heritage tourism definition unesco

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Each year, millions of travelers visit America’s historic places. The National Trust for Historic Preservation defines heritage tourism as “traveling to experience the places, artifacts, and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present.”  A high percentage of domestic and international travelers participate in cultural and/or heritage activities while traveling, and those that do stay longer, spend more, and travel more often. Heritage tourism creates jobs and business opportunities, helps protect resources, and often improves the quality of life for local residents.

The ACHP has encouraged national travel and tourism policies that promote the international marketing of America’s historic sites as tourism destinations. The ACHP also engages in ongoing efforts to build a more inclusive preservation program, reaching out to diverse communities and groups and engaging them in dialogue about what parts of our national legacy should be more fully recognized, preserved, and shared. 

The ACHP developed Preserve America , a national initiative to encourage and support community efforts for the preservation and enjoyment of America’s cultural and natural heritage. In partnership with other federal agencies, the initiative has encouraged the use of historic assets for economic development and community revitalization, as well as enabling people to experience and appreciate local historic resources through heritage tourism and education programs. These goals have been advanced by an Executive Order directing federal agencies to support such efforts, a community designation program, and a recognition program for outstanding stewardship of historic resources by volunteers.

From 2004-2016, over 900 Preserve America Communities   were designated in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories, as well as nearly 60 Preserve America Stewards . Many Preserve America Communities are featured in “Discover Our Shared Heritage” National Register on-line travel itineraries . From 2006 through 2010, the National Park Service (in partnership with the ACHP) awarded more than $21 million in Preserve America Grants   to support sustainable historic resource management strategies, with a focus on heritage tourism. 

These links are being provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only; if they are not ACHP links, they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by the ACHP of any of the products, services or opinions of the corporation or organization or individual. The ACHP bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality, or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links. Please contact the external site for answers to questions regarding its content, including its privacy policies.

Related resources.

• Toggle navigation
• Explore Themes
• Document Library
• Visualisation Gallery
• Methodology
• Data for Sustainable Development - UIS Blog
• Training and Workshops
• UNESCO website

Cultural heritage

Cultural heritage includes artefacts, monuments, a group of buildings and sites, museums that have a diversity of values including symbolic, historic, artistic, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological, scientific and social significance. It includes tangible heritage (movable, immobile and underwater), intangible cultural heritage (ICH) embedded into cultural, and natural heritage artefacts, sites or monuments. The definition excludes ICH related to other cultural domains such as festivals, celebration etc. It covers industrial heritage and cave paintings.

Source definition

UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2009 UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Heritage and Tourism

2015, Global Heritage: A Reader

Some argue that the globalization of heritage through tourism has led to a greater respect for (both material and living) culture than previously existed. However, the transformation of heritage properties into destinations and cultural expressions into performances is seldom straightforward. The interface between heritage and tourism is extremely complex. In a tourism setting, heritage can be (mis)used in a variety of ways for a variety of purposes by a variety of stakeholders. This chapter critically analyzes some of the key issues at stake in the multifaceted relation between heritage and tourism, in particular the positive and negative effects in relation to local communities, but also issues such as authenticity, the role of social imaginaries, and the special tourism status of World Heritage properties. Given the limited space, the focus here is on cultural heritage only, although many of the topics discussed equally apply to natural or “mixed” heritage (a UNESCO term denoting properties containing elements of both cultural and natural significance).

Related Papers

Alfredo Conti

Conservators are generally trained to work on the tangible components of cultural heritage (mainly historic buildings and sites) as a means of preserving their values and meanings and to transmit them to future generations. In our capacity of conservators, we have usually worked to preserve the tangible substance of heritage as a means to preserve values. But when the values may differ according to different stakeholders or interested public, among them tourists, we face new challenges related in some case to the proper use of heritage or to the proper interpretation of those values by local communities and visitors. In this framework, the purpose of this paper is presenting some reflections on the relationship of cultural heritage and tourism; in other words, to reflect on the role and the impact of cultural tourism on heritage conservation.

G Richards (ed) Cultural tourism: global and local perspectives

Jaume Franquesa , Marc Morell

Paragraphs from pages 170 and 171 in lieu of an abstract: Social processes, often conflictive, contribute to the making of heritage products. In these processes, we have to consider a range of groups and social agents who have different political and economic interests and different cultural conceptions, stemming from their distinct positions in social space. Opposed to the discourses that see heritage as something natural and as a product of a consensus, often because of ingenuity as well as dishonest intentions, it is important to stress the dynamic, processual, and conflictive nature of heritage product-making, particularly when it concerns enormously sensitive questions such as identity or memory. That is, heritage-making is inseparable from questions of influence, politics, interests, and authority -in short, power. On the other hand, this conflictive dimension becomes even worse when we move from heritage to heritage tourism, since the commercial exploitation implied by heritage tourism usually arouses resentment. It is not only the fact that commercial exploitalion may be viewed by certain groups as illegitimate when applied to heritage objects of a sacred or inalienable nature, but also the fact that commercial exploitation entails complex political and economic decisions. These issues include lhe kind of public for which the product is designed (which often does not match with the owners of the ascribed meanings), and the fact that the urban speculation that usually accompanies heritage tourism can lead to a rise in the price of land, to processes of use replacement, gentrification, etc. In fact, these latter issues become especially relevant since heritage tourism is mainly a kind of urban tourism and focuses on the historic centers of cities, which become, as a whole, public spaces made heritage (and therefore not only the meanings become problematic, but also spatial practices and uses of space). This is hardly surprising since historic city centers, besides offering a high concentration of heritage referents, usually characterize themselves by their function of centrality and their symbolic contents, particularly their role in representing the city as a whole. Nevertheless. "touristification/heritagization" is still problematic, and it is in these spaces that most of the conflicts regarding heritage and tourism become visible. These conflicts create social discomfort, hence negatively influencing the political success and the economic viability of heritage tourism: consequently, it seems there is a need to develop common criteria for assessment of the complex factors affecting heritage.

C del Mármol, M Morell and J Chalcraft (eds) The making of heritage. Seduction and disenchantment

Marc Morell

If interested in the full text, please contact the author. First pararaphs of last section in lieu of an abstract: It is argued that the World Heritage site nomination is so that Majorcans can gain international recognition of the splendid mountain range they treasure, so they can sustainably develop it while caringly protecting it from the very same development that feeds upon the climate, the heritage, the landscape, the urbanisation of land and the tourist expenditure. The questions I have wished to put forward are concerned with the value forms heritage takes in an island that represents the paradigm of the Spanish brick-and-mortar economy, the role of heritage as a commodity in a society in which tourism is a total prestation: [T]otalities tend to end up inscribed in a series of objects that, insofar as they become media of value, also become objects of desire . . . The object in question might be almost anything . . . Such objects imply within their own structure all those principles of motion that shape the field in which they take on meaning . . . In any case, they become frozen images of those patterns of actions that in practice are called into being by the very fact that people value them; they are . . . mirrors of our own manipulated intentions. (Graeber 2001: 259). The one thing almost all heritage objects share is that, among their self-indulgent outline, their reports are mostly made of preachments on use values. And yet, grounded research reveals that there is not a huge distance to cover from the use values heritage offers in its advertising and legal materials to the exchange values many of its promoters actually seek when appealing to the attraction of visitors. Take, for instance, Crossley and Picard (2014) who initially dismiss what they call the “conventional economic angle” in their critical exploration of value in tourism. Their agenda is haunted by the commodity form tourism values are about in the last instance. However, after a brief escape they fancifully return to a notion of value that holds at once use and exchange: “meanings attached to intangible or atmospheric qualities of a tourist destination [can] be seen as intimately linked to its measurable, economic value” (Crossley and Picard 2014: 1). Because, at the end of the day, why do we seek heritage nominations in heavily touristic-loaded places like the Balearics?

Norberto Santos , Claudete Oliveira Moreira

The second half of the twentieth century began a time of change for society in general and each individual in particular. Although the concept of development is not globally understood as the same phenomenon, concepts such as sustainability and sustainable development, heritage and culture, tourism and ethics, uniqueness and authenticity, materiality and intangibility, among others, have entered the lexicon of scientific research, political speeches, strategic and development plans, and non-governmental organizations. The assumption that the human being is the most relevant heritage is decisive for respecting the other and valuing the differences between us. This approach might help creating a common sphere where everyone and every place plays a crucial role. It is in this context that culture/heritage, as a differentiating element, undertakes a progressive and continuously relevant meaning, a core part in global society. Are many and diverse responsible for this construction. Whether the individual point of view or the collective. The creation of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in November 1945 is a fundamental stepping-stone in this context. The concern to protect the still visible course of the history of Humankind, independent from the dimension or geographical location is the example of a global concern which should involve all of us. Many of these sites listed in UNESCO’s World Heritage List, are also, for this same reason, touristic sites, and thus subject to different uses, almost always different from their initial purpose. These uses should not imply destruction, loss of genuineness, or massification. They should instead preserve or re-establish the authenticity that identifies these sites, making them unique. This apparently contradictory context lays the focus of the reflection that is aimed to be developed in this international meeting: "Local Identity and Tourism Management on World Heritage Sites: Trends and Challenges", in the framework of the International UNESCO-UNITWIN Network Culture, Tourism and Development. The central objective of this Conference is to promote the discussion/reflection on the challenges that we face nowadays and in the process of future development, resulting from the mutability of the relationship between. a) tourism offer in World Heritage Sites, b) preservation of a unique identity and singularity, c) the diverse motivations of tourism demand, d) the creation of local tourist activities able to complement an internationally renowned rooted heritage, e) the importance of new technologies on the management of a heritage that generates social cohesion and territorial solidarity. Simultaneously, tourism is rapidly expanding. It is increasingly diverse and considered as an important social value. Its economic value is also increasing as its weight grows in national GDP. We also witness the development of cultural and heritage tourism as an expression of the ability of societies to turn their legacy into consumer products and instruments of local and regional development. In this perspective there is the need to understand the motivations of the tourist and the profiles of the visitors, connected with multi-attraction and multi-motivation demand. It is important to encompass an understanding of what is being visited, the quest for experience and emotion, the committed participation mediated by ethics and sustainable behaviours; to create the conditions for a new, ontological tourism to grow inside each one of us, in every journey, in each place. The increasing interest and desire for the historical and cultural heritage sites, material or immaterial, allows us to (re)discover the singularity, the authenticity, notoriety and, at the same time, the originality of World Heritage Sites, causing its tourism management to be carried out in such a way that the physical, social, cultural and economic sustainability becomes a permanent and dynamic concern, open and complex. This Conference will enrich the knowledge of tourism, through the debate between different participants and case studies. The objective is to improve the capacities to build on each World Heritage Site an identity able to generate processes that enhance the quality of life of local residents, a marketing strategy designed to offer cultural/heritage reference products, and an informed research, committed and motivated to use (somewhere between entertainment and development) improve the offer on World Heritage Sites.

The significance of World Heritage: Origins, management, consequences

Noel B. Salazar

Curator: The Museum Journal

Mechtild Rossler

Rossitza Ohridska-Olson

The aim of this special issue of Ottoman: Journal of Tourism and Management Research is to trace the latest trends in the relationship between Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) and tourism. Traditional practices, festivities, events, and crafts have existed as resource for sustainable tourism development much before the UNESCO Convention for Safeguarding the Intangible Cultural Heritage entered into force in 2003 and before various national and international documents were deployed to intervene in the tourism product formation and marketing processes. In the past several years, the relationship between ICH and tourism is marked by new dynamics, uncovers previously unexplored resources and outlines new prospects of development and interaction. In spite of the significant contributions in several fields of study (culture anthropology, tourism, cultural diplomacy, politics, etc.), the existing scholarly literature does not reflect the rich transformations that the relationship between ICH and tourism is experiencing nowadays. New regulations, administrative and legislative changes on local, national and international national level prompt the reconsideration on ethical issues, valorization of ICH elements, and create a fusion in the strategic and practical realms of tourism interactions with other industries' plans for sustainable development. New paradigms are appearing through the intervention of NGOs initiatives in safeguarding and valorization of ICH, directly or indirectly casting their influence on tourism development. All these transformations are affecting several tourism experiences in the cultural, wine & gourmet, creative, ethno-, eco-, adventure, and rural types of tourism, to mention a few. On their side, the upsurge of new travel industry initiatives on a global scale poses a significant impact on local communities' traditional practices and forms finding expression in their use as a resource to attract tourist attention, their adjustment to market rules, and their susceptibility to over-commercialization and decontextualization.

Tourism Geographies

Dr. Alon Gelbman

Heritage and culture have long been recognized as core components of tourism. Whether we are dealing with pilgrimages and visits to sacred sites, visits for cultural interaction with ‘other’ host societies, or elaborating on other forms of spiritual activities, tourism has always been an important platform for such meetings and interactions. This report is a summary of the conference ‘Heritage and Cultural Tourism: The Present and Future of the Past’. The conference was held on 17-19 June 2008, at the Brigham Young University, Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies, in Jerusalem, Israel. It brought together 75 tourism researchers from fifteen countries, and was organized by the Department of Geography at Brigham Young University (Utah, USA) with the assistance and sponsorship of several partners.

Emma Waterton

For many years tourism has been one of the principal ways through which the relationship between heritage and globalisation is analytically articulated. Countless studies since the 1970s have considered the arrival of tourism as the precipitator of modernity, of modernisation and of widespread social transformation. There is little doubt this tradition of scholarship will continue to thrive and evolve. By way of a contribution to this research, this chapter sets out to illustrate why current debates in this field need to shift direction, and why frameworks which better reflect the realities of today's global tourism industry need to be developed, most notably ones which can better account for the ongoing rise of non-Western forms of tourism.

RELATED PAPERS

Psychoanalysis Using Skype

Anna Kudiyarova

Mariagrazia Boracchi

Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing

Ketia Kellen

Maud Loireau

Jochen Hoenicke

Revista Identidad

lenin vivar

The Energy Journal

Massimo Filippini

Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia

Jacek Cywinski

Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science

Kien Nguyen-Trung

pairote sattayatham

Khulna University Business Review

Md Mourtuza Ahamed

JOURNAL OF NANOSCOPE (JN)

Muhammad Shahryar

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

UN Tourism | Bringing the world closer

Ethics, culture and social responsibility.

• Global Code of Ethics for Tourism
• Accessible Tourism

Tourism and Culture

• Women’s Empowerment and Tourism

share this content

• Share this article on facebook
• Share this article on twitter
• Share this article on linkedin

The convergence between tourism and culture, and the increasing interest of visitors in cultural experiences, bring unique opportunities but also complex challenges for the tourism sector.

“Tourism policies and activities should be conducted with respect for the artistic, archaeological and cultural heritage, which they should protect and pass on to future generations; particular care should be devoted to preserving monuments, worship sites, archaeological and historic sites as well as upgrading museums which must be widely open and accessible to tourism visits”

UN Tourism Framework Convention on Tourism Ethics

Article 7, paragraph 2

This webpage provides UN Tourism resources aimed at strengthening the dialogue between tourism and culture and an informed decision-making in the sphere of cultural tourism. It also promotes the exchange of good practices showcasing inclusive management systems and innovative cultural tourism experiences .  

About Cultural Tourism

According to the definition adopted by the UN Tourism General Assembly, at its 22nd session (2017), Cultural Tourism implies “A type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s essential motivation is to learn, discover, experience and consume the tangible and intangible cultural attractions/products in a tourism destination. These attractions/products relate to a set of distinctive material, intellectual, spiritual and emotional features of a society that encompasses arts and architecture, historical and cultural heritage, culinary heritage, literature, music, creative industries and the living cultures with their lifestyles, value systems, beliefs and traditions”. UN Tourism provides support to its members in strengthening cultural tourism policy frameworks, strategies and product development . It also provides guidelines for the tourism sector in adopting policies and governance models that benefit all stakeholders, while promoting and preserving cultural elements.

Recommendations for Cultural Tourism Key Players on Accessibility 

UN Tourism , Fundación ONCE and UNE issued in September 2023, a set of guidelines targeting key players of the cultural tourism ecosystem, who wish to make their offerings more accessible.

The key partners in the drafting and expert review process were the ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Committee and the European Network for Accessible Tourism (ENAT) . The ICOMOS experts’ input was key in covering crucial action areas where accessibility needs to be put in the spotlight, in order to make cultural experiences more inclusive for all people.

This guidance tool is also framed within the promotion of the ISO Standard ISO 21902 , in whose development UN Tourism had one of the leading roles.

Download here the English and Spanish version of the Recommendations.

Compendium of Good Practices in Indigenous Tourism

The report is primarily meant to showcase good practices championed by indigenous leaders and associations from the Region. However, it also includes a conceptual introduction to different aspects of planning, management and promotion of a responsible and sustainable indigenous tourism development.

The compendium also sets forward a series of recommendations targeting public administrations, as well as a list of tips promoting a responsible conduct of tourists who decide to visit indigenous communities.

For downloads, please visit the UN Tourism E-library page: Download in English - Download in Spanish .

