Eliciting Cultural Heritage Values

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development
Eliciting cultural heritage values: landscape preferences versus

representative images of the city
Manal Ginzarly, Jacques Teller
Local environment management and analysis (LEMA), University of Liege, Belgium
Abstract
Purpose–In 2011, UNESCO recommended the application of a value-based landscape approach to
cultural heritage conservation. In this framework, culture in its manifold expressions is considered as
an embrace for the social, economic, and environmental pillars of sustainable development. There is a
need to unveil the different cultural values generated from the interaction between people and their
environment since these values will help cities maintain their unique identity and integrity.
Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to present the results of a survey method intended to assess
the range of cultural values attributed by people to the historic urban landscape.
Design/methodology/approach–This paper is an experimental inquiry that combines a qualitative and
a quantitative approach. It is designed to distinguish the different interpretations and outlooks of people
to the historic urban landscape. It integrates landscape preference studies with investigation on
representative images of the city and assesses these in relation to activities, feelings, and valued aspects
of landscapes.
Findings–The main finding is that the most preferred scenes of the city are not the ones that represent
best the city. Results exposed two sides of the historic urban landscape and related heritage values. The
first is associated with the scenic beauty of the landscape and its aesthetic values, while the second is
reflected in ordinary landscapes and everyday practices.
Originality/value– This paper provides an insight into the different interpretations and meanings of
the historic urban landscape throughout the city. It provides an empirical evidence that ordinary
landscapes are of great heritage value as they surpass all aspects of human environmental interaction
to contribute to the image that societies make of themselves.
Keywords–historic urban landscape, heritage conservation, cultural values, landscape preference,
image of the city, tangible attributes, intangible attributes.
Paper type–Research paper
1
Introduction
Cultural heritage has been recognized as both an enabler and a driver for sustainable urban
development (CoE, 2005; UN, 2016; UNESCO, 2016). Today cultural heritage
conservation is no longer restricted to the recognition of monuments, groups of buildings
or historic urban areas. The scope of heritage conservation has been expanded to address
the urban context as an entity that cannot be dissected into fragments where new
developments and contemporary life should be integrated through adequate planning
interventions. Conservation has become increasingly complex since it is expected to be
socially inclusive. In this context, cultural values associated with historic urban landscapes
should be considered as a point of departure that should guide future urban change through
management processes and governance system (ICOMOS,1999; Van Oers, 2007;
UNESCO, 2016; Taylor et al., 2015). In response to the need for a new guideline and a
toolkit for the integration of policies and conservation practices in a broader view of urban
development, UNESCO (2011) developed and adopted the Historic Urban Landscape
(HUL) recommendation that calls for the application of an all-inclusive value-based
approach to heritage conservation that communicates diversity and heterogeneity, and
considers all the historic layering of the city’s tangible and intangible attributes. Within
such a framework the conservation of cultural heritage has become more demanding. The
main challenges are related to the meaning of heritage, the nature of its value system, and
the methods applied for the assessment of heritage values (Mason, 2002; Thorsby, 2002;
Tarrafa Silva and Pereira Roders, 2012; de la Torre, 2013).
This paper examines the range of cultural values that emerge from the relation
between people and their surrounding historic urban landscape. The results expose how
different aspects of landscapes, including visual, perceptive, and functional dimensions
are closely intertwined with cultural values. They show that the image of the city is not
embodied in pleasant aesthetic scenes but in the ones that reflect the complex social and
cultural processes in the city, its historicity, the characteristics of its context, and identity.
This investigation is based on a survey method that combines both a qualitative and a
quantitative approach. It treats the heritage by appropriation that emerges from public
behaviour and cultural expression (Tweed and Sutherland, 2007). This examination
combines landscape preference studies with investigation on representative images of the
2
city, historic values, activities, feelings, and valued aspects of the landscape. The objective
of this paper draws from the recognition that was already highlighted by different scholars:
heritage conservation field is not yet competent at gauging the different cultural values of
heritage within one integrated framework (Avrami et al., 2000, Mason, 2002; Stephenson,
2008). Thereby, there is a need for a framework that approaches cultural values as an
interlinked whole and exposes how they relate and reinforce one another. It is believed
that the proposed method will provide knowledge for future practice in urban management
through delineating values that are not captured through experts’ interpretation of heritage
and consequently fail to be legitimated.
Theoretical Framework
As Taylor (2015) argues, there is an immutable link between the cultural landscape
concept and the new landscape approach to historic urban conservation. The recognition
of cultural landscape as a category of heritage intended to increase awareness that heritage
is the cultural environment and the values embedded in it as perceived by people
(UNESCO, 1992; CoE, 2000). Hence, essential to the investigation of cultural values and
heritage is the term cultural landscape. The concept of cultural landscape was first
introduced as an academic term in the early 20th century by the geographer Otto Schlüter
(Martin and James, 1981). It was then promoted and developed by the geographer Car
Sauer in 1925. Sauer defined the term as “fashioned from a natural landscape by a cultural
group. Culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, cultural landscapes the result"
(Sauer, 1925, p.22). In his definition, the cultural interaction between humans and the
physical environment retains a central significance in shaping the latter. This
conceptualization of landscape called for the incorporation of users’ experience into
studies of the built environment and stimulated research in landscape perception and
preference as well as processes of participation (Cosgrove, 1985; Antrop, 2013). The
acknowledgement of heritage as a socio-cultural construct was later emphasized by the
European Landscape Convention (ELC) that widened the scope of cultural landscape
conservation to recognize the ordinary and even deteriorated landscapes (CoE, 2000).
Everyday landscapes are of great potential value because even though they may have low
quality in visual aesthetics, range of use, and other features, they may have value to
‘someone’ (communities, cultures, and individuals) (Roe and Taylor, 2014).
3
The application of the HUL approach to heritage conservation requires a

