Next Article in Journal
Landscape Model of Waerebo Village: Topographic Adaptation & Indigenous Spatial Patterns (Horizontal–Vertical) Based on Local Culture
Previous Article in Journal
DeinSite Co-Design Framework: Workshop Practices in Southern Italy’s Museum Systems for the Innovation of Traditional Crafts
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 9
Issue 7
10.3390/heritage9070254
heritage-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Historic Urban Landscape Literature (2010–2024): A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Mapping of Conceptual Evolution and Research Trends

by
Maria Karagkouni
1,*,
Konstantinos Sakantamis
1,2 and
Athina Vitopoulou
1,2
1
School of Applied Arts and Sustainable Design, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patras, Greece
2
School of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2026, 9(7), 254; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9070254
Submission received: 29 March 2026 / Revised: 24 June 2026 / Accepted: 24 June 2026 / Published: 30 June 2026
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Adopted by UNESCO in 2011, the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) Recommendation consolidated earlier traditions of urban heritage conservation into a policy-oriented framework for managing change in historic cities. This embedded heritage management within sustainable urban development agendas, governance, and implementation tools. A review of HUL-related scholarship spanning from 2010 to 2024 sets the main focus of the current paper. The research engages two complementary perspectives: a bibliometric analysis of 172 publications drawn from ScienceDirect and ProQuest, and a bibliographic (thematic) review of 50 works, systematically isolated from the larger corpus, that directly engage with the concept. This study investigates how the HUL concept has evolved conceptually, how it has been interpreted across different research traditions, and to what extent current scholarship reflects or advances its intended methodological and operational scope. Bibliometric mapping was conducted using VOSviewer, supported by metadata generated in Zotero and organised through subsequent Excel classification, while the literature analysis employed a structured interpretive framework. Findings reveal that although direct references to the “HUL approach” remain limited, research frequently aligns with its core principles—sustainability, adaptive reuse, identity, and intangible values. Since 2019, case studies have expanded rapidly, spearheaded by projects carried out in China and Italy, marking a clear shift from theoretical elaboration to practical application. This transition has redirected scholarly attention from conceptual debates to the real-world challenges of participation, integration of local data, and balancing heritage management with urban development. The study concludes that effective HUL practice requires a professional mindset rooted in flexibility, interdisciplinarity, and continuous adaptation rather than prescriptive, checklist-driven methodologies.

1. Introduction

Urban heritage today occupies a central place in discussions about sustainable cities. Beyond its material dimension, it supports social interaction, strengthens place identity, and sustains creative and cultural economies. Since the 1960s–1970s, urban conservation discourse and practice have progressively shifted from monument-centred protection to integrated approaches that engage historic centres as living socio-economic environments. Building on these traditions, the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) [1] consolidated a landscape-based, policy-oriented model for managing change in historic cities. It promotes a holistic reading of the urban ensemble—its spatial organization, natural setting, and living cultural practices—and frames heritage values as integral inputs to urban planning and design, governance, and implementation processes [2,3]. As both concept and methodology, HUL advances an integrated, multi-scalar, and participatory mode of management aimed at mediating urban transformation while maintaining continuity.
During the decade following its adoption, research highlighted the HUL’s transformative potential while also raising concerns about its operational clarity and institutional feasibility [4,5]. Foundational systematic reviews, such as those by Ginzarly et al. [5] and Rey-Pérez and Pereira Roders [6], provided crucial baselines by analyzing the first decade of HUL scholarship. While these earlier reviews highlighted the conceptual richness of the framework, they consistently noted a severe lack of empirical application and methodological consistency prior to 2019. In recent years, a growing body of empirical work has reframed these discussions, shifting from conceptual refinement to practical experimentation. A critical gap therefore exists in the literature regarding the synthesis of this recent ‘applied turn.’ Scholars increasingly examine how HUL research has evolved both conceptually and geographically—whether it remains largely theoretical or is becoming more applied, and what barriers persist to its effective implementation [6,7].
To address these questions, rather than estimating citation-based research impact, this study aims to map the conceptual evolution and thematic structure of HUL literature from 2010 to 2024. Within heritage-related research, where literature spans highly diverse geographical, institutional, and disciplinary boundaries, a scoping review offers a distinct methodological contribution. Unlike systematic reviews that evaluate the qualitative rigor of a narrow policy question, a scoping review is uniquely designed to map the extent, range, and nature of an evolving, heterogeneous field, thereby identifying persistent operational gaps and justifying the parameters for future systematic reviews. The bibliometric analysis maps research patterns within the ScienceDirect and ProQuest corpus by examining keyword co-occurrence networks, collaboration structures, publication trends, and cross-disciplinary distribution. The bibliographic review then focuses on the core literature, that is, publications that explicitly address the HUL, identifying prevailing intellectual orientations, methodological tendencies, and recurring challenges.
Specifically, this study aims to answer three core research questions (RQs): (1) How has the HUL concept evolved across different research traditions and disciplinary boundaries between 2010 and 2024? (2) What are the dominant thematic clusters, methodological tendencies, and geographic distribution patterns shaping current HUL scholarship? (3) To what extent does the recent, core HUL literature reflect a transition from theoretical formulation to applied, real-world execution, and what implementation barriers persist?
Together, these analyses trace the field’s shift from conceptual formulation to applied practice and highlight areas where stronger methodological coherence and operational alignment are still required.

2. Methods

2.1. Review Design and Reporting

This scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, which provide a structured framework for mapping key concepts, sources, and types of evidence in emerging or heterogeneous research fields. No review protocol was registered prior to the conduct of the study.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Eligible sources comprised peer-reviewed journal articles, books, book chapters, conference papers, and dissertations engaging with the HUL either directly or indirectly. Inclusion criteria required that publications (a) addressed urban heritage, urban landscape, or heritage-led urban development in relation to the HUL paradigm, (b) were published between 2010 and 2024—a starting point chosen to capture the academic discourse and technical consultations immediately preceding the official 2011 UNESCO Recommendation—and (c) were written in English or Greek. Sources were excluded if they lacked substantive analytical engagement with heritage or urban landscape issues or referred to the HUL only superficially. The review aimed to (i) map the conceptual and disciplinary evolution of Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) research from 2010 to 2024, (ii) identify dominant thematic clusters and collaboration patterns through quantitative bibliometric mapping, and (iii) synthesize the core body of publications directly engaging with the HUL concept through qualitative thematic analysis.

2.3. Information Sources and Search Strategy

Bibliographic data were retrieved from two academic databases: ScienceDirect (via Hellenic Open University) and ProQuest (via Dubai Culture & Arts Authority). The selection of the primary databases for this scoping review was guided by institutional access and database availability during the data extraction phase of the underlying Master’s thesis. While these platforms do not serve as exhaustive global indexing databases like Scopus or Web of Science, they were selected because they provided a robust, accessible cross-section of full-text applied research, prominently featuring environmental, architectural, and social science literature highly relevant to the operationalization of the HUL approach. The search strategy was designed to ensure broad interdisciplinary coverage across urban studies, cultural heritage, and sustainability research. To capture the foundational and theoretical evolution of the HUL concept since its inception, ScienceDirect was utilized covering the full 2010–2024 period. Because previous systematic reviews extensively analyzed HUL scholarship published prior to 2020 (e.g., [5,6]), the subsequent ProQuest search was restricted to the 2020–2024 timeframe. This 5-year focus was intended to avoid redundancy with prior reviews and specifically capture the recent expansion of applied case studies and operational frameworks.
For ScienceDirect, the search strategy was formalized using a combination of primary keywords and Boolean operators to ensure comprehensive and reproducible capture. The core search string was structured as follows: (“Historic Urban Landscape” OR “HUL”) AND “urban heritage”. This search was executed on 27 September 2024, with a publication year filter set from 2010 to 2024, yielding 42 results. For ProQuest, the full electronic search strategy was executed on 4 October 2024, using the string: (historic urban landscape) AND (HUL approach) AND la.exact(“English” OR “Greek”) AND PEER(yes) AND pd(20200101–20241003). This strategy included specific limits for full-text availability, peer-reviewed status, language (English and Greek), and a publication date range from 1 January 2020 to 3 October 2024, yielding 203 results.

2.4. Bibliometric Analysis and Data Charting

The initial identification phase across both databases yielded a total of 245 publications. To ensure the reproducibility and validity of the final corpus, the documents underwent a rigorous two-stage screening process. First, duplicates between the two databases were identified and removed (n = 5). In the second stage, the remaining 240 records were subjected to a manual, item-by-item screening. During this phase, 68 documents were excluded because (a) the acronym “HUL” referred to unrelated fields (e.g., medical or industrial contexts) or (b) the terms “historic urban landscape” or “HUL” did not appear in their entirety anywhere within the document text. This technical verification ensured that the resulting dataset consisted only of publications containing the specific terminology required for the subsequent analyses.
This systematic manual screening resulted in a final dataset of 172 documents. Before initiating the analytical phase, the metadata for these documents were imported into Zotero (version 9.0.5, Corporation for Digital Scholarship, Vienna, VA, USA) for standardization. This critical cleaning step ensured that duplicate records were fully merged and author nomenclature was standardized before the metadata were exported for VOSviewer (version 1.6.20; Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands)and Microsoft Excel (Microsoft 365; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA)-based analysis.
The analytical process proceeded in two stages. In the first stage, bibliometric analysis was performed using VOSviewer software [8] to construct and visualize keyword co-occurrence networks, calculate relevance scores, and map co-authorship patterns, identifying dominant conceptual clusters and collaboration structures [9]. A consistent analytical protocol guided the extraction and interpretation of keywords, ensuring accuracy and comparability across the corpus. Terms were collected from titles and abstracts, excluding structural labels and copyright notes to ensure data clarity. The full counting method was applied, meaning that all instances of a term within a document were included in the analysis. A minimum occurrence threshold of ten was set for inclusion. Out of 4421 extracted terms, only 132 met this criterion, and a relevance score was calculated for each. Building upon these scores, the most relevant terms—representing 60% of the dataset (79 terms)—were initially selected according to VOSviewer’s default settings and then refined manually to 41 final terms based on contextual meaning. For instance, the general term ‘place’ was replaced by ‘place attachment’, and ‘tourist’ by ‘tourism’ to prevent data fragmentation and better reflect thematic nuance. Within this visualization protocol, keywords and authors are represented as labelled nodes, with their size corresponding to co-occurrence frequency, and the thickness of connecting lines driven by their Total Link Strength (TLS).
In the second stage, metadata were organized in Microsoft Excel to examine publication types, geographic distribution, and temporal trends [4].

