Operability, Multiscalarity, Diversity, and Complexity in the UNESCO Heritage Regulatory Framework

Abstract

The historical genealogy of the heritage regulatory framework, spanning from the 20th century to the present day, provides insights into the continuous socio-cultural transformations within communities. It also sheds light on the successive expansions and reformulations that have shaped the understanding of the heritage phenomenon up to its current conception. This research presents a historical methodology that traces the Charters and Conventions within the UNESCO domain by creating a matrix of cross-cutting vectors that span the heritage phenomenon. Through this matrix, it becomes possible to unveil and pinpoint the emergence, changes, and sociocultural mutations identified within the UNESCO normative framework. The present research not only identifies the emergence of these vectors but also delves into their facets and nuances, relationships, and interactions. The study unfolds in three phases: during the initial phase, the four main vectors in understanding the heritage phenomenon (Operability, Multiscalarity, Diversity, and Complexity) are identified, encompassing their origin, emergence, nuances, and facets. In the second phase, the evolution, scope, and permanence of each vector are closely monitored across its different facets. Finally, the crossovers between them are analyzed, revealing their relationships, interactions, and thus mutual influence.

1. Introduction

The significance of the legacy of the built environment can be traced in Western culture from the Vitruvian writings, which valued Greek heritage [1], to the Contemporary Age. In this era, the impulses of enlightened rationalization extend beyond the realm of heritage. In the 19th century and, particularly, in the 20th century, various States began legislating for the protection of their national heritage.

The international approach to heritage preservation would be consolidated in connection with the establishment of UNESCO in 1945, after the Second World War. UNESCO proposed intercultural dialogue as the foundation for peace. Within this context, heritage would occupy an exceptional place, leading to the drafting of Charters and Conventions. These documents, building upon the precedent set by the Athens Charter [2], would serve as a shared normative framework in the field of heritage. Since then, these texts have undergone clear and successive evolution and concretization, reflecting the ongoing socio-cultural transformations of communities. More specifically, they reflect the expansion and reformulation of our understanding of heritage over the decades.

The study of the historical and cultural context from these antecedents in the interwar period, and its reflection in the heritage approach in the Charters and Conventions, has been undertaken through an architectural lens by Loren-Méndez, Rodríguez-Segura, and Galán-Conde in 2023 [3,4]. They observed how the interaction of multiple disciplines, in each historical, social, and cultural context, has been reshaping our relationship with our environments and, consequently, our heritage.

Embedded in this field of study, this research is rooted in a historical methodology proposing to revisit and analyze the Charters and Conventions within the UNESCO domain. It is founded on the creation of a matrix of cross-cutting vectors to heritage, allows us to comprehend and sequence the continuous socio-cultural transformations that have been experienced by communities regarding the successive expansions and reformulations of the heritage phenomenon from the 20th century to the present day.

For the creation of this matrix, the present research not only identifies the emergence of these vectors, but also analyzes their nuances, facets, relationships, and interactions in a study process that unfolds in three phases:

• In the first phase, we revisit UNESCO Charters and Conventions, identifying the four main themes around which we can build an understanding of the heritage phenomenon: Operability, Multiscalarity, Diversity, and Complexity. These constitute the four main vectors that cut across heritage. We trace their origin and emergence, corresponding to specific socio-cultural moments, and identify their various nuances and facets through a detailed study of legislative documents.
• In a second phase, we identify and analyze the evolution, scope, and permanence of vectors, exploring all their facets and nuances in UNESCO Charters and Conventions from their origin to the present day.
• Finally, we cross and analyze these vectors in the discussion, revealing the relationships, interactions, and thus mutual influence between them.

1.1. First Phase. Identification of Cross-Cutting Vectors and Dimensions in Heritage: Emergence, Scope, Facets, and Nuances

1.1.1. Phase 1a. The Emergence of Operability, Multiscalarity, Diversity, and Complexity Vectors in Understanding Heritage

In the initial stage, the research sets out to identify the main themes through which the understanding of heritage itself has been structured across successive UNESCO Charters and Declarations.

Although it is true that there is recurring terminology in the literature of heritage knowledge, there is no research that focuses on systematically analyzing the UNESCO Heritage Regulatory Framework to categorize and group into main themes all the conceptual terminology around which the understanding of the patrimonial fact is structured.

In the first phase of this research, UNESCO Charters and Conventions are analyzed, detecting the recurring and notable terms from the conceptual point of view in each of them. Subsequently, and as a contribution of this research, we analyze the relationships and intrinsic affinities between these terms. Four main themes are then detected around which all this conceptual terminology can be grouped and categorized around the understanding of the heritage fact (see Figure 1).

We propose four main readings, aligning with diverse and progressive transformations of heritage within their sociocultural contexts: Operability, Multiscalarity, Diversity, and Complexity. These are the four core vectors of heritage.

During the first stage of analysis, we successfully pinpointed the emergence of these four themes in specific historical periods:

• First, we trace the emergence of Operability (OP) in the autonomous spaces of Modernity. Notably, during this era of unwavering confidence in rational knowledge, experts with technical profiles became concerned with legislating and managing heritage through the implementation of initiatives and policies aimed at its preservation. In the initial UNESCO Charters and Declarations, continuous references to strategies, actions, and recommendations for safeguarding heritage were noted. Initially, we still find an operational focus applied to defending monumental heritage.
• With the emergence of individual spaces in the post-war period, we observe the emergence of a need for Multiscalarity (MS). In the Charters and Declarations of that time, we begin to notice that heritage cannot be fully understood if reduced to a single scale of analysis. The multiscalar approach recognizes the heritage phenomenon beyond its unitary and one-dimensional nature, addressing a network of multiple dimensions manifesting at different scales, levels, and perspectives simultaneously.
• Overcoming Eurocentrism at the end of the 20th century leads to the awareness of the Diversity Vector (DV). Charters and Declarations of this socio-cultural context begin to refer to heritage, encompassing the richness of cultural expressions, both material and intangible, shaping the legacy inherited by every society. This diverse approach allows heritage to recognize the plurality of identities, temporalities, traditions, expressions, and manifestations.
• Finally, at the turn of the millennium, the dynamic and continuously transforming nature of heritage is recognized, along with Complexity (CP). Here, we situate all that intricate network of interrelated heritage entities built and perpetually reconstructed between communities and their environment.

1.1.2. Phase 1b. Scope, Nuances, and Facets

Once we have detected the four main categories in which we group and categorize heritage terminology, we begin to carry out a detailed study of each of them. Much closer relationships are then detected between the terms within each vector. We discovered that we could establish different subcategories in each of the main themes (see Figure 2).

In a meticulous study of legislative documents, we identify various nuances and facets:

Operability is unequivocally constituted by two dimensions:

• Methodological-Project Operability (OP-M): set of methodological-project-oriented elements from which heritage management emerges.
• Normative-Legislative Operability (OP-N): normative and legislative frameworks in the heritage approach.

