular architecture and its values. Theconceptual framework is inclusive of perceptions founded in disciplinary methodologies byadopting two analytical models which are the classical etic and emic anthropological mod-els. In this regard, the framework is integrative for addressing the potential range of valueswhich are plausible in a built vernacular heritage. The proposed VVM also illustrates therange of ways in which disciplinary experts and communities can integrate the perceivedvalues present in the vernacular architecture ensemble in the value assessment process.
It is important to mention that this proposed framework does not entertain the pre-tension of being a perfect model, however, it has a potential to be applied as a tool formediating and facilitating discussion in various heritage contexts. It premises how tointegrate both experts and community members in a heritage setting (stakeholders, associ-ations as well as representatives of the public) to address the localized and nuanced valueof heritage. Such approach is recommended in the UNESCO Recommendation on HistoricUrban Landscape (HUL) approach [106], (p. 4) and in this regard, the proposed frameworkcan be applied as a civic engagement tool to involve a diverse cross-section of stakeholders,to facilitate intercultural dialogue by learning from communities about their traditions,histories, values and negotiation of conflicting interests. The proposed framework can alsobe used “to reach consensus using participatory planning and stakeholder consultationson what values to protect for transmission to future generations and to determine theattributes that carry these values” [107], (p. 13) as recommended in the step 2 of the HULapproach [107]. Thus, the proposed tool has the potential to be applied in a variety ofheritage situations, especially cross-cultural applications. Furthermore, it might also behelpful to extend this framework in assessing rural landscapes where the view of touristscould be compared and used in the framework.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 15 of 18
Funding: This research is an excerpt of a PhD research funded by the German Academic Exchange(DAAD) under the auspice of Graduate School Scholarship Programme (2016) at BrandenburgTechnical University, Cottbus, Germany.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This article does not involve human or animal.
Informed Consent Statement: This article does not involve human or animal.
Data Availability Statement: This article did not report any data.
Acknowledgments: I would like to acknowledge the unwavering constructive scrutiny of my thesisSupervisor at the Chair of Environmental Planning and the inputs of the UNESCO Chair in HeritageStudies at Brandenburg Technical University, Germany
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References1. Cassar, M. Sustainable Heritage: Challenges and Strategies for the Twenty-First Century. APT Bulletin. J. Preserv. Technol. 2009,
40, 3–11.2. Avrami, E.; Macdonald, S.; Mason, R.; Myers, D. Introcution. In Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Approaches and Research
Directions; Avrami, E., Macdonald, S., Mason, R., Myers, D., Eds.; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2019.Available online: http://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/2384/1/9781606066195.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2021).
3. Fredheim, H.; Khalaf, M. The significance of values: Heritage value typologies re-examined. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2016, 22, 466–481.[CrossRef]
4. Stovel, H. A significance-driven approach to the development of the historic structure report. APT Bull. J. Preserv. Technol. 1997,28, 45–47. [CrossRef]
5. Mason, R. Assessing values in conservation planning: Methodological issues and choices. In Assessing the Values of CulturalHeritage; de la Torre, M., Ed.; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 5–30.
6. Affelt, W.J. Technitas method for assessment of the values attributed to cultural heritage of technology. In How to Assess BuiltHeritage? Assumptions, Methodologies, Examples of Heritage Assessment Systems; Szmygin, B., Ed.; International Scientific Committeefor Theory and Philosophy of Conservation and Restoration ICOMOS Romualdo Del Bianco Foundatione Lublin University ofTechnology Florence: Lublin, Poland, 2015; ISBN 978-83-940280-3-9.
7. De la Torre, M.; Mason, R. Introduction. In Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA,USA, 2002; pp. 3–4.
8. Satterfield, T. Numbness and sensitivity in the elicitation of environmental values. In Assessing Values in Heritage Conservation; dela Torre, M., Ed.; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 77–99.