Weaving the Recovery - Indigenous Women in Tourism

This initiative, which gathers UN Tourism , t he World Indigenous Tourism Alliance (WINTA) , Centro de las Artes Indígenas (CAI) and the NGO IMPACTO , was selected as one of the ten most promising projects amoung 850+ initiatives to address the most pressing global challenges. The project will test different methodologies in pilot communities, starting with Mexico , to enable indigenous women access markets and demonstrate their leadership in the post-COVID recovery.

This empowerment model , based on promoting a responsible tourism development, cultural transmission and fair-trade principles, will represent a novel community approach with a high global replication potential.

Visit the Weaving the Recovery - Indigenous Women in Tourism project webpage.

Inclusive Recovery of Cultural Tourism

The release of the guidelines comes within the context of the International Year of Creative Economy for Sustainable Development 2021 , a UN initiative designed to recognize how culture and creativity, including cultural tourism, can contribute to advancing the SDGs.  

UN Tourism Inclusive Recovery Guide, Issue 4: Indigenous Communities

Sustainable Development of Indigenous Tourism

The Recommendations on Sustainable Development of Indigenous Tourism provide guidance to tourism stakeholders to develop their operations in a responsible and sustainable manner within those indigenous communities that wish to:

• Open up to tourism development, or
• Improve the management of the existing tourism experiences within their communities.

They were prepared by the UN Tourism Ethics, Culture and Social Responsibility Department in close consultation with indigenous tourism associations, indigenous entrepreneurs and advocates. The Recommendations were endorsed by the World Committee on Tourism Ethics and finally adopted by the UN Tourism General Assembly in 2019, as a landmark document of the Organization in this sphere.

Who are these Recommendations targeting?

• Tour operators and travel agencies
• Tour guides
• Indigenous communities
• Other stakeholders such as governments, policy makers and destinations

The Recommendations address some of the key questions regarding indigenous tourism:

Download PDF:

• Recommendations on Sustainable Development of Indigenous Tourism
• Recomendaciones sobre el desarrollo sostenible del turismo indígena, ESP

UN Tourism/UNESCO World Conferences on Tourism and Culture

The UN Tourism/UNESCO World Conferences on Tourism and Culture bring together Ministers of Tourism and Ministers of Culture with the objective to identify key opportunities and challenges for a stronger cooperation between these highly interlinked fields. Gathering tourism and culture stakeholders from all world regions the conferences which have been hosted by Cambodia, Oman, Türkiye and Japan have addressed a wide range of topics, including governance models, the promotion, protection and safeguarding of culture, innovation, the role of creative industries and urban regeneration as a vehicle for sustainable development in destinations worldwide.

Fourth UN Tourism/UNESCO World Conference on Tourism and Culture: Investing in future generations. Kyoto, Japan. 12-13 December 2019 Kyoto Declaration on Tourism and Culture: Investing in future generations ( English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian and Japanese )

Third UN Tourism/UNESCO World Conference on Tourism and Culture : For the Benefit of All. Istanbul, Türkiye. 3 -5 December 2018 Istanbul Declaration on Tourism and Culture: For the Benefit of All ( English , French , Spanish , Arabic , Russian )

Second UN Tourism/UNESCO World Conference’s on Tourism and Culture: Fostering Sustainable Development. Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. 11-12 December 2017 Muscat Declaration on Tourism and Culture: Fostering Sustainable Development ( English , French , Spanish , Arabic , Russian )

First UN Tourism/UNESCO World Conference’s on Tourism and Culture: Building a new partnership. Siem Reap, Cambodia. 4-6 February 2015 Siem Reap Declaration on Tourism and Culture – Building a New Partnership Model ( English )

UN Tourism Study on Tourism and Intangible Cultural Heritage  

The first UN Tourism Study on Tourism and Intangible Cultural Heritage provides comprehensive baseline research on the interlinkages between tourism and the expressions and skills that make up humanity’s intangible cultural heritage (ICH). 

Through a compendium of case studies drawn from across five continents, the report offers in-depth information on, and analysis of, government-led actions, public-private partnerships and community initiatives.

These practical examples feature tourism development projects related to six pivotal areas of ICH: handicrafts and the visual arts; gastronomy; social practices, rituals and festive events; music and the performing arts; oral traditions and expressions; and, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe.

Highlighting innovative forms of policy-making, the UN Tourism Study on Tourism and Intangible Cultural Heritage recommends specific actions for stakeholders to foster the sustainable and responsible development of tourism by incorporating and safeguarding intangible cultural assets.

UN Tourism Study on Tourism and Intangible Cultural Heritage

• UN Tourism Study
• Summary of the Study

Studies and research on tourism and culture commissioned by UN Tourism

• Tourism and Culture Synergies, 2018
• UN Tourism Study on Tourism and Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2012
• Big Data in Cultural Tourism – Building Sustainability and Enhancing Competitiveness (e-unwto.org)

Outcomes from the UN Tourism Affiliate Members World Expert Meeting on Cultural Tourism, Madrid, Spain, 1–2 December 2022

UN Tourism and the Region of Madrid – through the Regional Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Sports – held the World Expert Meeting on Cultural Tourism in Madrid on 1 and 2 December 2022. The initiative reflects the alliance and common commitment of the two partners to further explore the bond between tourism and culture. This publication is the result of the collaboration and discussion between the experts at the meeting, and subsequent contributions.

Relevant Links

• 3RD UN Tourism/UNESCO WORLD CONFERENCE ON TOURISM AND CULTURE ‘FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL’

Photo credit of the Summary's cover page:  www.banglanatak.com

What is Intangible Cultural Heritage?

The term ‘cultural heritage’ has changed content considerably in recent decades, partially owing to the instruments developed by UNESCO. Cultural heritage does not end at monuments and collections of objects. It also includes traditions or living expressions inherited from our ancestors and passed on to our descendants, such as oral traditions , performing arts , social practices, rituals, festive events , knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe or the knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts .

While fragile, intangible cultural heritage is an important factor in maintaining cultural diversity in the face of growing globalization. An understanding of the intangible cultural heritage of different communities helps with intercultural dialogue, and encourages mutual respect for other ways of life.

The importance of intangible cultural heritage is not the cultural manifestation itself but rather the wealth of knowledge and skills that is transmitted through it from one generation to the next. The social and economic value of this transmission of knowledge is relevant for minority groups and for mainstream social groups within a State, and is as important for developing States as for developed ones.

Intangible cultural heritage is:

• Traditional, contemporary and living at the same time : intangible cultural heritage does not only represent inherited traditions from the past but also contemporary rural and urban practices in which diverse cultural groups take part;
• Inclusive : we may share expressions of intangible cultural heritage that are similar to those practised by others. Whether they are from the neighbouring village, from a city on the opposite side of the world, or have been adapted by peoples who have migrated and settled in a different region, they all are intangible cultural heritage: they have been passed from one generation to another, have evolved in response to their environments and they contribute to giving us a sense of identity and continuity, providing a link from our past, through the present, and into our future. Intangible cultural heritage does not give rise to questions of whether or not certain practices are specific to a culture. It contributes to social cohesion, encouraging a sense of identity and responsibility which helps individuals to feel part of one or different communities and to feel part of society at large;
• Representative : intangible cultural heritage is not merely valued as a cultural good, on a comparative basis, for its exclusivity or its exceptional value. It thrives on its basis in communities and depends on those whose knowledge of traditions, skills and customs are passed on to the rest of the community, from generation to generation, or to other communities;
• Community-based : intangible cultural heritage can only be heritage when it is recognized as such by the communities, groups or individuals that create, maintain and transmit it – without their recognition, nobody else can decide for them that a given expression or practice is their heritage.

Password forgotten?

• Get IGI Global News

• All Products
• Book Chapters
• Journal Articles
• Video Lessons
• Teaching Cases

Shortly You Will Be Redirected to Our Partner eContent Pro's Website

eContent Pro powers all IGI Global Author Services. From this website, you will be able to receive your 25% discount (automatically applied at checkout), receive a free quote, place an order, and retrieve your final documents .

What is Heritage Tourism

Related Books View All Books

Related Journals View All Journals

Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Share on social media

Unesco social media, cultural landscapes.

There exist a great variety of Landscapes that are representative of the different regions of the world. Combined works of nature and humankind, they express a long and intimate relationship between peoples and their natural environment.

Table of Contents

History and terminology, categories and subcategories.

• Other References

Certain sites reflect specific techniques of land use that guarantee and sustain biological diversity. Others, associated in the minds of the communities with powerful beliefs and artistic and traditional customs, embody an exceptional spiritual relationship of people with nature.

To reveal and sustain the great diversity of the interactions between humans and their environment, to protect living traditional cultures and preserve the traces of those which have disappeared, these sites, called cultural landscapes, have been inscribed on the World Heritage List.

Cultural landscapes -- cultivated terraces on lofty mountains, gardens, sacred places ... -- testify to the creative genius, social development and the imaginative and spiritual vitality of humanity. They are part of our collective identity.

To date, 121  properties with 6 transboundary properties (1 delisted property) on the World Heritage List have been included as cultural landscapes.

Afghanistan

• Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley
• Madriu-Perafita-Claror Valley
• Quebrada de Humahuaca
• Ulu r u-Kata Tju t a National Park 1
• Budj Bim Cultural Landscape
• Hallstatt-Dachstein / Salzkammergut Cultural Landscape
• Wachau Cultural Landscape
• Fertö / Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape *
• Gobustan Rock Art Cultural Landscape
• Colonies of Benevolence *
• Rio de Janeiro: Carioca Landscapes between the Mountain and the Sea
• Pampulha Modern Ensemble
• Paraty and Ilha Grande – Culture and Biodiversity
• Sítio Roberto Burle Marx
• Landscape of Grand Pré
• Pimachiowin Aki
• Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi
• Ennedi Massif: Natural and Cultural Landscape
• Lushan National Park
• Mount Wutai
• West Lake Cultural Landscape of Hangzhou
• Cultural Landscape of Honghe Hani Rice Terraces
• Zuojiang Huashan Rock Art Cultural Landscape
• Coffee Cultural Landscape of Colombia
• Viñales Valley
• Archaeological Landscape of the First Coffee Plantations in the South-East of Cuba
• Lednice-Valtice Cultural Landscape
• Erzgebirge/Krušnohoří Mining Region *
• Landscape for Breeding and Training of Ceremonial Carriage Horses at Kladruby nad Labem
• The par force hunting landscape in North Zealand
• Kujataa Greenland: Norse and Inuit Farming at the Edge of the Ice Cap
• Aasivissuit – Nipisat. Inuit Hunting Ground between Ice and Sea
• Konso Cultural Landscape
• Pyrénées - Mont Perdu *
• Jurisdiction of Saint-Emilion
• The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes 2
• The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape
• Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin
• Champagne Hillsides, Houses and Cellars
• The Climats, terroirs of Burgundy
• Taputapuātea
• Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lopé-Okanda
• Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz
• Upper Middle Rhine Valley
• Dresden Elbe Valley Delisted 2009
• Muskauer Park / Park Mużakowski *
• Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe
• Hortobágy National Park - the Puszta
• Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape
• Þingvellir National Park
• Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka
• Cultural Landscape of Bali Province: the Subak System as a Manifestation of the Tri Hita Karana Philosophy

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

• Bam and its Cultural Landscape
• The Persian Garden
• Cultural Landscape of Maymand
• Cultural Landscape of Hawraman/Uramanat
• Incense Route - Desert Cities in the Negev
• Costiera Amalfitana
• Portovenere, Cinque Terre, and the Islands (Palmaria, Tino and Tinetto)
• Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park with the Archeological Sites of Paestum and Velia, and the Certosa di Padula
• Sacri Monti of Piedmont and Lombardy
• Val d'Orcia
• Medici Villas and Gardens in Tuscany
• Vineyard Landscape of Piedmont: Langhe-Roero and Monferrato
• Le Colline del Prosecco di Conegliano e Valdobbiadene
• Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range
• Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and its Cultural Landscape
• Petroglyphs of the Archaeological Landscape of Tanbaly
• Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests
• Sulaiman-Too Sacred Mountain

Lao People's Democratic Republic

• Vat Phou and Associated Ancient Settlements within the Champasak Cultural Landscape
• Ouadi Qadisha (the Holy Valley) and the Forest of the Cedars of God (Horsh Arz el-Rab)
• Curonian Spit *
• Kernavė Archaeological Site (Cultural Reserve of Kernavė)
• Royal Hill of Ambohimanga
• Le Morne Cultural Landscape
• Agave Landscape and Ancient Industrial Facilities of Tequila
• Prehistoric Caves of Yagul and Mitla in the Central Valley of Oaxaca
• Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape

Netherlands

• Dutch Water Defence Lines

New Zealand

• Tongariro National Park #
• Sukur Cultural Landscape
• Osun-Osogbo Sacred Grove
• Vegaøyan – The Vega Archipelago
• Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines – Cultural Landscape of Southern Jerusalem, Battir

Papua New Guinea

• Kuk Early Agricultural Site

Philippines

• Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras
• Kalwaria Zebrzydowska: the Mannerist Architectural and Park Landscape Complex and Pilgrimage Park
• Krzemionki Prehistoric Striped Flint Mining Region
• Cultural Landscape of Sintra
• Alto Douro Wine Region
• Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture
• Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Monte in Braga
• Roșia Montană Mining Landscape

Russian Federation

Saudi arabia.

• Al-Ahsa Oasis, an Evolving Cultural Landscape
• Saloum Delta
• Bassari Country: Bassari, Fula and Bedik Cultural Landscapes
• Singapore Botanic Gardens

South Africa

• Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape
• Richtersveld Cultural and Botanical Landscape
• ǂKhomani Cultural Landscape
• Aranjuez Cultural Landscape
• Cultural Landscape of the Serra de Tramuntana
• Risco Caido and the Sacred Mountains of Gran Canaria Cultural Landscape
• Paseo del Prado and Buen Retiro, a landscape of Arts and Sciences
• Agricultural Landscape of Southern Öland

Switzerland

• Lavaux, Vineyard Terraces

Syrian Arab Republic

• Ancient Villages of Northern Syria
• Koutammakou, the Land of the Batammariba
• Diyarbakır Fortress and Hevsel Gardens Cultural Landscape
• Ancient City of Tauric Chersonese and its Chora

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

• Blaenavon Industrial Landscape
• Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
• Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape
• The English Lake District
• The Slate Landscape of Northwest Wales

United States of America

• Papahānaumokuākea
• Fray Bentos Industrial Landscape
• Chief Roi Mata’s Domain
• Trang An Landscape Complex
• Matobo Hills

In 1992 the World Heritage Convention became the first international legal instrument to recognise and protect cultural landscapes. The Committee at its 16th session adopted guidelines concerning their inclusion in the World Heritage List.

The Committee acknowledged that cultural landscapes represent the "combined works of nature and of man" designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal.

The term "cultural landscape" embraces a diversity of manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment. Cultural landscapes often reflect specific techniques of sustainable land-use, considering the characteristics and limits of the natural environment they are established in, and a specific spiritual relation to nature. Protection of cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques of sustainable land-use and can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape. The continued existence of traditional forms of land-use supports biological diversity in many regions of the world. The protection of traditional cultural landscapes is therefore helpful in maintaining biological diversity.

Cultural landscapes fall into three main categories ( Operational Guidelines 2008, Annex3 ), namely:

The most easily identifiable is the clearly defined landscape designed and created intentionally by man . This embraces garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons which are often (but not always) associated with religious or other monumental buildings and ensembles.

The second category is the organically evolved landscape . This results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes reflect that process of evolution in their form and component features.

They fall into two sub-categories:

• a relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form.
• continuing landscape is one which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time.

The final category is the associative cultural landscape . The inclusion of such landscapes on the World Heritage List is justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent.