On the other hand, Multiscalarity has two paths of development, observed in spatiality and agents:

• Geographic Multiscalarity (MS-G): considers the set of specific and concrete realities of each heritage site, transcending the concept of the abstract place of Modernity.
• Multiscalarity of Agents (MS-A): involves new agents, capable of integrating the uniqueness brought by individuals connected to specific locations. This enhances and broadens the heritage debate across disciplines, encompassing anthropology or sociology, among other fields, thereby blurring the only formal valuations and placing the individual at the forefront.

The recognition of the Diversity Vector translates into three dimensions:

• Temporal Diversity (DV-T): considers every temporal period, blurring hierarchies between historical moments.
• Diversity of Categories (DV-C): explicitly and rapidly incorporates new heritages: vernacular, intangible, modest, industrial heritage, etc.
• Socio-Community Diversity (DV-S): consolidates the role, first of the individual, then of the collective, and finally of the community, in heritage debates.

Finally, three dimensions constitute the Complexity Vector:

• Emotional-Affective Complexity (CP-E): incorporates reflection, memory and emotion into the approach to heritage.
• Relational Complexity (CP-R): focuses on the relational interconnection between communities and their heritage environments, moving beyond the location of values in objects or subjects, to focus on the relationship that occurs between them.
• Dynamic Complexity (CP-D): acknowledges the dynamic and living nature of heritage.

1.2. Second Phase. Location, Permanence, and Evolution of Vectors and Dimensions in UNESCO Charters and Declarations

In the second phase of our research, we conducted an in-depth examination of each vector, exploring their different facets and nuances within the UNESCO documents across different historical periods. We pinpoint and analyze their evolution, scope, and permanence from their origin to the present day.

After establishing the vector’s origin in a specific logic and cultural context in the first phase of the research, our focus shifts to understanding how each vector evolves and adapts with successive socio-cultural transformations and the emergence of new components representing them. Indeed, in this second phase of our research, we demonstrate how vectors continue to reshape their conceptual framework in specific directions and meanings since their inception.

By tracing the genealogy, we not only examine how these vectors and dimensions have persisted over time but also explore the conceptual transformations and contextual adjustments shaping the contemporary understanding of the heritage phenomenon (see Figure 3).

In terms of methodology, and for the sake of the article’s clarity and brevity, this chronological journey is supported by graphics. These visual aids enable us to validate the presence and transformations of vectors across various UNESCO Charters and Declarations. We provide sources of our own creation to complement this research, presenting tables and synthesis diagrams resulting from the systematic review of the analyzed heritage documents. The production of these graphic documents is considered a noteworthy contribution to this scientific article.

1.3. Third Phase. Crossovers and Vector Operations

Finally, in the third phase of the research, which is of a conclusive and discursive nature, we bring the different vectors into dialogue, thus generating new relationships and revealing the transformations they undergo through this interaction.

Within this section, we come to understand that the four vectors intersecting with heritage, along with their different facets and nuances, cannot be grasped in a static and isolated manner. The findings and discussions of this research highlight the enriching interplay and evolution occurring within their historical context (see Figure 4).

1.4. Research Questions

This research is based on the following starting hypothesis: it is possible to understand and sequence the continuous sociocultural transformations of the heritage phenomenon from the 20th century to the present day through the understanding of the Built Environment through the Cross-Cutting Vectors of Heritage identified within the UNESCO normative framework, in all its different facets and nuances: Operability, Multiscalarity, Diversity, and Complexity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Operability in Modernity. The Role of the Expert Figure

We embark on a journey through the historical epoch of architectural and urban modernity, heralded during the interwar period. This era places emphasis on the object, which is deemed universal and situated within an abstract realm, thus transcending place and time.

The inherent universality of the architectural object, divorced from its historical and societal context, would come to shape the contemporary notion of heritage: the monument would become another artefact of Modernity, appreciated for its intrinsic value, irrespective of its urban environment or the territory’s historical context.

During this interwar period, we already discern the emergence of the Operability Vector within the concept of heritage, as defined in the International Charters and Declarations (see

Table 1. Period, historical-cultural context, and heritage correlate associated with the Operability Vector. Graphic color code used in the research: blue for Operability; orange for Multiscalarity; green for Diversity; and red for Complexity.

Period	Historical-Cultural Context	Heritage Correlate	Cross-Cutting Vector
Antecedents in Modernity (1925–1945)	Functionalist Rationalism: Trust in Reason and the Machine	Focus on the object, which is universal and situated in an abstract realm.	Operability Vector

).

Certainly, while the focus remains on this universal nature of the contemporary monument, it is in this era that the heritage framework articulates the operational principles that still define the concept of heritage today. From the inception of drafting the Charters and Declarations, two dimensions of this spirit of heritage action come to light (see Figure 5):

• The first arises from methodological and project-oriented mechanisms (OP-M).
• The second, from the formulation and development of normative and legal frameworks (OP-N).

Though still in its early stages, this operational ethos will reverberate throughout the ongoing evolution of the heritage concept.

2.1.1. Methodological-Project Operability

The concept of heritage began to be associated with a series of design tools and principles facilitating heritage preservation, a heritage defined at that time by the rational expertise of experts and exclusively identified with the monument [2] (p. 2).

In the Athens Charter of 1931, which concerns heritage protection and conservation, we encounter observations and statements that incorporate this methodological and/or project-oriented approach:

“The conference heard the statement of the general principles and doctrines relating to the protection of monuments. (…) The Conference noted that there predominates in the different countries represented a general tendency to abandon restorations and to avoid dangers by initiating a system of regular and permanent maintenance calculated to ensure the preservation of the buildings” (OP-M) [2] (p. 1). Similarly, it addresses the project’s material aspects: “Experts heard various communications concerning the use of modern materials for the consolidation of ancient monuments. They approved the judicious use of all the resources at the disposal of modern technique and more especially of reinforced concrete” (OP-M) [2] (p. 2).

2.1.2. Normative-Legislative Operability

This operational readiness is also evident within the Charters and Declarations, manifesting the need to integrate it into the normative-legislative framework.

In the Athens Charter of 1931, it underscores the obligation of states to develop and enact laws safeguarding built heritage, as mentioned earlier, particularly focusing on monumental heritage:

“The Conference heard the statement of legislative measures devised to protect monuments of artistic, historic, artistic or scientific interest and belonging to the different countries. It unanimously approved the general tendency which, in this connection, recognizes a certain right of the community in regard to private ownership. […] measures […] should be in keeping with local circumstances and with the trend of public opinion”

(OP-N) [2] (p. 1)

An emphasis was placed on the need to standardize such legislation for comparative purposes: “It earnestly hopes that the International Museums Office will publish a repertory and a comparative table of the legislative measures in force in the different countries and that this information will be kept up to date” (OP-N) [2] (p. 1).