2.5. Thematic Review and Definition of the Core Corpus

To support qualitative synthesis, publications were then grouped, through abductive reasoning, by their degree of engagement with the HUL concept into four categories following the criteria established in the classification tables (see Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3). To mitigate interpretive subjectivity and ensure methodological validity, this abductive classification process was strictly guided by established protocols utilized in previous comprehensive reviews of HUL scholarship (e.g., [6]). The categories are defined as follows:
  • Direct reference and analysis of the HUL, comprising publications (articles, reviews, or case studies) that refer to the term HUL in the title, keywords, and main text. These works analyze HUL’s theoretical foundations or practical implementation. For case studies, this includes those that actively follow the HUL approach or aim to develop tools and methodologies to enhance its execution.
  • Indirect reference to the HUL, involving publications that refer to HUL in the title, keywords, or text only occasionally, employing instead analogous terms such as “urban landscape,” “urban heritage,” “heritage conservation,” or “adaptive reuse.” For case studies, this includes works that reference HUL without applying the approach in practice, or those that follow the logic of the HUL approach while using alternative terminology.
  • Brief mention of the HUL, where HUL is cited in passing without significant analytical focus.
  • No explicit reference, consisting of contextual literature with no direct conceptual or terminological connection to HUL.
The 50 publications identified as directly engaging with the HUL (Category 1) represent the structured outcome of this systematic filtering and formed the core corpus for the thematic review. These were classified by publication type and examined in depth to identify recurring conceptual orientations, methodological approaches, and key research questions. Pattern identification across these texts enabled the synthesis of dominant trends in the application and evolution of the HUL framework [2,5,10,11]. To ensure the bibliometric mapping accurately reflected dominant publication trends, the quantitative count excluded two foundational books and one dissertation. However, the books were retained for the qualitative thematic review to ensure conceptual depth, while the dissertation was excluded from the final synthesis due to insufficient methodological detail to support the review’s objectives.

3. Results

Section 3 synthesizes the main findings from both the bibliometric mapping and the thematic review. It first reports quantitative publication trends and term networks, followed by qualitative insights from the thematic synthesis of the core literature. Overall, the results suggest that HUL scholarship has gradually expanded and diversified, evolving from theoretical exploration toward operational questions and implementation pathways.

3.1. Bibliometric Analysis of HUL Research (2010–2024)

Following the methodological protocol established in Section 2.4, the initial phase of the bibliometric analysis examined keyword co-occurrence to map the thematic landscape of the dataset. The generated diagrams revealed that, although the search strategy was designed to capture both explicit and thematic hits, the direct co-occurrence (Figure 1) and relevance scores (Figure 2) of specific HUL terms within the 172-item corpus remain relatively low. Specifically, ‘HUL approach’ and ‘historic urban landscape approach’ each recorded 16 occurrences, with relevance scores of 0.7359 and 0.4588, respectively. This suggests that the initial dataset functions as a map of the adjacent discourse surrounding urban heritage. It indicates that while the term itself appears infrequently as a dominant keyword in the broader field, the principles of the approach are embedded within a wider academic conversation involving landscape, sustainability, and regeneration. This finding confirms the two-stage approach of this review: using the larger corpus to map the disciplinary environment and the 50-item sub-corpus to analyse explicit HUL implementation. The most frequent keywords overall included landscape, culture, identity, sustainable development, adaptive reuse, and regeneration, while the most relevant were place attachment, heritage building, architectural heritage, adaptive reuse, and vernacular architecture.
Using these selected terms, VOSviewer generated a connectivity map (Figure 3), where each keyword is represented as a labelled circle, with size and diameter corresponding to its co-occurrence frequency. Colours denote distinct clusters identified by the software, normalized by association strength, while the distance and connecting lines between circles indicate how closely related the terms are. Beyond mapping these structural metrics, the emergence of these interconnected clusters illustrates the highly interdisciplinary nature of current HUL scholarship. For example, the strong visual links between core heritage terms (e.g., ‘culture’, ‘historic center’) and sustainable planning terms (e.g., ‘regeneration’, ‘adaptive reuse’) indicate that HUL is increasingly viewed as an active mechanism for sustainable urban regeneration rather than a rigid conservation policy.
A focused snapshot (Figure 4) centered on the term “historic urban landscape approach” illustrates its position within the broader research network. This term appears in the third cluster alongside economic development, HUL approach, UNESCO, urban development, and urban heritage. Analytically, this specific clustering reflects a critical paradigm shift: scholars are actively linking the HUL framework to urban economic vitality rather than viewing it in opposition to development. Its Total Link Strength (TLS) of 126 indicates a moderate but significant level of interconnection within the overall network. While not the central-most node, the thickness of its connecting lines reveals strong conceptual bridges to terms like ‘sustainable development’, ‘adaptive reuse’, and ‘place attachment’. Ultimately, these links demonstrate that the approach successfully functions as vital connective tissue, binding physical conservation efforts with broader social and economic sustainability goals.
In addition to keyword mapping, a co-authorship analysis identified 374 individual researchers active in HUL-related scholarship. Among them, 90% contributed a single publication, 7% authored two, and only 3% published three to six. The most prolific researcher was Prof. Dr. A. R. Pereira Roders, credited in six papers. The co-authorship network (Figure 5) visualized in VOSviewer, normalized by author association strength, revealed a small but well-defined collaborative nucleus of 19 researchers actively connected through joint authorship. Crucially, this structural visualization reveals a field that is broadly dispersed yet anchored by a dedicated core; while the high volume of single-publication authors reflects a proliferation of isolated, localized case studies, this central nucleus drives the sustained methodological and theoretical advancement of the framework.
In the context of the second stage of the bibliometric analysis, the 172 documents were systematically organized and classified, with the references exported to Excel for quantitative categorization. This enabled a clearer understanding of publication types, distribution patterns, and overall composition of the corpus.
The outcomes indicate that the dataset consists predominantly of peer-reviewed journal articles. As illustrated in Figure 6a, around 96% of the documents are journal publications, while the remaining 4% are books or conference papers. This near-total dominance over exploratory conference proceedings suggests that HUL research is subjected to rigorous academic scrutiny and has firmly established itself within high-impact dissemination channels. A second-level classification focused exclusively on the journal publications to identify dominant methodological trends. Among these, case studies account for the majority (74%), followed by research and theoretical articles (18%) and reviews (8%) (Figure 6b). The stark magnitude of this distribution provides clear quantitative evidence of the discipline’s maturation, marking a decisive transition from early theoretical debates regarding the conceptual definition of the HUL approach, to a heavily applied focus on how it functions in real-world governance and planning scenarios.
The journal publications analysed were distributed across 42 academic journals (spanning major publishers such as MDPI, Springer, and Elsevier), most frequently in Sustainability, Land, Built Heritage, and Heritage, confirming the interdisciplinary and sustainability-oriented nature of HUL-related research.
A review of publication trends (Figure 7) shows that outputs rose notably after 2012, with a sharp increase between 2019 and 2022 (Note: The quantitative magnitude of this post-2019 increase reflects both a genuine disciplinary shift toward applied research and the targeted introduction of the ProQuest database for the 2020–2024 period, as detailed in Section 2.3 and Section 4.4). This increase is most pronounced in the case study category, which may reflect a growing emphasis on applying HUL in diverse geographical and institutional contexts.
A geographical distribution map (Figure 8) was also generated to illustrate the spatial spread of case studies. Many covered multiple locations, reflecting the global diffusion of the approach. The results show that China leads in the number of case studies within Asia, while Italy is the most represented country in Europe. These concentrations highlight both the methodological adaptability of the HUL and its capacity to integrate into different governance and planning systems.
Finally, the third level of classification—the foundation for the bibliographic (thematic) review—was conducted according to each document’s degree of relevance to the field (Figure 9a–c), as defined earlier. Analyzing these comparative distributions reveals a critical insight: while explicit engagement with the HUL framework is relatively consistent across all publication types, a substantial portion of the literature—particularly reviews and case studies—engages with HUL principles indirectly. This provides quantitative support for the premise that core HUL values, such as adaptive reuse and participatory governance, have broadly permeated the wider urban heritage discourse, operating as a foundational logic even when explicit terminology is absent. Accordingly, after filtering, 50 publications were identified as directly analysing the HUL (Category 1), while 37 explored related ideas using different terminology (Category 2). Consequently, the final analytical body consists of 50 core publications, forming the basis for the subsequent thematic review.

3.2. Thematic Review of the Core Publications on the HUL Approach

Over the last decade, the HUL concept has undergone a marked transformation, evolving from a policy-oriented conservation framework into a comprehensive approach to managing cultural, social, and environmental values within dynamic urban contexts. Since the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation, researchers have progressively broadened the HUL discourse to include sustainability, resilience, and participatory governance, positioning it as a bridge between heritage management and contemporary urban development [4,5,6].