9. Riegl, A. The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin. Oppositions 1982, 25, 21–51.10. Lipe, W.D. Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources. In Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage: A Comparative Study of World
Cultural Resource Management Systems; Cleere, H., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1984; pp. 1–11.11. English Heritage. Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment; English
Heritage: London, UK, 2008.12. ICOMOS Australia. The Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter);
ICOMOS Australia: Sydney, Australia, 1999.13. Frey, B.S. The Evaluation of Cultural Heritage: Some Critical Issues. In Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage; Hutter, M.,
Rizzo, I., Eds.; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 1997.14. Ashley-Smith, J. Risk Assessment for Object Conservation; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1999.15. Rudolff, B. Intangible” and “Tangible” Heritage: A Topology of Culture in Contexts of Faith. Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Geography,
and Faculty for Chemistry, Pharmacy and Geo-Sciences (09), Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany, 2006.16. Lamprakos, M. Riegl’s Modern Cult of Monuments and the Problem of Value. Chang. Over Time 2014, 4, 418–435. [CrossRef]17. Navrud, S. Willingness to Pay for Preservation of Species—An Experiment with Actual Payments. In Pricing the European
Environment. Oslo; Navrud, S., Ed.; Scandinavian University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 231–246.18. Powe, N.A.; Willis, K.G. Benefits received by visitors to heritage sites: A case study of Warkworth Castle. Leis. Stud. 1996,
15, 259–275. [CrossRef]19. Carson, R.T.; Mitchell, R.C.; Conaway, M.B. Economic benefits to foreigners visiting Morocco accruing from the rehabilitation of
the Fes Medina. In Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments andArtifacts; Navrud, S., Ready, R.C., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Northampton, UK, 2002; Volume 1, pp. 18–41.
20. Salazar SD, S.; Marques, J.M. Valuing cultural heritage: The social benefits of restoring and old Arab tower. J. Cult. Herit. 2005,6, 69–77. [CrossRef]
21. ICOMOS. Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage. 1999. Available online: www.international.icomos.org/charters.htm (accessedon 7 April 2018).
22. Daniel, M. Crossing Boundaries: Revisiting the Thresholds of Vernacular Architecture. Vernac. Archit. 2010, 41, 10–14. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 16 of 18
23. Crinson, M.; Dynamic Vernacular—An Introduction. ABE J. Archit. Beyond Eur. 2016. Available online: https://journals.openedition.org/abe/3002 (accessed on 12 March 2019).
24. Oliver, P. Built to Meet Needs: Cultural Issues in Vernacular Architecture; Oxford Architectural Press: Oxford, UK, 2006.25. Aysan, Y. An Understanding of the Vernacular Discourse. Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford, UK, 1988. Unpublished.26. Robert, P.; Alain, R. Dictionnaire Alphabétique et Analogique de la Langue Française, 2nd ed.; Le Robert: Paris, France, 1985.27. Özkan, S.; Turan, M.; Üstünkök, O. Institutionalized Architecture, Vernacular Architecture and Vernacularism in Historical
Perspective. METU J. Fac. Archit. 1979, 5, 127–156.28. Frey, P. Learning from Vernacular: Towards a New Vernacular Architecture; Actes Sud: Arles, France, 2010.29. Collins, P. Changing ideals in Modern Architecture; Faber and Faber: London, UK, 1965; pp. 122–123.30. Guillaud, H. Defining vernacular architecture. In Versus Heritage for Tomorrow. Vernacular Knowledge for Sustainable Architecture;
Correia, M., Dipasquale, L., Mecca, S., Eds.; Firenze University Press: Florence, Italy, 2014; pp. 32–33. Available online:https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/54599448.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2019).
31. Oliver, P. Handed Down Architecture: Tradition and Transmission. In Dwellings, Settlements and Tradition: Cross-CulturalPerspectives; Bourdier, J., AISayyad, N., Eds.; University Press of America: Lanham, MD, USA, 1989; pp. 53–76.
32. Highlands, D. What’s Indigenous? An Essay on Building. In Vernacular Architecture: Paradigms of Environmental Response;Turan, M., Ed.; Avebury: Aldershot, UK, 1990.