World Heritage Regional Thematic Expert Meetings on Cultural Landscapes 1992 - 2007

• Thematic meeting of experts on the agro-pastoral cultural landscapes in the Mediterranean, Meyrueis, Lozère, France, September 20-22, 2007
• Meeting of Experts on Cultural Landscapes in the Caribbean: Identification and Safeguarding Strategies, Santiago de Cuba, November 7-10, 2005 Background paper ingles Nov 3.doc Background paper español Nov 3.doc Santiago de Cuba Declaration. ENGLISH.FINAL.doc Declaración de Santiago de Cuba. espanol.doc
• Regional Expert Meeting on Plantation systems in the Carribean, Paramaribo, Suriname, July 17-19, 2001
• States Parties Meeting towards a joint nomination of areas of the Alpine Arc for the World Heritage List, Turin, Italy, July 5-8, 2001
• World Heritage Thematic Expert Meeting on Vineyard Cultural Landscapes (Hungary, July 2001) whc-01-conf208-inf7e.pdf
• UNESCO World Heritage Centre / Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan / Wakayama Prefectural Government (ed.): UNESCO Thematic Expert Meeting on Asia-Pacific Sacred Mountains. 5-10 September 2001, Wakayama City, Japan. Final Report. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001265/126500e.pdf
• Expert Meeting on Desert Landscapes and Oasis Systems (Oasis Kharga, Egypt, 2001) whc-01-conf208-inf10e.pdf
• Regional Expert Meeting on Cultural Landscapes in Central America, San José, Costa Rica, September 27-29, 2000
• Thematic Expert Meeting in Potential Natural World Heritage in the Alps (Hallstatt, Austria, 2000) whc-00-conf204-web2e.pdf
• Regional Expert Meeting on Cultural Landscapes in Eastern Europe, Bialystok, Poland, 29 September- 3 October, 1999
• Expert Meeting on the Management Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes (Banska Stiavnica, Slovakia, June 1999)
• Expert Meeting on African Cultural Landscapes, Tiwi, Kenya, March 9-14, 1999
• Regional Thematic Meeting on Cultural Landscapes in the Andes, Arequipa / Chivay, Peru, May 17-22, 1998
• Von Droste, B., Rössler, M., Titchen, S. (eds.): Linking Nature and Culture. Report on the Global Strategy, Natural and Cultural Heritage Expert Meeting 25 to 29 March 1998, Amsterdam, Netherlands. (E)
• Expert Meeting on European Cultural Landscapes of Outstanding Universal Value, Vienna, Austria, 21 April 1996
• Expert Meeting on 'Evaluation of general Principles and Criteria for Nomination of natural World Heritage Sites', Parc national de la Vanoise, France, March 22-24, 1996
• The Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on Associative Cultural Landscapes, New South Wales, Australie April 27-29, 1995
• Regional Thematic Study Meeting 'Asian Rice Culture and its Terraced Landscape', Manila, Philippines, 28 March - 4 April, 1995
• Expert Meeting on Routes as Part of the Cultural Heritage (Spain, November 1994) whc-94-conf003-inf13e.pdf
• Expert Meeting on Heritage Canals, Chaffey Lock, Canada, September 15-19,1994
• International Expert Meeting on "Cultural Landscapes of Outstanding Universal Value" (Germany, October 1993)
• Expert Group on Cultural Landscapes (France, October 1992)

Expert Meetings on Cultural Landscapes organized by States Parties

• Monument - Site - Cultural Landscape Exemplified by the Wachau (Austria, October 1998)
• Cultural Landscapes: Concept and Implementation (Italy, March 2000)

Books and Proceedings

• Luengo, A., Rössler, M. (eds.): World Heritage Cultural Landscapes . Elche, 2012.
• Von Droste, B., Plachter, H., Rössler, M. (eds.): Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value . Components of a Global Strategy. Jena: Fischer Verlag 1995. (E)
• UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Heritage Transportation Canal Corridors . Proceedings of the International Meeting of Experts 15 to 19 September 1994. Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage, 1996. (E/F)
• Pressouyre, L.: The World Heritage Convention, twenty years later . Paris, UNESCO Publishing 1996.
• Barreda, E.M. (ed.): Paisajes Culturales en Los Andes . Memoria Narrativa, Casos de Estudio, Conclusiones y Recomendaciones de la Réunion de Expertos, Arequipa y Chivay, Perú, 1998. (Spanish)
• Von Droste, B., Rössler, M., Titchen, S. (eds.): Linking Nature and Culture . Report on the Global Strategy, Natural and Cultural Heritage Expert Meeting 25 to 29 March 1998, Amsterdam, Netherlands. (E)
• Hajós, G. (ed.): Monument - Site - Cultural Landscape. Exemplified by the Wachau . Proceedings of the International Conference from 12th to 15th October 1998 in Dürnstein (Austria). Verlag Berger, Wien - Horn. (1998) (Engish/German)
• UNESCO: Natural Sacred Sites . Cultural Diversity and Biological Diversity. International Symposium, Paris 1998
• Michalowski, A. et al. (eds.): Studia I Materialy. The Regional Expert Meeting on the Cultural Landscapes in Eastern Europe . Bialystok, Poland 29 September - 3 October 1999. Osrodek Ochrony Zabytkowego Krajobrazu Narodowa Instytucja Kultury, Warszawa 2000.
• (E)Rìos, M., Rössler, M., Lepeigné-Cobo, A. M. (ed.) Paisajes Culturales en Mesoamérica . Reunión de Expertos, Memoria. 27 al 30 de septiembre de 2000. UNESCO 2000 (Spanish)
• The George Wright Forum. The Journal of the George Wright Society. Special issue: Landscape stewardship. New directions in conservation of nature and culture. Volume 17, No. 1, 2000.
• Rössler, M., Saouma-Forero, G.: The World Heritage Convention and cultural landscapes in Africa . Expert Meeting - Tiwi, Kenya 9/14 March 1999. UNESCO 2000, CRATerre See also
• UNESCO World Heritage Centre, IUCN (eds.): Vision and reality. The World Heritage Convention in action. World Conservation Number 2 2001 . The IUCN Bulletin.
• The Cultural Landscape . Planning for a sustainable partnership between people and place. ICOMOS UK London, 2001.
• UNESCO World Heritage Centre / Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan / Wakayama Prefectural Government (ed.): UNESCO Thematic Expert Meeting on Asia-Pacific Sacred Mountains . 5-10 September 2001, Wakayama City, Japan. Final Report.
• Rössler, M. and H. Cleere: Connecting nature and culture. In: World Conservation. The IUCN Bulletin No 2 (special issue: Vision and reality – The World Heritage Convention in action), IUCN, Gland, 2001, 17.
• de Belfont, P. et M. Rössler: Tres Serols, Mont Perdu, nature d’hommes – Sites patrimonial naturel et culturel de l’Unesco (Le patrimoine rural europeén – Naturopa No. 95, 2001. Strasbourg: Council of Europe (English, French, German edition; http://www.coe.int/ ).
• de Belfont, P. et Rössler, M.: Tres Serols, Mont Perdu, nature d’hommes – Sites patrimonial naturel et culturel de l’Unesco (Le patrimoine rural europeén – Naturopa No. 95, 2001. Strasbourg: Council of Europe (English, French, German edition; http://www.coe.int/).
• Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e.V., Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus (ed.): Natur und Kultur . Ambivalente Dimensionen unseres Erbes. Perspektivenwechsel. Deutsche UNESCO Kommission e.V. 2002 (German/English)
• UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Cultural Landscapes: the Challenges of Conservation . Proceedings of the conference: World Heritage 2002, Shared Legacy, Common Responsibility, 11 - 12 November 2002 Ferrara, Italy. World Heritage Papers 7, 2002 (F)
• Hungarian World Heritage Committee, UNESCO World Heritage Centre (ed.): Proceedings of the World Heritage Expert Meeting on Vineyard Cultural Landscapes . 11 - 14 Juny, Tokaj, Hungary. Nemzeti Kulturális Örökség Minisztériuma, 2002. (English) Short versionCommittee on the Preservation, Development and Utilization of Cultural Landscapes Associated with Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Monuments and Site Division, Cultural Properties Department, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan: The Report of the Study on the Protection of Cultural Landscapes Associated with Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries . 12. June 2003, Japan
• Fowler, P.J.: World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992 - 2002. World Heritage Papers 6 . UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2003. (E)
• Cultural Landscapes: the Challenges of Conservation. World Heritage papers 7 . UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2003. World Heritage 2002. Shared Legacy, Common Responsibility. Associated Workshops, 11-12 November 2002, Ferrara, Italy. (E)
• Conseil de l'Europe : Mémoire du patrimoine . Naturopa no 99 / 2003 (French/English)
• Lee, C, Schaaf, T. (eds.): International Workshop on the Importance of Sacred Natural Sites for the Biodiversity Conservation . Kunming and Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve. People's Republic of China, 17 - 20 February 2003. Proceedings. UNESCO, Division of Ecological Sciences 2003 (E)
• Brown, J., Mitchell, N., and Beresford, M. (eds.), The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN: Glandand Cambridge 2005.
• Forestry and our Cultural Heritage. Proceedings of the Seminar 13-15 June 2005, Sunne Sweden. Joint FAO/FCE/ILO Experts Network to Implement Sustainable Forest Management. Swedish Forest Agency/Ministerial Conference on Forests Europe, Warsaw 2006.  
• Proceedings of the International Symposium, Tokyo 30 May to 2 June 2005. Conserving Cultural and Biological Diversity: The Role of Sacred Natural Sites and Cultural Landscapes.   UNESCO, Paris, 2006  Réunion thématique d’experts. 20, 21 et 22 septembre 2007, Meyrueis Lozère.
• Agnoletti, M. (edited by), The Conservation of Cultural Landscapes , CABI Publishing, 2006. (E)
• Les paysages culturels de l’agro pastoralisme méditerranéen . Réunion thématique d’experts. 20, 21 et 22 septembre 2007, Meyrueis Lozère. AVECC, MEEDDAT, Paris 2008.  
• Rössler, M. and L. Folin Calabri: The Cultural Landscape and the Historic Urban Landscape Approach as a Tool to Protect Important Views in Historic Cities. Paper presented to the Round Table Le Patrimoine Mondial / World Heritage: Définir et protéger les « perspectives visuelles importantes » Defining and protecting « Important Views » Montreal 18-20 March 2008
• Mitchell, Nora, Rössler, Mechtild and Pierre Marie Tricaud (eds):  World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. A Handbook for Conservation and Management . World Heritage papers 26. UNESCO: World Heritage Centre 2009.
• Gaese, Hartmut, Udo Nehren u. Simone Sandholz (eds.): Kulturlandschaften im globalen Klimawandel. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin 2010.
• Lerin, François (ed.): Pastoralisme méditerranéen: patrimoine culturel et paysager et développement durable. Actes de la deuxième réunion thématique d’experts dur le pastoralisme méditerranéen, 12-14 novembre 2009, Tirana, Albanie. Montpellier: CIHEAM (Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes), (Série A: Séminaires Méditerranéens, N. 93), 2010.
• European Culture expressed in Agricultural Landscapes. Perspectives from the Eucaland Project . Ed. by Gloria Pungetti and Alexandra Kruse Palombi Editori, Rome 2010.
• Hartmut, G., Nehren, U., u. Sandholz, S.,(eds.) Kulturlandschaften im globalen Klimawandel . Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin 2010.
• World Heritage and Cultural Diversity ; Edited by German National Commission for UNESCO, Dieter Offenhäuser, Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus, Walther Ch. Zimmerli and UNESCO Chair in Heritage Studies, Marie Theres Albert. Cottbus 2010.
• World Heritage and Cultural Diversity ; Edited by German National Commission for UNESCO, Dieter Offenhäuser, Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus, Walther Ch. Zimmerli and UNESCO Chair in Heritage Studies, Marie Theres Albert, Cottbus 2010.
• Community Development through World Heritage. World Heritage papers 31 . UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2012.
• Paysages culturels du patrimoine mondial: vingt ans d’expérience 1992-2012 . In: 303 La revue culturelle des Pays de la Loire, No. 121/2012.
• Luengo Anon, Ana and Mechtild Rössler (eds.): World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, Elche: Ayuntamiento de Elche, 2012. E/S.

Conserving Cultural Landscapes: Challenges and New Directions, Routledge  publishers. Edited by Ken Taylor, Australian National University, Australia; Archer St. Clair, Rutgers University, USA; and Nora J. Mitchell, University of Vermont, USA. Published as part of the series Routledge Studies in Heritage, 2014.

• Luengo, A.: World Heritage agricultural landscapes. In: World Heritage Review; 69, Publ: 2013, p. 8-15
• Interview with Francesco Bandarin on cultural landscapes , American Society of Landscape Architects, 8 March 2010 
• Bequette, F.: Gardens of the Far East . In: The UNESCO courier: a window open on the world; 50, 5. Publ: 1997; p. 44-46
• Bergeret, Y.: Reading the landscape . In: The UNESCO courier: a window open on the world; 50, 5. Publ: 1997; p. 10-15
• Boukhari, S.: Beyond the monuments: a living heritage . In: UNESCO sources; 80. Publ: 1996; p. 7-16 (E, F) http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001033/103365e.pdf http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001033/103365f.pdf
• Cleere, H.: World heritage vineyard landscapes . In: World Heritage Review; 35 Publ: 2004; p. 4-19 (E, F)
• De Marco, L.; Stovel, H.: Cinque Terre: a landscape carved from stone . In: World Heritage Review; 33 Publ: 2003; p. 54-65 (E, F)
• Díaz F., José M.: Quebrada de Humahuaca . In: World Heritage Review; 35. Publ: 2004; p. 68-79
• Jonathan, P.: From garden to landscape in Suzhou . In: World Heritage Review; 13, Publ: 1999; p. 4-15
• Lowenthal, D.: Cultural landscapes. In: The UNESCO courier: a window open on the world; 50, 9, Publ: 1997; p. 18-20
• Lu W.: The Soul of Suzhou's gardens . In: The UNESCO courier; 53, 12. Publ: 2000; p. 20-22 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001213/121326e.pdf#121333 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001213/121326f.pdf#121333 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001213/121326s.pdf#121333
• Molstad, A.: The Nordic road map for world heritage conservation . In: World Heritage Review; 33. Publ: 2003; p. 20-23
• Novák, Z.: Lednice-Valtice . In: World Heritage Review; 9, Publ: 1998; p. 24-35
• Quilitzsch, U.: The Garden kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz . In: World Heritage Review; 25, Publ: 2002; p. 70-79
• Roberts, J.: Moghal gardens: paradise and conservation . In: World Heritage Review; 7, Publ: 1998; p. 20-31
• Rössler, M.: The integration of cultural landscapes into the World Heritage . In: The World Heritage Newsletter, No. 1, February 1993, 15. (E/F)
• Rössler, M.: Conserving outstanding cultural landscapes. In: The World Heritage Newsletter, No. 2, June 1993, 14-15. (E/F)
• Rössler, M.: Protecting outstanding cultural landscapes. In: The World Heritage Newsletter, No. 3, December 1993, 15. (E/F)
• Rössler, M.: Welterbe - Wessen kulturelle Werte. Perspektiven für den Schutz von Kulturlandschaften indigener Völker. In: Infoemagazin. Zeitschrift für Ökologie und Vierte Welt, 2/93, Dezember 1993. (German only)
• Rössler, M.: Tongariro: first cultural landscape on the World Heritage List. In: The World Heritage Newsletter, No. 4, March 1994, 15. (E/F)
• Rössler, M.: Neue Perspektiven für den Schutz von Kulturlandschaften. Kultur und Natur im Rahmen der Welterbekonvention. In: Geographische Rundschau 47 (1995), 343-347. (G/E)
• Rössler, M.: World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A UNESCO Flagship Programma 1992-2006. In: Landscape Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, October 2006, 333-353. (E)
• Titchen, S. M.: Protecting cultural landscapes in the Asian Pacific region . In: World Heritage Review; 2. Publ: 1996; p. 34-39 Landscape with figures: the dialogue between people and places. In: The UNESCO courier: a window open on the world; 50, 5, Publ: 1997 (E, F, S)
• The integration of cultural landscapes into the World Heritage In: The World Heritage Newsletter, No. 1, February 1993, 15.
• Conserving outstanding cultural landscapes. In: The World Heritage Newsletter, No. 2, June 1993, 14-15.
• Protecting outstanding cultural landscapes. In: The World Heritage Newsletter, No. 3, December 1993, 15.
• Tongariro: first cultural landscape on the World Heritage List. In: The World Heritage Newsletter, No. 4, March 1994, 15.
• The World Heritage Convention. In: Landscapes: the setting for our future lives. Naturopa No. 96, 1998. Strasbourg: Council of Europe (English, French, German edition) p.19.
• Landscapes in the framework of the World Heritage Convention and other UNESCO Instruments and Programmes. In: Stephan Dömpke and Michael Succow (eds). Cultural Landscapes and Nature Conservation in Northern Eurasia. Proceedings of the Wörlitz Symposium, March 20-23, 1998. Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU), AIDEnvironment, The Nature Conservation Bureau, Bonn 1998. 24-32.
• Rossler, M.: World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A UNESCO flagship Programme 1992-2006. In: Landscape Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, October 2006. Theme Issue: Cultural Landscapes in the 21st Century, 333-354.
• Rossler, Mechtild: World Heritage Cultural landscapes – A global perspective. Welterbe Kulturlandschaften – Eine globale Perspective. In: Perspektiven des Welterbes. Constructing World Heritage ed. by Marie Theres Albert and Sieglinde Gauer Lietz. IKO Verlag für Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Frankfurt, London 2006, 142-152.
• Rossler, M.: Applying authenticity to cultural landscapes. In: APT Bulletin, The Journal of Preservation Technology , Vol. XXXIX, Number 2-3, 2008, 47-52 (also available at www.apti.org ).
• Rössler, M. and N. Mitchell: Landscape linkages without boundaries? In: World Heritage at the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. DurbanSouth Africa, 8-17 September 2003. World Heritage reports 16. UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2005, 23-26. Paysages culturels du patrimoine mondial: vingt ans d’expérience 1992-2012. In: 303 La revue culturelle des Pays de la Loire, No. 121/2012.
• Cameron, C. and M. Rössler: Global Strategy: canals and cultural routes. In: The World Heritage Newsletter, No. 8, June 1995, 11-13.
• La Convention du Patrimoine Mondial au Travers les Paysages Culturels . In: Patrimoine et Paysages Culturels. Actes du colloque international de Saint Emilion 30 mai – 1 er juin 2001. Renaissance des cités d’Europe: éditions confluences, Bordeaux octobre 2001, 17 – 21.
• World Heritage sites: Towards linking the Tangible and the Intangible . In: The Full Value of Parks. From Economics to the Intangible, edited by Dave Harmon and Allan Puttney, Rowman and Littlefeld Publishers, Oxford 2003, 197- 210
• Enhancing global heritage conservation: links between the tangible and intangible . World Heritage Review, No 32, 2003, 64-67 (English, French, Spanish and Russian edition).
• Linking culture and nature - The Protection of Historic Gardens and Cultural Landscapes under the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. In: Michael Rohde und Rainer Schomann (eds.): Historic Gardens Today. To commemorate the 80 th birthday of Prof. Dr. Dieter Hennebo, Edition Leipzig, Seemann Henschel Verlag, Leipzig, 2004, 220-229. 
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystem Studies: Ecosystem Science and Management. Island Press: 2005. Chapter 17 Cultural and Amenities Services. 457-474.
• Hoffman, B., (ed.) World Heritage: Linking Biological and Cultural Diversity . In: Art and Cultural Heritage Law for the Twenty-First Century: Policy and Practice. Cambridge University Press 2006, 201-205.
• Rossler, M.: Applying authenticity to cultural landscapes . In: APT Bulletin, The Journal of Preservation Technology , Vol. XXXIX, Number 2-3, 2008, 47-52 (also available at www.apti.org ).
• Rössler, M. and K. Manz: World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. In: IFLA Newsletter Issue 81, March 2009, 3-4.
• Schaaf, T. and M. Rössler: Sacred Natural Sites, Cultural Landscapes and UNESCO’s Action . In: Sacred Natural Sites. Conserving Nature and Culture. Ed by Bas Verschuuren, Robert Wild, Jeffrey Mc Neely, and Gonzalo Oviedo. London, Washington: Earthscan, 2010, 161-169.
• Ringbeck, B. and M. Rössler: Between international obligations and local politics: the case of the DresdenElbeValley under the 1972 World Heritage Convention. In: Denkmalschutz and Stadtentwicklung. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 3/4, 2011, 205-211.
• Cameron, C. and M. Rössler: World Heritage and indigenous peoples. The evolution of an important relationship . In: World Heritage Review, No.62, 2012, 44-49. (English, French, Spanish editions)