3.2.1. Theoretical Foundations and Conceptual Evolution

Early theoretical work by Bandarin and van Oers laid the conceptual foundations for the HUL. Their book The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban Century (2012) framed heritage as a landscape-based phenomenon that integrates cultural, natural, and socio-economic layers [2]. Their follow-up volume, Reconnecting the City (2015) [3], translated these conceptual ideas into methodological guidance. This responded to UNESCO’s growing concerns about development pressures in major historic cities such as Cologne, Isfahan, London, Vienna, St. Petersburg, and Liverpool. As Rodwell [12] notes, this work established the HUL as a strategic response to the complex realities of urban heritage governance. Theoretical contributions during this period (2011–2021) reinforced HUL’s interdisciplinary character and value system. Fusco Girard [4] advanced the triad of synergy, circularity, and creativity as key principles for sustainable port-city development, situating HUL within regenerative urban economies. More broadly, the literature emphasizes the holistic nature of HUL in response to the dynamic layering of cultural–natural values in urban change [13], gathering an influential cluster positioning HUL at the intersection of planning, values/indicators, and governance [4,9,13,14,15,16]. A particularly innovative reframing by Ramírez Eudave and Ferreira [14] applied Aristotle’s four causes—material, formal, efficient, and final—to structure urban landscape interpretation, offering a comprehensive way to analyse heritage processes within HUL.

3.2.2. Methodological Baselines and Implementation Gaps

Subsequent scholarship shifted from theoretical articulation to systematic evaluation. Ginzarly, Houbart, and Teller [5] conducted one of the first large-scale reviews, mapping the conceptual vocabulary of HUL research from 2010–2018. They identified three defining dimensions—holistic, integrated, and value-based—concluding that while the field exhibits conceptual richness, methodological consistency remains limited. That same year, Azpeitia Santander et al. [17] highlighted conceptual ambiguities and institutional constraints that hinder HUL’s translation into planning practice. Building on these studies, Rey-Pérez and Pereira Roders [6] analysed 140 publications (2008–2019), offering one of the most comprehensive assessments of HUL literature to date. Their findings showed that although theoretical adoption is widespread, full empirical application of the six-step HUL process is still rare. The most frequently operationalized steps relate to documentation, vulnerability assessment, and value prioritization, whereas participatory governance and cross-sectoral integration remain less developed [6].
Later research addressed these implementation gaps by emphasizing governance, management tools, and applied methodologies. Prabowo, Temeljotov Salaj, and Lohne [7] proposed the Urban Heritage Facility Management (UHFM) framework to clarify functional tools for HUL application. Their work categorized participatory, financial, regulatory, and analytical mechanisms, showing that financial and incentive-based tools are particularly underrepresented. They further noted the increasing role of Public–Private Partnerships (PPP) and Public–Private–People Partnerships (PPPP) in heritage-led regeneration and local development.

3.2.3. Governance Models and Regulatory Integration

The operationalization of the HUL concept is characterized by a shift toward adaptive governance structures capable of mediating urban change. Successful implementation depends on governance coordination, policy alignment, and long-term monitoring. Early empirical work by Muminović et al. [18] in Novi Pazar (Serbia) foregrounded community participation through a multidimensional governance model. This perspective is echoed in the study of Amsterdam by Pintossi, Ikiz Kaya, and Pereira Roders [19], who identified landscape-based continuity as a primary driver for transformation. However, structural frictions persist; García-Esparza [20] highlighted how misalignments between traditional conservation and contemporary HUL evaluation methods in Spain may generate governance friction. Comparative research in Porto and Florence by Cunha Ferreira et al. [21] demonstrates that embedding heritage values within statutory planning instruments is critical for effective integration. More recently, Trusiani and D’Onofrio [22] proposed indicator-based monitoring models to track tangible and intangible attributes, allowing strategies to be recalibrated over time.

3.2.4. Spatial Continuity and Territorial Management

The second thematic cluster focuses on the spatial dimensions of the HUL, emphasizing regulatory design and territorial continuity. In Chinese scholarship, Jiang et al. [23] proposed a spatial-distribution-based framework for Suzhou to support contextual continuity at the metropolitan scale, while Tu [24] demonstrated how protection zones sustain authenticity in the historic villages of Xidi and Hongcun. The adaptability of these spatial strategies is further evidenced in post-conflict environments like Beirut, where the HUL informs strategies for safeguarding values amid instability [25]. Similarly, Prihantoro [26] examined Kotabaru in Yogyakarta, highlighting tensions between heritage protection and commercial development. These results indicate that the HUL functions as a tool for balancing development with spatial identity across varied institutional settings.

3.2.5. Social Sustainability and the Human Factor

The final thematic pillar approaches the HUL through the lens of social sustainability, a core pillar of sustainable development that foregrounds individual and collective well-being, social equity, participation, cultural diversity, and quality of life [27,28,29]. Within this context, social sustainability is commonly framed as the capacity to maintain the social and cultural fabric of historic urban areas while responding to contemporary needs and pressures [27,29,30]. Central to this process is the role of intangible cultural heritage and the human factor—encompassing cultural practices, traditions, social interactions, and collective memories—that fundamentally contribute to place identity and continuity [31].
Empirical evidence from selected case studies indicates that regeneration strategies marginalizing these intangible values may severely undermine place identity and residents’ quality of life, particularly under strong development pressures [27,30]. For example, Duangputtan and Mishima [32] revealed how stakeholder conflicts shape the negotiated implementation of the HUL in Chiang Mai, highlighting the risks of neglecting local social dynamics. In contrast, studies emphasizing community collaboration and participatory planning consistently demonstrate positive outcomes. Research in Sub-Saharan Africa by Macamo et al. [33] on Ilha de Moçambique illustrates how community engagement can effectively address management challenges in resource-constrained contexts. Overall, integrating the “human factor” through community collaboration is shown to strengthen social cohesion and enhance the long-term resilience and well-being of historic urban areas.

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of Evidence

This study offers an integrated synthesis of HUL scholarship published between 2010 and 2024. It combines bibliometric mapping with an in-depth thematic review to trace how the literature has developed from conceptual formulation toward increasingly applied and operational contributions. The findings suggest that HUL scholarship has moved from predominantly conceptual discussions toward an increasingly applied and context-sensitive framework. The marked increase in case studies after 2019, alongside a wider range of geographical settings and methodological tools, indicates a growing recognition of the HUL as a viable strategy for addressing contemporary challenges in heritage management and urban transformation. Across diverse social, spatial, and institutional settings, studies indicate that the approach is interpreted and operationalized in ways that can respond to local conditions while retaining a recognizable set of guiding principles.

4.2. Interpretation of Findings

The analysis suggests that HUL is increasingly discussed not only as a UNESCO policy instrument, but also as a research paradigm connecting heritage conservation, sustainable development, and cultural identity. This diversification reflects the approach’s interdisciplinary reach, as studies frequently engage with governance models, participatory processes, spatial analysis, and value-based planning. At the same time, the thematic review indicates uneven levels of conceptual alignment and methodological consistency across regions, highlighting a persistent gap between theoretical framings and applied outcomes.
The temporal and spatial patterns identified provide useful context regarding the operational evolution of the approach. Temporally, a gradual shift is evident. Following the 2011 Recommendation, early academic discourse generally focused on conceptual definition and theoretical articulation. The notable increase in case studies between 2019 and 2022 suggests a transition toward applied research, potentially influenced by the 2016 publication of the HUL Guidebook. This document helped clarify implementation methodologies and encouraged efforts to test the framework within local administrative and socio-economic contexts. Spatially, as illustrated by the distribution map (Figure 8), empirical applications are largely concentrated in China and Europe. The prominence of China appears associated with initial institutional support from entities like WHITRAP and the involvement of foundational HUL scholars, such as Ron van Oers. In Europe, Italy’s frequent representation aligns with its long-standing tradition in heritage management. Although current research reflects ongoing attempts to adapt the HUL approach to various urban scales and governance systems globally, this geographic diversification remains somewhat limited. The continued dominance of China and Europe points to an imbalance that future studies could address to further assess the framework’s global adaptability.
Importantly, the barriers identified through this review appear predominantly procedural rather than conceptual. They are not necessarily inherent to the HUL framework itself, but rather reflect broader institutional and professional constraints. Advancing the approach may therefore require not only technical refinement but also shifts in professional culture—away from rigid, prescriptive tools and toward more flexible, context-sensitive practices that better align with the approach’s adaptive logic. Ultimately, the HUL remains a continuously adaptable system in response to contemporary urban realities, possessing the potential to inform sustainable, inclusive, and culturally grounded urban transformation.

4.3. Implications for Research and Practice

The findings further underscore the dynamic nature of the HUL, whose key strength lies in its capacity to accommodate change across diverse contexts. The increasing use of participatory governance mechanisms, digital mapping tools, and cross-sectoral strategies points to efforts to operationalize the approach and bridge theory with practice. Nevertheless, gaps remain in translating cultural values into binding planning instruments and long-term management strategies. To translate these systemic needs into actionable practice, the reviewed literature points toward several operational pathways. First, to overcome the institutional friction documented in recent case studies, the findings suggest the value of phased implementation of the HUL approach through localized, participatory governance models, rather than attempting immediate, city-wide policy overhauls [18,19,21]. Second, addressing the lack of interdisciplinary collaboration indicates a practical need for cross-departmental frameworks and public–private partnerships that integrate heritage professionals directly with urban planning and economic development sectors [7,21]. Third, the mapped data suggests that ‘capacity-building’ efforts are most effective when they shift from abstract theory toward targeted technical training, specifically equipping municipal staff with the skills to integrate qualitative community value-mapping and intangible attributes into daily regulatory and monitoring frameworks [22,27,30].
Consequently, when considering the limitations of the HUL framework itself, it is crucial to distinguish between theoretical flaws and operational friction. While traditional critiques occasionally argue that HUL is overly ambiguous because it lacks a prescriptive ‘checklist’ approach, this research suggests that such flexibility is actually its core strength, aligning it fundamentally with contemporary, adaptive sustainability paradigms. The true conceptual limitation of the HUL approach lies in its high operational demands. Because it intentionally discards rigid, top-down prescriptions in favor of context-sensitive, participatory logic, its successful implementation requires advanced institutional capacity, robust multi-disciplinary collaboration, and sustained civic engagement. Ultimately, the primary vulnerability of the HUL concept is that it assumes a baseline of institutional agility and resourcing that remains structurally prohibitive for many traditional local municipalities, thereby creating a significant bottleneck between its sustainable vision and practical execution.