33. Noonan, D.S. Contingent Valuation Studies in the Arts and Culture: An Annotated Bibliography; Working Paper 11; University ofChicago Cultural Policy Center: Chicago, IL, USA, 2002.
34. Noonan, D.S. Contingent valuation and cultural resources: A meta-analytic review of literature. J. Cult. Econ. 2003, 27, 159–176.[CrossRef]
35. Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004.36. Dawson, C. Practical Research Methods: A User-Friendly Guide to Mastering Research Techniques and Projects; How to Books Ltd.:
Oxford, UK, 2002.37. Low, S.M. Anthropological-ethnographic Methods for the Assessment of Cultural Values in Heritage Conservation. In Assessing
the Values of Cultural Heritage; De la Torre, M., Ed.; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 31–49.38. Avrami, E.C.; Mason, R.; De la Torre, M. Values and Heritage Conservation: Research Report; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Ange-
les, CA, USA, 2000.39. Munjeri, D. The Unknown Dimension: An Issue of Values. Proceedings of 14th ICOMOS General Assembly and International
Symposium: ‘Place, Memory, Meaning: Preserving Intangible Values in Monuments and Sites’, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, 27–31October 2003.
40. Mason, R.; Avrami, E. Heritage Values and Challenges of Conservation Planning. In Management Planning for Archaeological Sites:An International Workshop Organized; Teutonico, J.M., Palumbo, G., Eds.; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA,2000; pp. 13–26.
41. Australia ICOMOS. The Australia ICOMOS Guidelines for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (‘Burra Charter’).1979. Available online: http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Burra-Charter_1979.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2020).
42. Walton, T. Assessing the Archaeological Values of Historic Places: Procedures, Methods and Field Techniques; Department of Conservation:Wellington, New Zealand, 1999; Volume 167.
43. Worthing, D.; Bond, S. Managing Built Heritage: The Role of Cultural Significance; Wiley-Blackwell: London, UK, 2008.44. Pereira Roders, A.A.; van Oers, R. Managing change: Integrating impact assessments in heritage conservation. In Understanding
heritage: Perspectives in Heritage Studies; Albert, M.-T., Bernecker, R., Rudolff, B., Eds.; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; Volume 1,p. 89.
45. Australia ICOMOS. Burra Charter Guideline—Cultural Significance; Australia ICOMOS: Burwood, Australia, 1988.46. Heritage Collections Council. Significance: A Guide to Assessing the Significance of Cultural Heritage Objects and Collections;
Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2001.47. English Heritage. Sustaining the Historic Environment: New Perspectives on the Future. English Heritage Discussion Document; English
Heritage: London, UK, 1997.48. ICOMOS New Zealand. ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value. ICOMOS New
Zealand. Auckland. 2010. Available online: http://www.icomos.org.nz/docs/NZ_Charter.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2016).49. Pye, E. Caring for the Past: Issues in Conservation for Archaeology and Museums; James and James: London, UK, 2001.50. Caple, C. The Aims of Conservation. In Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths; Richmond, A., Bracker, A.,
Eds.; Butterworh-Heinemann: London, UK, 2009; pp. 25–31.51. Appelbaum, B. Conservation Treatment Methodology; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2007.52. Yung, E.H.; Chan, E.H. Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable,
low carbon cities. Habitat Int. 2012, 3, 352–361. [CrossRef]53. Gielen, P.; Elkhuizen, S.; van der Hoogen, Q.; Lijster, T.; Otte, H. De Waarde Van Cultuur. Onderzoekscentrum Arts in Society;
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. Available online: http://www.kunsten.be/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Rapport-De-Waarde-van-Cultuur.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2018).
54. Fusco, G.L. Risorse Architettoniche e Culturali: Valutazioni e Strategie di Conservazione; Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 1987.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 17 of 18
55. Fusco, G.L.; Nijkamp, P. Le Valutazioni per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile Della Città e del Territorio; Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 1997;ISBN 978-88-464-0182-3.