2.2. Heritage Multiscalarity after the Post-War Period. Beyond the Universal Object in an Abstract Space

In the latter half of the 20th century, the universalist ideals of the Modern Movement faced a crisis. The war’s physical and human destruction mark a turning point in the current of global thought.

In contrast to the reliance on reason and machinery, a focus on the individual emerges: attention shifts to the needs of those who endured the horrors of war. Rationalism gives way to existentialism in the reshaping of Western ethical values (see

Table 2. Period, historical-cultural context, and heritage correlate related to the Multiscalarity Vector. Graphic color code used in the research: blue for Operability; orange for Multiscalarity; green for Diversity; and red for Complexity.

Period	Historical-Cultural Context	Heritage Correlate	Cross-Cutting Vector
Postwar period (1948–1975)	Existentialism in the Reorganization of Western Ethical Values	The experienced place and the present condition of the history of our environment	Multiscalarity Vector
	Cultural Turn	The expansion of the idea of heritage. Modest works with cultural significance

).

Consequently, interest turns towards specific places that are unique to each individual, each embodying a specific reality grounded in location. These are the places lost or ravaged by conflict, to which we cling and aspire to reclaim. Gradually, the object, the monument of Modernity, yields to these places. As a result, the heritage concept calls for an approach at various scales to accommodate the specificity of these places (see Figure 6).

• On the one hand, this implies transcending heritage as a solitary, universal monumental object, and instead considering specific places and their surrounding environments, from the most immediate to their urban or rural contexts. This results in a geographical multiscalarity (MS-G) within the heritage of the built environment.
• On the other hand, the experience and perception of the individual within a specific reality became central to the valuation of these places. This introduces a wide range of stakeholders into the heritage debate (MS-A), extending beyond objective-centered and formal assessments. With these new stakeholders comes the recognition of their own experiences within the “place”, marking a shift from formal analysis to a more sensible approach. Ultimately, it is the experienced place that supersedes the conceptualized space.

2.2.1. Geographical Multiscalarity: Moving beyond the Isolated Monument

The first article of the Venice Charter of 1964 introduces the concept of geographic multiscalarity, stating that “The concept of a historic monument embraces not only the singled architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a particular civilization, a significant development or a historic event (MS-G)” [5] (p. 1). Article 7 reinforces this idea by emphasizing that “a monument is inseparable from the history to which it bears witness and from the setting in which it occurs” (MS-G) [5] (p. 2). Finally, Article 14 expands on the concept of an isolated monument by introducing the idea of “sites of monuments” (MS-G) [5] (p. 3).

The broadening of the heritage-geographical perspective extends to the very definition of cultural heritage, with monumental heritage being just one part of it, alongside complexes and places. This is expressed in the 1972 Convention:

“For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as ‘cultural heritage’:

• Monuments: (…).
• Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science,
• Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view” (MS-G) [6] (p. 2).

2.2.2. Multiscalarity of Agents. Transitioning from Formal Analysis to a New Sensitive Approach in the Latter Half of the 20th Century

Once again, the Venice Charter bears witness to the second aspect of this vector: the multiscalarity of agents. Already in its second article, it includes “the conservation and restoration of monuments must have recourse to all the sciences and all techniques which can contribute to the study and safeguarding of the architectural heritage” (MS-A) [5] (p. 2).

It is no coincidence that, at this historical juncture, heritage studies emerge as a distinct discipline, leading to the redefinition of the heritage concept within an increasingly interdisciplinary framework: Ethnography, Sociology, Social Geography, or Anthropology will enhance the debate and facilitate the gradual broadening of heritage perspectives.

The 1972 Convention explicitly acknowledges this: the concept of “place” we have discussed concerning the attainment of geographic multiscalarity is no longer solely aesthetic (or formal), but also “historical”, “ethnological”, and “anthropological” [6] (p. 2), focusing precisely on this second aspect of the Multiscalarity Vector: the multiscalarity of Agents (MS-A).

It is at this moment, furthermore, that the need for a better valuation of the economic issue in heritage as a fundamental part of this multiscalarity of Agents begins to be consolidated. The 1972 Convention is explicit about this when in its article 24 it states: “Very important international assistance may only be granted after a detailed scientific, economic and technical study” (MS-A) [6] (p. 12).

2.3. The Diversity Vector at the End of the Century. The Conquest of Global Diversity

Continuing the process begun in the 1960s, the final quarter of the 20th century witnesses the growing influence of post-colonial studies, furthering the expansion of the heritage concept from a limited Eurocentric diversity to a broader cultural diversity recognized globally (see

Table 3. Period, historical-cultural context, and heritage linked to the Diversity Vector. Graphic color code used in the research: blue for Operability; orange for Multiscalarity; green for Diversity; and red for Complexity.

Period	Cultural Context	Heritage Correlate	Cross-Cutting Vector
Late 20th century (1975–2000)	Phenomenology	Learned cultural component of rote learning. The assumed intangibility of emotions in heritage	Diversity Vector
	Postcolonialism	The Vernacular: Cultural Diversity as a Global Heritage Value

).

It is at this moment that we observe the ultimate conquest of the Diversity Vector in International Charters and Declarations (see Figure 7):

• First, temporal hierarchies in time valuation become blurred (DV-T);
• Second, the boundaries of heritage expand with an enhanced focus on intangible aspects (DV-C);
• Finally, the community’s role as a central agent in heritage preservation and recognition is acknowledged (Socio-community diversity).

2.3.1. Temporal Diversity

During the last quarter of the 20th century, there is a notable emphasis on diversity in the heritage value of artifacts produced across different historical periods, resulting in a blurring of the hierarchical distinctions among these periods. The European Charter of 1975 underscores the importance of “keep[ing] alive the evidence of different periods and their achievements” (DV-T) [7] (p. 3), highlighting the significance of every historical period in enriching humanity’s collective heritage:

“The past as embodied in the architectural heritage provides the sort of environment indispensable to a balanced and complete life. In the face of a rapidly changing civilization, in which brilliant successes are accompanied by grave perils, people today have an instinctive feeling for the value of this heritage. This heritage should be passed on to future generations in its authentic state and in all its variety as an essential part of the memory of the human race. Otherwise, part of man’s awareness of his own continuity will be destroyed”

(DV-T) [7] (p. 2)

Likewise, the Declaration of Amsterdam of the same period aligns with the same perspective, recognizing the temporal significance within social contexts specific to particular places and times. It describes “the enduring legacy of human groups’ histories, spanning generations (…) a reality deeply embedded in time: the layered accumulation of human experiences, echoing through the ages” (DV-T) [8] (p. 1).