4.4. Limitations of the Review

While this review provides a comprehensive overview of HUL scholarship, certain limitations should be acknowledged. First, the analysis was restricted to publications indexed in ScienceDirect and ProQuest, a selection guided by institutional access constraints during the data extraction phase of the underlying Master’s thesis. Consequently, major indexing databases such as Scopus and Web of Science were excluded. While this approach captured a highly relevant thematic cross-section of full-text applied research, the dataset cannot be considered absolutely exhaustive, potentially excluding relevant studies indexed elsewhere or published in languages beyond English and Greek. Moreover, reliance on ScienceDirect may introduce a degree of publisher-related coverage bias; thus, future systematic reviews are encouraged to build upon the thematic trajectories identified here by expanding the search protocol to encompass those broader indexing platforms. Second, the search strategy included broad terms such as “urban heritage”, which may have expanded the retrieved corpus to include conceptually adjacent literature and, in turn, diluted the visibility of explicitly HUL-focused contributions. Furthermore, this strategy employed asynchronous temporal parameters across the two databases (2010–2024 for ScienceDirect; 2020–2024 for ProQuest). While the sharp surge in case studies observed post-2019 reflects a genuine, widely acknowledged shift in the field from theoretical to applied research (as confirmed by previous reviews), the quantitative magnitude of this spike in our dataset is partially amplified by the introduction of ProQuest for the 2020–2024 period. Third, bibliometric methods privilege frequency and visibility, potentially underrepresenting emerging, localized, or context-specific contributions. In addition, term normalization and manual refinement (e.g., merging and relabeling keywords) as well as the abductive categorization of “degree of engagement” may introduce interpretive subjectivity, despite efforts to apply consistent rules. Finally, the reliance on published academic literature limits insight into unpublished professional practices and policy documents that may influence HUL implementation in practice.

5. Conclusions

The combined bibliometric mapping and thematic review suggest that HUL scholarship has matured considerably over the past decade. Earlier studies frequently questioned its conceptual precision and practical feasibility [2,3,34]; however, the results indicate a decisive shift toward empirical research and methodological experimentation in more recent years. The surge of case studies after 2019, along with emerging patterns of international collaborations, signals a growing acceptance of HUL as a viable planning and conservation framework across diverse contexts.
The evidence further suggests that HUL has expanded beyond its initial role as a UNESCO recommendation to become a broader research paradigm connecting heritage conservation, sustainable development, and cultural identity [4,6]. This diversification illustrates the interdisciplinary strength of the approach, yet it also underscores the need for greater conceptual alignment and methodological coherence across different regions and institutions.
Ultimately, the HUL should be regarded not as a fixed set of procedures but as a living system of practice. Overall, the evidence suggests that progress may require not only technical refinement but also changes in institutional arrangements and professional practice, moving toward more flexible, context-driven approaches consistent with HUL’s adaptive logic. Its continued success and future relevance depend on cultivating a professional and institutional mindset that embraces adaptability, inclusivity, and long-term sustainability—embedding these principles within governance structures, education, and heritage management processes at every scale. By functioning as both an interpretive lens for understanding urban change and a practical guide for action, the HUL approach offers a robust pathway for shaping resilient, culturally grounded, and sustainable cities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K. and K.S.; methodology, M.K.; formal analysis, M.K.; investigation, M.K.; resources, M.K. and K.S.; data curation, M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K.; writing—review and editing, K.S. and A.V.; supervision, K.S. and A.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. It was conducted as part of the postgraduate research thesis “Historic Urban Landscape and Metropolises: The Case of Dubai” within the MSc in Sustainable Design program at the School of Applied Arts and Sustainable Design, Hellenic Open University.

Data Availability Statement

The bibliometric dataset supporting the findings of this study was compiled from public databases (ScienceDirect and ProQuest). Processed data and classification tables are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Hellenic Open University for academic support and to the Dubai Culture & Arts Authority for facilitating database access during the research phase.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
HULHistoric Urban Landscape
UNESCOUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
GIS Geographic Information Systems
SDGSustainable Development Goals
HOUHellenic Open University
TLSTotal Link Strength
PPPPublic–Private Partnership
PPPPPublic–Private–People Partnership

Appendix A

Table A1. Categorization of the body of Articles, according to their contextual relevance and degree of engagement with the concept.
Table A1. Categorization of the body of Articles, according to their contextual relevance and degree of engagement with the concept.
Articles
Level of RelevanceDescriptionNoPercentageChromatic RepresentationReferences
Direct reference and analysis of the HULThe article refers to the term HUL in its title, keywords, and main text. Furthermore, it studies and analyses issues related to the Historic Urban Landscape concept or the HUL approach, emphasizing its theoretical foundations and/or practical implementation.827% Agisheva & Pokka, 2020 [13]; Fusco Girard, 2013 [4]; Hussein et al., 2020 [31]; Huybrechts, 2018 [34]; Ramírez Eudave & Ferreira, 2021 [14]; Taylor, 2016 [15]; Teng et al., 2022 [16]; Veldpaus et al., 2013 [9]
Indirect reference to the HULThe article refers to the term HUL in the title, keywords, or text only occasionally; instead, it employs analogous terms such as urban landscape, urban heritage, cultural heritage, heritage conservation, or adaptive reuse.620% Khalaf, 2016 [35]; Nocca et al., 2021 [36]; Prabowo et al., 2023 [37]; Prabowo & Salaj, 2023 [38]; Rosetti et al., 2022 [39]; Stepanchuk et al., 2020 [40]
Brief mention of the HULHUL is cited in passing without significant analytical focus.930% Angelidou & Stylianidis, 2020 [41]; González Martínez, 2020 [42]; Guerrero Baca & Soria López, 2018 [43]; Gustafsson & Lazzaro, 2021 [44]; R. W. Khalaf, 2021 [45]; Lerario, 2022 [46]; Olukoya, 2021 [47]; Prabowo & Salaj, 2021 [48]; D. Rodwell, 2009 [49].
No explicit referenceNo direct conceptual or terminological connection to HUL723% Al-Zo’by, 2019 [50]; Bradley, 1970 [51]; Coch, 1998 [52]; Galan et al., 2020 [53]; Matar et al., 2023 [54]; Tu, 2020 [55]; Vecco, 2010 [56]
Total 30
Table A2. Categorization of the body of reviews, according to their contextual relevance and degree of engagement with the concept.
Table A2. Categorization of the body of reviews, according to their contextual relevance and degree of engagement with the concept.
Reviews
Level of RelevanceDescriptionNoPercentageChromatic RepresentationReferences
Direct reference and analysis of the HULThe review refers to the term HUL in its title, keywords, and main text. Furthermore, it studies and analyses issues related to the Historic Urban Landscape concept or the HUL approach, emphasizing its theoretical foundations and/or practical implementation.429% Azpeitia Santander et al., 2018 [17]; Ginzarly et al., 2019 [5]; Prabowo et al., 2021 [7]; Rey-Pérez & Pereira Roders, 2020 [6]
Indirect reference to the HULThe review refers to the term HUL in the title, keywords, or text only occasionally; instead, it employs analogous terms such as urban landscape, urban heritage, cultural heritage, heritage conservation, or adaptive reuse.429% Bai et al., 2021 [57]; Li et al., 2021 [58]; Liang et al., 2023 [59]; Su et al., 2024 [60]
Brief mention of the HULHUL is cited in passing without significant analytical focus.321% Lazar & Chithra, 2022 [61]; Naheed & Shooshtarian, 2022 [62]; Wen et al., 2023 [63]
No explicit referenceNo direct conceptual or terminological connection to HUL321% Lanz & Pendlebury, 2022 [64]; Pardo, 2023 [65]; Vafaie et al., 2023 [66]
Total 14
Table A3. Categorization of the body of case studies, according to their contextual relevance and degree of engagement with the concept.
Table A3. Categorization of the body of case studies, according to their contextual relevance and degree of engagement with the concept.
Case Studies
Level of RelevanceDescriptionNoPercentageChromatic RepresentationReferences
Direct reference and analysis of the HULThe case study refers to the term HUL in its title, keywords, and main text. This category includes case studies that follow the HUL approach or aim to develop tools and methodologies that enhance its effective implementation.3831% Auquilla & Siguencia, 2020 [67]; Hussein et al., 2020 [11,28,29]; Prabowo et al., 2020 [68]; Ricca, 2018 [69]; Acri et al., 2021 [70]; Ji et al., 2020 [30]; Muminović et al., 2020 [18]; Pintossi et al., 2021 [19]; Prihantoro, 2021 [26]; Rey-Pérez & Domínguez-Ruiz, 2020 [71]; Abouelmagd & Elrawy, 2022 [72]; García-Esparza, 2022 [20]; Jiang et al., 2022 [73]; Lv et al., 2022 [74]; Marović et al., 2022 [75]; Mrak et al., 2022 [76]; Lei & Zhou, 2022 [77]; X. Li et al., 2022 [78]; Shen & Dong, 2022 [79]; Wang et al., 2022 [27]; Y. El-Bastawissi et al., 2022 [25]; Zhao et al., 2023 [80]; Cunha Ferreira et al., 2023 [21]; Dimelli & Kotsoni, 2023 [81]; Dong & Shen, 2023 [82]; Jiang et al., 2023 [23]; Karray et al., 2023 [83]; Tarrafa Silva et al., 2023 [84]; Duangputtan & Mishima, 2024 [32]; El Faouri & Sibley, 2024 [85]; Ghanbari et al., 2024 [86]; Macamo et al., 2024 [33]; Prabowo et al., 2024 [87]; Trusiani & D’Onofrio, 2024 [22]; L. Tu, 2024 [24]; Yusuf et al., 2023 [88]
Indirect reference to the HULThe case study refers to the term HUL in the title, keywords, or text only occasionally, employing analogous terms such as urban landscape, urban heritage, cultural heritage, heritage conservation, or adaptive reuse. This category includes case studies which, despite referencing HUL, do not apply the HUL approach in practice, or those that follow the logic of the HUL approach but use alternative terminology in their description.2823% Cattaneo et al., 2020 [89]; Fadli & AlSaeed, 2019 [90]; Hasibuan & Fitri, 2021 [91]; Maria et al., 2021 [92]; Messaoudi et al., 2021 [93]; Tucunan & Perkasa, 2021 [94]; Udeaja et al., 2020 [95]; Awad et al., 2022 [96]; Bai et al., 2022 [97]; Gravagnuolo et al., 2021 [98]; Luo & Chiou, 2021 [99]; Teng et al., 2021 [100]; Wosiński, 2022 [101]; Zhang et al., 2022 [102]; Akbar et al., 2023 [103]; Bay et al., 2022 [104]; Golestani et al., 2023 [105]; X. Liang et al., 2022 [106]; Shehata, 2022 [107]; Sukwai et al., 2022 [108]; Zhu & Chiou, 2022 [109]; Bai et al., 2023 [110]; Barrett, 2023 [111]; Ji et al., 2023 [112]; X. Liang et al., 2023 [106]; Rossiter & Gu, 2023 [113]; Siountri & Anagnostopoulos, 2023 [114]; Vileikis, 2023 [115]
Brief mention of the HULHUL is cited in passing without significant analytical focus.2621% Bramiana et al., 2020 [116]; Bykowa & Dyachkova, 2021 [117]; De Medici et al., 2019 [118]; Domínguez-Ruíz et al., 2020 [119]; Fredholm et al., 2021 [120]; Giovinazzi et al., 2021 [121]; Nikolić et al., 2020 [122]; Ali et al., 2022 [123]; Bosone & Ciampa, 2021 [124]; Della Spina & Giorno, 2021 [125]; El Faouri & Sibley, 2022 [126]; Kern et al., 2021 [127]; Peng & Marinos, 2022 [128]; Zitouni-Petrogianni et al., 2022 [129]; Bernardo et al., 2023 [130]; Jones & Pappas, 2023 [131]; H. Li et al., 2023 [132]; Mazzetto & Vanini, 2023 [133]; Szromek et al., 2023 [134]; Tira & Türkoğlu, 2023 [135]; Zhou et al., 2023 [136]; Kennet et al., 2015. [137]; Konstantinidou, 2023. [138]; Ornelas et al., 2023 [139]; Teklemariam, 2024 [140]; Y. Zhao et al., 2024 [141]
No explicit referenceNo direct conceptual or terminological connection to HUL3025% AlSulaiti, 2013 [142]; Gharib, 2014 [143]; Maghsoudi Nia et al., 2014 [144]; Radoine, 2013 [145]; Saljoughinejad & Rashidi Sharifabad, 2015 [146]; Sun, 2013 [147]; Vural Arslan, 2015 [148]; Yildirim & El-Masri, 2010 [149]; Abdulameer & Abbas, 2020 [150]; Afiqah Md. Azmi et al., 2018 [151]; Alves, 2017 [152]; Awad & Boudiaf, 2020 [153]; Boudiaf & Awad, 2020 [154]; Dayaratne, 2018 [155]; Hobbs, 2017 [156]; Mazzetto, 2018 [157]; Al-Hammadi, 2023 [158]; Benkari, 2024 [159]; Ibrahim & Eltarabishi, 2021 [160]; Linas, 2024 [161]; Mazzetto, 2022 [162,163]; Naima, 2021 [164]; Samalavičius & Traškinaitė, 2021 [165]; Al-Zubaidi, 2007 [166]; Abedi & Soltanzadeh, 2014 [167]; Ashley, 2011 [168]; Boussaa, 2014 [169]; Ijla & Broström, 2015 [170]; Senthil, 2016 [171]
Total 122