56. Stephenson, J. The Cultural Values Model: An integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 84, 127–139.[CrossRef]
57. Walter, N. From Values to Narrative: A New Foundation for the Conservation of Historic Buildings. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2013,20, 634–650. [CrossRef]
58. Poulios, I. Moving beyond a Values-based Approach to Heritage Conservation. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2010, 12, 170–185.[CrossRef]
59. Larsen, K.E. Nara Document on Authenticity. In Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity in relation to the WorldHeritage Convention, Nara, Japan, 1–6 November 1994.
60. Emerick, K. Conserving and Managing Ancient Monuments: Heritage, Democracy, and Inclusion; Heritage Matters Series; Boydell &Brewer Press: Suffolk, England, 2014; p. 14.
61. Sully, D. Colonising and Conservation. In Decolonising Conservation: Caring for Maori Meeting Houses outside New Zealand; Sully, D.,Ed.; Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 2007; pp. 27–43.
62. Abu-Khafajah, S.; Rababeh, S. The Silence of Meanings in Conventional Approaches to Cultural Heritage in Jordan: The Exclusionof Contexts and the Marginalization of the Intangible. In Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage; Heritage Matters Series; Stefano,M.L., Davis, P., Corsane, G., Eds.; Boydell Press: Woodbridge, UK, 2012; pp. 71–83.
63. Lawrence, D.P. Impact significance determination—back to basics. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2007, 27, 755–769. [CrossRef]64. Thomas, A. Values. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Edward Craig: London, UK; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1998;
Volume 9, pp. 581–583.65. Swaffield, S.; Foster, R. Community Perceptions of Landscape Values in the South Island High Country; Department of Conservation:
Wellington, New Zealand, 2000.66. Carver, M. On Archaeological Value. Antiquity 1996, 70, 45–56. [CrossRef]67. Throsby, D. Economics and Culture; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001.68. Feilden, B. Conservation of Historic Buildings; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2003.69. Keene, S. Fragments of the World: Uses of Museum Collections; Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2005.70. Orbaslı, A. Architectural Conservation: Principles and Practice; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 2008.71. Stubbs, J.H. Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009.72. Gómez, R.L. A Methodological Approach towards Conservation. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2010, 12, 146–169.73. Szmelter, I. A New Conceptual Framework for the Preservation of the Heritage of Modern Art. In Theory and Practice in the
Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Art: Reflections on the Roots and the Perspectives; Schädler-Saub, U., Weyer, A., Eds.;Archetype: London, UK, 2010; pp. 33–49.
74. Rössler, N.M.; Tricaud, P.M.; World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. A Handbook for Conservation and Management. Availableonline: http://whc.UNESCO.org/documents/publi_wh_articles_26_en.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2019).
75. Rössler, N.M. UNESCO and cultural landscape protection. In Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value—Components of a GlobalStrategy; von Droste, B., Plachter, H., Rössler, M., Eds.; Gustav Fischer in Cooperation with UNESCO: Jena, Germany, 1995;pp. 42–49.
76. Heath, K. Vernacular Architecture and Regional Design; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2009.77. AA.VV. Vernacular Architecture: ICOMOS International Committee on Vernacular Architecture. In Proceedings of the 10th
General Assembly, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka, 30 July–4 August 1993.78. Belluschi, P. The Meaning of Regionalism in Architecture; Architectural Record: New York, NY, USA, 1955.79. Norberg-Schulz, C. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture; Rizzoli Publisher: New York NY, USA, 1980.80. ICOMOS. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter). 1964.
Available online: www.international.icomos.org/charters.htm (accessed on 7 April 2018).81. UNESCO and World Bank. Culture in City Reconstruction and Recovery; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2018. Available online: https:
//openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30733 (accessed on 18 April 2021).82. Yildirim, E.; Baltà Portolés, J.; Pascual, J.; Perrino, M.; Llobet, M.; Wyber, S.; Phillips, P.; Gicquel, L.; Martínez, R.; Miller, S.;
et al. Culture in the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda. 2019. Available online: https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/topics/libraries-development/documents/culture2030goal.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2021).