2.3.2. The Diversity of Categories

The same Charters and Declarations of this era give impetus to the broadening of heritage classifications. Stemming from the now recognized value in any historical era, vernacular heritage emerges prominently. This reinforces the notion of heritage, which places modest heritage on a par with exceptional heritage. The Declaration of Amsterdam of 1975 marks a turning point:

“(…) an important landmark in the evolution of European thinking about the conservation of the architectural heritage, acknowledging the role of human history within built groups of buildings. It calls for abolishing a hierarchical difference between groups of buildings of outstanding artistic interest and those of lesser importance”

(DV-C) [8] (p. 1)

Likewise, the European Charter for Architectural Heritage reiterates this position, highlighting, in this instance, the already acknowledged geographic multiscalarity: from cities to villages within natural settings. Nonetheless, the Charter primarily addresses Europe’s architectural and urban heritage, still reflecting a Eurocentric perspective.

“The European architectural heritage consists not only of our most important monuments: it also includes the groups of lesser buildings in our old towns and characteristic villages in their natural or manmade settings”

(DV-C) [7] (p. 2)

The European Charter goes even further, affirming that groups of buildings can hold value even in the absence of exceptional buildings, thus constituting the ultimate frontier in overcoming the initial identification of built heritage with monuments:

“Today it is recognized that entire groups of buildings, even if they do not include any example of outstanding merit, may have an atmosphere that gives them the quality of works of art”

(DV-C) [7] (p. 2)

This diversity of categories not only refers to the scope of non-exceptional heritage but also explicitly begins to incorporate intangible values alongside the already accepted tangible ones.

Documents from this time bear witness to a heritage perspective extending beyond the Western world, echoing heritage legislation enacted in Asian countries, especially Korea and Japan. This represents a heritage outlook far removed from Western thought, which predominantly focuses on tangible aspects. With these documents, new sensibilities are incorporated, emphasizing a heritage characterization less tied to strict architectural aspects and more to anthropological considerations. This is evident in charters developed in the 1990s, which illustrate this broadening of diversity and the explicit inclusion of intangible values. The Nara Document is explicit in both the scope of a more global diversity and the overcoming of Eurocentric tangibility:

“All cultures and societies are rooted in particular forms and tangible and intangible means of expression, which constitute their heritage, and these should be respected”

(DV-C) [9] (p. 1)

It is precisely the appreciation of the vernacular, of tradition, that allows the transition to a more global diversity, to the ability to encompass all places and all of humanity. This elucidates why it is the Charter on Built Vernacular Heritage that most distinctly expresses this global nature of heritage.

“Built Vernacular Heritage is the fundamental expression of the culture of a community, of its relationship with its territory and, at the same time, the expression of the world’s cultural diversity”

(DV-C) [10] (p. 1)

2.3.3. Socio-Community Diversity

This multi-faceted valuation of heritage, spanning across various historical periods, ultimately allows the community to become a key player, surpassing the role of individual creative genius behind built heritage or individualized heritage valuation. Thus, the significance of the community transcends the mere sum of its constituents, as a social collective endowed with cherished and deeply ingrained heritage values.

On one hand, the conquest of the previously mentioned temporal diversity implicitly entails erasing hierarchies between social groups of different eras, including those previously considered culturally less relevant.

On the other hand, the conceptual extension of the heritage notion from grand monuments to the humblest works in any location and time period, alongside the increasing importance of intangible valuation, brings the community to the forefront as the custodian of these identified and deeply felt values.

The European Charter of 1975 began to point out the need for collective heritage awareness, marking the first reference to the intuitive heritage value that individuals can recognize:

“In the face of a rapidly changing civilization, in which brilliant successes are accompanied by grave perils, people today have an instinctive feeling for the value of this heritage. This heritage should be passed on to future generations in its authentic state and in all its variety as an essential part of the memory of the human race. Otherwise, part of man’s awareness of his own continuity will be destroyed”

(DV-S) [7] (p. 2)

2.4. The Complexity Vector in the New Millennium: Transitioning from the Subject’s Experiential and Emotional-Affective Interaction to a Dynamic Understanding of Heritage

With the advent of the New Millennium, we also observe the integration of emotions and affections into the processes of understanding the environment, definitively breaking down the traditional dichotomy of emotion and reason. This shift ushers in a new paradigm where mind, body, and environment coalesce into a coherent, dynamic, and relational system (see

Table 4. Period, historical-cultural context, and heritage correlate related to the Complexity Vector. Graphic color code used in the research: blue for Operability; orange for Multiscalarity; green for Diversity; and red for Complexity.

Period	Cultural Context	Heritage Correlate	Cross-Cutting Vector
New Millennium (2000–2025)	The Affective Turn	The relational dimension and the evolution of emotions towards affections in the valuation of assets. Transcending intangibility.	Complexity Vector
	Non-Representational Theory	The dynamic and changing nature of heritage. The continuous construction of a community-heritage environment.

).

Indeed, with the turn of the millennium, within the Charters and Declarations, we discern the emergence of a Complexity Vector (CP) that enhances the heritage debate through three emerging issues within the contemporary concept of heritage (see Figure 8):

• First, it encompasses emotions, construed in their reflective sense and grounded in the individual’s learned memory, as well as affections, in their unreflective sense (CP-E).
• Second, it emphasizes the relational understanding of communities and their respective heritage contexts (CP-R), transcending the approach of situating heritage values solely within objects or individuals to focus on the interplay and interconnectedness between them.
• Last, it embraces the dynamic and living nature of heritage (CP-D), arising from its emotional, unreflective, and affective nature, as well as the myriad relationships and interactions that underpin the understanding of the heritage phenomenon.

2.4.1. Emotional-Affective Complexity

The integration of the intangible, as pointed out earlier in the context of Diversity, becomes the primary catalyst for initially integrating emotions and subsequently affections into the heritage discourse (CP-E). With the onset of the new millennium, various fields of research, particularly in the Social Sciences such as Sociology, Anthropology, and Geography, began to acknowledge the role of emotional factors in shaping space, emphasizing the increasingly central role of the social sphere and its intangible values.

In a parallel evolution alongside the relational nature of knowledge of the environment, we observe a progression from emotions to affections. This transition signifies a departure from understanding emotions solely as components learned through collective memory to viewing them as heritage values mutually constructed and reconstructed within the community-environment relationship.

The heritage debate is no stranger to these transformations, reflecting these changes in the International Charters and Declarations at the turn of the millennium, encapsulated in what we call Emotional-Affective Complexity.

While initially confined to vernacular heritage, the Charter on Built Vernacular Heritage of 1999 acknowledges that “built vernacular heritage occupies a central place in the affection and pride of all peoples” (CP-E) [10] (p. 1).

In the ensuing years, the heritage debate continued to include emotional nuances associated with intangible values acquired through memory.