References

  1. UNESCO. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandarin, F.; Van Oers, R. The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban Century, 1st ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bandarin, F.; Van Oers, R. (Eds.) Reconnecting the City, 1st ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fusco Girard, L. Toward a Smart Sustainable Development of Port Cities/Areas: The Role of the “Historic Urban Landscape” Approach. Sustainability 2013, 5, 4329–4348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ginzarly, M.; Houbart, C.; Teller, J. The Historic Urban Landscape approach to urban management: A systematic review. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2019, 25, 999–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rey-Pérez, J.; Pereira Roders, A. Historic urban landscape: A systematic review, eight years after the adoption of the HUL approach. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 10, 233–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Prabowo, B.N.; Salaj, A.T.; Lohne, J. Urban Heritage Facility Management: A Scoping Review. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Manual; Leiden University Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS): Leiden, The Netherlands, 2022; Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  9. Veldpaus, L.; Pereira Roders, A.R.; Colenbrander, B.J.F. Urban Heritage: Putting the Past into the Future. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2013, 4, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sonkoly, G. Historical Urban Landscape; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hussein, F.; Stephens, J.; Tiwari, R. Cultural Memories and Sense of Place in Historic Urban Landscapes: The Case of Masrah Al Salam, the Demolished Theatre Context in Alexandria, Egypt. Land 2020, 9, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rodwell, D. Reconnecting the city: The historic landscape approach and the future of urban heritage. J. Archit. Conserv. 2015, 21, 136–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Agisheva, S.; Pokka, E. Urban landscape in sustainable transformation: Cultural heritage and contemporary architecture integration within urban area. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 890, 012022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ramírez Eudave, R.; Ferreira, T.M. Characterisation of the Historic Urban Landscape through the Aristotelian Four Causes: Towards Comprehensive GIS Databases. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Taylor, K. The Historic Urban Landscape paradigm and cities as cultural landscapes. Challenging orthodoxy in urban conservation. Landsc. Res. 2016, 41, 471–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Teng, Y.; Huang, Y.; Yang, S. Applying Knowledge Graph to Analyze the Historical Landscape Based on CiteSpace. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2022, 2022, 3867541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Azpeitia Santander, A.; Azkarate Garai-Olaun, A.; De La Fuente Arana, A. Historic Urban Landscapes: A Review on Trends and Methodologies in the Urban Context of the 21st Century. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Muminović, E.; Radosavljević, U.; Beganović, D. Strategic Planning and Management Model for the Regeneration of Historic Urban Landscapes: The Case of Historic Center of Novi Pazar in Serbia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pintossi, N.; Ikiz Kaya, D.; Pereira Roders, A. Identifying Challenges and Solutions in Cultural Heritage Adaptive Reuse through the Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Amsterdam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. García-Esparza, J.A. Urban Scene Protection and Unconventional Practices—Contemporary Landscapes in World Heritage Cities of Spain. Land 2022, 11, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cunha Ferreira, T.; Rey-Pérez, J.; Pereira Roders, A.; Tarrafa Silva, A.; Coimbra, I.; Breda Vazquez, I. The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Governance of World Heritage in Urban Contexts: Reflections from Three European Cities. Land 2023, 12, 1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Trusiani, E.; D’Onofrio, R. Urban Guidelines and Strategic Plan for a UNESCO World Heritage Candidate Site: The Historical Centre of Sharjah (UAE). Sustainability 2024, 16, 7461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jiang, J.; Zang, T.; Xing, J.; Ikebe, K. Spatial Distribution of Urban Heritage and Landscape Approach to Urban Contextual Continuity: The Case of Suzhou. Land 2023, 12, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tu, L. Optimization of Heritage Management Mechanisms through the Prism of Historic Urban Landscape: A Case Study of the Xidi and Hongcun World Heritage Sites. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. El-Bastawissi, I.Y.; Raslan, R.; Mohsen, H.; Zeayter, H. Conservation of Beirut’s Urban Heritage Values Through the Historic Urban Landscape Approach. Urban Plan. 2022, 7, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Prihantoro, F. A Cultural Heritage Management Perspective: Kotabaru, Yogyakarta, between A Protected Cultural Site and A Commercial Area. Humaniora 2021, 33, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, S.; Chen, S.; Gao, W. Information Services as a Method to Evaluate the Sustainability of Intangible Dimensions of a Historic Urban Landscape: A Case Study in Guangzhou, China. Sustainability 2022, 15, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hussein, F.; Stephens, J.; Tiwari, R. Memory for Social Sustainability: Recalling Cultural Memories in Zanqit Alsitat Historical Street Market, Alexandria, Egypt. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hussein, F.; Stephens, J.; Tiwari, R. Grounded Theory as an Approach for Exploring the Effect of Cultural Memory on Psychosocial Well-Being in Historic Urban Landscapes. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ji, X.; Shao, L.; Du, Y. Collaborating with Local Communities to Identify Improvement Priorities for Historic Urban Landscape Based on Residents’ Satisfaction: An Application of Asymmetric Impact-Performance Analysis in Dandong, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hussein, F.; Stephens, J.; Tiwari, R. Towards Psychosocial Well-Being in Historic Urban Landscapes: The Contribution of Cultural Memory. Urban Sci. 2020, 4, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Duangputtan, P.; Mishima, N. Adapting the Historic Urban Landscape Approach to Study Slums in a Historical City: The Mae Kha Canal Informal Settlements, Chiang Mai. Buildings 2024, 14, 1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Macamo, S.; Raimundo, M.; Moffett, A.; Lane, P. Developing Heritage Preservation on Ilha de Moçambique Using a Historic Urban Landscape Approach. Heritage 2024, 7, 2011–2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Huybrechts, E. The Historic Urban Landscape and the Metropolis. Built Herit. 2018, 2, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Khalaf, M. Urban Heritage and Vernacular Studies Parallel evolution and shared challenges. ISVS e-J. 2016, 4, 39–51. [Google Scholar]
  36. Nocca, F.; De Toro, P.; Voysekhovska, V. Circular economy and cultural heritage conservation: A proposal for integrating Level(s) evaluation tool. Aestimum 2021, 78, 105–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Prabowo, B.N.; Temeljotov Salaj, A.; Lohne, J. Identifying Urban Heritage Facility Management Support Services Considering World Heritage Sites. Urban Sci. 2023, 7, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Prabowo, B.N.; Salaj, A.T. Urban heritage and the four pillars of sustainability: Urban-scale facility management in the World Heritage sites. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023, 1196, 012105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rosetti, I.; Bertrand Cabral, C.; Pereira Roders, A.; Jacobs, M.; Albuquerque, R. Heritage and Sustainability: Regulating Participation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stepanchuk, A.; Gafurova, S.; Latypova, M. «Genius Loci» as a resource for the development of historical areas of the city. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 890, 012013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Angelidou, M.; Stylianidis, E. Cultural Heritage in Smart City Environments: The Update. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2020, V-2–2020, 957–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. González Martínez, P. Conference Review: ACHS FUTURES 2020. 5th Association of Critical Heritage Studies Biennial Conference. University College London, 26–30 August 2020. Built Herit. 2020, 4, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Guerrero Baca, L.F.; Soria López, F.J. Traditional architecture and sustainable conservation. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 8, 194–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gustafsson, C.; Lazzaro, E. The Innovative Response of Cultural and Creative Industries to Major European Societal Challenges: Toward a Knowledge and Competence Base. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Khalaf, R.W. World Heritage on the Move: Abandoning the Assessment of Authenticity to Meet the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century. Heritage 2021, 4, 371–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lerario, A. The Role of Built Heritage for Sustainable Development Goals: From Statement to Action. Heritage 2022, 5, 2444–2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Olukoya, O.A.P. Framing the Values of Vernacular Architecture for a Value-Based Conservation: A Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Prabowo, B.N.; Salaj, A.T. Identifying Overtourism Impacts on the Informal Sector’s Livelihoods in Urban Heritage Area. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 738, 012044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rodwell, D. Urban morphology, historic urban landscapes and the management of historic cities. Urban Morphol. 2009, 13, 78–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Al-Zo’by, M. Culture and the politics of sustainable development in the GCC: Identity between heritage and globalisation. Dev. Pract. 2019, 29, 559–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bradley, R.V.V. A Critical Analysis of the Writings of Amos Rapoport. J. Archit. Educ. 1970, 24, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Coch, H. Chapter 4—Bioclimatism in vernacular architecture. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 1998, 2, 67–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Galan, J.; Bourgeau, F.; Pedroli, B. A Multidimensional Model for the Vernacular: Linking Disciplines and Connecting the Vernacular Landscape to Sustainability Challenges. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Matar, F.; Palaiologou, F.; Richards, S. Urban sustainability assessment for vernacular and traditional built environments. J. Urban Manag. 2023, 12, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tu, H.-M. Sustainable Heritage Management: Exploring Dimensions of Pull and Push Factors. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vecco, M. A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. J. Cult. Herit. 2010, 11, 321–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bai, N.; Nourian, P.; Pereira Roders, A. Global Citizens and World Heritage: Social Inclusion of Online Communities in Heritage Planning. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2021, XLVI-M-1–2021, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, Y.; Zhao, L.; Huang, J.; Law, A. Research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods concerning the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage: A review. Built Herit. 2021, 5, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liang, W.; Ahmad, Y.; Mohidin, H.H.B. The development of the concept of architectural heritage conservation and its inspiration. Built Herit. 2023, 7, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Su, J.; Wang, M.; Razi, M.A.M. A Comprehensive Review of Studies Focusing on the Intersection of Urban Flooding and Historic Urban Landscapes. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2024, 1347, 012036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lazar, N.; Chithra, K. Role of culture in sustainable development and sustainable built environment: A review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 5991–6031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Naheed, S.; Shooshtarian, S. The Role of Cultural Heritage in Promoting Urban Sustainability: A Brief Review. Land 2022, 11, 1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wen, Y.; Haider, S.A.; Boukhris, M. Preserving the past, nurturing the future: A systematic literature review on the conservation and revitalization of Chinese historical town environments during modernization. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1114697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lanz, F.; Pendlebury, J. Adaptive reuse: A critical review. J. Archit. 2022, 27, 441–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pardo, J.M.F. Challenges and Current Research Trends for Vernacular Architecture in a Global World: A Literature Review. Buildings 2023, 13, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vafaie, F.; Remøy, H.; Gruis, V. Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings; a systematic literature review of success factors. Habitat Int. 2023, 142, 102926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Auquilla, S.; Siguencia, M. Territorial Exploration to Implement the Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscapes for the Development Area of EL Ejido in Cuenca, Ecuador. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2020, XLIV-M-1–2020, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Prabowo, B.N.; Pramesti, P.U.; Ramandhika, M.; Sukawi, S. Historic urban landscape (HUL) approach in Kota Lama Semarang: Mapping the layer of physical development through the chronological history. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 402, 012020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ricca, S. Urban Heritage in the Arabian Peninsula, the Experiences of Jeddah and Dubai. Built Herit. 2018, 2, 108–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Acri, M.; Dobričić, S.; Debevec, M. Regenerating the Historic Urban Landscape through Circular Bottom-Up Actions: The Urban Seeding Process in Rijeka. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rey-Pérez, J.; Domínguez-Ruiz, V. Multidisciplinarity, Citizen Participation and Geographic Information System, Cross-Cutting Strategies for Sustainable Development in Rural Heritage. The Case Study of Valverde de Burguillos (Spain). Sustainability 2020, 12, 9628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Abouelmagd, D.; Elrawy, S. Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development: The Case of Port Said city in Egypt. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2022, 8, 2088460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jiang, J.; Zhou, T.; Han, Y.; Ikebe, K. Urban Heritage Conservation and Modern Urban Development from the Perspective of the Historic Urban Landscape Approach: A Case Study of Suzhou. Land 2022, 11, 1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lv, R.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Kong, D. Urban historic heritage buffer zone delineation: The case of Shedian. Herit. Sci. 2022, 10, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Marović, I.; Mrak, I.; Ambruš, D.; Krstičević, J. Building Interventions in Mediterranean Towns—Developing a Framework for Selecting the Optimal Spatial Organization and Construction Technology from a Sustainable Development Perspective. Buildings 2022, 12, 1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mrak, I.; Ambruš, D.; Marović, I. A Holistic Approach to Strategic Sustainable Development of Urban Voids as Historic Urban Landscapes from the Perspective of Urban Resilience. Buildings 2022, 12, 1852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lei, H.; Zhou, Y. Conducting Heritage Tourism-Led Urban Renewal in Chinese Historical and Cultural Urban Spaces: A Case Study of Datong. Land 2022, 11, 2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Li, X.; Hou, W.; Liu, M.; Yu, Z. Traditional Thoughts and Modern Development of the Historical Urban Landscape in China: Lessons Learned from the Example of Pingyao Historical City. Land 2022, 11, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Shen, D.; Dong, S. Transition of Urban Morphology in the Mountainous Areas Since Early-Modern Times from the Perspective of Urban Historic Landscape—A GIS Tools and Historical Map Translation Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhao, L.; Li, Y.; Zhang, N.; Zhang, Z. Public policies and conservation plans of historic urban landscapes under the sustainable heritage tourism milieu: Discussions on the equilibrium model on Kulangsu Island, UNESCO World Heritage site. Built Herit. 2023, 7, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Dimelli, D.; Kotsoni, A. The Reconstruction of Post-War Cities—Proposing Integrated Conservation Plans for Aleppo’s Reconstruction. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dong, S.; Shen, D. A Study of Historical Urban Landscape Layering in Luoyang Based on Historical Map Translation. Land 2023, 12, 663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Karray, S.; Ruiz Pulpón, Á.R.; Rejeb, H. New Socio-Spatial Reading of a Remarkable Landscape Located in Testour, toward a Heritage Setting of a Moorish Site. Heritage 2023, 6, 2247–2267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tarrafa Silva, A.; Pereira Roders, A.; Cunha Ferreira, T.; Nevzgodin, I. Critical Analysis of Policy Integration Degrees between Heritage Conservation and Spatial Planning in Amsterdam and Ballarat. Land 2023, 12, 1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. El Faouri, B.F.; Sibley, M. Balancing Social and Cultural Priorities in the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for UNESCO World Heritage Cities. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ghanbari, E.; Lotfi, S.; Sholeh, M. HUL values in practice: A character area designation model for the conservation of built heritage in less-developed regions. J. Cult. Herit. 2024, 70, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Prabowo, B.N.; Temeljotov Salaj, A.; Lohne, J. Urban Heritage Facility Management: A Conceptual Framework for the Provision of Urban-Scale Support Services in Norwegian World Heritage Sites. Heritage 2024, 7, 1372–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yusuf, D.A.; Zhu, J.; Nashe, S.A.; Usman, A.M.; Sagir, A.; Yukubu, A.; Hamma, A.S.; Alfa, N.S.; Ahmed, A. A Typology for Urban Landscape Progression: Toward a Sustainable Planning Mechanism in Kano Metropolis, Nigeria. Urban Sci. 2023, 7, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Cattaneo, T.; Giorgi, E.; Flores, M.; Barquero, V. Territorial Effects of Shared-Living Heritage Regeneration. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Fadli, F.; AlSaeed, M. A Holistic Overview of Qatar’s (Built) Cultural Heritage; Towards an Integrated Sustainable Conservation Strategy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hasibuan, D.G.L.; Fitri, I. Revitalization of the ex-Warenhuis of Medan through a historic urban landscape approach. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 780, 012067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Maria, M.D.; Fiumi, L.; Mazzei, M.; Bik, O.V. A System for Monitoring the Environment of Historic Places Using Convolutional Neural Network Methodologies. Heritage 2021, 4, 1429–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Messaoudi, S.; Messaci, N.; Chennaoui, Y. Classifying Heritage Resources of Territories. Case of Bejaia. Urban. Arhit. Construcţii 2021, 12, 107. [Google Scholar]