comprehensive assessment of the city’s attributes, both tangible and intangible, and values
that need to be conserved for future generation (UNESCO, 2016). In practice, it is easy to
identify how to technically conserve the physical condition of a tangible asset, but the
complexity remains in the application of a value-based landscape approach that supports
a pluralistic and cross-cultural dialogue among different stakeholders (experts, decision
makers, and the public) about the decisions on why a specific asset is of conservation
interest and on what to conserve. The decision on these questions is very challenging
because it is partly subjective, context-specific, and political (Hodder, 2000; Mason and
Avrami, 2002), and also because the landscape and its associated values are dynamic and
constantly evolving. Van der Aa (2005) distinguished five dimensions of heritage values:
which values (heritage value typologies), whose values (stakeholders), where values (scale
level: from the local to the international scale), when values (past, present or future), and
uniqueness values (exceptional or common). In order to understand how a landscape is
valued, both the nature of the valued aspect of the landscape and the nature of the
expressed values for that aspect need to be recognized (Stephenson, 2008). Groups and
individuals attach different weight to cultural values and different significances to the
same heritage asset, but in either case, the values remain the same (Pereira Roders and
Hudson, 2011).
Whereas human and environmental phenomena happen at different scales, we engage

with the environment at a specific scale: that of human experience of our landscape
surroundings, which is the “perceptible realm” (Gobster et al., 2007). Interactions between
people and their environment within this realm give rise to an aesthetic experience that is
context-dependent and is influenced by different socio-cultural concerns and activities
(Gobster et al., 2007). Landscape preference studies are widely applied in environmental
perception research. In the 1980s, methods that rely on the use of photos gained popularity and
became generalized in landscape perception analysis. The use of photos in preference surveys
was then considered adequate, practical, less costly, and easy to administer (Kaplan, 1985; Hull
and Stewart, 1992). However, some scholars questioned the representational validity of photos.
Commonly, criticisms refer to subjectivity in the selection of photos and to the lack of control
of the content of the image that may potentially affect preference judgment of the viewer
(Berman, 2006, p.56; Ode et al., 2009). Accordingly, many scholars started to integrate
qualitative and quantitative valuations into landscape preference surveys so as to go beyond
4
the judgment of scenes represented in the photographs, and to address the relation between
landscape visual preferences, context characteristics (landscape features), and social and
cultural aspects (Galindo and Corraliza Rodriguez, 2000; Tress et al., 2001; Sevenant and
Antrop, 2009; Ruelle et al., 2013). Application of these studies in urban areas to define cultural
heritage values is still very limited. Tweed and Sutherland (2007) developed a method to assess
people’s perception of and attitude to urban historical areas and to proposed alterations of these
areas. Their research focused on the built cultural heritage and on respondents’ mood,
perceptive quality of space, strength of the mental image, and sensitivity and attitude to
changes.
The present research goes beyond the boundaries of so-called historic centres. It
addresses the city as a whole because the historic environment extends beyond the notion of
historic centre to encompass a broader urban area (UNESCO, 2011). In order to highlight the
multivalent character of heritage, it covers both its tangible and intangible attributes through
comparing the differences in heritage values between landscape preferences and representative
images of the city.
The HUL recommendation stressed that every urban setting is a place of heritage that
embodies a manifest expression of values in its different tangible and intangible assets
(UNESCO, 2011). The framework adopted in this research borrows from this continuum (Van
der Aa, 2005). It focuses on three dimensions of heritage value: (1) Cultural values are
conveyed by the different tangible and intangible attributes; (2) diverse types of values could
be ascribed to heritage; and (3) stakeholders assign different values to a heritage asset based
on their interest and experience (Fig.1).
5
Figure 1: Three dimensions of heritage value.
Tangible/Intangible
attributes
Built environment (site, spatial structure,

street pattern, buildings, objects)
Natural features (topography, hydrology,
geomorphology)
Visual relationships
Activities
Expressions
Knowledge
Practices
Cultural spaces
Cultural
Values
Aesthetic
Social
Historic
Age
Economic
Political
Scientific
Ecological
Public
Experts
Decision makers
Stakeholders
The first dimension: tangible and intangible attributes