Charters and Other Instruments

• International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter)
• The Florence Charter (Historic gardens and landscapes)
• Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage
• International Charter on Cultural Tourism
• The Nara Document on Authenticity
• The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter)
• World Heritage Cultural Landscape , ICOMOS Documentation Centre, June 2007
• Convention For the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Paris, 17 October 2003 More
• Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Paris, 16 November 1972 More
• Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage 16 November 1972 More
• Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites 11 December 1962 More

Council of Europe

• The European Institute of Cultural Routes
• European Landscape Convention
• MAB (UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme)
• Melina Mercouri Prize
• Forum Unesco forumunesco.upv.es/eng/index.html

Advisory Bodies

• ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites)   www.icomos.org
• For landscape issues see also National ICOMOS organizations such as the UK, Australia, USA and others.
• IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) www.iucn.org/
• ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property) http://www.iccrom.org/

United Nations

• UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) www.unep.org/
• UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre www.unep-wcmc.org/
• UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development www.un.org/esa/sustdev/
• UN-HABITAT (United Nations Human Settlement Programme) www.unhabitat.org/
• FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) www.fao.org/
• UN System Network on Rural Development and Food Security www.rdfs.net/index.htm

Professional associations

• IFLA (International Federation of Landscape Architects) www.iflaonline.org/
• IALE (International Association for Landscape Ecology) www.landscape-ecology.org/
• ISoCaRP (International Society of City and Regional Planners) www.isocarp.org/
• UIA (International Union of Architects) www.uia-architectes.org/count-uia.shtml
• INTECOL (International Society for Ecology) www.intecol.net/
• IGU (International Geographic Union) www.igu-net.org/

Universities / Institutes

• GCI The Getty Conservation Institute www.getty.edu/conservation/institute/
• CIESIN (The Center for International Earth Science Information Network) www.ciesin.org/
• GITA (The Geospatial Information & Technology Association) www.gita.org/default.html
• ITC (International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation) www.itc.nl/
• INTBAU (The International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism) www.intbau.org/

Non-govermental organizations

• The Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation www.ahlp.org/index.html
• Slow Food Movement www.slowfood.com/
• Landscape Conservation Networks , US tnc-ecomanagement.org/
• Heritage Conservation Network www.heritageconservation.net/index.htm
• WMF (World Monuments Fund) www.wmf.org/
• OWHC (The Organization of World Heritage Cities) www.ovpm.org/?flash=1&detect=1
• The Global Heritage Fund www.globalheritagefund.org/home_static.html
• The Society for Industrial Archaeology www.sia-web.org/
• The Cultural Landscape Foundation www.tclf.org/
• Cultural Heritage Search Engine www.culturalheritage.net/

Other references

• Dumbarton Oaks, Garden and Landscape Studies GLS Fall 2011 News Letter  
• The ICOMOS/IFLA International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscape (ISCCL) World Rural Landscapes

Evolution of heritage and development in Liverpool's waterfront over 40 years

• Open access
• Published: 03 July 2024
• Volume 1 , article number  11 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• James Hole 1 &
• Ataa Alsalloum   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5785-4216 2  

1 Altmetric

The recent delisting of Liverpool’s World Heritage Site has highlighted the adverse impacts of ongoing urban developments on the city’s heritage. This study aims to address the critical question of how Liverpool can safeguard its heritage following the loss of its World Heritage status. As this status withdrawal implies a lack of international policy consideration, it raises important questions: What additional measures should be implemented? How could we reassess Liverpool's heritage in this new context? To tackle these issues, we investigate the changing relationship between safeguarding heritage and urban development on Liverpool Waterfront’s Historic Urban Landscape over the past 40 years. This study analyses the impact of developments on Liverpool’s heritage values, specifically focusing on Integrity, Authenticity, and Outstanding Universal Value. By employing a novel, top-down heritage impact assessment methodology, we evaluate the influence of urban and architectural developments on these values. This methodology is distinguished by its comprehensive comparative analysis of diverse elements drawn from heritage policy documents, spanning both tangible and intangible domains. In addition, we conducted interviews with experts familiar with Liverpool's heritage context to deepen our understanding of developmental impacts. The analysis framework comprises three case study areas and their associated developments: the adaptive reuse of the Albert Dock Complex (1981–1988), the Pier Head Developments (2007–2013), and the Stanley Dock Conservation Area (2021 onwards). The findings indicate that adaptive reuse schemes have been reasonably successful in preserving heritage values, whereas certain urban interventions have had detrimental effects. This study underscores the need for stricter regulations and broader stakeholder involvement to protect Liverpool's heritage. Further research is recommended, incorporating more development case studies and examining successful urban interventions in other heritage cities, to strengthen Liverpool’s heritage safeguarding strategies amidst evolving urban development pressures.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Liverpool is well-known for its rich Mercantile Maritime Heritage, inscribed as one of the World Heritage Sites by UNESCO in 2004 [ 1 ]. Liverpool’s comprehensive heritage context is a manifestation of the city’s story, dating back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when Liverpool was a pioneering world port city and one of global maritime mercantile importance. Stemming from this industrial maritime heritage, Liverpool was enriched with a wealth of architectural and cultural assets, having more Grade I listed buildings than any city outside of London [ 2 ]. Heritage plays a key role in sustainable development within cities and is at the forefront of redevelopment in heritage sites such as Liverpool, being both an enabler and driver of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions [ 3 ]. It is therefore of upmost importance to continue to safeguard such heritage in a growing city.

After Liverpool’s successful industrial development, its economy began to falter in the twentieth century, during the great depression in the 1930s, and later collapsed post-war due to issues with international trade. The city lost its global maritime importance, becoming a shadow of its former self, and losing almost half of its population over the next 40 years ([ 2 ], p8). However, the light within the ashes for Liverpool were the rich heritage assets it was left with, and in the early 1980s, the Merseyside Development Corporation (MDC) utilised Jesse Hartley’s Albert Dock Complex for reuse. Through this development, the MDC provided Liverpool with a new setting for combined commercial and cultural uses, catalysing a new development of growth for Liverpool ([ 4 ], p. 9–11).

Since the regeneration of the Albert Dock, Liverpool has maintained a close relationship with heritage and development. In 1999, Britain’s first urban regeneration company, Liverpool Vision, was established. This organisation has been focusing on the city's economic development. That same year, Liverpool was placed on the UK’s Tentative list for UNESCO ([ 1 ], p24–25). In 2004, the city was inscribed as a World Heritage Site (WHS) with its ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ (OUV) justified under three criteria [ 5 ]. The city’s heritage site was divided into six-character areas with surrounding ‘buffer zones’, three of these areas encompassed the waterfront and its post-industrial docklands; The Pier Head, Albert and Wapping Dock, and the Stanley Dock Conservation Area [ 6 ], Fig.  1 . The next major heritage-led development along this waterfront in the late 2000s were the provocative ‘Fourth Grace’ at the Pier Head, that later became the Museum of Liverpool, and three additional buildings on Mann Island [ 1 , p24–25].

Liverpool’s WHS, Character Areas and Buffer Zones (LCC 2009, 4), focus areas of this study include Areas 1–3

In the last ten years, Liverpool has been regarded as less successful in its relationship with heritage and development, in particular, the Stanley Docks Conservation Area and the Liverpool Waters proposal by Peel Holdings. The initial proposal for the Liverpool Waters Scheme was viewed locally as an essential step towards restoring Liverpool to its former position on a global scale. The £5.5 billion redevelopment scheme encompasses residential, business and leisure opportunities [ 7 , p 309]. Originally, the heights of the proposed landmark 192 m, 55-storey ‘Shanghai Tower’ and its cluster of secondary tall buildings led to UNESCO in 2011 questioning the threat of development on the surrounding OUV of the WHS [ 1 ], p35). Consequently, since its go-ahead by the Liverpool City Council (LCC) for the Liverpool Waters Scheme in 2012, the city has been on the World Heritage in Danger List [ 1 ], p17). This changed in July 2021, when a new Everton Football Stadium was approved at the historic Bramley-Moore Dock, which caused Liverpool to be delisted as a WHS and become one of three World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in the world to lose their status [ 71 ].

The rationale behind this study is to understand the critical interplay between Liverpool's heritage and development over the past four decades, in light of its recent World Heritage Site delisting, and to comprehend how existing heritage can be safeguarded and reassessed in a post-World Heritage city.

Examining this interplay post-delisting is essential as it highlights the impact of losing international policy considerations on heritage safeguarding and provides valuable insights into preventing further damage to the city's heritage values. This study seeks to determine how Liverpool can sustain and safeguard its heritage, identify additional measures that should be implemented, and reassess Liverpool's heritage in this new context. The focus of this article is a comprehensive reflection on past, present, and future urban developments along Liverpool Waterfront’s post-industrial heritage. It examines how redevelopment schemes have attempted to safeguard Liverpool’s heritage considering the Historic Urban Landscape approach and how attitudes towards heritage protection in the city have evolved over time. This study is crucial for informing future policies and strategies to effectively balance urban development and heritage conservation in Liverpool and similar heritage cities.

This article will hence analyse three major existing and on-going developments, within three of the six character-areas as originally enlisted on the World Heritage List in 2004. The urban developments in focus are the Albert Dock Complex in the 1980s, the developments at the Pier Head in the late 2000s, the present Stanley Docks Conservation Area and its future regarding the Liverpool Waters Scheme, in particular, the Everton Stadium. These sites have been chosen as they represent milestone developments along the historic waterfront and serve as case studies demonstrating the evolving relationship between heritage and development over the last 40 years.

The value of this research lies in its potential as a tool for understanding this intrinsic relationship between development and heritage, applicable to current and future WHSs on the In-danger List. Additionally, it aims to encourage Liverpool to safeguard its heritage considering the Historic Urban Landscape approach, both protecting and sustaining its heritage before further damage occurs. Post-delisting, local authorities managing the site are no longer required to consider the impact of developments on the site's OUV, focusing instead on local and national heritage management policies.

2 Background

2.1 cultural heritage and the historic urban landscape.

Cultural heritage understanding was primarily established by the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, known as the World Heritage Convention, and its updated Operational Guidelines. Since the World Heritage List's creation in 1972, heritage interpretation has evolved, as reflected in policy documents and the types of heritage inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Heritage includes tangible assets like monuments and cities, and intangible elements such as oral traditions and traditional crafts.

The link between heritage and communities was emphasized by the UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, defining five main domains of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) [ 8 ], and the Council of Europe's 2005 Faro Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, which includes environmental elements shaped by the interaction between people and places over time [ 9 ].

These, among other policies, introduced a more integrative and inclusive perception of heritage within cities culminating in the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape in 2011. This Recommendation broadens the definition of heritage to include ‘a site’s topography, natural features, built environment (historic and contemporary), infrastructure, open spaces, land use patterns, visual relationships, and intangible dimensions such as social and cultural practices, economic processes, and identity’ [ 10 ].

The Historic Urban Landscape approach (HUL hereafter) values the engagement of past and present communities with a place. Despite such improved comprehensive understanding, the tension between conservation and regeneration remains prominent [ 11 ]. It is often easier to resist change: conservationists may feel as though they're losing control gained through previous methods, while developers may perceive it as restricting the city beyond monuments and conservation areas. However, these approaches can instead form connections and collaboratively decide what sustainable urban development means in their specific context. As Pereira Roders puts it, “there is not one [HUL] approach but as many approaches as different contexts demand” [ 12 , p50]. The concept of a WHS as a HUL is intriguing but largely undefined. The authenticity of a WHS at an urban scale, particularly by UNESCO standards, remains unclear. This ambiguity can conflict with local visions of a WHS, especially in cities where rapid growth is prioritized by local authorities. This presents a challenge for UNESCO regarding resource allocation for monitoring and site management and poses a political challenge in demonstrating the regime's seriousness [ 13 ].

Heritage-led urban development refers to the process of using cultural heritage as a catalyst for the revitalization and sustainable development of urban areas. It aims to integrate heritage conservation into urban planning and development strategies, thereby ensuring that heritage assets contribute to the identity, attractiveness, and liability of urban environments, while also promoting tourism and economic development [ 14 ]. However, it requires careful balancing of conservation needs with contemporary development pressures to avoid commodification or loss of heritage values [ 13 ].

Development in heritage sites could take different shapes such as adaptive reuse [ 15 ], or new interventions [ 16 ]. The introduction of high-rise buildings in heritage sites presents particular challenges. Significant examples in the UK are London and Liverpool. In London, the development of high-rise buildings in the vicinity of the Tower of London has sparked debates about the visual and contextual integrity of heritage sites [ 17 ]. Meanwhile, in Liverpool, international concerns, particularly from UNESCO, over the impact on the area's OUV due to the construction of high-rise buildings near the historic waterfront, contributed to conflicted debates and eventually to the delisting as a WHS. UNESCO's decision highlighted that the new high-rise buildings and large-scale urban interventions compromised the integrity and authenticity of the historic landscape, thereby failing to meet the criteria set for WHS [ 18 ]. In the interim, local heritage management faced challenges in balancing development pressures with conservation, reflecting the more traditional and localized approach to heritage that sometimes prioritizes current economic imperatives over historical preservation [ 19 ]. This case underscores the complexities and conflicts that can arise when global heritage standards intersect with local heritage practices and economic development goals.

A global crisis over development began with the removal of Oman's Arabian Oryx Sanctuary from UNESCO's World Heritage List in 2007. This marked the first site deletion since its inscription in 1994; however, this move was supported by Oman as the respective State Party [ 20 ]. This tension escalated significantly with the delisting of the Dresden Elbe Valley in 2009, just five years after its initial recognition in 2004. This decision was spurred by a bridge project that was viewed as detrimental to the site's OUV, given that it cut across a valley integral to the city's layout and original OUV [ 21 ].

Despite the evolution of heritage understanding and the significant impact of the HUL application and associated regulations in safeguarding heritage cities globally, scholars have highlighted deficiencies in UNESCO's system of heritage inscription and its definitions of values [ 22 , 23 ]. However, as Askew (2010) noted, “most professionals and academics who critique [heritage] applications and definitions ultimately rely on the term, whether because there is no adequate alternative or because they have a key stake in the term’s preservation as a carrier for their own alternative models” [ 24 ]. Additionally, international heritage policies have been criticized for their fundamental shortcomings. They lack consistency [ 25 ], especially classifying heritage assets and their values [ 26 ]. Moreover, there is uncertainty in safeguarding OUV and conditions of authenticity and integrity, particularly in identifying heritage components that embody these qualities [ 27 , 28 ]. Cultural heritage is subject to individual interpretation, and definitions like OUV, essential for WHS designation, might not encompass all inherent values, thus lacking in protective capacity [ 29 ].

In this paper, we explore Liverpool's rich heritage within the HUL approach, focusing on the critical aspects of authenticity, integrity, and OUV. Our goal is to outline how these principles can be recognized and safeguarded in the city's heritage attributes, as defined in relevant international policies, especially when heritage-led development is proposed.