  94. Tucunan, K.P.; Perkasa, M.I. Heritage management: The value discontinuation of heritage sites in indonesia: Problem and challenges. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 778, 012037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Udeaja, C.; Trillo, C.; Awuah, K.G.B.; Makore, B.C.N.; Patel, D.A.; Mansuri, L.E.; Jha, K.N. Urban Heritage Conservation and Rapid Urbanization: Insights from Surat, India. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Awad, J.; Arar, M.; Jung, C.; Boudiaf, B. The Comparative Analysis for the New Approach to Three Tourism-Oriented Heritage Districts in the United Arab Emirates. Heritage 2022, 5, 2464–2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bai, N.; Nourian, P.; Luo, R.; Pereira Roders, A. Heri-Graphs: A Dataset Creation Framework for Multi-Modal Machine Learning on Graphs of Heritage Values and Attributes with Social Media. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2022, 11, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gravagnuolo, A.; Micheletti, S.; Bosone, M. A Participatory Approach for “Circular” Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Heritage. Building a Heritage Community in Salerno, Italy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Luo, H.; Chiou, B.-S. Framing the Hierarchy of Cultural Tourism Attractiveness of Chinese Historic Districts under the Premise of Landscape Conservation. Land 2021, 10, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Teng, Y.; Yang, S.; Huang, Y. Structural features of the streetscape of Macau across four different spatial scales based on historical maps. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0258086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Wosiński, M.M. New perspectives on World Heritage management in the GCC legislation. Built Herit. 2022, 6, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Zhang, L.; Tang, Y.; Chen, Y. Integrating historic preservation into a wider framework of urban development through comprehensive planning: An evaluation of local comprehensive plans in U.S. state capitals. Herit. Sci. 2022, 10, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Akbar, S.H.; Iqbal, N.; Van Cleempoel, K. Saddar Bazar Quarter in Karachi: A Case of British-Era Protected Heritage Based on the Literature Review and Fieldwork. Heritage 2023, 6, 3183–3210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Bay, M.A.; Alnaim, M.M.; Albaqawy, G.A.; Noaime, E. The Heritage Jewel of Saudi Arabia: A Descriptive Analysis of the Heritage Management and Development Activities in the At-Turaif District in Ad-Dir’iyah, a World Heritage Site (WHS). Sustainability 2022, 14, 10718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Golestani, N.; Khakzand, M.; Faizi, M. Evaluation of the quality of participatory landscape perception in neighborhoods of cultural landscape to achieve social sustainability. Aestimum 2023, 81, 71–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Liang, X.; Qin, W.; Dellapiana, E. Enhancing the Connection Between People and Heritage Through Social Media in China. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2023, X-M-1–2023, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Shehata, A.M. Current Trends in Urban Heritage Conservation: Medieval Historic Arab City Centers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sukwai, J.; Mishima, N.; Srinurak, N. Balancing Cultural Heritage Conservation: Visual Integrity Assessment to Support Change Management in the Buffer Zone of Chiang Mai Historic City Using GIS and Computer-Generated 3D Modeling. Land 2022, 11, 666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zhu, X.; Chiou, S.-C. A Study on the Sustainable Development of Historic District Landscapes Based on Place Attachment among Tourists: A Case Study of Taiping Old Street, Taiwan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Bai, N.; Ducci, M.; Mirzikashvili, R.; Nourian, P.; Pereira Roders, A. Mapping Urban Heritage Images with Social Media Data and Artificial Intelligence, a Case Study in Testaccio, Rome. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2023, XLVIII-M-2–2023, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Barrett, H. Conservation Planning and the Development Trajectory of the Historic Core of Worcester, England. Urban Plan. 2023, 8, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ji, X.; Du, Y.; Li, Q. How Does the Historic Built Environment Influence Residents’ Satisfaction? Using Gradient Boosting Decision Trees to Identify Critical Factors and the Threshold Effects. Sustainability 2023, 16, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Rossiter, L.; Gu, K. The Impact of Special Character Areas on Property Values and Homeowners’ Experiences: Cases from Auckland, New Zealand. Land 2023, 12, 1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Siountri, K.; Anagnostopoulos, C.-N. The Classification of Cultural Heritage Buildings in Athens Using Deep Learning Techniques. Heritage 2023, 6, 3673–3705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Vileikis, O. A Strategy Using Heritage Documentation for Managing Change of the Historic Centre of Bukhara. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2023, X-M-1–2023, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Bramiana, C.N.; Darmawan, E.; Hasan, M.I. Stakeholder involvement in developing strategic planning for heritage buildings in Kota Lama heritage site, Semarang. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 402, 012015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Bykowa, E.; Dyachkova, I. Modeling the Size of Protection Zones of Cultural Heritage Sites Based on Factors of the Historical and Cultural Assessment of Lands. Land 2021, 10, 1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. De Medici, S.; De Toro, P.; Nocca, F. Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development: Impact Assessment of Two Adaptive Reuse Projects in Siracusa, Sicily. Sustainability 2019, 12, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Domínguez-Ruíz, V.; Rey-Pérez, J.; Rivero-Lamela, G. Contribution to the Knowledge of Cultural Heritage via a Heritage Information System (HIS). The Case of “La Cultura del Agua” in Valverde de Burguillos, Badajoz (Spain). Sustainability 2020, 12, 1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Fredholm, S.; Dore, M.; Brorström, S. Strategic Responses to Wicked Problems of Heritage Management: Experiences from the West Link Infrastructure Project in Gothenburg, Sweden. Land 2021, 10, 1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Giovinazzi, S.; Marchili, C.; Di Pietro, A.; Giordano, L.; Costanzo, A.; La Porta, L.; Pollino, M.; Rosato, V.; Lückerath, D.; Milde, K.; et al. Assessing Earthquake Impacts and Monitoring Resilience of Historic Areas: Methods for GIS Tools. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Nikolić, M.; Drobnjak, B.; Kuletin Ćulafić, I. The Possibilities of Preservation, Regeneration and Presentation of Industrial Heritage: The Case of Old Mint “A.D.” on Belgrade Riverfront. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Ali, S.H.; Sherzad, M.F.; Alomairi, A.H. Managing Strategies to Revitalize Urban Cultural Heritage after Wars: The Center of the Old City of Mosul as a Case Study. Buildings 2022, 12, 1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Bosone, M.; Ciampa, F. Human-Centred Indicators (HCI) to Regenerate Vulnerable Cultural Heritage and Landscape towards a Circular City: From the Bronx (NY) to Ercolano (IT). Sustainability 2021, 13, 5505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Della Spina, L.; Giorno, C. Cultural Landscapes: A Multi-Stakeholder Methodological Approach to Support Widespread and Shared Tourism Development Strategies. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. El Faouri, B.F.; Sibley, M. Heritage-Led Urban Regeneration in the Context of WH Listing: Lessons and Opportunities for the Newly Inscribed City of As-Salt in Jordan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Kern, K.; Irmisch, J.; Odermatt, C.; Haupt, W.; Kissling-Näf, I. Cultural Heritage, Sustainable Development, and Climate Policy: Comparing the UNESCO World Heritage Cities of Potsdam and Bern. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Peng, L.; Marinos, A. Exploration of cooperative management system of transregional cultural landscape heritage: A case study of Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes. Built Herit. 2022, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zitouni-Petrogianni, G.; Paraschou, A.; Maistrou, H. Abandoned or Degraded Areas in Historic Cities: The Importance of Multifunctional Reuse for Development through the Example of the Historic Commercial Triangle (Emporiko Trigono) of Athens. Land 2022, 11, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Bernardo, F.; Loupa-Ramos, I.; Coelho, R. How to Capture Place Identity Contents? A Tool for Planning Interventions. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Jones, Z.M.; Pappas, T. Developing an identities-based approach to support more robust resilience and recovery in heritage planning and management. Built Herit. 2023, 7, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Li, H.; Chen, J.; Ikebe, K.; Kinoshita, T. Survey of Residents of Historic Cities Willingness to Pay for a Cultural Heritage Conservation Project: The Contribution of Heritage Awareness. Land 2023, 12, 2058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Mazzetto, S.; Vanini, F. Urban Heritage in Saudi Arabia: Comparison and Assessment of Sustainable Reuses. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Szromek, A.R.; Walas, B.; Kruczek, Z. Identification of Challenges for the Reconstruction of Heritage Tourism—Multiple Case Studies of European Heritage Cities. Heritage 2023, 6, 6800–6821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Tira, Y.; Türkoğlu, H. Circularity-based decision-making framework for the integrated conservation of built heritage: The case of the Medina of Tunis. Built Herit. 2023, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Zhou, T.; Zang, T.; Jiang, J.; Yang, X.; Ikebe, K. Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Social Participation Awareness on Urban Heritage Conservation: The Example of Suzhou, China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Hilal, A.; Kennet, D.; Humble, L. Towards a heritage management strategy for Ras al-Khaimah (UAE). Proc. Semin. Arab. Stud. 2015, 45, 149–158. [Google Scholar]
  138. Konstantinidou, E. Architectural Heritage Management Issues: Identification-Protection—Integration-Sustainability. In Proceedings of the BIOCULTURA 2015, Sustainability in Architectural Heritage, Nicosia, Cyprus, 11–12 December March 2015. [Google Scholar]