Tangible heritage include all features of an urban place (UNESCO, 2011) including (1) the
built environment and its buildings, land use patterns, clusters, and spatial organization; (2) the
natural features: topography, geomorphology, and hydrology; and (3) visual relationships.
Tangible attributes can either symbolize a cultural value, or represent an intangible cultural
heritage that is the reason behind associating a value to the tangible attribute (Veldpaus and
Pereira Roders, 2014). The intangible cultural heritage is sometimes called living cultural
heritage and includes activities, expressions, knowledge, practices, and the cultural spaces in
which these living heritage are expressed (UNESCO, 2003; ICOMOS, 2005). Munjeri (2004)
argued that the tangible can only be understood and explained through the intangible, and thus
society and values are intrinsically connected.
The second dimension: heritage values
A heritage place could have multiple values that are often in conflict (de la Torre, 2013).
Scholars and organizations have developed over time various classifications of heritage values.
Despite the difference in the used terminologies, these typologies describe the same pie, but
6
sliced in diverse ways (Mason, 2002). Eight primary typologies of cultural values could be
identified, including aesthetic, social, historic, age, economic, political, scientific, and
ecological values (ICOMOS, 2013; Tarrafa Silva and Pereira Roders, 2012), and diverse sub-
categories could be distinguished mentioning the spiritual, emotional, entertainment, use, non-
use, educational, management, symbolic, historic-artistic, conceptual, technological,
workmanship, and many others (Tarrafa Silva and Pereira Roders, 2012). A heritage asset
could embed different primary and secondary values. This multivalent characteristic of heritage
is of an essential quality, and suggests the application of an integrated framework that combines
quantitative and qualitative methods that appropriately match each value typology (Mason,
2002).
The third dimension: stakeholders
The assessment of cultural values should not only clarify the reason behind the association of
a specific value to heritage, but also it should clarify by whom it is valued (Demas, 2000). This
will clarify the multiplicity of values concerns since they derive from different perspectives
and intellect among different stakeholders (Mason and Avrami, 2002). Holden (2006)
addressed the mismatch of value concerns among three main parties involved in the cultural
concordat including the public, the experts, and the politicians (decision makers). He
distinguished the different values interests among the different stakeholders and argued that
politicians and policy-makers are primarily concerned with instrumental outcomes whereas
professionals are primarily concerned with intrinsic value, and the public is primarily
concerned with intrinsic and institutional value (Holden, 2006). The multiplicity of cultural
values and the conflict of interest should be revealed as to prioritize actions, and inform
decision making.
This investigation focuses on the cultural values generated by the public, and associated
to the different tangible and intangible assets of the city. Hence, this paper focuses on the
following question: how to elicit the different cultural values associated with the manifold
relations people have towards their living environment? We take the city of Tripoli in North
Lebanon as a case study to draw on the dynamics between different cultural values associated
with the historic urban landscape.
7
Case study
The survey was carried out in Tripoli, the second city of Lebanon. The city was founded on the
Mediterranean seaside during the 14th century BCE. It was not until the Middle age that Tripoli
became a city with two poles: the marine city (El-Mina), original site of Tripoli, and the
Mamluk historic core that is situated along the Abu Ali River (Gulick, 1967). The two poles
remained separated by citrus fields till the beginning of the twentieth century. In the second
half of the twentieth century, the city experienced high population growth, and urban sprawl
took over most of the agricultural fields (Le Thomas, 2009) (Fig.2). Today, Tripoli Governorate
is composed of 6 districts and 117 municipalities. Our case study covers the Tripoli district, it
has two municipalities and an estimated population of 330 366 inhabitants (OCHA, 2014).
Figure 2: Shows the study area, its urban growth pattern, different socio-economic
conditions in the different neighbourhoods, and the interviews locations.
8
Heritage listing in Tripoli was mainly based on the age value of specific buildings and
spaces. Two appraisals were conducted in the past to identify heritage buildings and areas. The
first was carried out by UNESCO in 1953. It delineated the Mamluk neighbourhoods on the
west bank of the Abu Ali River as the historic core of the city and identified 44 monuments
that should be conserved. The second was carried out in 1995 by a joint team from the
Association for the Preservation of the Archaeological Heritage of Tripoli, the municipality,
and historians. As a result, the delineation of the historic core extended to include the northern
part of the east bank of the river, and the list of protected monuments grew from 44 to 190 and
included residential edifices as well as smaller structures such as fountains and porticos dating
from the Mamluk and Ottoman periods (Nahas, 2001, p.66). In 1996, most of the listed
monuments and streets were nationally registered, and no further heritage surveys were
conducted. The nomination of Tripoli as a world heritage site was rejected in 1983. UNESCO
(1984) considered that Tripoli did not fulfil the world heritage criteria. However, UNESCO
recognized the city as the second one after Cairo in term of richness in Mamluk buildings and
stressed on its great value for the Lebanese national heritage (UNESCO, 1984). In 1996, the
Ministry of Culture and Higher Education and the Directorate General of Antiquities placed
nine candidate sites, including the historical centres of Tripoli, on the UNESCO Tentative List.
The completion of their nomination application is still pending (Charaf, 2016).
On the socio-economic level, the city suffers from a severe socio-economic segregation
(Fig.2). As the city started to extend during the Ottoman period the wealthy families living in
the historic core started to move to new developments and a new population of rural origin
replaced them in the city centre (Rajab, 1993). Moreover, the main commercial hub that attracts
people of middle to middle-high class moved through time from the commercial streets of the
old city (2), to the Tall area (4) which is the Ottoman extension of the historic core, and then
to the new development. The two districts located on the east (1- Qobbeh) and west side (3-
Abu Samra) of the Abu Ali River on the top of the plateau were agricultural lands planted with
olive trees till 1950. The west side of the river was originally occupied by middle-class
populations. However, through time it experienced a process of impoverishment since many
families of low economic status found refuge in this part of the city after the river flood in 1955
(Neemeh, 2014). The urban extension outside the Ottoman district developed during the years
1960-1970. The luxury residential areas were progressively transformed into a main
commercial space (Molina, 1999). El-Mina (8) is characterized by low to middle socio-
9
economic condition. Accordingly, the East-West axis between the Ottoman district and the new
development can be characterized as a social gradient that separates the upper-class from the
lower-class districts.
Survey Method
Face to face interviews were conducted in eight neighbourhoods that have different socio-
economic conditions, functions, and built aspects in the study area. The covered areas are:
Qobbeh (1), the Mamluk core (2), Abu Samra (3), the Tall area (4), three neighbourhoods in
the urban extension between the two historic cores of the city (5, 6, & 7), and El-Mina (8).
The survey was carried out in the streets and shops. The researcher and three social
workers conducted the interviews across different days of the week and across different times
of the day. Every interviewer covered two neighbourhoods. The questionnaire was written in
English and translated into Arabic. Interviewees were asked to select the language they prefer
to use. The duration of each interview ranged from 15 to 20 minutes. The number of
interviewees was 302, including 181 women and 121 men. The age of interviewees ranged
between 16 and over 65. However, the majority of them were young people as 69% of the
interviewees were aged below 40. Moreover, 42.5% of the interviewees have a university
degree and only 1% did not attend school. Tripoli is characterized as a young society, around
67% of its population is less than 40 years old (CAS, 2014).
The survey method sought to examine three main groups of indicators and the
questionnaire was designed accordingly. The first part examined indicators related to two main
factors. An aesthetic appraisal of historic urban landscapes on one hand, and a judgement about
the most representative scenes of the city on the other hand. The first is related to the aesthetic
quality of the landscape (scenery), whereas the second is related to the meaning of the
landscape for the inhabitants (representativeness). This investigation considered that these two
dimensions may somehow diverge and inform us about contrasted heritage values.
The questionnaire included 12 photos (Annex1). These include landscape scenery from
the old city (Pic.1, 4, &10), El-Mina (Pic.2), Qobbeh (Pic.6), the river (Pic.3), the international
fair (Pic.8) as well as scenes of public spaces (Pic.5 & 7) and monuments (Pic.9, 11 & 12). The
context of these scenes is briefly outlined in table 1. The selection of the pictorial material
intended to cover areas from different locations and historical periods and that have different
10
socio-economic conditions and heritage types. Interviewees were asked to give every scene a
rating scale from 1 (I don’t like it at all) to 5 (I like it a lot). In this scale, 3 is equivalent to
neutral (zero) value. Then respondents were asked to choose the most representative photo of
the city. Afterwards, interviewees were asked to judge which photo of two commercial streets
in the Mamluk core they prefer and to give three reasons for why they like a particular scene.
The aim was to go beyond aesthetic preferences and to reflect on interviewees’ personal
engagement with the environment. The main assumption was that this analysis would reveal
the different tangible and intangible attributes as well as cultural values behind preferring a
particular scene through an open question that allows the people to phrase their attachment and
concerns about heritage.
The second part investigated indicators associated with the social significance looking
at the most visited places in the city, activities, and feelings associated with these places. The
questions were posed like e.g. how do you feel in this place? Galindo and Corraliza Rodríguez
(2000) five terms to states of mood were used: comfortable, stimulated, relaxed, bored, and
distressed. The aim behind this investigation was to capture the dynamism between social
significance and the dual expressions of the historic urban landscape: exceptional landscapes
that are characterized by aesthetic quality and ordinary landscapes that denote everyday
practices and shared experiences.
The third part drew on how people conceptualize the historic value. This question was
mainly based on the concept of historic trail. This question intended to see how the users would
draw a historic pathway through the city so as to identify the most significant points in the city
and their distribution. It showed a map of the city to the interviewees and asked them to draw
a trail on the map or, if they were not familiar with maps, to mention in order the trail that they
would take, including the name of places, buildings, streets, and so forth if they were asked to
be the guide of a group of people who are interested in the history of the city.
The last part of the questionnaire consisted of categorical indicators related to the
interviewees, including gender, age, educational level, profession, and habitation location.
11
Table 1: Provides a brief description of different photos used in the study and Shows the ranking of
photos in terms of preference judgement and judgement of the most representative photo of the city
according to the respondents.
Photo Description Landscape Representative