For instance, the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of 2003 recognizes the diverse and multifaceted values attributed by communities to the intangible aspects of heritage, expressly referencing collective memory:

“[…] promote education for the protection of natural spaces and places of memory whose existence is necessary for expressing the intangible cultural heritage”

(CP-E) [11] (p. 18)

Similarly, the Québec Declaration reaffirms this stance, associating “intangible values” with “memory, beliefs, traditional knowledge, attachment to place” concepts. (CP-E) [12] (p. 1).

Finally, the Faro Convention of 2005 underscores the emotional essence of our cultural heritage, aligning it with the inherent emotional nature of learned—understood—memory that lends creativity to the heritage debate:

“All forms of cultural heritage in Europe which together constitute a shared source of remembrance, understanding, identity, cohesion and creativity”

(CP-E) [13] (p. 3)

2.4.2. Relational Complexity

The unreflective role of affections in understanding environments gives rise to a significant relational inquiry within their sociocultural context. This prompts a shift in the heritage paradigm, moving beyond the conventional approach of attributing heritage values solely to objects or subjects and instead focusing on the relationship and interconnection between them. UNESCO Charters and Declarations from this period explicitly acknowledge the connection between community and place.

For instance, the Krakow Charter, drafted at the turn of the millennium, underscores in its preamble the importance of the connections established between people and their environments in this nuanced and perceived knowledge:

“This involves making links with the built environment of the metropolis, city and town”

(CP-R) [14] (p. 3)

The Vienna Memorandum further exemplifies this by highlighting the affective component in understanding heritage through the community’s relationship with its heritage environment. The Vienna Memorandum articulates a relational perspective:

“Taking into account the emotional connection between human beings and their environment, their sense of place, it is fundamental to guarantee an urban environmental quality of living to contribute to the economic success of a city and to its social and cultural vitality”

(CP-R) [15] (p. 3)

Recognizing the affective dimension as a relational element between the community and the built environment allows for the acknowledgement of Relational Complexity (CP-R) in the International Charters and Declarations of the new millennium. This transcends the mere localization of values and conceives heritage within a much more complex framework that emerges from the interaction between them, forming an indivisible construct. Consequently, the community assumes a central role in its heritage, shaping and preserving its own genesis within it.

The roots of this relational concept can be traced back to the Burra Charter of 1999, which hinted at the importance of “groups and individuals with associations with a place as well as all those involved in its management should be provided with opportunities to contribute to and participate in understanding the cultural significance of the place” (CP-R) [16] (p. 7).

However, it is with the Krakow Charter of 2000 that the relational approach becomes more pronounced.

“Landscapes as cultural heritage result from and reflect a prolonged interaction in different societies between man, nature, and the physical environment. They are testimony to the evolving relationship of communities, individuals and their environment”

(CP-R) [14] (p. 3)

This emphasizes the community’s active participation in defining and redefining heritage in its daily life.

“Each community, by means of its collective memory and consciousness of its past, is responsible for the identification as well as the management of its heritage”

(CP-R) [14] (p. 1)

Recent Charters and Declarations echo this sentiment, such as the Declaration of Florence, which recognizes the community’s integral role in identifying heritage:

“The connection between communities and their heritage should be recognized, respecting the community’s right to identify values and knowledge systems embodied in their heritage”

(CP-R) [17] (p. 6)

This updated approach to studying environments from a relational perspective between heritage and people acknowledges their mutual influence and constant transformation. It signals an evolution beyond merely associating emotional and affective components with intangible heritage alone. Instead, it advocates for integrating both tangible and intangible heritages, challenging prevailing assumptions about their inherent value and significance.

The Québec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place of 2008 serves as an example of this new paradigm:

“Because of the indivisible nature of tangible and intangible heritage and the meanings, values, and context intangible heritage gives to objects and places”

(CP-R) [12] (p. 2)

The declaration acknowledges “the spirit of place” as a concept that is both tangible and intangible:

“Recognizing that the spirit of place is made up of tangible (sites, buildings, landscapes, routes, objects), as well as intangible elements (memories, narratives, written documents, festivals, commemorations, rituals, traditional knowledge, values, textures, colors, odors, etc.), which all significantly contribute to making place and to giving it spirit, we declare that intangible cultural heritage gives a richer and more complete meaning to heritage as a whole”

(CP-R) [12] (p. 3)

Furthermore, the integrative relationship of this tangible-intangible conception of our heritage is also explicit:

“The relationship between tangible and intangible heritage, and the internal social and cultural mechanisms of the spirit of place—a term defined as the tangible (buildings, sites, landscapes, routes, objects) and the intangible elements (memories, narratives, written documents, rituals, festivals, traditional knowledge, values, textures, colors, odors, etc.)”

(CP-R) [12] (p. 2)

Similarly, the Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Populations and Urban Areas of 2011 emphasize this tangible and intangible relational nature in their definitions section:

“Spirit of place is defined as the tangible and intangible, the physical and the spiritual elements that give the area its specific identity, meaning, emotion and mystery. The spirit of place creates the space and at the same time the space constructs and structures this spirit (Québec Declaration of 2008)”

(CP-R) [18] (p. 3)

Lastly, the Florence Declaration of 2014 underscores the tangible-intangible relational component when discussing tangible and intangible connections, referring to the living memory of our landscapes.

“We acknowledge that landscapes are an integral part of heritage as they are the living memory of past generations and can provide tangible and intangible connections to future generations. Cultural heritage and landscape are fundamental for community identity and should be preserved through traditional practices and knowledge that also guarantees that biodiversity is safeguarded”

(CP-R) [17] (p. 2)

2.4.3. Dynamic Complexity

The continuous process of constructing-reconstructing heritage valuation in the community-environment relational binomial has led International Charters and Declarations, since the year 2000, to depart from an outdated and rigid understanding of heritage. The evolution of heritage discourse in the New Millennium recognizes its dynamic, living, and ever-changing nature, inherent to the reality in which it exists (CP-D). The Krakow Charter, issued in the year 2000, boldly declares in its preamble that “heritage cannot be defined in a fixed way” (CP-D) [14] (p. 1).

Furthermore, the Krakow Charter highlights the evolving nature of heritage values:

“Individual elements of this heritage are bearers of many values, which may change in time. This various specific values in the elements characterize the specificity of each heritage”

(CP-D) [14] (p. 1)

Five years later, the Faro Convention reinforces this perspective, emphasizing the dynamic nature of society by stating that it is “[…] a constantly evolving society (CP-D)” [13] (p. 2). Given that society is the primary agent in shaping heritage, it naturally follows that heritage itself is subject to change.

