Heritage-Based Urban Development

Definition

The purpose of this entry is to introduce the concept of Heritage-based Urban Development and explain its evolution and implications for historic urban landscapes. The term Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) refers to an integrated understanding of historic cities that goes beyond individual monuments or architectural ensembles to encompass the broader spatial, cultural, and functional relationships within the urban fabric. It reflects a shift toward viewing historic areas as dynamic systems with a role in sustainable development. Heritage-based urban development refers to development approaches that take urban heritage—typically within historic urban landscapes—as the starting point, valuing these landscapes in all their specificities, processes, and cultural meanings as resources to be embraced rather than obstacles to be overcome.

1. Defining a Cultural Landscape

The concepts of value and landscape are fundamental to this entry; thus, a crucial initial stage of analysis necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the processes through which historic landscapes are identified and their significance evaluated. The term historic urban landscapes became popular after 2012 when UNESCO adopted the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape [1]. It caused a significant shift in the understanding of historic urban fabric that emphasises functions and connections between different heritage buildings and goes well beyond the notion of ensembles to reflect a systemic understanding [2,3,4,5,6,7]. This entry aims to explore the limitations of reductionist approaches to heritage valuation and to advocate methodologies that acknowledge the dynamic, iterative, and embodied nature of people’s relationships with the historic environment—both in the present [8] (p. 22) and with a forward-looking perspective towards sustainable urban development. While this entry takes UNESCO’s 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape [1] as its conceptual foundation, it moves beyond the HUL’s integrative framework to explore how heritage can serve as a strategic basis for shaping urban development. In doing so, heritage is reframed from a passive element to an active resource.

Accordingly, this entry is guided by the following key questions:

(a) How can the historic urban landscape (HUL) approach be expanded upon and operationalised to position cultural heritage as a catalyst for sustainable urban development?

(b) What are the opportunities in integrating heritage-led strategies into existing urban planning and development frameworks at the local level?

1.1. The Rise of the “Landscape” Concept

The concept of “landscape” has evolved significantly over time, reflecting shifts in both artistic representation and academic thought. Historically, the term encompassed the interaction between human culture and the environment, referring to environments altered by humans. In the realm of art, from the 16th century onwards, European artists began emphasising natural scenery over human figures, leading to the prominence of landscape painting [9] (p. 31). Academically, geographer Otto Schlüter is credited with introducing “cultural landscape” as a formal term in the early 20th century, aiming to define geography as a “landscape science” (Landschaftskunde). Building upon this, Carl O. Sauer’s seminal work, “The Morphology of Landscape”, further developed the idea by highlighting the role of human activity in shaping the physical environment, proposing that “the cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a cultural group” [10] (p. 46). This perspective underscored the dynamic interplay between culture and nature, positioning landscape as a central object of study in geography. More recent scholarly discourse underscores the interdisciplinary nature of landscape studies, with Mon noting that “different disciplines, such as art, architecture, archaeology, ecology, and geography have developed and defined the concept of landscape in different ways” [11] (p. 21). Similarly, de Souza and de Oliveira describe landscape as “a present and essential object for the human being in its geographical location”, emphasising its integral role in human–environment interactions [12] (p. 1). These perspectives illustrate the evolving understanding of landscapes, moving beyond mere visual representations to encompass complex socio-environmental systems.

Most people would almost certainly agree with Janet Stephenson that landscape is “a place and a concept in which insiders and disciplines meet, collide and, increasingly, interact” [13] (p. 137) and that, as a result, a comprehensive approach to the understanding and management of a given landscape is the way forward. The dynamic nature of landscape is widely accepted by researchers, policymakers, and practitioners and incentivises those responsible for a place to acknowledge and accommodate the evolving demands of our society while simultaneously preserving the cherished elements of the environment that hold particular significance. In recent decades, the processes of urbanisation and globalisation have instigated drastic transformations in our environments that undoubtedly have an impact on socio-economic, cultural, and environmental sustainability within the built landscape, at the same time having brought to the agenda of urban planners a continual choice, as flawlessly framed by Arfa et al., “between conservation and change, between blending and contrast, and between continuity and partial renewal” [14] (p. 155) (Figure 1).

It has become clear that the socio-economic reshaping and the depletion of natural resources that have arisen from unprecedented urban expansion have correlated with increasing issues for the historic urban landscape. It is within this context that this entry finds its place—where traditional heritage conservation meets a complex and multifaceted version of itself in confronting the intricacies of urban space in relation to the legacies of our cities.