preference Photo
Mean Rank % Rank
Pic 1 Urban landscape scenery showing the Mamluk 0,15 7 5% 7
core within the delineation of the listed historic
centre.
Pic 2 Landscape scenery showing the sea front and 0,22 2 14% 4
the skyline of the city. This part of the city is not
listed as a heritage site.
Pic 3 Landscape Scenery showing the valley of the 0,13 9 2% 11
Abu Ali River. This part of the river does not
fall within the area of the listed Mamluk core.
Pic 4 Urban landscape scenery showing the citadel, 0,2 3 17% 2
which is a listed monument, with the urban
extension and the sea in the background.
Pic 5 Urban scenery showing a primary circulation 0,17 5 27,5% 1
hub in the city. This roundabout is at the
periphery of the Ottoman district and is not a
listed as a heritage site.
Pic 6 Urban landscape scenery showing El Qobbeh. 0,08 12 4% 8
The demarcation of the historic core stops at the
periphery of the river and does not include this
neighbourhood as a heritage site.
Pic 7 Urban scenery of a public square showing the 0,16 6 6% 6
Tal square that is not listed as heritage and a
number of classified Ottoman buildings.
Pic 8 Landscape scenery showing the international 0,23 1 13% 5
fair designed by Oscar Niemeyer, the sea, and
the mountains in the background. This scene
doesn’t include any listed heritage sites.
Pic 9 Photo of a building showing the train station 0,15 8 14% 3
that is the only industrial heritage in the city but
not designated as a heritage site.
Pic 10 Urban landscape scenery of the Mamluk core 0,1 10 4% 9
showing the covered river and part of both sides
of the river. This area is designated as heritage.
Pic 11 Photo of a monument in El Mina showing khan 0,09 11 1% 12
el tamasili. This building is in a bad condition
and needs renovation.
Pic 12 Photo of a monument showing the citadel and 0,18 4 3% 10
the river. The citadel dates back to the crusader
period and is a major landmark in the city.
12
The analysis of preferences was based on giving a weight (x) to every rate scale (where
x= -2 for 1, x= -1 for 2, x= 0 for 3, x=+1 for 4, and x=+2 for 5). Afterwards, the mean value of
the different scores for each photo was calculated as to classify scenes from the most to the
least preferred ones from a visual point of view (scenery). As for the most representative photo
of the city, the sum of interviewees’ choice for each photo was calculated to see the percentage
of interviewees that chose each photo. Photos were classified from the most to the least
representative one of the city. Then a comparative analysis between both results was conducted.
To elaborate more on the different dynamics that contribute to the expression of aesthetic
values (scenery), the analysis looked at the valued aspects of the environment on the scale of
the street. The answers of interviewees concerning the three reasons behind liking a scene of
two commercial streets were classified based on the developed framework: themes were
classified based on their reference to an attribute (tangible or intangible) or a cultural value
(aesthetic, social, historic, age, economic, political, scientific, and ecological).
To extract the social values associated with the different study areas, the most visited
places in the city, feelings, and activities were investigated. The analysis distinguished between
the most comfortable, stimulating, relaxing, boring, and distressful areas, and between the
different activities related to these areas: shopping, walking, physical activity, sit in a café,
family visit, and tourist visit. These results were then assessed in relation to the preference
study to extract the dynamics of preference judgement.
The historic value was addressed through the question on the historic trail. A downward
classification based on categories of Fig 1 was applied. The classification went from the
neighbourhood scale to the scale of details. It differentiated between sites, neighbourhoods,
public places, streets, buildings, and sensory details. Each term was given a weight based on
the sum of its repetition by the interviewees. Then all these terms were located on a map. A
grey scale was used to identify the weight of each element in the trail. For instance the Mamluk
core that was mentioned by most of the interviewees was coloured with black whereas the
international fair with grey because it was less mentioned.
13
Results
Interviewees had different criteria for selection among the most and least preferred photo and
the most and least representative photo of the city (Table 1) (Fig.3). The outcome showed that
landscape preferences have more to do with the visual quality of the space (aesthetic values).
The choice of the representative image of the city has less to do with aesthetics and more with
the place itself and its different functional, and spatial qualities. Moreover, results showed that
respondents’ knowledge about the context has an influence on their perceptual judgements.
Figure 3 presents the most and least preferred landscape and representative image of the city.
Figure 3: Shows the most and least preferred scenes, and the most and least representative scenes
of the city. Upper left, the most preferred scene. Lower left, the least preferred scene. Upper
right, the most representative scene of the city. Lower right, the least representative scene of the
city.
14
The most preferred landscape (Pic.8) is not designated as a heritage site. It shows
the elliptical open space around the international fair and its surrounding urban and natural
context, including the greenery, the mountains, and the sea. The international fair was
designed by the architect Oscar Niemeyer. This photo mainly reflects the visual quality of
the space. The second most preferred photo (Pic.2) shows the sea, the fishing boats, and
the skyline of the city. It mainly focuses on the natural features of the city and its visual
qualities.
By contrast, the most representative photo (Pic.5) represents a main transportation