83. UNESCO. Culture 2030: Rural-Urban Development China at a Glance. 2019. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000368646 (accessed on 18 April 2021).
84. Karakul, Ö. Folk Architecture in Historic Environments: Living Spaces for Intangible Cultural Heritage. Int. Q. J. Cult. Stud. 2007,19, 151–163.
85. Karakul, Ö. A Holistic Approach: Unity of Tangible and Intangible Values in the Conservation of Historic Built Environments. InProceedings of the 11th World Conference of Historical Cities, Venue, Konya, 10–13 June 2008; pp. 43–57.
86. Rapoport, A. House, Form and Culture. Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1969.87. Rudofsky, B. Architecture without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-Pedigreed Architecture; University of New Mexico Press:
Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1987; ISBN 0-8263-1004-4.88. Fock, N. Et sted i skoven-en verden-et univers in Brasilien. Jordens Folk 1986, 21, 61–69.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974 18 of 18
89. Griaule, M.; Dieterlen, G. The Dogon of the French Sudan (Mali) In African Worlds, Studies in the Cosmological Ideas and Social Values ofAfrican Peoples; Forde, C.D., Ed.; Oxford university Press: London, UK, 1954.
90. Oliver, P. Encyclopaedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997.91. Levi-Strauss, C. The Way of the Masks; Univ. of Washington Press: Seattle, DC, USA, 1982.92. Stender, M. Towards an Architectural Anthropology—What Architects can learn from Anthropology and vice versa. Archit.
Theory Rev. 2017, 21, 27–43. [CrossRef]93. Durckheim. Les formes Elementaires de la Vie Religieuse; Felix Alcan Paris: Metz, France, 1925.94. Rassers, W.; Panjii, H. The Culture Hero: A Structural Study of Religion in Java; Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1940.95. Schefold, R. Anthropology. In Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World; Oliver, P., Ed.; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 1997; Volume 1, pp. 6–8.96. Morgan, L.H. Houses and House-Life of American Aborigines; Univ. of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1881.97. Bourdieu, P. The Logic of Practice; Nice, R., Ed.; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 1990.98. Rapoport, A. The Meaning of Built Environment: A Non-Verbal Communication Approach; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ,
USA, 1982.99. Gluckman, M. Ethnographic data in British social anthropology. Sociol. Rev. 1961, 9, 5–17. [CrossRef]100. Van Velsen, J. The Politics of Kinship: A Study in Social Manipulation among the Lakeside Tonga; Manchester University Press:
Manchester, UK, 1964.101. Barnard, A.; Spencer, J. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology; Routledge: London, UK, 2000; p. 180.102. Renn, O. White article on risk governance: Toward an integrative framework. In Global Risk Governance; Springer: Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, 2008; pp. 3–73.103. Hall, C.M.; McArthur, S. Integrated Heritage Management; Stationary Office: London, UK, 1998.104. Bakri, A.F.; Ibrahim, N.; Ahmad, S.S.; Zaman, N.Q. Valuing Built Cultural Heritage in a Malaysian Urban Context. Procedia-Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2015, 170, 381–389. [CrossRef]105. Seamon, D. Phenomenology and vernacular lifeworlds. Trumpeter 1991, 8, 201–206.106. UNESCO. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL); UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 2011. Available
online: https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-638-98.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2021).107. UNESCO. The HUL Guidebook. Managing Heritage in Dynamic and Constantly Changing Urban Environments. A Prac-
tical Guide to UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. UNESCO. 2016. Available online: http://historicurbanlandscape.com/themes/196/userfiles/download/2016/6/7/wirey5prpznidqx.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2021).
![RESEARCHING ‘BRITISH [MUSLIM] VALUES’, VERNACULAR … · This article reflects on methodological decisions, strategies, and challenges from a recent interdisciplinary project](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/5f63f06d81d30867f90cae4b/researching-abritish-muslim-valuesa-vernacular-this-article-reflects-on-methodological.jpg)