2.2 Liverpool’s post world heritage context

Liverpool was listed as a World Heritage Site (WHS) by UNESCO in 2004, fulfilling three of the six possible criteria for OUV: it represented a center of innovation and technology (ii), stood as an exceptional testimony to the evolution of maritime mercantile culture in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (iii), and was an outstanding example of a global mercantile port city illustrating the development of international trading and cultural connections throughout the British Empire (iv) [ 30 ]. The nomination document and management plan from 2003, which advocated for this listing, held that the authenticity of its heritage was defined by the surviving urban landscape and its associated elements.

Rodwell highlights that the term 'urban landscape' was given significant attention, appearing 49 times in the nomination document [ 31 ]. The term 'historic urban landscape' was also featured, a phrase that was later adopted by UNESCO in the 2005 Vienna Memorandum and the 2011 Recommendation on the HUL. The interplay between the buildings, landscape, and historical layers is key to Liverpool’s status as a coherent and discernible heritage site. However, in the formal listing of Liverpool, all mentions of the area as a HUL were removed, shifting the focus onto the conservation state of individual docks and buildings. Given that Liverpool's WHS has been used as a test case for the UNESCO HUL Initiative, the delisting in 2021 suggests a disregard for preserving this integral relationship [ 32 , 33 ], putting the 'cohesive whole' of the site at risk. To protect the existing heritage and its site, in this article, we propose that the site should be perceived and managed as a HUL, rather than isolated heritage areas.

In 2009, the Liverpool City Council (LCC) issued the 'Liverpool—Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site Supplementary Planning Document' (SPD) as a primary tool for managing the World Heritage Site. The document was developed in response to the joint UNESCO/ICOMOS Monitoring Mission in 2006, which expressed the need for advisory documents to guide future development within the WHS [ 34 , 35 ].

Critics argue that while the SPD outlines key strategies for protecting the tangible aspects of the WHS and its six primary areas, it does not address specific challenges tied to Liverpool's unique heritage context, including environmental, cultural, and intangible aspects referenced in other guidelines [ 36 ]. This lack of recognition is evident in their evaluation of authenticity and integrity. For instance, integrity is assessed by preserving material attributes like buildings and their details, while authenticity refers to the legitimacy of surviving tangible assets and alterations. However, the 'spirit of place' and sociocultural practices, such as cultural events, are not considered part of Liverpool's heritage significance. Our study aims to broaden Liverpool's understanding of integrity and authenticity, advocating for the inclusion of both tangible and intangible heritage aspects and their collective values.

2.3 Heritage impact assessments

Since its inception in 1969, impact assessments aimed at enhancing decision-making in spatial development with objective evaluations. Yet, its neutrality has been debated [ 7 ]. In heritage, it ensures development plans respect heritage asset significance [ 37 ].

In 2010, it was proposed that Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) would address concerns about the Liverpool Waters Scheme, which was put forth a year earlier by LCC and Peel Holdings [ 7 , p. 309]. Later that year, both parties commissioned HIA. These assessments were subsequently criticised by English Heritage (currently Historic England), prompting a third HIA carried out by a representative of their own organisation. During this period, there was limited knowledge about HIA, with the first official document, 'Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties,' released by ICOMOS in 2011 [ 38 ]. The nascent state of research in this area meant that the assessment methodologies were developed on-the-go [ 39 ]. To align all three HIA approaches, they were later updated following the ICOMOS guidance. Nevertheless, these assessments led to further disagreements. The HIA conducted by Peel Holdings and LCC determined the impact of the scheme would be beneficial, whereas English Heritage concluded it would be detrimental to the WHS. In 2012, despite English Heritage's conclusions, LCC granted Outline Planning Approval based on its findings with Peel Holdings [ 40 , 41 ]. This decision alarmed UNESCO, who aligned with English Heritage's findings, leading to Liverpool being placed on the In-danger List later that year [ 42 ].

These HIA-related conflicts can be linked to the concept of 'framing,' as described by Patiwael et al. They define 'framing' as parties having 'dissonant frames about a problem, its causes, and solutions,' with the outcomes potentially benefitting the assessors [ 7 , p. 310–311]. For instance, the HIA by Liverpool City Council and Peel Holdings argued that opening the area to the public would be beneficial. However, English Heritage's HIA did not acknowledge this positive outcome.

The impact of development on heritage is often influenced by the assessor's value judgments, which may reflect their party's desired outcomes. Including a third party, such as English Heritage, could mitigate bias, making findings more trustworthy to UNESCO. Heritage attribute identification and significance interpretation are also subject to stakeholder views. For example, the Gate to Waterloo Dock was valued in one assessment but dismissed by English Heritage, which included the Leeds and Liverpool Canal instead.

HIA often have a narrow focus, limiting their utility for managing complex urban sites [ 43 , p.64–67]. In Liverpool, the HIA addressed three visually focused impacts, considered minor given the site's complexity [ 40 , 41 ]. These are: (1) impact on individual heritage attributes, (2) impact on views to landmark buildings and vistas, and (3) impact on character areas or culturally significant places. These HIA overlooked potential socio-economic impacts and the broader city context, likely due to local deprivation and council reluctance to impose strict developer restrictions [ 44 , 45 ].

Similarly, Dresden's visual HIA for the proposed Waldschlößchen Bridge failed to address environmental, economic, and transport issues, overlooking alternative bridge options [ 46 , p.16]. Recurring problems with HIA in conserving endangered WHSs include the risk of manipulated outcomes due to assessor bias, and the second concerns the identification and significance of heritage attributes during HIA. This article aims to address these shortcomings by offering an impartial and comprehensive perspective on assessing development impacts on HUL in Liverpool.

3 Material and methods

This article uses a top-down approach based on a HIA framework to assess the impact of developments on Liverpool's heritage values. Our HIA method relies on understanding the OUV criteria and the conditions of Integrity and Authenticity, incorporating elements from heritage policies. These elements, sometimes called attributes, range from urban and architectural to intangible aspects.

Our approach sets itself apart from previous methodologies by offering a comparative analysis of these diverse elements. It follows international guidelines to minimise potential assessor bias and brings clarity through precise identification and relevant significance of heritage attributes during HIA processes. The HIA devised is then utilised to evaluate the influence of three significant developments on the city's post-industrial waterfront heritage. Hence, we selected three case studies, all part of Liverpool's previously inscribed World Heritage Site: The Albert Dock Complex (1981–1988), the Pier Head Development (2007–2013), and the Stanley Docks Conservation Area, inclusive of the proposed Everton Stadium (2010–2021 +).

These cases were chosen because they collectively represent most of the city's waterfront and symbolise key stages in the city's development over four decades. The Albert Docks Complex in the 1980s, for instance, marked a turning point for the city's modern development amid economic uncertainty. The Pier Head Developments in the late 2000s showcased a period when Liverpool had recently been recognised as a WHS. The current Stanley Docks Conservation Area indicates an ambiguity in the city's heritage management, particularly due to the recent loss of WHS status connected to the planning approval for the Everton Stadium.

We gathered qualitative primary data through in-person observations and photography of the critical areas. Secondary data was collected through a comprehensive critical review of historical archives and scholarly literature. Our paper's HIA methodology assesses a development's impact on Authenticity, Integrity, and OUV. These values were re-contextualised within Liverpool and encompassed both tangible and intangible attributes. Relevant definitions were extracted from a variety of policy documents offering insightful descriptions.

Given the semi-inhabited status of the three case studies, their city location, challenges in identifying associated local communities, and the time constraints of this research, it wasn't possible to gather community perspectives in line with the top-down approach. However, this offers an opportunity for future research expansion. We instead conducted interviews with four professionals well-acquainted with the Liverpool heritage context to enrich our understanding of developmental impacts.

3.1 Heritage policy documents selection

We selected twenty-one heritage policy documents spanning from 1987 to 2023. The starting point of 1987 marks the promulgation of the Washington Charter, the first document to address the conservation of historic towns and urban areas. The range extends to the updated Operational Guidelines of 2023, Table  1 .

We conducted a thorough review of these documents with the intent of establishing a comprehensive set of definitions for OUV, as well as authenticity and integrity in relation to heritage attributes. The selection criteria for each document included its relevance to one or more of the subjects listed below. Additionally, the document must have been issued by either UNESCO, ICOMOS, or ICCROM. The latter two serve as the main advisory bodies for UNESCO. The subjects of interest in the documents include:

Guidance for safeguarding a heritage urban area, town, and/or city;

Recommendations for safeguarding OUV, as well as authenticity and integrity;

Insights on the interplay between heritage and sustainable development.

As a result, this research adopted a methodological approach centred around content analysis. This allows for the categorisation of a range of texts based on coding rules drawn from previous knowledge and data sources [ 47 , 48 ].

Our analysis began by gathering selected documents in PDF format for a detailed content review. We conducted a straightforward content analysis by searching these PDFs without using advanced software, due to the specific context of the terms investigated. We manually categorised these terms in a spreadsheet, a method that, despite being time-consuming, produced thorough insights by allowing us to examine nuanced aspects potentially missed by automated methods. The analysis proceeded in three overlapping steps:

We identified essential phrases like authenticity, integrity, true, physical, and OUV.

We noted relevant terms, disregarding their frequency for this analysis but considering it for potential future research.

We sifted through the documents to remove non-pertinent information. The definitions we found were organised by tangible and intangible elements of historic urban landscapes, linking them to sustainability and other values for practical application in real-world heritage projects.

3.1.1 Authenticity definitions

Even though we examined twenty-one different heritage policy documents, only a handful provided useful definitions, Table  2 . The following table presents the definitions we discovered for authenticity.

Our examination of heritage policy documents reveals a significant gap: only five documents explicitly define 'authenticity,' highlighting a lack of consensus on conservation guidelines, as emphasized by Glendinning [ 49 ]. The 1994 Nara Document by ICOMOS offered a pivotal definition, advocating a holistic heritage view, shifting from material-centric approaches [ 50 ]. This evolution continued with ICCROM et.al., which emphasized material originality and cultural value expression through various attributes [ 51 ]. The New Zealand Charter differentiates between true value and context to provide clarifications [ 52 ]. The UNESCO 2023 Operational Guidelines further this approach by integrating tangible and intangible elements in conservation and addressing archaeological reconstruction criteria [ 53 ]. The Vienna Memorandum contributed by focusing on integrating contemporary architecture into historic contexts, promoting the understanding of the historic urban landscape, and emphasizing the need for Cultural or Visual Impact Assessments [ 54 ].

3.1.2 Integrity definitions

Our content analysis found that four documents provided definitions of integrity, as Table  3 shows.

The definitions of 'integrity' in heritage conservation reveal an evolving understanding that expands from focusing solely on physical aspects to encompassing a site's historical, cultural, and environmental contexts. This shift signifies a move towards recognising heritage sites' complexity and the importance of a holistic approach to conservation. While no single definition captures this concept fully, the trend towards a broader perspective reflects changing priorities in the field [ 51 , 53 , 55 , 56 ].

3.1.3 Outstanding universal value definitions

Four documents provided definitions of OUV, including the 10-world heritage listing criteria, Table  4 .

OUV has been defined in UNESCO’s Operational Guidelines as ‘cultural and/or natural significance which is as exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity’ [ 53 ]. It was interesting to note that the ICOMOS Guidance on Post Trauma Recovery 2017 introduced the definitions of intangible cultural heritage elements including “rituals, narratives, skills and livelihood activities” and established links between OUV and place-making activities [ 57 ]. Moreover, ICOMOS Guidance on heritage impact assessments associated large scale projects with skylines and key views related to OUV [ 58 ].

Other heritage policy documents often reference additional key heritage values such as cultural, social, historic, identity, economic, intangible, and aesthetic values. However, this study focuses on Authenticity, Integrity, and Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). According to Alsalloum and Brown, these three values encompass most tangible and intangible elements of cultural heritage, making other values less critical for this analysis [ 36 ].

For impact assessment, seven heritage elements were used. These were extracted from the definitions Authenticity, integrity, and OUV from the tables above. We have also developed a key question for each element to address when assessing the impact of developments on the heritage context, particularly regarding heritage significance. To add another layer of synthesis to this directory, we grouped the tangible elements based on their urban and individual architectural connections. We also distinguished between intangible heritage domains (such as social practices, and rituals) and the intangible values of heritage (such as the spirit of place). The results of this synthesis are presented in the subsequent tables. It is essential to note that, while this content analysis strategy has resulted in a database that enhances our understanding of the concepts under study, the method itself is time-intensive and potentially subject to human errors [ 59 ]. These elements include:

Settings/ Context and Relations with landscape (Tangible—Urban).

(Are the settings/context and relations to landscape affected by the development?)

Urban Fabric and Morphology (Tangible—Urban).

(Has the urban fabric and morphology changed due to the development?)

Form and Design (Tangible—Architectural).

(Is the form and design affected by the development?)

Historical Features and Time/period (Tangible and Intangible—Architectural).

(Does the development change or have an effect on historical features and therefore affect the time/period of the HUL?)

Material, Substance, style/colours, traditional craftsmanship (Tangible and Intangible—Architectural and Urban).

(Does the development change the material, substance, style/colours of the HUL?)

Continuity/Sustainability (Tangible and Intangible—Architectural and Urban).

(Does the development change the continuity and therefore sustainability of the HUL?)

Spirit of place, social interactions, cultural diversity, pride, and commemorative attributes (Intangible—Architectural and Urban).

(has the development impacted on the spirit of place, social interactions, cultural diversity, pride, and commemorative attributes?

The impact of each heritage element has been categorised into five levels of impact. These five levels have been taken from the ICOMOS example guide for assessing magnitude of impact. These are:

No change or added value to site/property, where the values have been safeguarded.

Negligible—slight change in value to site/ property with neutral to no adverse impact.

Minor—site/property has slightly lost value.

Moderate—site/property has moderately lost value.

Major—site/property has massively lost value.

Data was organised into a table to assess the impact of developments on the HUL of each case study over the last 40 years, identifying whether these impacts have worsened. This approach, critiquing past planning and HIA, redefined Authenticity, Integrity, and OUV specifically for Liverpool, viewing the heritage site holistically rather than as isolated entities. It emphasised visual evidence through both contemporary photographs and historical archives to objectively show impacts, alongside planning documents for future developments in the Stanley Docks Conservation Area. However, the study faces limitations, including a focus on only three case studies and the inherent challenges in documenting intangible cultural heritage. Despite photographic evidence reducing subjectivity, some level of personal interpretation in assessing HIA impacts remains.

3.2 Interview with professionals

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Liverpool, with ethical protocols including the provision of participant information sheets and the collection of written consent forms. Interviews, lasting between 30 and 60 min, were conducted via Zoom. With the interviewees' permission, these sessions were recorded for analysis. The interview framework comprised three open-ended questions aimed at gathering qualitative insights into the impact of development on Liverpool’s HUL and strategies for preserving the city’s heritage context. The questions explored:

The perceived impact of development on heritage values along the waterfront, including which values are most affected.

Recommended policy changes to protect existing heritage.

The potential for development and heritage to synergistically promote economic growth and cultural heritage conservation.

Despite the valuable insights gained from the experts' perspectives collected, this study has limitations due to time and resource constraints. It lacks insights from Liverpool local communities and analysis of tourism and its economic impact on heritage sites. Future research could address these gaps by incorporating views from both locals and tourists, providing a fuller picture of heritage benefits for Liverpool.

4 Background and application to case studies

4.1 albert dock complex (adaptive reuse), 1981–1988.

The Albert Dock Complex, designed by Jesse Hartley and opened in 1846 by Prince Albert, exemplifies Liverpool's maritime significance and innovative inland secure dock technology [ 60 ]. It features Hartley's distinctive monumental, homogeneous dockside warehouses constructed in granite. The complex includes five 18-m-high brick-clad warehouse stacks with cast-iron frames and various supplementary historic structures [ 61 ], Fig.  2 .

Albert Dock Complex (Google Earth 2021)

The Albert Dock remained largely unaltered until its closure, with minor bomb damage in 1941 left unrepaired. The post-war decline in port trade led to economic downturns, rendering the complex redundant by 1972 [ 2 ].

In 1981, Secretary of State for the Environment Michael Heseltine established the Merseyside Development Corporation (MDC) to regenerate Liverpool's docks. Between 1983 and 1988, docks, locks, and bridges were restored, the site landscaped, and warehouses repurposed for commercial, cultural, and retail uses [ 62 ]. Since then, no significant developments have affected the complex.

4.2 Pier head developments (museum of Liverpool and Mann Island Developments), 2007–2013

The Pier Head features three monumental historic office buildings: The Royal Liver Building (1911), the Cunard Building (1916), and the Port of Liverpool Building (1907) [ 63 ]. Designed to be the city's face to the world, the Royal Liver Building is eight storeys high, granite-clad, and of mixed style. The Cunard Building, in Italian Renaissance style, is clad in Portland stone with a horizontal palazzo shape and crowning cornice. The Port of Liverpool Building, also in Portland stone, is baroque with a copper-covered dome.

South of these buildings are the Canning and Graving docks, serving as a midpoint between the Pier Head and Albert Dock Complex. Adjacent to these docks lies Mann Island, historically surrounded by docks, and later connected to the former Manchester dock (filled in during the 1930s). Mann Island's heritage includes the three-story pilotage building (1883), the Great Western Railway Warehouse (1891), and Grayson and Ould’s Pumphouse (1885) [ 61 ].