hub in the city. This place lacks any aesthetic quality, but it serves connectivity throughout
the city. It also has a religious significance since in the middle of the roundabout there is
a statue that represents the dominant religious group in the city. So the significance of this
square lies both in its function and spiritual meaning. The second most representative
photo (Pic.4) is the one that shows the citadel with the urban extension and the sea in the
background. The citadel is a classified monument, but the urban extension outside the
Mamluk core that appears in the view is not designated as heritage. This photo somehow
communicates the sense of continuity between old and new development. It combines a
historic feature (the citadel) within its urban context reflecting on the historicity of the city
and its growth through time.
The least preferred photo is that of Qobbeh (1) (Pic.5). The demarcation of the
designated historic centre stops at the periphery of the river and excludes the Qobbeh. This
district suffers from a low socio-economic condition. The second least preferred photo
(Pic.11) is at the same time the least representative of the city according to the
interviewees. This photo represents an Ottoman khan that is situated in El-Mina. This
monument is designated as heritage. However, it is deteriorated, needs rehabilitation, and
has a low visual quality. The second least representative photo (Pic.3) is the one that shows
the Abu Ali River in its natural context. This part of the river falls at the periphery of the
Mamluk core thus it is not part of the designated heritage site. In this photo, the river
maintains its natural spatial structure and some of its ecological functions. According to
the interviewees, this does not represent the city because, in its urban context, the river has
gradually lost its function as a public amenity after its canalization in 1955 and its partial
covering with a concrete platform in 2011.
15
In the landscape preference judgment, interviewees were mainly judging the visual
aspect of the scenery. The photos that show the natural features of the city are the preferred
ones. On the other hand, photos that show the built environment and reflect on its function and
historicity and that embed a social significance are the ones that represent best the city
according to the interviewees. In either case, the aesthetic value was not referred to the
designated sites in the city and monuments, but rather to the context itself and its quality. New
projects like the international fair have more aesthetic value to the interviewees than the
Mamluk core. Moreover, according to the interviewees, the image of the city means more than
an aesthetically pleasing scenery and is reflected in ordinary landscapes that represent the
interaction between people and place, everyday practices, and shared identity.
This suggests that a photo-based survey method can be successfully applied to

comprehensively distinguish among the distinct meanings and values attributed to the
different urban areas within the city. Further on, these differences reveal that interviewees
were not only judging the visual quality of the photos but considered the meaning of the
places themselves. The judgement of photos was based on interviewees’ knowledge of the
context and personal experience since they did not apply the same criteria when judging
the most preferred photo and the most representative one of the city.
The second part of the investigation looked at the reasons behind liking a scenery.
Two commercial streets in the Mamluk core were subject to investigation (Fig.4). 75% of
the interviewees preferred the gold market to the vegetable market. The different preferred
aspects mentioned by the interviewees were classified as to distinguish between
tangible/intangible attributes and values (Table 2). Since not all the interviewees gave
three reasons behind liking a scene, the total count of themes was 585. The quantification
of these themes showed that interviewees referred to attributes 360 times and to values
225 times. Interviewees referred to the physical aspects of the built environment, including
space organization and arrangement, buildings and monuments, and details like stone
cladding and finishing. They also referred to the intangibles aspects, including activities,
expressions, and knowledge of the space like the noise, the crowd, and the smell and
expressions. A variety of heritage values were expressed by the respondents that range
from the aesthetic to the social, age, historic, economic, and political values. It is clear that
in addition to the aesthetic and visual quality of the space, landscape perception is related
to personal engagement with the surrounding context, and it is built up from interviewees’
16
feelings, knowledge, memories, and experience to involve all the senses sight, smell,
sound, and feelings and to elicit cultural values.
Figure 4: Shows two markets in the Mamluk core. Left, vegetable market. Right, gold market.
The methodology proved suitable for gaining an understanding of context-

sensitive values. It did not allow unlimited expression from respondents. Instead,
respondents were constrained to give up to three reasons behind liking a scene. The aim
was to grasp key interpretations. The findings are exploratory, therefore cannot be used
for making generalizations. Though, a strength of this study is that it showed how it is
possible to create a matrix that combines the different elements that determine the tangible
and intangible attributes and values that define the cultural significance of a place. This
knowledge can be used to inform urban planning and conservation practices.
17
Table 2: valued tangible and intangible aspects in the two commercial streets.
Attributes (c*=360) Values (c=225)
Tangible Aspects (c=228) Intangible Aspects (c=132)

Built environment (c=184) Activities (c=14) Aesthetic Value (c=97)
Valued aspect -Form -Walking -Aesthetically appealing
of the -Buildings/monuments -Shopping -Simple, clean
landscape -Objects/details Expressions (c=16) -Physical condition
Natural features ( None) -Architectural style Social value (c=50)
Visual relationship ( c= 44) -Gastronomy -Social
-Sensory responses Knowledge of the interaction/people
space(c=102) -Hospitality
-Senses: (the noise, the -Feelings: feels like
smells, the crowd, the home, exciting, safe
quietness) Historic value (c=11)
Practices (None) -Authentic, Historic
Cultural spaces (None) Age value (c=22)
-Old
Economic value (c=28)
-Cheap prices, economic
condition
-Variety of products
Political value (c=17)
-care from the
municipality, conserved,
restored
Scientific value (None)
Ecological value (None)
*c is equivalent to count, meaning the number of times a term was repeated.
18
The investigation on the most visited places in the city showed that 40% of the
interviewees mostly visit El-Mina. Whereas the least visited places are Abu Samra (4%), and
Qobbeh (7%). The previous investigation showed that the photo representing El-Mina is the
second most preferred one by the interviewees and that of Qobbeh is the least preferred one.
Hence, the most visited area has a high preference rate while the least visited area has low
preference rate. Moreover, the correlation between habitation location and the most visited
places in the city showed that most of the interviewees of middle and upper-class
neighbourhoods are less likely to visit the lower-class neighbourhoods, namely Qobbeh
followed by Abu Samra and the old city. This reminds us that the social and economic condition
plays a role in the mobility preferences of respondents within a city. Arguably, it has also an
influence on landscape preference judgments and heritage values.
This investigation also conveyed that in addition to the aesthetic value, activities and
feelings associated with the place play a role in the results of the most preferred scenes and the
most visited areas (Chart 1). For instance, the promenade along the sea in El-Mina (8), the open
space around the international fair (5), and El-Mina street (7) are public spaces that are
appreciated by the interviewees for walking and doing physical activities. As for Azmi (6), it
is a multifunctional commercial and leisure area, and it is mostly visited by the interviewees
for walking, shopping and sitting in a cafés. On the other side, no activities attractions were
associated with Qobbeh (1). As for the Mamluk core (2), it has low activities rate as
interviewees mainly commute to it because they work there (51%) or for a family visit (21%).
Moreover, the results of feelings associated with these places showed that El-Mina (8) and the
international fair (5) are the most relaxing places while Azmi (6) is stimulating and Abu Samra
(3) and Qobbeh (1) are perceived as the most boring and distressful ones.
What can be drawn from these results is that the Mamluk core and Tal that contain most
of the city’s designated heritage are not the preferred ones for visiting or doing activities. The
modern shopping area in Azmi attracts the interviewees more than the historic core, and areas
with high physical and visual quality are the preferred ones. Accordingly, the physical and
visual quality of the built environment and the aesthetic value are more appreciated than the
age and historic values. Based on this, the coming investigation looks at how the interviewees
conceptualize the historic value of heritage.
19
Chart 1: Shows the activities associated with the different investigated places in the study area.
Purpose behind visiting the investigated area Family visit
100% I work here

90%
80% Shopping
70% Walking
60%
Do physical activity
50%
40% Sit in a cafe
30%
Tourist visit
20%
10%
0%
The outcome shows the places that were frequently mentioned in the historic trail
proposed by the interviewees (Fig. 5). These places are: the old commercial streets in the
historic Mamluk core (c= 203), the citadel (c= 210), El-Mina (c= 194), the Khans (c=158)
namely soap khan, tailors’ khan, and Khan al askar, the promenade along the sea (c = 78),
Tal Ottoman square (c= 70), and cafés and restaurants with information about whether
they serve international or traditional food (c = 60). The international fair and a newly
developed road that is famous for its restaurants and cafés were mentioned by around 16%
of the interviewees. Most importantly, the trail was not only restricted to the built context
but also the natural one. Around 13 % of the interviewees included the islands in their trail.
Strikingly, the areas that date back to the French mandate era were not considered as
heritage by the interviewees. Developments outside the Tal area do not appear on the map,
and only 5% of the interviewees mentioned the train station that dates back to the French
mandate.
This result shows that importance is giving to activities namely to the commercial
ones. It also reveals that the notion historic was not strictly synonymous with age and
monuments and was not only reflected in the tangible assets of the city but also in the
20
intangible ones. It is very clear that for the interviewees the history of the city is not
approached as being associated with the past, but as a continuous process that is reflected
in the old and contemporary developments as well as in the changes that have occurred in
the city through time. Moreover, it reveals that interviewees somehow conceptualize the
city as a network of patches and corridors as the ones that have been suggested by
landscape ecology approaches.
There is a difference between how experts and the interviewees approach the
historic value of heritage in Tripoli. While experts limit heritage designation to the
Mamluk core and some Ottoman monuments, interviewees attribute a historic meaning to
old as well as new developments in the city. This outcome shows how experts’ definition
of heritage may differ from that of users.
Figure 5: Shows Tripoli's historic trail as suggested by the interviewees
21
Discussion
As discussed previously and shown in Table 1, the most preferred scenes of the city are not the
ones that represent best the city. This result shows a duality in the judgement of photos.
Interviewees applied different interpretation criteria between landscape preference and the
representative image of the city. In the first, the visual quality was certainly most influential in
the judgement. In the second, interpretation went beyond the visual to reflect on ordinary
landscapes and projected cultural expressions. Ordinary landscapes express what the city
actually means to its residents, and people’s use of everyday space. Everyday experience is an
essential part of people’s cultural heritage and shared identity, and is worthy of study and
integration within conservation concerns. When monuments, historical sites, and exceptional
landscapes are taken seriously in urban conservation practices, everyday landscapes are still
overlooked and undervalued by many decision makers especially in the Global South. The
result of this investigation shows that ordinary landscapes should not be underestimated
because they represent the actual image of the city.
Even though landscape preference judgement is primarily linked to scenic beauty and
the quality of the built environment, it is also made in the light of personal experience and
knowledge, contemporary activities, sense of place, and the embedded social, historic, age,
economic, and political values. These cultural values and intangible assets of the environment
are the distinguishing features of the city and are an anchor for local identity and people’s
shared experiences and common heritage. Furthermore, the choice of the most representative
scene of the city was not based on people’s expectation concerning landscape quality and
aesthetical experience, but on personal knowledge and awareness of the complex processes
that characterize the city, including social, political, religious, spiritual, and functional
processes. As emphasized by the HUL recommendation, understanding the city through its
socio-cultural practices and values, and the intangible dimension of heritage provides us with
important knowledge to guide planning decisions and manage change (UNESCO, 2016). Thus,
both paradigms are important to understand the multiple meanings of heritage. They reveal the
wide range of tangible and intangible attributes that influence the human environmental
interaction, and the diversity of cultural values attached to the historic urban landscape.
Heritage could be represented in ordinary everyday landscapes, or in the exceptional ones.
Each of these embeds different heritage values that remain important to the identity and
integrity of the city.
22
The methodology applied in this survey relies on the use of photographs and judgement
preference scale. Judgement preference scales proved effective in determining the visual
quality and aesthetic value of the environment in the eye of the respondents. The findings
showed that interviewees were not solely judging the visual quality of the photo but were
considering the broader meaning of the place itself. Conclusions on heritage values were
reached from the qualitative questions. However, these were few in the questionnaire. Results
could have been more sophisticated if additional qualitative questions had been included in the
survey like the reason behind giving a specific scale to each scene. Moreover, this research
only looked at how the public defines heritage. Our survey did not address other stakeholders’
perspectives on cultural heritage values. It would be of additional value to replicate the
questionnaire to experts and decision-makers as to highlight differences and commonalities in
conservations concerns and heritage values among different stakeholders. The application of
the HUL recommendation requires reaching consensus on what to preserve for future
generation. Accordingly, it is important to involve the public in the process of decision and to
achieve a balance between public and experts definition of heritage to adequately manage the
effects of urban development on heritage values. Finally, it has to be stressed that one of the
benefits of field surveys is that it allows capturing individual perceptions and representations,
while limiting the influence from each other’s opinion. Nevertheless, it can be argued that
heritage values are somehow the result of a collective construction. Eliciting such social
interaction processes would typically require developing cultural mapping workshops in
complement with landscape preference surveys.
Conclusion
The outcome of this study showed that the history of the city is reflected in its development
process through time and in its old and new fabric. Within this conceptualization, the
historic core is not seen in isolation from its surrounding but in relation to its surrounding
context and urban extension. In this context, cultural heritage is not restricted to designated
hostoric cores, but is also projected in ordinary landscapes.
The decision on what tangible and intangible attributes to preserve implies that a
wide range of cultural values are subject to investigation. As socio-cultural relationships
are interweaved with spatial perception, the comparison of landscape representations in
this study helped differentiating between the multiple meanings of heritage. These
23
meanings should be approached as complementary rather than opposing since their sum
contribute to the unique identity of the city and its integrity. In this regard, it is important
to emphasize that bringing together the multiple perspectives of heritage from different
stakeholders is essential to promote sustainable solutions for heritage management.
24
Annex 1: Shows the 12 photos included in the questionnaire.
Pic 1 Pic 7
Pic 2 Pic 8
Pic 3 Pic 9
Pic 4 Pic 10
Pic 5 Pic 11
Pic 6 25Pic 12
References
Avrami, E., Mason, R. and de la Torre, M. (2000), "Report on research", in Avrami, E., Mason, R.
and de la Torre, M. (Eds), Values and Heritage Conservation: Research Report, The Getty
Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, CA, pp.3-12.
Berman, R.W. (2006), Assessing urban design: Historical ambience on the waterfront, Lexington
Books, Oxford, UK.
Central Administration of Statistics (CAS)(2014), "Resident population distribution by age group and
available at: www.moph.gov.lb/ar/DynamicPages/ download_file/1496 (accessed 22 May
2017).
Charaf, H. (2016), "Between the Face of the Future and the Back of the Past", Journal of Eastern
Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. iii–x.
CoE (2000), "European Landscape Convention", Council of Europe, available at: http://
conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm (accessed 5 May 2017).
CoE (2005), "Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for
Society", Council of Europe, available at: https://rm.coe.int/1680083746 (accessed 4 May
2017).
Cosgrove, D. (1985), "Prospect, Perspective and the Evolution of the Landscape Idea", Transactions
of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 45-62.
de la Torre, M. (2013), "Values and heritage conservation", Heritage & Society, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp.
155-166.
Demas, M. (2000), "Planning for conservation and management of archaeological sites: a values-
based approach", in Teutonico, J.M. and Palumbo, G. (Eds), Management Planning for
Archaeological Sites: An International Workshop Organized by the Getty Conservation
Institute and Loyola Marymount University, May 2000, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los
Angeles, CA, pp.27-54.
Galindo, M.P. and Corraliza Rodríguez, J.A. (2000), "Environmental aesthetics and psychological
wellbeing: Relationships between preference judgements for urban landscapes and other
relevant affective responses", Psychology in Spain, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 13–27.
Gobster, P.H., Nassauer, J.I., Daniel, T.C. and Fry, G. (2007), "The shared landscape: what does
aesthetics have to do with ecology?”, Landscape Ecology, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 959–72.
Gulick, J. (1967), Tripoli: A Modern Arab City, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA.
Hull, R. B., & Stewart, W. (1992), "Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments". Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 101–114.
Hodder, I. (2000), "Symbolism, Meaning and Context", in Thomas, J. (Ed.), Interpretive
Archaeology: A Reader, Leicester University Press, London, pp. 86–96.
Holden, J. (2006), “The mismatch of value concerns", in Pickard, J. (Ed.), Cultural value and the
crisis of legitimacy: why culture needs a democratic mandate, Demos, London, pp. 31-41.
26
ICOMOS Australia (1999), "Burra charter: the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of cultural
significance", available at: http://australia.icomos.org/wp-
content/uploads/BURRA_CHARTER.pdf (accessed 6 May 2017).
ICOMOS Xi'an (2005), "Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of The Setting of Heritage
Structures, Sites and Area", available at: https://www.icomos.org/xian2005/xian-
declaration.htm (accessed 6 May 2017).
ICOMOS Australia (2013). "The Burra Charter for Places of Cultural Significance", available at:
http://portal.iphan.gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-
31_10_2013.pdf (accessed 6 May 2017).
Kaplan, R. (1985), "The analysis of perception via preference: A strategy for studying how the
environment is experienced", Landscape Planning, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 161–176.
Le Thomas, C. (2009), Pauvreté et conditions socio‐économiques à Al‐Fayhâ’a : Diagnostic et
éléments de stratégie, L’Agence Française de Développement pour la Fédération des
Municipalités de Tripoli Al‐Fayhâ’a, Tripoli, Lebanon.
Martin, G.J. and James, P.E. (1981), "The New Geography in the United States Before World War I",
in Kalkut, J. and Harmon, B. (Eds), All Possible Worlds: A History of Geographical Ideas,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 321-324.
Mason, R. (2002), "Assessing values in conservation planning: methodological issues and choices", in
de la Torre, M. (Ed.), Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research Report, The Getty
Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, CA, pp.5-30.
Mason, R. and Avrami, E. (2002), "Heritage values and challenges of conservation planning", in
Teutonico, J.M. and Palumbo, G. (Eds), Management Planning for Archaeological Sites: An
International Workshop Organized by the Getty Conservation Institute and Layola
Marymount University, May 2000, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, CA,
pp.13-26.
Munjeri, D. (2004), "Tangible and Intangible Heritage: from difference to convergence", Museum
International, Vol. 56 No. 1–2, pp. 12–20.
Nahas, C. (2001), Stakeholder Analysis and Social Assessment for the Proposed Cultural Heritage
and Tourism Development Project, CDR and Information International, Beirut, Lebanon.
Neemeh, A. (2014), Index of urban deprivation: the methodology and the results of the field study in
Tripoli, Lebanon, Arabic, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia
(ESCWA).
OCHA (2014), "Lebanon: Tripoli Governorate Profile", available at:
http://reliefweb.int/report/lebanon/lebanon-tripoli-governorate-profile-11-august-2014
(accessed 10 May 2017).
Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P., & Miller, D. (2009), "Indicators of perceived
naturalness as drivers of landscape preference" Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol. 90 No. 1, pp 375–383.
Pereira Roders, A. and Hudson, J. (2011), "Change management and cultural heritage", in Finch, E.
(Ed.), Facilities change management, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 175–190.
27
Rajab, M. (1993), "Le Vieux-Tripoli (Liban), Un Espace Historique En Voie De Mutation.

Problématique Et Perspectives D’avenir", PhD Thesis in Geography and Planning, Paris I-
Sorbonne.
Roe, M. and Taylor, K. (2014), "New Cultural Landscapes - emerging issues, context and themes", in
Roe, M. and Taylor, K. (Eds), New Cultural Landscapes, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group,
New York, pp. 1–23.
Ruelle, C., Halleux, J.-M. and Teller, J. (2013), "Landscape Quality and Brownfield Regeneration: A
Community Investigation Approach Inspired by Landscape Preference Studies", Landscape
Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 75–99.
Sauer, C. (1925), "The morphology of landscape", University of California Publications in
Geography, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 19–54.
Stephenson, J. (2008), "The Cultural Values Model: An integrated approach to values in landscapes",
Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 127–39.
Tarrafa Silva, A. and Pereira Roders, A. ( 2012), "Cultural heritage management and heritage
(impact) assessments", in Proceedings of the Joint CIB W070, W092 & TG72 International
Conference on Facilities Management, Procurement Systems and Public Private,
Partnership, Cape Town, South Africa .
Taylor, K. (2015), "Ken Taylor on the human side of heritage conservation", Routledge.com, Text,
available at: https://www.routledge.com/museumandheritage/posts/612 (accessed 5 May
2017).
Taylor, K., St Clair, A. and J. Mitchell, N. (2015), "Cultural Landscapes: Twenty-First Century
Conservation Opportunities and Challenges", in Taylor, K., St Clair, A. and J. Mitchell, N
(Eds), Conserving cultural landscape: challenges and new directions, Routledge, New York.
Thorsby, D. (2002), "Cultural capital and sustainability concepts in the economics of cultural
heritage", in de la Torre, M. (Ed.), Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, The Getty
Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 101-117.
Tress, B., Tress, G., Décamps, H. and d’Hauteserre, A.M. (2001), "Bridging human and natural
sciences in landscape research", Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 57 No. 3–4, pp. 137–
41.
Tweed, C. & Sutherland, M. (2007), "Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development",
Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 62–9.
UN (2016), "New urban agenda: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly seventy-first session",
agenda item 20, Quito, available at: http://undocs.org/A/71/L.23, (accessed 4 May 2017).
UNESCO (1984), "Decisions report, tentative lists", 8th session of the Committee, UNESCO, Buenos
Aires, Argentina, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3896/ (accessed 5 April
2017).
UNESCO (1992), "Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage", UNESCO World Heritage Centre, available at:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ (accessed 7 November 2016).
28
UNESCO (2003), "Convention Concerning The Protection of The World Cultural and Natural
Heritage", 27th Session of the world heritage committee, available at:
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2003/whc03-27com-24e.pdf, (accessed 22 January 2016)
UNESCO (2011), "Recommendation on The Historic Urban Landscape", available at:
http://www.stellenboschheritage.co.za/wp-content/uploads/UNESCO-Historic-Urban-
Landscapes-Recommendation-Short-Nov2011.pdf (accessed 27 November 2016).
UNESCO (2016), "The Historic Urban Landscape Guidebook: Managing heritage in dynamic and
constantly changing urban environments", available at:
http://www.hulballarat.org.au/resources/HUL%20Guidebook_2016_FINALWEB.pdf
(accessed 5 April 2017).
Van der Aa, B.J. (2005), "Preserving the heritage of humanity? Obtaining world heritage status and
the impacts of listing". Thesis in Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, The Netherlands,
pp.5-10.
Van Oers, R. (2007), "Towards new international guidelines for the conservation of historic urban
landscapes (HUL)", City and Time, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 43–51.
Veldpaus, L. and Pereira Roders, A. (2014), "Learning from a Legacy: Venice to Valletta", Change
Over Time, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 244–63.
29

Eliciting Cultural Heritage Values

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eliciting Cultural Heritage Values

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eliciting Cultural Heritage Values

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Eliciting cultural heritage values: landscape preferences versus

The application of the HUL approach to heritage conservation requires a

Whereas human and environmental phenomena happen at different scales, we engage

Figure 1: Three dimensions of heritage value.

Built environment (site, spatial structure,

The first dimension: tangible and intangible attributes

Photo Description Landscape Representative

By contrast, the most representative photo (Pic.5) represents a main transportation

This suggests that a photo-based survey method can be successfully applied to

The methodology proved suitable for gaining an understanding of context-

Attributes (c*=360) Values (c=225)

Tangible Aspects (c=228) Intangible Aspects (c=132)

Purpose behind visiting the investigated area Family visit

100% I work here

Figure 5: Shows Tripoli's historic trail as suggested by the interviewees

Annex 1: Shows the 12 photos included in the questionnaire.

Rajab, M. (1993), "Le Vieux-Tripoli (Liban), Un Espace Historique En Voie De Mutation.

You might also like