The Québec Declaration of 2008 underscores the vibrant and dynamic nature of cultural heritage:

“The spirit of place offers a more comprehensive understanding of the living and, at the same time, permanent character of monuments, sites, and cultural landscapes. It provides a richer, more dynamic, and inclusive vision of cultural heritage”

(CP-D) [12] (pp. 2–3)

In the Florence Declaration on Heritage and Landscape as Human Values of 2014, there is a clear acknowledgement of the continuously evolving and transforming nature of heritage. The Florence Declaration refers to the Dynamic Complexity Vector in a holistic manner, highlighting its socio-community, temporal, and cultural dimensions:

“Community identity is rarely uniform or static but is a living concept that is constantly evolving, thanks to an interplay of past and present in the context of current geo-political circumstances”

(CP-D) [17] (p. 3)

3. Results

As explained in the course of this research, the methodological development of each phase involved in studying and analyzing the UNESCO heritage normative framework, achieved through the creation of a matrix of cross-cutting vectors concerning the heritage phenomenon, places significant emphasis on graphic supports throughout the processes and the visualization of the findings. This approach is underpinned by a methodology tightly intertwined with the creation of graphical representations. Consequently, the research study entails the extensive and conscientious development of tables and diagrams undertaken in parallel with each of the re-readings and systematic reviews of the analyzed Charters and Declarations. These graphic supports are integral to the methodological framework, serving as an indispensable component for facilitating the transfer of methodology to other normative heritage studies.

In the interest of brevity, clarity, and practicality in writing, this document summarizes the findings by highlighting the most significant contributions of this methodological process. This section of the research is dedicated to elucidating, through illustrative examples, the processes employed in creating the graphic supports during each phase described, as well as some of the findings obtained beyond those detailed in preceding sections.

3.1. Graphic Supports and Findings of the Phase 1 Analysis

During the initial phase, while revisiting the UNESCO Charters and Conventions, four main themes were identified, designated as the key cross-cutting vectors of heritage, around which we built our understanding of the heritage phenomenon. Concurrently, we determined their various facets and nuances, linking the emergence of these main vectors to a specific historical-cultural period.

Following the identification of these vectors and facets, we assigned a color and acronym to each, facilitating the analysis of their scope and historical trajectory in subsequent phases.

In summary, the following table presents the synthesized findings from the first phase of analysis (see

Table 5. Summary of findings from the phase 1 analysis. Identification of cross-cutting vectors of heritage, facets, and nuances, historical-cultural period of emergence, and heritage correlation. Graphic color code used in the research: blue for Operability; orange for Multiscalarity; green for Diversity; and red for Complexity.

Period	Context Cultural	Heritage Correlate	Cross-Cutting Vector	Facets and Nuances
Antecedents in Modernity (1925–1945)	Functionalist Rationalism: Trust in Reason and the Machine	Focus on the object, which is universal and located in an abstract space.	Operability (OP)	Methodological-Project (OP-M)
				Normative-Legislative (OP-N)
Postwar period (1945–1975)	Existentialism in the Reorganization of Western Ethical Values	The experienced place and the present condition of the history of our environment	Multiscalarity (ME)	Geographic (MS-G)
	Cultural Turn	The expansion of the idea of heritage. Modest works with cultural significance		of Agents (MS-A)
Late 20th century (1975–2000)	Postcolonialism	The Vernacular: Cultural Diversity as a Global Heritage Value Learned cultural component of rote learning. The assumed intangibility of emotions in heritage	Diversity (DV)	Temporal (DV-T)
	Phenomenology			Categories (DV-C)
				Socio-Community (DV-S)
New millennium (2000–2025)	The Affective Turn	The relational dimension and the evolution of emotions towards affections in the valuation of assets. Transcending intangibility.	Complexity (CP)	Emotional-Affective (CP-E)
	Theory Non-Representational	The dynamic and changing nature of heritage. The continuous construction of a community-heritage environment.		Relational (CP-R)
				Dynamics (CP-D)

):

3.2. Graphic Supports and Findings of the Phase 2 Analysis

In the second phase, the evolution, scope, and permanence of vectors, in all their facets and nuances, across UNESCO Charters and Conventions from their inception to the present day were identified and analyzed. This involved systematic examination of each UNESCO heritage normative document, where we highlighted, using the colors and acronyms assigned to the vectors and facets from the previous phase, those sections of normative texts where we identified their presence. The following image provides an illustrative example as an excerpt from one of the analyzed documents:

It should be noted that the summary of the findings from this second phase is shown in Figure 9 of this research (see Figure 9). Here, the presence of the different facets of the vectors in each of the analyzed Charters and Declarations is outlined. This figure provides a summary of the findings of the evolution, scope, and permanence of the vectors in understanding the heritage phenomenon from the 20th century to the present day. Through this figure, we explore the crossovers and operations that occur in phase three of the analysis.

3.3. Graphic Supports and Findings of the Phase 3 Analysis

Finally, in the discussion section that follows these research findings, we will cross-reference and examine these vectors, revealing the relationships, interactions, and mutual influence that occurs among them.

To this end, we first prepared extensive tables of findings where we input, organize chronologically, and categorize each extract from the text sections of the normative documents, indicating the presence of vectors in their various facets and nuances. By cross-referencing them, we can visually analyze the relationships and mutual impacts between the different vectors, thereby gaining a comprehensive understanding of each period within the genealogy traced through the UNESCO Charters and Declarations.

The following figure (see Figure 10) provides an example, illustrating this process for the periods of Antecedents in Modernity and the Post-War era, with their respective Operability and Multiscalarity vectors.

4. Discussion

Having identified and examined the four cross-cutting vectors of heritage (Operability, Multiscalarity, Diversity, and Complexity) in the analysis of their historical genealogy within the framework of UNESCO Charters and Declarations, spanning from the transition out of Modernity to the present day, we recognize that while these vectors may have originated in a cyclical process (see Figure 11), their conceptual development demands a much broader and more complex understanding. Indeed, these cross-cutting vectors of heritage cannot be grasped in a static or isolated manner: the findings and discussions of this research highlight the enriching feedback loop inherent in their historical interplay.

The gradual emergence of each vector necessitates a continual reassessment of their scope. Likewise, while this research identifies the origin of each vector in specific historical moments, understanding its emergence requires considering the comprehensive framework of all vectors that cut across heritage.

4.1. Towards Multiscalar Operability

It has been seen that the Post-War period led to the appearance of the Multiscalarity Vector in UNESCO Charters and Declarations, confirming the shift of focus from monumentality and abstraction of the modern space object to a notion of specific place in its present condition, and, linked to its local dimension, to the value it holds for individuals from history, memory, and tradition, as a learned experience, but also a sensory experience, beyond the visual, extending into the tactile realm.

The methodological, project-oriented (OP-M), normative, and legislative (OP-N) mechanisms linked to heritage discourses that emerged in Modernity and are situated in the framework of the Operability Vector are now enriched with new multi-scalar dynamics.

An example can be found in the Venice Charter of 1964, which explicitly recognizes the need for an evolution in methodological operability to incorporate this new geographical multiscalarity:

“The monument is inseparable from the history to which it bears witness and from the setting in which it occurs (MS-G). The moving of all or part of a monument cannot be allowed except where the safeguarding of that monument demands it or where it is justified by national or international interest of paramount importance”

(OP-M) [5] (p. 2)

The Venice Charter itself makes reference to revisions in the normative-legislative operability, gradually incorporating a more diverse framework of agents (multiscalarity of agents), although it remains predominantly rational and scientific in nature:

“Excavations should be carried out in accordance with scientific standards and the recommendation defining international principles to be applied in the case of archaeological excavation adopted by UNESCO in 1956”

(OP-N) [5] (p. 3)

4.2. Towards a Diverse Multiscalarity

In the latter half of the 20th century, there was a discernible crystallization of the Diversity Vector along with its temporal (DV-T), category (DV-C), and socio-community (DV-S) derivatives. This expansion broadened the scope of cultural diversity, originally confined to the Western world, to a global scale. It encompassed the vernacular and the modest while explicitly integrating intangible values alongside the already acknowledged tangible ones.

The Multiscalarity Vector, which emerged during the post-war period, continues to hold significant prominence in the UNESCO Charters and Declarations of this second period. It serves as a fundamental vector towards the consolidation of heritage diversity. The Amsterdam Declaration of 1975 provides an example where, in its Preface, geographical multiscalarity is directly correlated with a new temporal and conceptual heritage diversity:

“Formerly limited to the most famous monuments, sites or complexes, the concept of architectural heritage today includes all groups of buildings which constitute an entity (MS-G) not only by virtue of the coherence of their architectural style but also because of the imprint of the communities which have settled there for generations (DV-T). The Congress of Amsterdam confirmed this trend of abolishing a hierarchical difference between groups of buildings of outstanding artistic interest and those of lesser importance”

(DV-C) [8] (p. 1)

There is a close relationship between these two vectors, continuing in the second section of the Declaration:

“Protection is needed today for historic towns, the old quarters of cities, and towns and villages with a traditional character as well as historic parks and gardens. (DV-C) (MS-G) The conservation of these architectural complexes can only be conceived in a wide perspective, embracing all buildings of cultural value, from the greatest to the humblest—not forgetting those of our own day together with their surroundings. (DV-T and DV-C) This overall protection will complement the piecemeal protection of individual and isolated monuments and sites”

(MS-G) [8] (p. 4)

The concept of cultural diversity entails a new global perspective on the social sphere. Both individuals and communities gain relevance in heritage matters, becoming additional agents of valuation beyond experts. At this juncture, the multiscalarity of agents explicitly incorporates this new social diversity, which actively engages in the heritage debate:

“The full development of a continuous policy of conservation requires a large measure of decentralization as well as a regard for local cultures. This means that there must be people responsible for conservation at all levels (central, regional and local) at which planning decisions are taken. The conservation of the architectural heritage, however, should not merely be a matter for experts. The support of public opinion is essential. (MS-A) The population, on the basis of full and objective information, should take a real part in every stage of the work, from the drawing up of inventories to the preparation of decisions”

[8] (p. 6)

4.3. Towards a Diverse Operation

The diversity of heritage and the intensification of its multiscalarity will also necessitate a revision of the methodological operability within the Charters and Declarations of the time. The Amsterdam Declaration serves as an example thereof:

“To make the necessary integration possible, an inventory of buildings, architectural complexes and sites demarcating protected zones around them is required. (OP-M) It should be widely circulated, particularly among regional and local authorities and officials in charge of town and country planning, in order to draw their attention to the buildings and areas worthy of protection. Such an inventory will furnish a realistic basis for conservation as a fundamental qualitative factor in the management of space”

(MS-A) [8] (p. 5)

In the same vein, the normative operation is reformulated to incorporate the new framework of global diversity into its principles:

“The recognition of the claims of the aesthetic and cultural values of the architectural heritage (DV-C) should lead to the adoption of specific aims and planning rules for old architectural complexes. It is not enough to simply superimpose, without coordinating them, ordinary planning regulations and specific rules for protecting historic buildings”

(OP-N) [8] (p. 5)

4.4. Towards a Complex and Relational Diversity

Finally, with the arrival of the new millennium, there emerges a shift towards an experiential paradigm that embraces emotions and affections (CP-E), consolidating the intangible as the repository of the values identified and cherished by the community (CP-R). Simultaneously, there arises an acknowledgement of the relational dynamics between the community and its heritage sites, as well as an interest in their dynamism (CP-D).

The new Complexity Vector heralds a significant redefinition of the conceptual notions of its previous vectors: Diversity, Multiscalarity, and Operability.

First, the Charters and Declarations of the New Millennium reveal a redefinition of the Diversity Vector in relational and dynamic terms.

Even the Krakow Charter itself, at the turn of the millennium, alludes to social diversity in relational terms:

“Landscapes as cultural heritage result from and reflect a prolonged interaction in different societies (DV-S) between man, nature and the physical environment (DV-C and CP-R). They are testimony to the evolving relationship of communities, individuals and their environment”

(CP-R) [14] (p. 3)

The same sentiment is reiterated in the Delhi Declaration of 2017:

“Mutual understanding and tolerance of diverse cultural expressions add to quality of life and social cohesion. Heritage resources provide an opportunity for learning, impartial interaction, and active engagement, and have the potential to reinforce diverse community bonds and reduce conflicts”

(CP-R and DV-S) [19] (p. 2)

The Vienna Charter of 2005 explicitly acknowledges the conceptual diversity of heritage arising from the community’s relationship-interaction with the environment:

“The expanding notion of cultural heritage, in particular during the last decade, which includes a broader interpretation leading to recognition of human coexistence with the land (CP-R) and human beings in society”

(DV-C) [15] (p. 2)

In addition, the temporal component of the Diversity Vector is also imbued with the redefinitions of the Complexity Vector. The Faro Convention of 2005, for instance, challenges the notion of heritage as static, advocating for its dynamic, evolving nature by embracing the simultaneous existence of historical strata with contemporary ones:

“Promote the objective of quality in contemporary additions to the environment without endangering its cultural values”

(DV-T) [13] (p. 5)

4.5. Towards a Complex and Relational Multiscalarity

Second, with the arrival of the New Millennium, the Multiscale Vector also began to be examined from the heritage perspective of the Complexity Vector.

In the 2017 Delhi Declaration, geographical multiscalarity emerges as an increasingly complex and broad heritage notion, arising from heritage’s new relational diversity:

“The concept of heritage has widened considerably from monuments, groups of buildings and sites to include larger and more complex areas, landscapes, settings (MS-G), and their intangible dimensions, reflecting a more diverse approach (DV-C). Heritage belongs to all people; men, women, and children; indigenous peoples; ethnic groups; people of different belief systems; and minority groups (DV-S). It is evident in places ancient to modern; rural and urban; the small, everyday, and utilitarian; as well as the monumental and elite. It includes value systems, beliefs, traditions and lifestyles, together with uses, customs, practices and traditional knowledge (DV-C). There are associations and meanings, records, related places, and objects. This is a more people-centered approach”

(CP-R) [19] (p. 2)

The Delhi Declaration itself explicitly articulates a redefinition of the multiscalar nature of agents arising from the community’s relational engagement with its vibrant and dynamic heritage environment. It is at this point that genuine multidisciplinarity of stakeholders is advocated, with a particular emphasis on the active involvement of the social community in heritage management:

“There is a close relationship between nature, culture and people (CP-R). Cultural places and landscapes, along with communities, traditional management systems and beliefs, constitute living heritage and cultural identity (CP-D). Appropriate conservation and management of living heritage is achievable through intergenerational transfer of knowledge and skills in cooperation with communities and facilitated by multidisciplinary expertise”

(MS-A) [19] (p. 3)

4.6. Towards a Complex and Relational Operation

Finally, we witness the UNESCO Charters and Declarations of the New Millennium redefining the Operability Vector to align with the implications of the Complexity Vector.

On the one hand, the active involvement of the community in defining heritage influences methodological operability through citizen participation. This is shown, for instance, in the Krakow Charter of 2000:

“The plurality of heritage values and diversity (DV-C) of interests necessitates a communication structure that allows, in addition to specialists and administrators, an effective participation of inhabitants in the process. It is the responsibility of communities to establish appropriate methods and structures to ensure the true participation of individuals and institutions in the decision-making process”

(OP-M) [14] (p. 4)

In the same vein, the Delhi Declaration of 2017 states that:

“Community participation in planning, the integration of traditional knowledge and diverse intercultural dialogues in collaborative decision-making will facilitate well-reasoned solutions and good use of resources reflecting the four pillars of sustainability”

(OP-M) [19] (p. 3)

Normative-legislative operability also explicitly acknowledges the relational role of communities with their environment. This aspect is underscored in the first article of the Delhi Declaration:

“Laws and regulations (OP-N) should respect connections between communities and place”

(CP-R) [19] (p. 2)

5. Conclusions and Research Developments

This study identifies different avenues for future research based on the findings of the present work:

• Explore the potential of these four vectors as innovative tools for both qualitative and quantitative analysis of our heritage. These vectors can serve not only as analytical instruments for examining documents but also as methodologies for engaging with any heritage context. By utilizing these vectors, researchers can address methodological differences often encountered in the study of different types of heritage (architectural, landscape, intangible heritage, etc.). It is interesting to note, for example, the research developed by Rodríguez-Segura and Loren-Méndez in 2022 in which they reflect on the indispensable role of experiences, emotions and affects for the understanding of urban complexity based on the review of various urban-architectural methodological cases of a heritage nature [20]. These heritage competencies would undoubtedly be integrated within the Complexity Vector proposed in this research. The integration of the vectors, in their different facets and nuances, proposed in this research could substantially favor the development of another research such as the one in this example. Its methodological and instrumental convergence could reveal new future keys and new relationships between the different vectors, as well as reveal guidelines of practical applicability to integrated heritage management.
• Promote the integration of artificial intelligence, ICT and new GIS tools in this field of knowledge. On the one hand, these tools would allow the review of heritage regulatory frameworks to be substantially contrasted and amplified, revealing new facets and nuances, or even new heritage vectors; on the other hand, these novel digital tools constitute the main channel for the practical applicability of the vectors proposed in this research. Indeed, these vectors and subvectors can constitute novel metadata for future digital tools applied to heritage knowledge.
• Transfer technically and systematically the heritage methodology proposed here at all its geographical levels. In this research we have addressed a large part of the heritage regulatory framework at the regional and international level. However, the vectors and subvectors proposed here can continue to be developed and contrasted with other heritage regulatory frameworks at other scales, including the local regulations of each municipality. It would be an interesting avenue of research to assess the way in which these vectors interact with the local scale: on the one hand, it could reveal heritage deficiencies in the local regulatory framework; on the other hand, new conceptual categories could be revealed that continue to develop in this research.
• Promote informative and comprehensive work on heritage understanding beyond the expert figure. Unfortunately, the heritage regulatory framework continues to be a complex field of knowledge from a conceptual point of view, often intellectually inaccessible to citizens. The work carried out here, together with the new avenues of research that are proposed, could favor the approach to each one of the individuals of the different communities: the conceptual simplification of these regulatory frameworks would contribute to improving the pedagogical and informative work of the patrimonial notions beyond expert figures. This would contribute enormously to the empowerment of communities regarding their own heritage (that is, promoting awareness of the relational complexity of heritage) and to their integral participation in decision-making in heritage management projects.
• Delve into the implications of the Complexity Vector, particularly its implicit redefinitions within the Diversity, Multiscalarity, and Operability Vectors. This involves examining the evolution of charters towards affective-relational dimensions, which suggests an interrelational conception of heritage values. Beyond solely associating the emotional and affective aspects with intangible heritage, this research study advocates for recognizing these elements in the characterization of tangible heritage. This integration of both types of heritage highlights the organic progression of heritage towards a relational connection with people, thereby challenging prevailing assumptions about the inherent nature of tangible heritage values and meanings. This approach is particularly pertinent in the realm of architectural and urban heritage, as it enhances the study of such cases by incorporating the relational and affective dimensions traditionally associated with intangible heritage.

As evidenced in this research, in recent years, there has been a significant change in the way in which this heritage is approached: there has been a shift from a vision focused exclusively on material and tangible aspects to a broader perspective that includes intangible aspects, such as stories, memories and traditions associated with heritage. This approach recognizes the interaction and mutual influence between the tangible and intangible elements of heritage sites. Therefore, considering how built heritage relates to local traditions, rituals and practices is currently essential to understanding its meaning and value in society.

However, when considering the evolution of the concept of heritage towards a relational and affective perspective, a further step is necessary: a more sensitive approach that also takes into account the sensory and emotional experience. This approach should promote not only practices that link local communities with heritage conservation, documenting their knowledge and promoting educational programs for both residents and visitors, that is, practices that attend to the role of memory, tradition or rituals and its relationship with the constructed fact. Furthermore, it is essential to establish a regulatory framework and a program of good practices that also favor and encourage the implementation of methodologies that consider heritage as something sensitive and experienceable, either through the application of tools present in other fields such as geography (interviews and questionnaires oriented to each of the senses), or contributing to the development of new technologies by offering new fields of experimentation such as the registration of sensory experience. Only in this way can we respond to the new requirements that the expansion of the idea of heritage creates when it comes to preserving and transmitting heritage in a more meaningful way for present and future generations.