  139. Ornelas, C.; Miranda Guedes, J.; Breda-Vázquez, I.; Gallego Guinea, V.; Turri, A. Urban Heritage Rehabilitation: Institutional Stakeholders’ Contributions to Improve Implementation of Urban and Building Regulations. Urban Plan. 2023, 8, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Teklemariam, N. Historic Preservation as Sustainable Urban Development in African Cities: A Technical and Technological Framework. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Zhao, Y.; Jin, K.; Zhang, D.; Wang, L.; Li, J.; Dai, T. Transforming Urban Landscapes: Reuse of Heritage Sites through Multi-Value Interpretations in Xi’an, China. Land 2024, 13, 948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. AlSulaiti, F. The National Commitment Towards Conserving the Heritage (Documentation of Historical and Cultural Sites in GCC Countries). Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2013, XL-5/W2, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Gharib, R.Y. Sustainable Assessment Tool of Historic Centers: The Cases of Bath and Cambridge. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2014, 8, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Nia, E.M.; Abd Rahman, N.; Yazid, M.Y. Roofs Functions in Vernacular Residential Buildings: Case Study in Kashan, Iran. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2014, 8, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Radoine, H. Cultural resilience in contemporary urbanism: The case of Sharjah, UAE. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 2013, 35, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Saljoughinejad, S.; Rashidi Sharifabad, S. Classification of climatic strategies, used in Iranian vernacular residences based on spatial constituent elements. Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 475–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Sun, F. Chinese Climate and Vernacular Dwellings. Buildings 2013, 3, 143–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Arslan, T.V. Developing a Strategic Approach for Managing Sustainable Revitalisation in World Heritage Sites: Historical Bazaar and Khans District, Bursa—Turkey. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2015, 9, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Yildirim, E.; El-Masri, S. Master Planning for Heritage Conservation in Al Ain Oasis, UAE. In Proceedings of the Sustainable City—Developing Countries, Nairobi, Kenya, 19–23 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
  150. Abdulameer, Z.A.; Abbas, S.S. Adaptive reuse as an approach to sustainability. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 881, 012010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Azmi, F.A.M.; Ismail, S.; Rahman, R.A.; Tahir Sabit, M.; Mohammad, J. A Sustainable Model for Heritage Property: An Integrative Conceptual Framework. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 7, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Alves, S. The Sustainable Heritage of Vernacular Architecture: The Historic Center of Oporto. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2017, 38, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Awad, J.; Boudiaf, B. Re-Using Heritage Elements in New Buildings: Cases from the United Arab Emirates; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2020; pp. 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Boudiaf, B.; Awad, J. The Socio-Environmental Metamorphoses: U.A.E. as a Case Study. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 960, 042061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Dayaratne, R. Toward sustainable development: Lessons from vernacular settlements of Sri Lanka. Front. Archit. Res. 2018, 7, 334–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Hobbs, J.J. Heritage in the Lived Environment of the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf Region. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2017, 11, 55–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Mazzetto, S. Heritage Restoration as a Tool to Promote Architectural Identity in the Gulf Regions. Preserv. Digit. Technol. Cult. 2018, 47, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Al-Hammadi, M.I. Deterritorialization in the context of cultural heritage and globalizing Msheireb downtown Doha. Front. Sustain. Cities 2023, 5, 1186781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Benkari, N. The built heritage as a resource for architectural education: Documentation of the vernacular settlements and architecture in Oman. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 14, 710–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Ibrahim, I.; Eltarabishi, F. Adaptive Reuse Heritage Buildings Addressing Sustainability Potentials: Analytical Case Studies in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2021; pp. 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Linas, F.A.; Chithra, K. Exploring Vernacular Architecture: Unravelling Characteristics and Typologies Through Expert Survey. SCIRES-IT—Sci. Res. Inf. Technol. 2024, 14, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Mazzetto, S. Sustainable Heritage Conservation in the Gulf Regions. Proc. Int. Struct. Eng. Constr. 2022, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Mazzetto, S. Assessing heritage reuse interventions in the Gulf Countries. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1026, 012044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Naima, B. Community-led initiatives for the rehabilitation and management of vernacular settlements in Oman: A phenomenon in the making. Built Herit. 2021, 5, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Samalavičius, A.; Traškinaitė, D. Traditional Vernacular Buildings, Architectural Heritage and Sustainability. J. Archit. Des. Urban. 2021, 3, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Al-Zubaidi, M.S.S. Sustainability Potential in Traditional Architecture in the Arab World. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  167. Abedi, M.; Soltanzadeh, H. The Interaction between Tradition and Modernity in Contemporary Architecture of Persian Gulf States: Case Study of United Arab Emirates. Int. J. Res. Humanit. Soc. Stud. 2014, 1, 24–34. [Google Scholar]
  168. Ashley, C. Improving the implementation of adaptive reuse strategies for historic buildings. In The IX International Forum of Studies—S.A.V.E. Heritage; Institute of Sustainable Development and Architecture: Naples, Italy, 2011; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  169. Boussaa, D. Cultural Heritage in the Gulf: Blight or Blessing? A Discussion of Evidence from Dubai, Jeddah and Doha. Middle East—Top. Argum. 2014, 3, 55–70. Available online: https://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/ep/0003/article/view/2176 (accessed on 13 October 2024).
  170. Ijla, A.; Broström, T. The Sustainable Viability of Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings: The experiences of Two World Heritage Old Cities; Bethlehem in Palestine and Visby in Sweden. Int. Invent. J. Arts Soc. Sci. 2015, 2, 52–66. [Google Scholar]
  171. Senthil, R.B. Sustainable Heritage Management- Need and Challenges. PARIPEX-Indian J. Res. 2016, 5, 478–483. [Google Scholar]
Heritage 09 00254 g001
Figure 1. Co-occurrence score of the terms “historic urban landscape” and “HUL approach” within the document corpus.
Figure 1. Co-occurrence score of the terms “historic urban landscape” and “HUL approach” within the document corpus.
Heritage 09 00254 g001
Heritage 09 00254 g002
Figure 2. Relevance score of the terms “historic urban landscape” and “HUL approach” within the document corpus.
Figure 2. Relevance score of the terms “historic urban landscape” and “HUL approach” within the document corpus.
Heritage 09 00254 g002
Heritage 09 00254 g003
Figure 3. Connectivity map. Colors denote distinct thematic clusters based on association strength.
Figure 3. Connectivity map. Colors denote distinct thematic clusters based on association strength.
Heritage 09 00254 g003
Heritage 09 00254 g004
Figure 4. Snapshot from Connectivity map with focus point the term “historic urban landscape approach”. Colors denote distinct thematic clusters.
Figure 4. Snapshot from Connectivity map with focus point the term “historic urban landscape approach”. Colors denote distinct thematic clusters.
Heritage 09 00254 g004
Heritage 09 00254 g005
Figure 5. Co-authorship network. Colors represent distinct collaboration clusters.
Figure 5. Co-authorship network. Colors represent distinct collaboration clusters.
Heritage 09 00254 g005
Heritage 09 00254 g006
Figure 6. Pie charts (a) with the percentual representation of publications and (b) the percentual distribution by type of bibliographic source.
Figure 6. Pie charts (a) with the percentual representation of publications and (b) the percentual distribution by type of bibliographic source.
Heritage 09 00254 g006
Heritage 09 00254 g007
Figure 7. Annual distribution of publications from 2010 to 2024.
Figure 7. Annual distribution of publications from 2010 to 2024.
Heritage 09 00254 g007
Heritage 09 00254 g008
Figure 8. Geographical distribution of Case Studies from 2010 to 2024. The blue color scale indicates the volume of publications, with darker shades representing a higher number of case studies; grey areas indicate countries with zero identified case studies.
Figure 8. Geographical distribution of Case Studies from 2010 to 2024. The blue color scale indicates the volume of publications, with darker shades representing a higher number of case studies; grey areas indicate countries with zero identified case studies.
Heritage 09 00254 g008
Heritage 09 00254 g009
Figure 9. Pie charts that represent the degree of relevance of each group of documents, (a) articles, (b) reviews, (c) case studies to the field of study.
Figure 9. Pie charts that represent the degree of relevance of each group of documents, (a) articles, (b) reviews, (c) case studies to the field of study.
Heritage 09 00254 g009
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Karagkouni, M.; Sakantamis, K.; Vitopoulou, A. Historic Urban Landscape Literature (2010–2024): A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Mapping of Conceptual Evolution and Research Trends. Heritage 2026, 9, 254. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9070254

AMA Style

Karagkouni M, Sakantamis K, Vitopoulou A. Historic Urban Landscape Literature (2010–2024): A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Mapping of Conceptual Evolution and Research Trends. Heritage. 2026; 9(7):254. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9070254

Chicago/Turabian Style

Karagkouni, Maria, Konstantinos Sakantamis, and Athina Vitopoulou. 2026. "Historic Urban Landscape Literature (2010–2024): A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Mapping of Conceptual Evolution and Research Trends" Heritage 9, no. 7: 254. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9070254

APA Style

Karagkouni, M., Sakantamis, K., & Vitopoulou, A. (2026). Historic Urban Landscape Literature (2010–2024): A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Mapping of Conceptual Evolution and Research Trends. Heritage, 9(7), 254. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9070254

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop