Faculty of Architecture & the Built Environment

Community relocation could be voluntary or forced, but such change in the composition of inhabitants can endanger the historic urban context and its cultural significance. So, finding the answer to these questions is crucial: What are the main factors for relocation in historic urban contexts, and are these areas affected differently? This paper presented and discussed the results of a systematic literature review of international English-language publications. Databases such as Scopus, ICOMOS Open Archive, and UNESCO digital library were investigated to reveal the main factors for community relocation in the historic urban contexts. Results revealed a frequent focus in metropolitan regions and major cities worldwide between 1987 and 2021. The multiplicity of non-environmental relocation factors was also noticeable. Despite the commonalities of factors for community relocation worldwide, the type and effect of the relocation differed between the historic urban context and other urban contexts. The interaction of two main factors, namely economics and policies, was found to affect the process of community relocation in the historic urban context the most. Forced relocation was more predominant than voluntary relocation in historic urban contexts. However, the existing relations between internal and external factors that drive relocation must be further investigated. This research identified and charted how the local community relocation in historic urban contexts that are reflected in scholars' publications. It also defined a theoretical framework on the factors of community relocation in these contexts and their interrelation, which is vital for both urban and heritage studies as well as planning practices.

Purpose-Even if there is a wealth of research highlighting the key role of values and cultural significance for heritage management and, defining specific interventions on built heritage, seldom the relation to their leading values and values hierarchy have been researched. How do values and interventions relate? What values trigger most and least interventions on heritage? How do these values relate and characterize interventions? And what are the values hierarchy that make the interventions on built heritage differ? Design/methodology/approach-This paper conducts a systematic content analysis of 69 international doctrinal documentsmainly adopted by Council of Europe, UNESCO, and ICOMOS, during 1877 and 2021. The main aim is to reveal and compare the intervention concepts and their definitions, in relation to values. The intensity of the relationship between intervention concepts and values is determined based on the frequency of mentioned values per intervention. Findings-There were three key findings. First, historic, social, and aesthetical values were the most referenced values in international doctrinal documents. Second, while intervention concepts revealed similar definitions and shared common leading values, their secondary values and values hierarchy, e.g. aesthetical or social values, are the ones influencing the variation on their definitions. Third, certain values show contradictory roles in the same intervention concepts from different documents, e.g. political and age values. Originality/value-This paper explores a novel comparison between different interventions concepts and definitions, and the role of values. The results can contribute to support further research and practice on clarifying the identified differences.

Purpose-Attributes conveying cultural significance play a key role in heritage management, as well as in differentiating interventions in built heritage. However, seldom the relation between interventions and attributes, either tangible or intangible, has been researched systematically. How do both tangible and intangible attributes and interventions relate? What attributes make interventions on built heritage differ? Design/methodology/approach-This paper conducts a systematic content analysis of forty-one international doctrinal documents-mainly adopted by the Council of Europe, UNESCO and ICOMOS, between 1877 and 2021. The main aim is to reveal and compare the selected eight intervention concepts, namelyrestoration (C1), preservation (C2), conservation (C3), adaptation (C4), rehabilitation (C5), relocation (C6), reconstruction (C7) and renewal (C8)-and their definitions, in relation to attributes, both tangible and intangible. The intensity of the relationship between intervention concepts and attributes is determined based on the frequency of the mentioned attributes per intervention. Findings-There were three key findings. First, although the attention to intangible attributes has increased in the last decades, the relationship between interventions and tangible attributes remains stronger. The highest frequency of referencing the tangible attributes was identified in "relocation" and "preservation," while the lowest was in "rehabilitation." Second, certain attributes play contradictory roles, e.g. "material," "use" and "process," which creates inconsistent definitions between documents. Third, as attributes often include one another in building layers, they trigger the intervention concepts in hierarchical patterns. Originality/value-This paper explores and discusses the results of a novel comparative analysis between different intervention concepts and definitions, with a particular focus on the attributes. The results can support further research and practice, clarifying the identified differences and similarities.