Before Liverpool's World Heritage Inscription in 2004, Will Alsop's proposed 'Fourth Grace' was replaced by the new Museum of Liverpool and three Mann Island structures [ 46 ]. The Museum of Liverpool, designed by 3XN Architects and completed by AEW Architects (2007–2011), features a low-rise design with limestone panels to complement the Three Graces and Albert Dock [7980]. Nearby, Broadway Malyan Architects' Mann Island development (2007–2013) consists of two residential wedges and an office block, using black granite and glass to mirror the historic surroundings [ 64 , 65 ], Fig.  3 .

Pier Head and Mann Island (Google Earth 2021)

4.3 Stanley docks complex (adaptive reuse) and Everton stadium (Liverpool Waters), 2010–2021+

The Stanley Docks conservation area, established in the 1840s, features notable heritage elements: the granite perimeter wall with turreted gate piers, two Hartley-designed dock warehouses (1852–1854), a lifting bridge (1930), the Stanley Hydraulic Power Centre (1854) with its Kings Pipe Chimney (1900) and granite accumulator tower (1913), and the colossal 13-storey Tobacco Warehouse by A.G. Lyster (1897–1901), once the largest brick building. Nearby, Hartley’s Granite Hexagonal Clock Tower (1847–8) and Dock Master’s Office (1848) sit between river gates into Salisbury Dock. The Bramley-Moore Dock, north of Nelson Dock, served as a coal yard and features Lyster’s Accumulator Tower and the recently demolished 20th-century transit sheds [ 61 , p.127–128]. This area is adjacent to the Leeds and Liverpool Canal [ 66 ], with many structures listed at Grade II* or II, contributing to a distinctive urban landscape [ 67 ]. In 2010, Harcourt Development began transforming the Stanley Dock Complex, including the North Warehouse and the 1950s Rum Warehouse, with plans to develop the Tobacco and South Warehouses. Adjacent docklands, owned by Peel Holdings, are part of the Liverpool Waters Scheme [ 68 ]. Everton FC's £500m stadium proposal at Bramley-Moore Dock represents a significant future development despite UNESCO's warnings, leading to Liverpool's WHS delisting in 2021 [ 69 ]. This development marks a major shift for the area, Fig.  4 .

Stanley Dock Conservation Area (Google Earth 2021)

4.4 Heritage impact assessments on the three case study areas

The HIA were carried out on the three selected case study areas. The HIA was split into seven elements of heritage as shown in the methodology section. Each value was described through observation by studying the element pre-development and again post-development. These observations were based on visual and photographic analyses, as well as an understanding of the built and socio-cultural environments of the sites. The impact of the development was then measured based on the impact upon the three key values: Authenticity, Integrity, and OUV, as defined when Liverpool was listed on the World Heritage List.

4.4.1 Albert dock complex

In the HIA of the Albert Dock Complex adaptive reuse development, Fig.  5 , it was found that overall, it has had a negligible impact on the heritage values, and it has contributed to safeguarding some values. The most significant impacts, though still minor-negligible, were changes in form and design, historical features, time/period of the area, and material, substance, style/colours, affecting the authenticity of these elements. Later additions to the warehouse structures were removed, restoring them to their original design, which impacted the authenticity and intactness of the structure's historical layers. We argue that Restoration of bomb-damaged warehouses was done with careful consideration of authentic materials and construction methods. However, the Doric-style columns on the quayside changed colour significantly, moderately impacting their authenticity.

HIA of Albert dock complex adaptive reuse. a “Aerial View, 1980” [ 78 ]. b “Aerial View, 2010” [ 79 ]. c “Map of Area Pre-development, 1950” [ 80 ]. d “Map of Area Post-development, 2021” [ 81 ]. e “North Warehouse, 1966” [ 82 ]. f Authors. “North Warehouse.” Photograph. 2021. g “Swing Bridge, 1966” [ 83 ]. h Authors. “Swing Bridge.” Photograph. 2021. i “Bomb Damage to Corner of South-east Warehouse, 1980” [ 84 ]. j Authors. “Restored Corner of South-east Warehouse.” Photograph. 2021. k “View of Albert Dock Warehouses from the Strand, 1980” [ 84 ]. l Authors. “View of Albert Dock Warehouses from the Strand.” Photograph. 2021. m “1846, Abert Dock Cheering crowds to a landing ship” [ 85 ]. n Authors. “River of light festival, people walking under the lighting circles”. Photograph. 2021.

Some changes added value to the area, especially regarding improvements in settings/context, relationship to the city, and providing a way to safeguard heritage through new functions, ensuring the site's continuity in the city's life. Assessing the intangible aspects associated with the site, the adaptive reuse added value by continuing the site's historical role in social interactions. Historically, the users of the site (such as, travellers, workers, visitors) used to exchange goods and news, besides socially interacting. With the adaptive reuse, the site continues to be ‘an iconic’ place, not only hosting cultural institutions, but also by accommodating annual and seasonal activities and events, which has created a new type of social interactions. An example is the annual river of light festival. For further details, see the Visit Liverpool website.

4.4.2 Pier head and Mann Island

In the HIA of the Museum of Liverpool Urban Intervention development, Fig.  6 , it was found that overall, it has had a minor impact on the heritage values. The most significant impacts were on the relations with landscape, urban fabric and morphology, form and design, and the time/period of the area. we found that observed that The museum's form and design contrast with the Three Graces, weakening the visual integrity of the Three Graces due to its competitive form. This modern appearance affects the time/period of the area, which was previously seen as a significant historic commerce site.

HIA of Museum of Liverpool Urban Intervention. a “Aerial View of Pier Head, 1990” [ 86 ]. b “Aerial View of Pier Head, 2020” [ 87 ]. c “Map of Area Pre-development, 1990” [ 88 ]. d “Map of Area Post-Development, 2021” [ 88 ]. e Authors. “View of the Three Graces from Ferry Terminal.” Photograph. 2021. f Authors. “View of Museum of Liverpool from Canning and Graving Dock.” Photograph. 2021. g Authors. “View of the Three Graces from Museum of Liverpool.” Photograph. 2021. h Authors. “View of the Port of Liverpool Building and Museum of Liverpool from Ferry Terminal.” Photograph. 2021. i Authors. “Materiality of Three Graces.” Photograph. 2021. j Authors. “Materiality of Museum of Liverpool.” Photograph. 2021. k “View of Pier Head from Albert Dock, 2004” [ 89 ]. l Authors. “View of Pier Head from Albert Dock.” Photograph. 2021. m “The stage as a hive of activities” [ 85 ]. Authors. “River of Light Festival on Pier Head”. Photograph. 2021. n “Fresh fruits are being sold at Georges Dock from the cargo directly to the public” [ 85 ]. o Authors. “Makers Market on the Albert Dock”. Photograph. 2021

Likewise, the overall homogeneous rectilinear morphology of the area has been impacted by the museum's shape. The integrity of the relations between key heritage areas and views towards the Three Graces has been significantly impacted by the museum's positioning and scale. While the form may be competitive and detract from the area's time/period, its function as a museum contributes to understanding the site's historic past, potentially adding value to the OUV. Despite the change in the main function, the site encourages public engagement and represents Liverpool as a place for cultural and social interactions, continuing traditions such as the Sunday market. Therefore, the intervention development has added intangible cultural and social values to the site.

In the HIA of the Mann Island Urban Intervention Developments, Fig.  7 , it was found that overall, they have had a moderate impact on the heritage values. The most significant impacts were on settings/context and relations with landscape, form and design, time/period, material, substance, style/colours, and continuity/sustainability of the historic landscape. The form, design, and materiality choices significantly affect the time/period of the area and its OUV. Additionally, the positioning has compromised the integrity of the relations between heritage areas and buildings, blocking most visual connections. The residential/commercial function of the new developments does not align well with the largely cultural and historic use of the Pier Head area. In terms of socio-cultural interactions, the intervention has disrupted the continuity of some activities, such as daily synergies. The introduction of the glass atrium at the ground floor level to safeguard visual and actual connections has not been successful, resulting in a deserted area on the northern side due to the building's size and location.

HIA of Mann Island Urban Interventions. a “View towards Mann Island, 1998” [ 78 ]. b Authors. “View towards Mann Island.” Photograph. 2021. c “Map of Area Pre-development, 1990” [ 90 ]. d “Map of Area Post-Development, 2021” [ 91 ]. e “View of Mann Island Buildings and Pier Head from the Strand” [ 92 ]. f Authors. “View of Mann Island Developments from the Strand.” Photograph. 2021. Authors. “View of the Three Graces from Museum of Liverpool.” Photograph. 2021. Authors. “View of Port of Liverpool Building and Neighbouring Mann Island Development.” Photograph. 2021. Authors. “Materiality of Three Graces.” Photograph. 2021. g Authors. “View of Mann Island Developments from Museum of Liverpool.” Photograph. 2021. h “View of Mann Island from Albert Dock, 2007” [ 93 ]. i Authors. “View of Mann Island from Albert Dock.” Photograph. 2021. j “Pier Head, office workers commuting to work by ferry” [ 85 ]. Authors. “View of Mann Island from the Strand.” Photograph. 2021

4.4.3 Stanley Dock Conservation Area

In the HIA of the Stanley Dock Complex Adaptive Reuse development, Fig.  8 , it was found that overall, it has had no change to negligible impact on the heritage values. The most significant impacts were on the urban fabric and morphology, and the form and design of the Tobacco Warehouse. Changes to the Tobacco Warehouse, including the removal and alteration of its internal structure and the addition of façade perforations for windows, affected the integrity and authenticity of the structure, although these changes were necessary due to the change in function.

HIA of Stanley Dock Complex Adaptive Reuse. a “Aerial View of Stanley Dock Complex, 2017” [ 94 ]. b “Aerial View of Stanley Dock Complex, 2021” [ 95 ]. c “Map of Stanley Dock Conservation Area, 1970” [ 96 ]. d “Map of Stanley Dock Conservation Area, 2021” [ 96 ]. e “View of Stanley Dock from Bridge, 2004” [ 97 ]. f Authors. “View of Stanley Dock from Bridge.” Photograph. 2021. g “View of Tobacco Warehouse and Bridge, 2003” [ 98 ]. h Authors. “View of Tobacco Warehouse and Bridge.” Photograph. 2021. i “View of North Warehouse, 1960” [ 99 ]. j Authors. “View of North Warehouse.” Photograph. 2021. k “View of Tobacco Warehouse, 2003” [ 100 ]. l Authors. “View of Tobacco Warehouse.” Photograph. 2021. m “Inside the warehouse. Sampling and weighting the tobacco” [ 85 ]. Authors. Inside the retrofitted apartments in the warehouse. Photograph. 2021.

There has been some minor impact on the authenticity of certain historical features repositioned throughout the complex for decorative purposes without reference to their original use. The new function added value by investing in previously decaying historic structures, preserving the site’s identity and its significance to the OUV and its relationship to the rest of the HUL. The added value is also evident in terms of social interactions and cultural diversity, as the development provides residential spaces with communal areas for interaction. Retaining original materials, such as the inside walls, and replacing window frames with similar styles have preserved part of the sense of place.

In the HIA of the Everton Stadium Urban Intervention Development Proposal, Fig.  9 , it was found that overall, it has had a minor impact on the heritage values. It was observed that the infilling of the Bramley-Moore Dock and intervention of the stadium will significantly change the Urban Fabric and Morphology of the area, and lose the intactness of the historic dock, which can be argued to have a moderate effect on the OUV of the HUL. Additionally, the transit sheds that were on the site have been lost, and there is no known acknowledgement to them in the proposal which has a moderate effect on the integrity of the area’s heritage and its continuity through time. We also argue that the site prior to the stadium intervention has little heritage value and contribution to the waterfront’s overall OUV, and the addition of the stadium is going to raise the site’s significance which can be viewed as an economic benefit to the area’s remaining heritage, such as the reuse and safeguarding of the adjacent decaying grade II listed 1883 Hydraulic Accumulator Tower. Additionally, with increased occupation of the neighbouring Liverpool Waters Site within the next decade, the site is likely to receive increased interactions over time, making it an area of high social activities.

HIA of the Everton Stadium Urban Intervention Proposal. a “Aerial View of Stanley Dock Conservation Area, 2018” [ 101 ]. b “Visualisation of Everton Stadium on Bramley Moore Dock, 2021” [ 102 ]. c “Map of Bramley Moore Dock, 1970” [ 103 ]. d “Plan of Everton Stadium, 2021” [ 104 ]. e Authors. “View of the Tobacco Warehouse.” Photograph. 2021. f “Visualisation of Everton Stadium, 2021” [ 105 ]. g “View of Accumulator Tower, 2009” [ 106 ]. h “Visualisation of Accumulator Tower and Everton Stadium, 2021” [ 107 ]. i Authors. “View of Tobacco Warehouse.” Photograph. 2021. j “Visualisation of Stadium Façade, 2021” [ 108 ]. k “View of Bramley Moore Dock, 2021” [ 109 ]. l “Visualisation of Everton Stadium, 2021” [ 107 ]. m “Salisbury Dock as an exchange center” [ 85 ]. “Visualisation of Everton Stadium, 2021” [ 107 ]

4.5 Interviews with experts

Interviews with experts were conducted in November 2021 over Zoom. The results were divided into two key themes: the impact of development on waterfront heritage and necessary changes. These main themes were further divided into sub-themes based on secondary questions and discussions during the interviews.

4.5.1 Theme 1, impact of development on the waterfront heritage

Interviewees shared diverse opinions on the development impact on Waterfront Heritage, categorised into sub-themes: impacts on HUL values, views on the Albert Dock Complex, Pier Head, Stanley Dock Conservation Area, and high rises in buffer zones.

In regard to the values most impacted across the waterfront, it was suggested that, overall, there has been an impact on the values, though it was argued by Michael Parkinson that the OUV has not yet been destroyed, who further stated that, “the problem is new-build, rather than regeneration of heritage”. John Hinchliffe suggested that development inevitably will have an impact on heritage as “it involves some change to varying degrees”, and that the impact of development in recent years has been “beneficial, but some of them neutral, and some harmful”. Whereas interviewee Matthew Crook suggested that the harmful impacts were in relation to the connections, physically and visually.

When asked on their views of each case study, much attention was drawn towards the Pier Head and Stanley Dock Conservation area. The views on the Albert Dock Complex were largely positive, though it was argued by Dennis Rodwell that the authenticity of the structures have been damaged, and that the structures “externally may be deemed authentic, internally, less-so”. Concerning the Pier Head developments, the responses were mixed, most of the interviewees praised the developments and their contrasting design, whereas Dennis Rodwell argued that they detracted from the historic buildings and could have been placed elsewhere; likewise, Matthew Crook suggested that “the Mann Island developments were in the wrong place”.

Regarding the Stanley Dock Conservation area, most attention was drawn towards the Bramley-Moore Dock and its Everton Stadium Proposal. Most were in favour of the stadium, suggesting that the site overall had little significance and the addition of a stadium would have great benefit. An interesting point made by Michael Parkinson was that Liverpool has a history of infilling docks, stating, “it is what Liverpool has always done… so you could say, part of our heritage is to renew our infrastructure when our economy changes and needs it”. Conversely, John Hinchcliffe was strongly against the proposal and suggested it has had significant damage to heritage, asserting, “…the stadium for a football club which has involved in the infilling of the biggest dock of what was the World Heritage Site, the demolition of its last transit shed and the creation of big holes in the listed dock wall.”, additionally stating that, “the Supplementary Planning Document for the World Heritage site said there should be no more infilling of historic docks.” There were also additional points made in regard to the boundary line of the previous WHS, with Dennis Rodwell stating that, “the boundary could have been much further north of the Bramley-Moore Dock”, whereas John Hinchliffe argued that “the decision was made at the time… to include the phase of five docks which were built at one time, from Bramley-Moore Dock to Stanley Dock, and that coincided with the operation of the docks. Further north the docks were still operational and we didn’t want to constrain the operation of those docks.”

4.5.2 Theme 2, changes that are needed

When asked about the changes that are needed in Liverpool, the interviewees suggested several ways in which we can better safeguard our heritage, these sub-themes included, Quality Control, Placemaking, Management of the City, Relations with UNESCO, Lessons Learnt and Next Steps for Liverpool.

In regard to quality control, Dennis Rodwell stated that, “the UK system is fundamentally weak when it comes to historic cities, it does not have the designation, protective mechanisms, and policies that protect the urban landscape.” Additionally, he provided European cases and cities where stricter controls have proven to mutually benefit both development and heritage. As for placemaking, Michael Parkinson suggested that the city needed a clearer picture, and that placemaking was absent, it "needs to be more multi-layered (including music and football culture for example).”

Following this, concerning management of the city, Matthew Crook stated that “Planning decisions are being taken within a small number of individuals, many with a financial interest in the outcome”, additionally mentioning that there has been a loss of specialist conservation and urban design staff and that “there are no longer sufficient professionally qualified or senior people in the authority or in the city region who are able to secure good outcomes.”. John Hinchliffe also provided an interesting view on the management of the city’s heritage, that we should bring more focus to other areas and non-listed heritage and expand into a regional approach for heritage protection.

Lastly, regarding the Lessons Learnt from Liverpool and the Next Steps for the city, Matthew Crook suggested that there needs to be more oversight in regard to the planning process, and in relation to the lessons learnt he stated “The damage to the waterfront and the city centre conservation areas will be long-term. This should serve as a warning to other cities not to repeat the same mistakes, and to ensure that the Liverpool Model does not take hold in their own administrations.” Dennis Rodwell suggested that there needs to be a greater communication between key parties (UNESCO, LCC and UK Government). He suggested that “we need to be responsible and look for a positive result rather than allow the city to suffer the consequences and allow further damage”. John Hinchcliffe similarly suggested we need to come up with a new ‘badge’ for Liverpool, one that is different to UNESCO’s city of historic significance and moving forward we should see the safeguarding of heritage on a larger scale.

5 Discussions

The results from the HIAs will be discussed alongside the information provided in the interviews, using the subthemes as guidance. This discussion will then be synthesised into a closing argument for what Liverpool should do to ascertain the next steps forward in safeguarding its heritage.

The key question of this research is, how has the relationship between heritage and development in Liverpool changed over the past 40 years?

From the overall results it can be deemed that initial developments in the 1980s on the Albert Docks by the MDC have shown to respect their heritage context, tangible and intangible. Whilst they have shown to have some minor to moderate impacts on the authenticity of the original heritage, they have greatly restored what was a previously decaying, and segregated site from the city and has also set a precedent for new development in and around the waterfront. As stated by John Hinchliffe, “in itself (development) can enhance the heritage interest of a site… (development) can be used to stitch together isolated heritage… the Albert Dock was brought into the city again and it becomes part of the bigger whole”. This statement also reveals that development can be used as a tool to provide tangible connections between the HUL and invigorate existing relations between heritage attributes. Furthermore, this development has added an exceptional amount of value to the area, particularly in socio-cultural dimensions. We also need to keep in mind that this development took place in a period of great economic uncertainty, demonstrating well the mutual, and beneficial relationship that heritage and development can have.

Following the Albert Dock development, the next major waterfront developments were the Mann Island Urban Interventions in the mid-to-late 2000s, including both the Museum of Liverpool by 3XN/AEW Architects, and Mann Island Buildings by Broadway Malyan. Unlike the Albert Dock, these developments are entirely new structures, and the relationship that they have with the heritage context differ significantly. The results from the HIAs show that there is no relationship between the developments and their impact on the authenticity and integrity of existing heritage, which is understandable given that the structures do not have a physical connection to the original heritage, which could be argued is a downfall of this assessment method as this has shown to lessen the total impact on that specific element. However, what has been found to impact the site in both the HIAs, and highlighted by Matthew Crook, who stated “the location of these developments has damaged relations between existing heritage, both visually and in the way you move through them weakening the integrity of the WHS. Additionally, the contemporary forms and materials have been shown in the HIAs to have some effect on the general time/period of the area, which can be argued to weaken the OUV of the site, by drawing attention to the modern structures. However, it has been argued by Michael Parkinson that it is a case of a personal aesthetic ‘taste’, and John Hinchliffe argues the case for the Mann Island Developments that, “it is a very difficult site to develop… it’s impossible to get something to match both the Three Graces in the North and Albert Docks in the South, so the contrast works well.” Therefore, the aesthetic argument is hard to determine on new builds, while assessment shows material and form choices do have an impact, particularly on the time/period of the area and could appear to be ‘competitive’; they illustrate a continuity of historical layers through time. Therefore, in regard to the layout of the assessment it could be suggested to remove the time/period element in favour of historical continuity. Furthermore, it was found that the function of the intervention has the potential to add value/de-value the OUV of a site. For example, where the museum has the ability to demonstrate cultural significance of the area, the residential/commercial functions of Broadway Malyan’s developments do not contribute, but in-fact detract from the cultural significance.

Overall, the HIA have suggested the Pier Head developments have been found to have had some adverse impact on the HUL, with the Mann Island buildings being significantly more damaging than the Museum. Though as stated previously, urban interventions are different to adaptive reuse, and there are greater challenges, such as how the new buildings can respond to multiple existing heritage contexts which differ in appearance, contrast is a potential way to overcome this. Additionally, while the adaptive reuse of the Albert Dock was shown to improve integrity and restore connections, urban interventions on the Pier Head have demonstrated that adding new masses within the urban fabric have the potential to damage this integrity. Dennis Rodwell argued that the site became “crowded out” as a result of these developments, and instead could have been “allocated to the Princes Dock”. Determining the impact of development on heritage from these case studies is challenging, but positioning these interventions differently might have enhanced the HUL with new relationships and values. Furthermore, the museum's design and function have preserved some intangible aspects of the site.

In regard to the adaptive reuse of the Stanley Dock Complex by Harcourt Developments, there were similar patterns to the Albert Dock developments on the impact of key values. For example, some heritage elements had lost some authenticity as they needed to be relocated. This was mainly due to functional reasons, which was the same reasoning for the structural changes made to the Tobacco Warehouse. But in making these changes, the development has greatly restored value to the heritage site by making it usable again, and this has shown that heritage and development can mutually benefit each other, even after 40 years. This case study further highlights the impact differences between urban interventions; it appears to be much easier to regenerate existing structures than provide entirely new ones, and the reason for this could be that there are stricter ‘dos and don’ts’ in adaptive reuse projects, whereas the controls regarding new builds in heritage areas are much weaker. The HIA also showed that the adaptive reuse of the warehouses has added socio-cultural values to the site.

Lastly, and the most controversial case study, is the Everton Stadium Proposal. It was found in the HIA, that overall, the most significant impacts were the losses in integrity to the infilling of the dock and the effect this had in relation to the adjacent docks. However, as mentioned in the interviews, due to the low significance of the site in regard to the rest of the HUL, and the fact it was abandoned and deteriorating, the intervention of a stadium provides added value to the area. Unlike the Pier Head developments, it was found that the form, design, and choice of colours of the urban intervention respond well to the surrounding heritage, such as the Tobacco Warehouse. But unlike the Mann Island developments, it is within a large open space with few heritage structures it can contextualise to, making this design approach easier. However, there have been minor adverse effects on the heritage context due to this intervention, the most obvious being the loss of the former WHS’s largest dock, the loss of the last remaining Transit Shed, and damages made to the dock wall as mentioned by John Hinchliffe. Besides the potential adverse impact of using the site only occasionally and not introducing any interpretation elements to conserve/safeguard the site as part of Liverpool’s memory. Lastly, it was further highlighted by John Hinchliffe that the boundary line was drawn there for a reason, and the SPD in 2009 professed that there should be no further infilling of docks, so it should be questioned: why were these policies not abided to?

Overall, in regard to the change in the relationship between heritage and development over the past 40 years along the Waterfront, using these three case study areas, there has been good consideration with adaptive reuse developments, with minimal impact on the heritage context. Whereas, urban interventions have shown to have more considerable adverse effects on such heritage, and this can be due to a number of reasons, such as their positioning, but also due to the developer’s disregard for existing policies. However, to gain a better understanding of this relationship on both the waterfront, and the wider city, it would be beneficial for further case studies to be analysed to explore this relationship in more depth. In addition to investigating these case studies by paying attention to their interior designs and usages. As previously suggested, adaptive reuse developments often have stricter controls which make it easier to safeguard the heritage values, therefore should the same be done for urban interventions in HULs? A point made by Dennis Rodwell during the interview, is that many European historic cities such as Bordeaux, France, or Regensberg, Germany, have much stricter building controls and “encourage harmony” between new-builds and heritage, in a similar manner to the strict rules necessary for adaptive reuse. Therefore, we argue that the UK should consider tightening up controls, so that there is a single objective between both heritage’s safeguarding and development.

In terms of heritage impact assessments, and in light of this study's findings, we argue that they need to be revised to ensure comprehensiveness. This involves including all heritage values and their attributes, in addition to the three main criteria of authenticity, integrity, and Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Furthermore, there is a need to recognise intangible cultural heritage, encompassing practices formerly associated with the buildings under assessment up to the present day. Elements of heritage and architectural character should also be considered to minimise subjectivity.

The de-designation of a WHS serves as a crucial warning for cities like Liverpool, emphasizing the urgent need to protect their cultural heritage. This situation underscores the importance of engaging local stakeholders and adhering to national legislation in the preservation and management of heritage sites. The findings from HIAs highlight the need for increased scrutiny on new constructions within heritage sites to ensure they complement and do not detract from the existing cultural values. National legislation also plays a critical role in safeguarding WHSs. Effective legal frameworks can provide the necessary tools to manage change within heritage contexts, ensuring that any development or conservation work maintains or enhances the site's OUV. Legislation can establish clear guidelines for HIAs, quality control measures, and the management of heritage sites, offering a structured approach to balancing development pressures with the need to preserve cultural heritage. The interviews conducted as part of the assessment process shed light on several key areas for improvement. These include enhancing quality control mechanisms to ensure that new constructions meet high standards of design and compatibility with the heritage context, improving placemaking efforts to create more vibrant and culturally rich urban spaces, and strengthening the management of the city's heritage assets to ensure their long-term preservation. Furthermore, there is a potential to mend strained relationships with international bodies such as UNESCO by demonstrating a commitment to upholding the values for which the site was initially recognized. This can involve taking concrete steps to address the concerns raised by UNESCO and showing progress in the management and conservation of heritage sites.

The case of Liverpool has provided us with a learning tool on how adaptive reuse can be successfully undertaken in a HUL. Contrary to this, it provides us with knowledge on mistakes made with new builds in HULs. To further safeguard Liverpool’s heritage, we need to highlight the HUL approach, and expand from historic city to regional scale, safeguarding the historic integrity of the wider context. In addition to considering intangible heritage elements associated with the heritage sites/building for a comprehensive assessment, as well as providing adequate interpretations of historical features if these were replaced or not from their original locations. Lastly, we need to take precedent of other case cities that have succeeded in maintaining the continuity of their historic landscapes. The continuation of this research would involve carrying this out, to provide the lessons learnt from these, and how they can be adapted for Liverpool.

Accordingly, the main findings can be summarized in Table  5 below:

6 Conclusions

This study aimed to explore how Liverpool can safeguard its heritage following the loss of its World Heritage status and examine the evolving relationship between development and heritage over the past 40 years. The focus was on the Liverpool Waterfront due to its significant developments and rich heritage landscape. A new methodological approach, based on a literature review and adaptations from existing methodologies, was used for this research. The Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) methodology effectively demonstrated the impact of developments on key values across various architectural and urban elements in adaptive reuse projects. However, assessing authenticity in urban interventions proved challenging, requiring deeper understanding for comprehensive evaluation. Integrity was a clear indicator of whether the relations within the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) were preserved or weakened. Similarly, analysing the impact on Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) showed how new interventions could enhance or devalue the HUL.

Our study suggests labelling the impact assessment of an area's time period as "historical continuity" to better incorporate contemporary interventions. Additionally, a deeper understanding of the intangible domains of the Waterfront’s HUL through a bottom-up approach is needed to analyse the effects of new developments. Including more values in the assessment is necessary to understand the comprehensive impact of adaptive reuse and interventions. This study highlighted the key tangible relationships between development and heritage in Liverpool and illustrated the changes over time. These insights can inform future developments within Liverpool’s HUL, making Liverpool a model for managing other HUL sites.

Our study found that adaptive reuse projects in Liverpool have been successful, with minimal impact on heritage and with added value. In contrast, urban interventions have had an adverse impact on heritage, necessitating careful consideration for future developments. Based on the established HIA and discussions with interviewees, the study strongly advises that the careful positioning of new builds is crucial for safeguarding existing relations within the HUL and particular significance.

There is a high level of aesthetic subjectivity among developers and the public regarding new builds, with each project presenting different contextual challenges. Therefore, the study recommends further investigation of successful European and similar case studies that have balanced new builds and existing heritage areas. Understanding how these cases have appeased both parties would provide valuable insights for achieving unified objectives of sustaining heritage values and enhancing the wider built environment. These insights can then be integrated into policy implementation for UK planning control.

The study's limitations included a limited number of case studies and interviewees. Expanding this would provide a more in-depth answer to the study's aims. Additionally, further investigation of intangible heritage elements and values through community participation is needed, as well as examining the interiors of buildings.

The de-listing of Liverpool as a World Heritage site remains a complex issue. The controversial Everton Stadium proposal, while showing few impacts on the site, particularly through the infill of the largest historic dock, has the potential to provide new economic and cultural value to an abandoned area on the northern border of the listed heritage site. However, this action contradicted Liverpool's 2009 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which aimed to prevent further dock infill, and ignored UNESCO’s guidance that such infill would cause an irreversible loss of an attribute conveying the OUV.

While regaining World Heritage status may be unlikely based on the previous designation, Liverpool must continue to respect and conserve its history and heritage context. Liverpool’s Historic Urban Landscape has more valuable heritage to offer beyond what was previously listed. Future designations need to carefully consider these values, including both tangible and intangible heritage assets, and provide guidance on safeguarding them alongside new urban interventions and adaptive reuse proposals.

In recent years, new heritage approaches have emerged, viewing cultural heritage as a dynamic system and process rather than a static collection of objects and sites. These approaches emphasize the interconnectedness of tangible and intangible heritage, the ongoing processes that shape cultural landscapes [ 70 ], and the importance of involving local communities in heritage management [ 71 ].

New heritage perspectives are particularly relevant to our discussion, advocating for an integrative and comprehensive understanding of heritage, especially considering the HUL approach. This perspective bridges the gap between global and local views, encouraging the view of heritage sites like Liverpool’s waterfront as living, evolving entities that require adaptive management strategies to balance conservation with contemporary needs [ 72 ]. These approaches can inform future efforts to manage and protect heritage sites, particularly those on the World Heritage in Danger list, facing pressures from urban development and economic change.

Reflecting on Liverpool's experiences, some conclusions are applicable to other World Heritage cities. Successful adaptive reuse projects, such as those in Vienna, where historic buildings are revitalized as cultural and residential spaces [ 73 ], and in Bordeaux, where historic wine warehouses are transformed into modern cultural and commercial areas [ 74 ], demonstrate minimal adverse impact on heritage while adding value. However, urban interventions present greater challenges. Venice maintains strict guidelines to ensure new constructions do not disrupt its historical harmony [ 75 ]. Rigorous HIA are crucial for preserving authenticity and integrity, exemplified by Kyoto's methodologies that respect traditional buildings [ 76 ]. A holistic understanding of heritage values, incorporating both tangible and intangible aspects, is essential. Local policy recommendations should integrate international guidelines, as demonstrated by Dubrovnik's stringent regulations guiding effective conservation strategies [ 77 ]. Further research should include diverse case studies and deeper community engagement to enhance the robustness and applicability of findings.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are documented in detail within the supplementary materials. Access to these datasets is provided through a designated Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/65nrjoxfgjsuu7yseb18e/Data-Availability-Statement.docx?rlkey=3pclvumgoxtjizgk9b3j24uxy&dl=0 , which has been shared with the journal’s editors and reviewers for the purposes of peer review. Upon acceptance and subsequent publication of this manuscript, the datasets will be made publicly available through the journal’s platform.

Abbreviations

Heritage Impact Assessments

Historic Urban Landscape

Liverpool City Council

Merseyside Development Corporation

Outstanding Universal Value

Supplementary Planning Document

• World Heritage Site

World Heritage Sites

Gaillard B, Rodwell D. A failure of process? Comprehending the issues fostering heritage conflict in Dresden Elbe Valley and Liverpool—Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Sites. Historic Environ Policy Pract. 2015;6(1):16–40. https://doi.org/10.1179/1756750515Z.00000000066 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Parkinson M. Liverpool beyond the brink. Liverpool University Press; 2020.

Google Scholar  

UNESCO. 2019. Culture for Sustainable Development. Accessed 26 Sept 2021. https://en.unesco.org/themes/culture-sustainable-development .

Morrison I, Waterson M. Rescue and reuse: communities, heritage and architecture. RIBA Publishing. EBSCOhost. 2019.

UNESCO. 2021c. Liverpool—Maritime Mercantile City. Accessed 26 Sept 2021. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1150/ .

Liverpool City Council (LCC). 2009. Supplementary Planning Document. Accessed 17 Oct 2021.

Patiwael PR, Groote P, Vanclay F. The influence of framing on the legitimacy of impact assessment: examining the heritage impact assessments conducted for the Liverpool Waters Project. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 2020;38(4):308–19.

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. In: UNESCO. 2003. https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention . Accessed 16 Jun 2024.

Faro. Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. 2005. Accessed 17 Oct 2021. https://rm.coe.int/1680083746 .

UNESCO. Recommendation on the historic urban landscape. 2011. Accessed 17 Oct 2021.

Bandarin F, Van Oers R. the historic urban landscape. In: Managing heritage in an urban century . 2012, Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

PereiraRoders A. The historic urban landscape approach in action: eight years later. In: PereiraRoders A, Bandarin F, editors. Reshaping urban conservation. Creativity, heritage and the city. Singapore: Springer; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8887-2_2 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Pendlebury J, Short M, While A. Urban world heritage sites and the problem of authenticity. Cities. 2009;26(6):349–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2009.09.003 .

Labadi S, Logan W. Urban heritage, development and sustainability: international frameworks. National and Local Governance: Routledge; 2015.

Book   Google Scholar  

Plevoets B, Van Cleempoel K. Adaptive reuse of the built heritage: concepts and cases of an emerging discipline. USA: Routledge; 2019. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315161440 .

Rodwell D. Conservation and sustainability in historic cities. USA: Blackwell Publishing; 2007.

Avrami E, Macdonald S, Mason R, Myers D. Values in heritage management: emerging approaches and research directions. Getty Conservation Institute. 2019.

UNESCO. Liverpool–Maritime Mercantile City. 2021. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1150/ .

Labadi S. UNESCO, cultural heritage, and outstanding universal value: Value-based analyses of the world heritage and intangible cultural heritage conventions. AltaMira Press. 2013.

Rodwell D. urban landscape and the delisting of Liverpool–Maritime Mercantile City. TICCIH Bulletin 95 (1st quarter 2022): 27–30. 2022.

Pendlebury J. Conservation values, the authorised heritage discourse and the conservation-planning assemblage. Int J Herit Stud. 2013;19(7):709–27.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett B. World heritage and cultural economics. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388296-008 .

Smith L. Uses of heritage. 1st ed. USA: Routledge; 2006. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203602263 .

Askew M. The magic list of global status: UNESCO, world heritage and the agendas of states. In: Heritage and globalisation, 2010. pp. 19–44. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850855 .

Klamer A, Anna M, Lyudmila P. Cultural heritage policies: a comparative perspective. In: I Rizzo, A Mignosa, editors. Handbook on the economics of cultural heritage. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 37–86.

Alsalloum A. A New International Instrument: the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, Remarks and Questions. 2011. Accessed 13 Jun. 2023. http://www.intbau.org/resources/documents/ .

Alsalloum, A. 2011. "Heritage-led Sustainable Urban Regeneration: the development of an assessment model for World Heritage Sites cities." The University of Liverpool.

Poljanec-Borić S. Heritage protection policies from the perspective of the social sciences: the case of Croatia and Non-EU South-East European Democracies. In: Cultural urban heritage. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 57–64.

Schofield J. Who needs experts? Counter-mapping cultural heritage. Surrey, UK: Ashgate. EBSCOhost. 2014.

UNESCO. 2003. Nomination of Liverpool–Maritime Mercantile City for Inscription on the World Heritage List. Accessed 17 Oct 2021. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1150.pdf .

Rodwell D. Urban Landscape and the Delisting of Liverpool—Maritime Mercantile City. TICCIH Bulletin 95 (1st quarter 2022) 2022. 27–30. https://ticcih.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/TICCIH-Bulletin-95-FINAL.pdf .

Rodwell D. The deletion of Liverpool–Maritime Mercantile City: a failure of process. In: Habitat forum INHAF. 2021.

Rodwell D. Urban landscape and the delisting of Liverpool–Maritime Mercantile City. TICCIH Bulletin 95 (1st quarter 2022): 2021. 27–30. https://ticcih.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/TICCIH-Bulletin-95-FINAL.pdf .

Alsalloum A, Brown A. Heritage as a catalyst for urban regeneration: interrogations and propositions for the world heritage site of Liverpool. In: Urban Design Future: better city, better life. 2010, pp. 1–20. Liverpool: Liverpool School of Architecture.

Liverpool City Council (LCC). Supplementary Planning Document. Accessed 17 Oct 2021. https://liverpool.gov.uk/media/9644/world-heritage-site-spd.pdf .

Alsalloum A, Brown A. Towards a heritage-led sustainable post-conflict reconciliation: a policy-led perspective. Sustainability. 2019;11(6):1686. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061686 .

Liverpool City Council. Heritage impact assessment of Liverpool waters on the outstanding Universal Value of Liverpool—Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site . Liverpool: Liverpool City Council.

ICOMOS. Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. Accessed 17 Oct 2021. https://www.iccrom.org/ .

Hinchliffe J, Burns R. Heritage impact assessment of Liverpool waters on the outstanding universal value of Liverpool—Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site. Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. 2012.

Bond S. Assessment of the potential impact of the resubmitted outline planning application relating to the Liverpool waters master plan on outstanding universal value at Liverpool Maritime Mercantile WHS. London: English Heritage; 2012.

De Figueiredo P. Liverpool Waters Heritage Impact Assessment: Assessment of Potential Effects on the Liverpool World Heritage Site. Liverpool: Liverpool Waters (Peel Holdings). 2011.

UNESCO. Liverpool—Maritime Mercantile City. 2021c. Accessed 26 Sept 2021. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1150/ .

Rodwell D, Turner M. Impact assessments for urban world heritage: European experiences under scrutiny. Built Herit. 2018;2(4):58–71. https://doi.org/10.1186/bf03545684 .

Rodwell D, Turner M. Impact assessments for urban world heritage: European experiences under scrutiny. Built Heritage. 2018;2(4):58–71. https://doi.org/10.1186/bf03545684 .

Garcia B, Armitage N, Crone S. Heritage, pride and place: exploring the contribution of world heritage site status to Liverpool’s sense of place and future development. Liverpool: Institute of Cultural Capital, University of Liverpool and JMU; 2014.

Gaillard B, Rodwell D. A failure of process? Comprehending the issues fostering heritage conflict in Dresden Elbe Valley and Liverpool–Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Sites. Historic Environ Policy Pract. 2015;6(1):16–40. https://doi.org/10.1179/1756750515Z.00000000066 .

Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–88.

Bernard HR, Wutich AY, Ryan GW. Analysing qualitative data: systematic approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2016.

Glendinning M. The conservation movement: a history of architectural preservation: antiquity to modernity. New York: Routledge; 2013.

ICOMOS. The Nara Document on Authenticity. 1994; Accessed 17 Oct 2021. https://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf .

Feilden BM, Jukka J. Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites. Rome: ICCROM. 1998. https://www.iccrom.org/sites/default/files/2018-02/1998_feilden_management_guidelines_eng_70071_light_0.pdf .

ICOMOS. ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value. 2010. Accessed 17 Oct 2021. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/ICOMOS_NZ_Charter_2010_FINAL_11_Oct_2010.pdf .

UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. 2023. https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ . Accessed 15 Jun 2023.

UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Vienna Memorandum on “World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture—Managing the Historic Urban Landscape. 2005. UNESCO World Heritage Centre—Document—Vienna Memorandum on “World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture—Managing the Historic Urban Landscape” and Decision 29 COM 5D. Accessed 15 Jun 2023.

The Declaration of San Antonio. 1996. https://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/188-the-declaration-of-san-antonio . Accessed 17 Jun 2023.

ICOMOS. ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value. 2010. Accessed 17 Oct 2021.

Guidance on Post Trauma Recovery and Reconstruction for World Heritage Cultural Properties. 2021. https://www.icomos.org/en/focus/reconstruction/40988-icomos-guidance-on-post-trauma-recovery-and-reconstruction-for-world-heritage-cultural-properties-document-2 . Accessed 17 Jun 2023].

ICOMOS. Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. Accessed 17 Oct 2011. https://www.iccrom.org/ .

Scribbr. Content Analysis|Guide, Methods and Examples. June 22. 2023. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/content-analysis/ .

Morrison I, Waterson M. Rescue and reuse: communities, heritage and architecture. RIBA Publishing. EBSCOhost.

Sharples J, Pollard R. Liverpool. London: Yale University Press; 2004.

Parker P. Liverpool docks: four decades of change. 2004; Tempus.

Liverpool City Council (LCC). Supplementary planning document. 2009. Accessed 17 Oct 2021.

ArchDaily. Mann Island/Broadway Malyan. Accessed 13 Nov 2021. 2013. https://www.archdaily.com/629913/mann-island-broadway-malyan .

Broadway M. Mann Island. Accessed 13 Nov 2021. https://www.broadwaymalyan.com/projects/mann-island/ .

Liverpool City Council (LCC). Supplementary Planning Document. 2009. Accessed 17 Oct 2021. https://liverpool.gov.uk/media/9644/world-heritage-site-spd.pdf .

Historic England. 2017. Stanley Dock Conservation Area. Accessed 13 Nov 2021. https://historicengland.org.uk/content/heritage-counts/pub/2017/case-study-stanley-dock-conservation-area-pdf/ .

Parkinson M. Liverpool, UNESCO and World Heritage Status – what next?" Accessed 13 Nov 2021. https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2021/06/21/liverpool-unesco-and-world-heritage-status-what-next/ .

Everton FC. Everton stadium plans given green light. Accessed 13 Nov 2021. https://www.evertonfc.com/news/2077930/everton-stadium-plans-given-green-light .

Smith L. Uses of heritage. Routledge; 2006.

Harrison R. Heritage: critical approaches. USA: Routledge; 2013.

Winter T. Clarifying the critical in critical heritage studies. Int J Herit Stud. 2013;19(6):532–45.

ICOMOS. Heritage at Risk: ICOMOS World Report 2010–2011 on Monuments and Sites in Danger. International Council on Monuments and Sites. 2011.

UNESCO. (2015). "Bordeaux, Port of the Moon." UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1256 .

UNESCO. Venice and its Lagoon. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2011. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/394 .

UNESCO. Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities). UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2013. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/688 .

ICOMOS. Heritage at Risk: ICOMOS World Report 2006–2007 on Monuments and Sites in Danger." International Council on Monuments and Sites. 2006.

Liverpool Echo. Liverpool’s iconic Albert Dock through the years. 2016. Accessed 27 Nov 2021. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/nostalgia/gallery/liverpools-iconic-albert-dock-through-10018293 .

Glenton Media & Events. 2010. B0925_DSC8362_LR.JPG. Flickr. Accessed 27 Nov 2021. https://www.flickr.com/photos/glentonme/5160541485 .

Digimap. 2021. Liverpool. Historic Survey. Accessed 27 Nov 2021. https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/map/historic .

Digimap. “Liverpool.” Historic Survey. Accessed 27 Nov 2021. https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/map/historic .

Hughes Q. “North Warehouse.” Photograph. Liverpool: University of Liverpool Special Archives, 1966.

Hughes Q. “Swing Bridge.” Photograph. Liverpool: University of Liverpool Special Archives, 1966.

Liverpool Echo. 2016. Liverpool’s iconic Albert Dock through the years. Accessed 27 Nov 2021. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/nostalgia/gallery/liverpools-iconic-albert-dock-through-10018293 .

Stammers M. Liverpool Docks. The Archive Photographs Series: Images of England. Tempus. 1999.

Bernard R. River Mersey-1990. Flickr. 1990. Accessed 27 Nov 2021. https://flickr.com/photos/br-images/4403779925 .

Barrie Bros. “Docks.”2020. Accessed 27 Nov 2021. https://www.barriebros.com/media/1027/docks.jpg?width=1200 .

Digimap. Liverpool. Historic Survey. Accessed 27 Nov 2021. https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/map/historic .

Newman J. Albert Dock. Flickr. 2004. Accessed 27 Nov 2021. https://www.flickr.com/photos/nonny/294941 .

Digimap. Liverpool. Historic Survey. Accessed 17 Nov 2021. https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/map/historic .

Digimap. Liverpool. Historic Survey. Accessed 27 Nov 2021.

Kersting, A.F. 1969. “The Docks.” Historic England Archive. Accessed November 27th, 2021. https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/photos/englands-places/card/256149 .

George, T. Christopher. 2007. “Liverpool’s Pier Head.” Flickr. Accessed November 27.th, 2021. https://www.flickr.com/photos/christophertgeorge/480486138 .

Historic England. 2017. “Stanley Dock Conservation Area”. Accessed November 29th, 2021. https://historicengland.org.uk/content/heritage-counts/pub/2017/case-study-stanley-dock-conservation-area-pdf/ .

Business Live. 2021. “Owners begin to move in to Liverpool’s Tobacco Warehouse as half of units sold or reserved.” Accessed November 29.th, 2021. https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/owners-begin-move-liverpools-tobacco-20935089 .

Digimap. 2021. “Liverpool.” Historic Survey. Accessed November 29th, 2021. https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/map/historic .

Jackson, Neil. 2004. “Stanley Dock.” Flickr. Accessed November 29th, 2021. https://www.flickr.com/photos/36891657@N04/3398175577/ .

Brown, A. Clive. 2003. “DSCN6244.” Flickr. Accessed November 29.th, 2021. https://www.flickr.com/photos/cliveabrown/2296057355 .

Hughes Q. “North Warehouse.” Photograph. Liverpool: University of Liverpool Special Archives, 1960.

Brown, A. Clive. 2003. “DSCN6230.” Flickr. Accessed November 29th, 2021. https://www.flickr.com/photos/cliveabrown/2296056771/ .

Property Week. 2018. “Everton stadium update: gaining ground.” Accessed November 29th, 2021. https://www.propertyweek.com/markets/everton-stadium-update-gaining-ground/5095323.article .

Everton FC. New Everton Stadium|Bramley-Moore Dock|Virtual Flythrough. Youtube. Accessed 29 Nov 2021.

Digimap. 2021. Liverpool. Historic Survey. Accessed 29 Nov 2021. https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/map/historic .

Everton FC. Officer Report FINAL Appendix 11—Stadium Images.pdf. Liverpool City Council. Accessed 29 Nov 2021. https://lar.liverpool.gov.uk/planning/index.html?fa=getApplication&id=133060 .

Everton FC. Design & Access Statement_Part10of10.pdf” Liverpool City Council. Accessed 29 Nov 2021. https://lar.liverpool.gov.uk/planning/index.html?fa=getApplication&id=133060 .

Reading T. Bramley Moore Dock.” Flickr. Accessed 29 Nov 2021. https://www.flickr.com/photos/16801915@N06/4232912495

Everton FC. Officer Report FINAL Appendix 11 – Stadium Images.pdf.” Liverpool City Council. Accessed 29 Nov 2021. https://lar.liverpool.gov.uk/planning/index.html?fa=getApplication&id=133060 .

Everton FC. Design & Access Statement_Part8of10.pdf. Liverpool City Council. Accessed November 29.th, 2021. https://lar.liverpool.gov.uk/planning/index.html?fa=getApplication&id=133060 .

Buro Happold. 2021. Respecting heritage: how to build a football stadium on a World Heritage Site. Accessed 29 Nov 2021. https://www.burohappold.com/articles/respecting-heritage-how-to-build-a-football-stadium-on-a-world-heritage-site/# .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on a dissertation submitted to the School of Architecture at the University of Liverpool, UK. We extend our sincere gratitude to the interviewees for their valuable time and support throughout the dissertation process.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

RIBA Part II Graduate, School of Architecture, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

School of Architecture, The University of Liverpool, 25 Abercromby Square, L69 7ZN, Liverpool, UK

Ataa Alsalloum

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

James Hole (JH) and Ataa Alsalloum (AA) jointly conceptualized the study’s primary concept. JH was responsible for analyzing the data and further refining the conceptual framework. Both JH and AA undertook the collection of archival data and collaborated in writing the manuscript. AA was responsible for the reviews and final corrections. Both authors have given their approval for the final version of the manuscript to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ataa Alsalloum .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hole, J., Alsalloum, A. Evolution of heritage and development in Liverpool's waterfront over 40 years. Discov Cities 1 , 11 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44327-024-00012-8

Download citation

Received : 07 March 2024

Accepted : 27 June 2024

Published : 03 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s44327-024-00012-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Heritage policies
• List of world heritage in danger

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

UNESCO Almaty

• Archive of the UNESCO website

About UNESCO Almaty

The representation of UNESCO in Almaty was established in 1994 and currently covers seven countries: Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It works through and in cooperation with the National Commissions for UNESCO in each country and partner networks in its fields of competence. This includes government partners, members of the UN family, other intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, experts and researches, private sector companies, foundations, media outlets, and other specialized institutions.

UNESCO-EU project launched in 2018

UNESCO launches science, technology, and mathematics education project in Tajikistan

UNESCO-Adaptation Fund project

Meaningful engagement of civil society for conflict prevention and peacebuilding

Our impact in numbers

have been established in the Region

are member in the Region

are listed in the Region

Get involved with UNESCO

Take a stance and help us bring change!

UNESCO Sites & Designations in the Region

in the Region

and Safeguarding practices in the Region

registered by States in the Region are being monitored

in the Region listed on the Memory of the World Register

Publications & Reports from UNESCO

Access our publications catalogue

and learn more about our actions and work at UNESCO Almaty

Related items

• Information and communication
• Social and human sciences
• Natural sciences
• Gender equality
• Sharing knowledge
• UN ＆ International cooperation
• Country page: Iran (Islamic Republic of)
• Country page: Kazakhstan
• Country page: Kyrgyzstan
• Country page: Pakistan
• Country page: Tajikistan
• Country page: Turkmenistan
• Country page: Uzbekistan
• Region: Asia and the Pacific
• UNESCO Office in Almaty
• See more add

050040 Almaty 303, Baizakov Street Kazakhstan