1.2. The Relational Nature Between Landscape and Cultural Heritage

For a considerable time, values have formed the foundation of heritage interpretations and its conservation within the built environment. In the literature, the reason for this is that cultural heritage and landscape constitute two interrelated concepts [15]. Where Massey depicted archaeological sites as “fluid temporal and spatial constructions embedded in specific sociohistorical contexts” [16] (p. 9), Knapp and Ashmore called attention to the emotional and reflexive view of landscape as the “materialization of memory, fixing social and individual histories in space” [17] (p. 13). The relational nature between heritage and space is simplified in Crumley and Marquardt’s introduction to the concept of “definitive elements of landscape” [18] (p. 74), suggesting that landscape formation results from a combination of natural physical structures (such as climate and topography) and constructed sociohistorical structures (e.g., political, legal, and economic). The landscape character is then determined by the manner in which these structures are understood and valued by individuals and groups—and its significance is manifested as the totality of the dynamic tension between “the infrastructure (the realm of material production and social relations) and the superstructure (the realm of ideas)” [18] (p. 73). If it is such that landscape value is fashioned from a natural landscape by a sociocultural group, Rowntree in Stephenson [13] (p. 128) notes the inherent subjectivity in landscape interpretation where disciplines variously portray landscapes as “an ecological artefact, material culture, visual resource, a metaphor, an artistic depiction, ideology, and agent of power relations”, amongst others. As a result, most researchers would agree with Wu [19] (p. 1147) that landscapes are “endowed with, and continue to foster the development of, cultures, legacies, and stories”, where the categories of self and other, past and present, constantly solicit one another [20] (p. 232).

A recurring theme in the literature is that both individual self-identity and collective identity are profoundly spatial—closely intertwined with the sociohistorical narratives affiliated with the physical environment [13,21,22]. The extent to which cultural identity is associated with the nature and range of cultural values that are identified by people for a landscape, or element of landscape, has been extensively studied since the second half of the twentieth century in relation to the rise of the term “cultural landscape”. The popularity of the term was heightened at the time of the World Heritage Convention (International Convention for the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage) adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1992 [23] as the first international legal instrument to recognise and protect cultural landscapes. The recognition of cultural landscapes within heritage discourse has been significantly shaped by the World Heritage Committee’s Operational Guidelines in 2008 [24], which identify three main categories of cultural landscapes based on their formation and character. First, designed landscapes are those consciously created by humans for aesthetic or functional purposes, such as parks, gardens, or planned estates. These reflect formal design intentions and cultural ideals of landscape organisation. Second, organically evolved landscapes emerge from socio-economic, administrative, or religious imperatives over time. They are subdivided into two subtypes: relict (or fossil) landscapes, where an evolutionary process has ended but remains materially legible (e.g., abandoned agricultural terraces), and continuing landscapes, which retain an active social or functional role while preserving historical structures and patterns (e.g., working vineyards or pastoral systems). Third, associative cultural landscapes are inscribed primarily for their intangible cultural, spiritual, or symbolic values, where the landscape holds profound meaning for communities. These categories underscore the relational and layered qualities of landscape, reinforcing the understanding that cultural landscapes are not merely physical terrains but dynamic, lived environments shaped through ongoing human–nature interaction and interpretation. It is therefore essential that those entrusted with making decisions that impact landscapes have an awareness of the potential diversity of cultural values, in particular where these values are not encompassed by conventional landscape character assessments (e.g., Historic England’s 2008 Conservation Principles [25]) having become ill-equipped to assess the values of different layers of the heritage landscape [14,26,27,28,29].

The valuation of cultural heritage within landscapes must be situated in a relational and processual understanding of space. As Paul Vidal de La Blache [30] and Alfred Hettner [31] proposed in their early geographical work, landscape is not a static backdrop but a living palimpsest shaped by human agency and environmental interaction. Cultural heritage, in this view, cannot be reduced to discrete monuments or sites but must be understood as part of the evolving socio-spatial fabric. Robert Gradmann [32] and, later, Johannes Wimmer [33] elaborated on this by conceptualising landscape as a cultural–historical continuum, wherein values are layered through ongoing practices and collective memory. This systemic view resonates with UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape [1] paradigm, which emphasises interconnections between tangible and intangible dimensions, economic systems, and governance structures. Heritage values are not merely assigned but are co-produced through spatial negotiation and institutional mediation. Thus, the challenge lies in establishing value hierarchies that reflect the lived significance of heritage across different stakeholder groups while remaining sensitive to functional pressures such as urban densification, mobility restructuring, and demographic shifts. Integrating heritage into systems thinking—especially within urban planning—requires procedural tools that allow for reflexivity, contestation, and co-management.

2. A Systemic Approach for Cultural Heritage

2.1. Heritage as a System and a Process

The contemporary understanding of cultural heritage has shifted significantly, emphasising the dynamic and community-oriented nature of heritage. This transition reflects a broader understanding of heritage as an integral part of local communities rather than a static collection of artefacts or monuments. This entry explores the evolving role of local communities and stakeholders in managing cultural heritage and highlights the systemic approaches required for effective integration [34].

Historically, cultural heritage was seen as a collection of physical artefacts and monuments, managed primarily by conservators and planners. Cultural heritage management was dominated by what Laurajane Smith [35] termed the Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD), a framework rooted in Eurocentric, expert-driven traditions of preservation. This discourse prioritised tangible, monumental, and architecturally significant heritage—often to the exclusion of intangible, everyday, and community-centred expressions of cultural value. AHD reinforced notions of objectivity, neutrality, and universality in heritage identification and protection. Scholars such as Rodney Harrison [36] and Tunbridge and Ashworth [37] further critiqued this approach for its failure to account for the social, contested, and dynamic nature of heritage, which is increasingly recognised as a cultural process shaped by memory, identity, and political agency.

The traditional (European) method of identifying and defining cultural and natural heritage as properties is reflected in the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage [38]. Article 1 of the Convention defines cultural heritage as encompassing monuments, groups of buildings, and sites. Reflecting on the 1964 Venice Charter and its foundational doctrinal text, adopted by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in 1965, references to “setting” and “some socially useful purpose” [39] can be seen as early indications of a shift and broadening in perspective.

Building on this, Article 5a of the 1972 Convention articulated the vision to “adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes” [38]. However, the more profound recognition of the interdependent relationship between heritage—both tangible and intangible—and communities emerged more recently [40]. For instance, the 2005 adoption of the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention) [41] marked a significant shift. Article 1c under “Aims of the Convention” states that “the conservation of cultural heritage and its sustainable use have human development and quality of life as their goal”. The Faro Convention emphasises the evolving nature of society, calling for “the need to put people and human values at the centre of an enlarged and cross-disciplinary concept of cultural heritage” and “the need to involve everyone in society in the ongoing process of defining and managing cultural heritage.” This represented a transformative change in perception. Additionally, UNESCO acknowledged the “fundamental role of civil society” in its framing of the 2005 Conventions [42]. Although this principle was incorporated retrospectively in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, it has become a key component in modern heritage management. Heritage is now recognised as being both determined by and the responsibility of local communities. Participation from these communities is crucial to developing a shared understanding of heritage objectives [43].

In urban settings, the perception of heritage has transformed from viewing historic areas as static collections of relics to recognising their dynamic role in community identity and urban development. Initiatives like the COMUS project have illustrated the importance of integrating communities into heritage-based urban planning (The COMUS (“Community-Led Urban Strategies in Historic Towns”) project is a joint Council of Europe/European Union initiative that is part of the second Eastern Partnership Culture Programme. It seeks to stimulate social and economic development by enhancing cultural heritage in nine historic towns in Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine.) By fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and systemic communication, urban heritage projects can enhance community engagement and improve quality of life.

The evolving understanding of cultural heritage underscores the importance of local communities as central to its management. This dynamic and systemic approach demands the integration of diverse stakeholders, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a commitment to improving community well-being. By embracing these principles, heritage management can transition from a material-focused discipline to one that truly reflects the complex and interconnected nature of heritage in today’s world [34]. Ripp’s metamodel on heritage-based development [44] offers one such approach by outlining decision architectures, stakeholder roles, and feedback mechanisms over time. Likewise, digital participatory methods, such as those demonstrated by van der Hoeven [45], reveal how citizens’ spatial perceptions of heritage can reshape expert-driven agendas, embedding cultural memory into planning logics. In this respect, the valuation of heritage becomes less about codified criteria and more about negotiated relevance within a dynamic socio-spatial system. van der Hoeven explores the use of participatory digital platforms to assess heritage significance from the standpoint of urban residents. Her study demonstrates that citizen-generated content—photographs, narratives, etc.—can reveal affective and social values overlooked by formal conservation frameworks. Importantly, van der Hoeven argues that such platforms function not just as data repositories but as mediating devices: they foster dialogue between expert and non-expert perspectives, thereby altering the Authorised Heritage Discourse [35] and enabling more democratic heritage governance. This supports a shift towards valuing heritage as a dynamic process embedded in everyday urban life. When combined with structured tools such as Ripp’s metamodel [44], this approach lays the groundwork for heritage-based urban development that is iterative, inclusive, and anchored in the evolving reality of the cultural landscape.

2.2. Potential Uses of Heritage as a Resource

The perspective on using cultural heritage as a resource for urban development deviates from previous frameworks of heritage conservation primarily because it holds the belief that heritage can thrive as long as individuals perceive conservation as a means to support and enhance their own quality of life. In essence, the stance presented promotes urban spaces in the context of being “for people, rather than from people” [46]. The evolving discourse on cities as human-centred spaces originates from a paradigm shift in urban thought and innovation that began in the twentieth century and continues to shape contemporary urban development. As cities face growing environmental and socio-economic challenges, heritage is emerging as a dynamic resource that supports urban resilience, sustainable development, and climate adaptation. Rather than being viewed solely as fragile sites in need of protection, heritage can actively contribute to disaster risk reduction, economic revitalisation, and social cohesion, among others.

Cultural heritage is increasingly recognised as a valuable asset that extends beyond its historical and aesthetic significance, as a driver of sustainable and resilient urban development [47]. Within the framework of heritage-based urban development, the historic urban landscape (HUL) approach offers a conceptual shift: it positions heritage not merely as an element to be integrated into urban strategies but as a foundational system from which sustainable, resilient, and context-sensitive urban development can emerge within a broader framework of social, environmental, and economic development [48]. Urban resilience here refers to a city’s capacity to anticipate, absorb, and recover from shocks and stresses—whether environmental, social, or economic—while maintaining essential functions and adapting to future challenges [49]. Similarly, sustainability in urban spaces emphasises long-term environmental balance, economic vitality, and social equity, ensuring that development meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to thrive [50]. The HUL reconceptualises the urban landscape as a layered and dynamic construct—comprising tangible and intangible values, natural and cultural elements, and socio-economic systems—that should serve as the starting point for urban planning [1,3]. UNESCO’s HUL approach is implemented through a structured six-step process. It begins with (1) mapping resources—which involves identifying cultural, natural, tangible, and intangible assets, incorporating both expert and community input. This is followed by (2) reaching consensus through stakeholder engagement to define shared values and priorities. Next is (3) assessing vulnerabilities, which involves identifying risks—social, environmental, and economic—that may affect the urban landscape. These insights guide the process of (4) integrating heritage values into planning frameworks, ensuring alignment between conservation and development goals. Based on this, (5) prioritising actions enables strategic, adaptive interventions. Finally, (6) monitoring and reviewing are carried out to ensure continuous feedback and adjustment. This positions heritage as a driver of development rooted in the identity, memory, and diversity of place and more adaptive to change. In this way, heritage becomes a productive asset for shaping future-oriented, culturally meaningful, and sustainable urban environments.

This has informed a growing body of European initiatives that exemplify heritage’s multidimensional utility for urban development. Projects such as SHELTER [51] and ARCH [52] have demonstrated how traditional knowledge systems and historical urban morphologies can support climate adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and community-based resilience planning. Likewise, the New European Bauhaus initiative [53], amongst others, has highlighted the potential of heritage in circular economy models and sustainable design, especially through adaptive reuse and local craftsmanship [1,51,52,53,54,55,56]. These examples underscore how the HUL paradigm has transcended its original scope to become a guiding framework for heritage-based development, enabling cities to treat cultural heritage not as a constraint to growth but as a strategic asset that supports environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Collectively, they demonstrate that heritage is not a passive remnant of the past but rather a “living system” [57] and an active driver of resilient and sustainable urban futures.

Integrating heritage into urban development enhances identity, social cohesion, and community engagement as historic landscapes, structures, and traditions provide continuity and strengthen local belonging [29]. Moreover, historic urban landscapes and traditional land-use practices offer valuable insights into sustainable, climate-adaptive urban planning, ensuring that urban growth is informed by proven resilient strategies [29]. Beyond its cultural significance, heritage also supports economic revitalisation, attracting tourism, stimulating local economies, and enhancing urban regeneration efforts. The integration of heritage into urban planning—whether through public spaces, infrastructure, or architectural conservation—demonstrates its potential as a multidimensional resource that not only preserves the past but also actively shapes greener, more inclusive, and future-proof cities [47].

3. The Evolution of the Term Historic Urban Landscape

3.1. Defining “Historic Urban Landscape”

The concept of landscape—incorporating natural and cultural entities but also processes with constant transformations in shape and use patterns and that are not intrinsically separated from experiential and social values [58]—has been stimulating the development of a number of documents. Among the first major milestones was the Charter of Cracow in 2000 [59], which introduced integrated conservation strategies that acknowledged the functional dynamics of urban environments and promoted adaptive reuse within heritage frameworks. This was followed by the Vienna Memorandum in 2005 [60] and the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape in 2011 [1]—both having established the momentum on a holistic approach—and in 2008, the URBACT HerO (Heritage as Opportunity) network [61], which aimed to develop integrated and contemporary management strategies for historic urban landscapes based on these theoretical frameworks. More recent publications might include the Valletta Principles in 2011 [62] that articulated a vision of historic towns and urban areas as dynamic spatial systems, stressing the significance of morphology, spatial coherence, and participatory governance in heritage policy, and the Florence Declaration in 2014 [63] that further built on this by connecting cultural landscapes with well-being, identity, and sustainability, explicitly advocating for heritage-led approaches that respond to ecological and social change. These were complemented by the revised Burra Charter in 2013 [64], the adoption of the UN-Habitat New Urban Agenda [65], and the “Pact of Amsterdam” in 2016 [66] that emphasise the connection between built and intangible heritage and urban setting and distinctly state that “significant associations between people and a place should be respected, retained and not obscured” [64] (26.1, p. 7). The common thread is that rather than segregating different entities like listed buildings, the concept of historic urban landscape now emphasises the relations, connections, and holistic understanding of different entities. These, amongst other global initiatives, were developed in contrast to the “lack of data, harmonisation of it, and awareness of the essence of the interdependence of heritage fabric and the multi-faceted socio-economic issues that condition urban heritage” [67].

The term historic urban landscape has undergone significant evolution, reflecting a shift towards a more integrative approach in urban heritage conservation. Initially, heritage preservation focused on individual monuments and architectural ensembles, often neglecting their broader urban and environmental settings. Recognising this limitation, UNESCO introduced the HUL concept in 2011, defining it as “the urban area understood as the result of a historic layering of cultural and natural values and attributes” [1] (p. 3). Beyond this, Ginzarly, Houbart, and Teller describe the HUL approach as moving “beyond the preservation of the physical environment” to encompass “the entire human environment with all of its tangible and intangible qualities” [43] (p. 1001). By integrating heritage conservation into comprehensive urban planning, the HUL framework and its six-step process aim to foster environments where cultural heritage and modern urban needs coexist harmoniously, promoting sustainable development that respects and enhances the unique historical character of urban areas while acknowledging the dynamic and multifaceted nature of urban environments. This iterative and participatory process enables cities to reconcile heritage conservation with dynamic urban change.

In their 2020 study, Rey-Pérez and Pereira Roders conducted a systematic review to evaluate the academic community’s understanding and implementation of the HUL approach, highlighting its effectiveness in promoting sustainable urban development by advocating for the “integration of policies and practices of conservation of the built environment into the wider goals of urban development” [40] (p. 290). However, their review also reveals challenges in the practical application of the HUL approach. They note a lack of case studies demonstrating its implementation, stating that “while there is an abundance of theoretical research… the case studies which practically demonstrate the HUL approach and its six steps are scarce” [40] (p. 299). While the HUL approach provides a solid foundation for holistic urban management, scholars have identified limitations that necessitate further advancement. For instance, Pereira Roders and van Oers note its “integration into existing legal and administrative frameworks” [68] (p. 225) as one of the main implementation challenges, as well as the “lack of clear and practical guidelines for applying […] in diverse urban contexts” [68] (p. 227) coupled with “its application […] constrained by a lack of adequate resources, institutional support, and political will to fully integrate heritage conservation into urban development planning” [68] (p. 234). Therefore, to fully realise the potential of the HUL framework, it is imperative to evolve beyond its initial guidelines, incorporating innovative practices and policies that respond to contemporary urban complexities. This gap suggests a need for more empirical research to validate and refine the HUL methodology in diverse urban contexts for successful heritage-based urban development.

3.2. Towards Integrated Research Agendas for Heritage-Based Urban Development

An urban development approach—the process of planning, designing, and improving the overall growth of urban areas to create sustainable, functional, and liveable environments—stresses the need for collaboration across different sectors and actors. Urban heritage, with its inherent ability to connect diverse elements, has emerged as a pivotal resource in driving these “integrated” development processes. Its multifaceted nature, encompassing both tangible and intangible aspects, alongside community involvement and dynamic processes, makes urban heritage an essential tool for fostering a more holistic urban planning approach and a crucial component of sustainable and adaptive urban systems [44] (p. 22). To facilitate this objective, decision-makers require, first of all, a comprehensive grasp of the diverse array of values potentially existing within a specific landscape, their spatial distribution, and their intricate interplay. This is clearly demonstrated by the European Landscape Convention (2000), where participating nations commit to “recognise landscapes in law as an essential component of people’s surroundings, an expression of the diversity of their shared cultural and natural heritage, and a foundation of their identity” [69] (p. 89).

In the context of broadening the understanding of urban heritage, international publications such as UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape [1] and related United Nations agendas such as the “2030 Sustainable Development Goals” in 2015 [48] brought into question the relevance of limited focused assessments as tools for the holistic management of complex urban environments [67] (p. 58). More specifically, with a necessary first analysis of the evolution of a site and analysis of its context development over time, Arfa et al. propose conventional analytical methods that include archival and historiographical data (maps, drawings and photographs, and publications) but also suggest including interviews and visual observations of the heritage site [14] (p. 44). Beyond this, in “Discovering the assignment” [70], Roos introduces a framework in which all elements of importance from the existing site are documented and carefully balanced as a starting point for geographical, urban, and technical analysis. More recent research conducted by Misirlisoy and Günçe considers the many factors that affect the decision-making process in historic landscape evaluation and defines four types of analysis for a holistic approach from original functions, physical character, heritage values, and the needs of the district [71] (p. 94). A further example of note is the innovative approach of the Heritage Place Lab (HPL) initiative led by the ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property) and the IUCN’s (International Union for Conservation of Nature) World Heritage Leadership programme (WHL) in providing a platform for explorative management ideas. Ishizawa and Jo discuss the key findings of the pilot phase process (2021–2022) in their Guest Editorial “Towards practice-led research agendas for World Heritage properties” [72] for the Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development in relation to the rising interest in collaborating research from diverse disciplines which address cultural and natural heritage issues. Providing some background context to the HPL, they explain that “a more fluid dialogue between managers and researchers could bring benefits to both research projects and site management planning and implementation. Therefore […] applied research that focuses on site management has become critical […]” [72] (p. 406). In particular, the EOH Toolkit 2.0 designed twelve tools that were used during workshops to initiate collaborative efforts between researchers and managers, crafted to self-assess the management effectiveness of World Heritage properties. The application of the tools allowed for the determination of shortcomings in knowledge regarding values, attributes, governance, and factors affecting the heritage places and, consequently, to inform the research agendas of each property [72] (p. 407). A recent advancement is the publication by Ripp [44] titled A Metamodel for Heritage-based Urban Development that introduces a comprehensive framework aimed at integrating cultural heritage into sustainable urban development strategies. The model aligns with international policies, notably the 2011 Recommendation for Historic Urban Landscapes [1] and insights from the 2016 Urban Habitat III Conference [65], which recognise cultural heritage as a valuable and systemic asset for sustainable urban growth. The primary objective of this metamodel is to go beyond these and to provide a universally applicable tool that guides the incorporation of cultural heritage into urban development processes, offering a structured framework to design, evaluate, and enhance processes where heritage assets serve as the foundation for sustainable urban development.

Complementary, qualitative, and reflexive assessments will remain significant for future research for the development, implementation, and interpretation of effective urban heritage management systems. Such an all-encompassing management approach can be seen as fostering a constant realignment of values, thereby resulting in plans finely attuned to realising both enduring stewardship objectives and immediate developmental aims. The HUL approach currently provides the most well-informed and supportive framework for tackling modern challenges in urban governance [5] (p. 13). As urban management processes become increasingly complex, a more holistic and integrated approach is needed—one that involves all key stakeholders, from government authorities to local communities, in sharing both responsibilities and benefits. The final section aims to assess whether the development of historic urban landscapes today effectively addresses the multiple dimensions of the HUL approach—namely, its holistic, integrated, and value-based aspects—and whether it has evolved from a conceptual framework towards practical and heritage-based implementation.

To support clarity and consistency in the use of terminology throughout this discussion,

Table 1. Chronological and thematic overview of heritage concepts and associated frameworks.

Term	Definition	Key Documents/References
Landscape	A spatial and perceptual entity encompassing cultural, natural, and ecological dimensions, shaped over time and across scales.	Council of Europe European Landscape Convention (2000) [69]
Cultural Landscape	A landscape shaped by the interaction of people and nature over time, expressing cultural practices, values, and identity.	Sauer (1925) [10]; UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1992) [23]
Heritage Value	The multiple meanings and significances attributed to heritage by different stakeholders—social, cultural, economic, aesthetic, and spiritual.	Mason (2002) [28]; Stephenson (2008) [13]; Pereira Roders (2007) [29]; Faro Convention (2005) [42]
Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD)	A dominant heritage narrative privileging material authenticity, expert knowledge, and monumental value.	Smith (2006) [35]; ICOMOS Venice Charter (1964) [39]
Historic Urban Landscape (HUL)	An approach that considers historic cities as dynamic socio-spatial systems, integrating heritage into planning, resilience, and development.	UNESCO HUL Recommendation (2011) [1]; UNESCO Vienna Memorandum (2005) [60]; UNESCO Florence Declaration (2014) [63]
Value Mapping	A participatory process for identifying, documenting, and negotiating the plural values associated with heritage places.	Faro Convention (2005) [42]; Ginzarly et al. (2019) [43]; van der Hoeven (2020) [45]
Scoping	A foundational phase in HBUD involving the identification of heritage systems, values, and actors to shape planning logic and decision structures.	Ripp (2021) [44]; Ishizawa and Jo (2023) [72]
Participatory Governance	A model of heritage governance that includes communities and stakeholders in value production, planning, and decision-making.	Faro Convention (2005) [42]; New Urban Agenda (2016) [65]
Urban Resilience	The ability of cities to absorb disturbance, reorganise, and adapt while maintaining their essential identity and functions, including heritage systems.	Meerow et al. (2016) [49]; SHELTER Project (2021) [51]; European Green Deal (2019) [54]
Sustainability	A framework for development that balances cultural continuity, environmental integrity, and socio-economic well-being for present and future generations.	UN 2030 Agenda (2015) [48]; New Urban Agenda (2016) [65]; European Green Deal (2019) [54]
Heritage-Based Urban Development (HBUD)	An urban development model in which heritage systems and values form the basis of planning processes and policy interventions.	Ripp (2021) [44]; New Urban Agenda (2016) [65]

provides a structured overview of the key concepts underpinning the evolution from traditional heritage conservation to heritage-based urban development (HBUD). Ordered conceptually and historically, the table highlights how each term has emerged through critical shifts in international discourse, policy, and practice—from early landscape thinking to the integrated planning frameworks of HUL and the strategic application of heritage-based urban development.

4. Heritage-Based Development in Historic Urban Landscapes

Heritage-based urban development (HBUD) is a concept that has evolved significantly during the past decade. A number of projects have been implemented that are directly related to the publication of UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape [1] and urban development. The connection between these two emphasises a significant shift in comparison to more traditional approaches towards a heritage-based development. The transition from traditional heritage conservation to HBUD is rooted in the conceptual advancements introduced by the Historic urban landscape approach. As discussed in Section 3, the HUL framework reframed heritage as a dynamic, layered system embedded in broader urban processes—establishing the methodological and value-based foundation upon which HBUD has evolved. This final section builds on this by illustrating how heritage is mobilised as a structuring resource for urban growth.

Table 2. The evolution of heritage in urban development—from traditional conservation to HUL to HBUD.

Dimension	Traditional Approach	HUL Approach [1]	Heritage-Based Urban Development (HBUD)
Definition of Heritage	Monument-centric, material authenticity (WHC, 1972 [38]; Venice Charter, 1964 [39])	Historic urban landscape as socio-spatial palimpsest (UNESCO HUL Recommendation, 2011) [1]	Heritage as dynamic system of objects, processes, and actors (Ripp, 2021) [44]
Values Framework	Universal, expert-defined values (AHD—Smith, 2006 [35]; ICOMOS charters [39])	Plural, co-produced values integrating tangible/intangible heritage (Faro Convention, 2005) [42]	Strategic, negotiated values for development and identity (Ginzarly et al., 2019) [43]
Planning Integration	Conservation separated from urban growth	Heritage integrated into planning via mapping, assessment, and consensus (HUL 6-Step Process)	Development starts with heritage scoping and system analysis (Ripp & Scheffler, 2011) [73]
Governance and Participation	Expert-led, centralised	Participatory governance and stakeholder negotiation	Community-anchored decision-making and spatial visioning (van der Hoeven, 2020) [45]
Response to Change	Focus on protection from change	Heritage as adaptive tool for resilience and sustainability (SHELTER Projects [51]; ARCH [52])	Proactive heritage-led regeneration and climate adaptation (New European Bauhaus, 2021) [53]
Policy and Framework Support	World Heritage Convention (1972) [38]; Venice Charter (1964) [39]	UNESCO HUL Recommendation (2011) [1]; Faro Convention (2005) [42]; Vienna Memorandum (2005) [60]; URBACT HerO (2008) [61]; Valletta Principles (2011) [62]; Florence Declaration (2014) [63]	Ripp’s Metamodel (2021) [44]; New Urban Agenda (2016) [65]; European Green Deal (2019) [54]; New European Bauhaus (2021) [53]; European Cultural Heritage Green Paper (2020) [56]

below summarises this conceptual progression, highlighting how key elements of the HUL have contributed directly to the emergence of HBUD, supported by relevant international charters, policy frameworks, and development agendas.

Heritage-based urban development is a term that defines urban development activities that have historic urban landscapes as the starting point. The existing and specific historic urban landscape is analysed and valued at the very beginning of the urban development process as a resource and not (only) as an obstacle. Tools to implement the framework for development can include (world) heritage management plans [74,75] and a range spanning governance, strategic planning, regulatory mechanisms, and diagnostic assessment. While a detailed inventory is beyond the scope of this entry, extensive frameworks are available. UNESCO’s Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) Recommendation [1] and its accompanying HUL Guidebook from 2016 [76] offer a structured approach that integrates heritage into urban planning through mapping, stakeholder engagement, and adaptive governance. Similarly, Kalman [77] and the works of Bandarin and van Oers [3] provide typologies of planning instruments, assessment tools, and policy frameworks relevant to heritage-led regeneration. More recently, the CURE (Culture in City Reconstruction and Recovery) framework from UNESCO and the World Bank in 2021 [78] and ICOMOS’ Policy Guidance on Heritage and the SDGs in 2022 [79] have expanded the HBUD toolkit by linking cultural heritage explicitly to resilience, post-crisis recovery, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. For a comparative analysis of global case studies applying such tools, see also Labadi and Logan [80].

In contrast to earlier approaches where the concept was to obtain “balance” between development and preservation [81,82], the idea of the heritage-based urban development approach in line with the historic urban landscape [1] framework includes starting with cultural heritage in the development process rather than “integrating” it in development processes. Here, we must also acknowledge that there is a significant difference between urban transformation and urban development [82]. The starting with Heritage in historic urban landscape development specifically means to begin with a proper scoping [44] of the existing historic urban landscape system by obtaining an understanding of its nature, location, and its parts. Scoping according to Ripp is a first pre-phase before a project, e.g., heritage-based urban development, is actually started. Prior to the start of the processes of heritage-based urban development, scoping, which is ideally not performed by only one person but involves a conjoint action, defines the architecture of the processes for which all steps require different knowledge and skills [44] (p. 128). An analysis of the existing heritage system can then provide clues on its values, qualities, and potential as a resource for urban development. According to Ripp [44], the scoping phase is foundational to the entire process of heritage-based urban development as it sets the structural and procedural framework upon which all subsequent actions depend. The outputs of this phase include the identification of relevant stakeholders and the definition of both the temporal and financial frameworks. Additionally, it involves recognising potential supporters and external partners and evaluating what kind of external support might be necessary throughout the process. A communication strategy is formulated at this stage, alongside the selection of a key actor or driver to lead the process. Practical organisational aspects are considered, such as meeting locations, frequency, moderation techniques, and facilitation methodologies. Finally, the scoping phase addresses how the heritage-based urban development process can be effectively embedded within existing institutional and decision-making structures, ensuring long-term viability and integration into the urban governance framework.

As one of the key tools in the process, city-specific heritage management plans are increasingly intertwined with urban development to ensure that cultural heritage preservation aligns with contemporary urban needs. In Ballarat, Australia, the city became the first local government to pilot UNESCO’s historic urban landscape (HUL) approach in 2013 [6]. The Mapping Ballarat’s Historic Urban Landscape [83] project was initiated to develop and outline a comprehensive approach to understanding and managing the city’s evolving landscape, ensuring that future development aligns with its historical and cultural values while accommodating change in a sustainable way. The overarching aim was to conduct an evidence-based, holistic, integrated, and community-led analysis of Ballarat, culminating in a Statement of Significance that will guide the development of effective management tools to ensure the preservation of valued elements within Ballarat’s landscape. Key components included Understanding Community Values, Mapping and Recording Values, Anticipating and Managing Change, and Developing Management Tools.

The document emphasises two stages to the process: Stage 1 is exploratory, setting the foundation for a more detailed analysis in Stage 2. Stage 1 serves the goal of providing an indicative characterisation of Ballarat’s historic urban landscape, while this characterisation will be tested and refined in Stage 2, leading to a comprehensive Statement of Significance and the development of urban landscape management tools. Some examples of activities in Stage 1 include exploring distinctiveness, developing a characterisation framework, and designing a methodology framework for Stage 2 [83] (p. 3). Overall, Ballarat’s structured approach to understanding and managing its historic urban landscape emphasises community engagement, comprehensive mapping, proactive change management, and the development of tailored management tools based on heritage as a starting point.

Some other examples of note are as follows: In Suzhou, China, Jiang et al. [4] discuss a detailed approach to heritage-based urban development. Specific actions include conducting comprehensive surveys of cultural heritage resources to inform urban planning, implementing zoning regulations that protect historical areas while allowing for appropriate development, and engaging residents in decision-making processes to ensure that development projects respect cultural values. Suzhou’s strategy highlights a layered approach to urban planning that preserves historic sites while accommodating modern infrastructure needs.

Genoa and Bologna, Italy, have implemented strategic urban policies to base urban development on heritage conservation. In Genoa, this approach combines various funding sources and planning programmes to effectively regenerate historic areas [7] (p. 9). Meanwhile, Bologna’s municipal structural plan has been updated to reconsider the role of historic centres within contemporary urban contexts, emphasising their “structural” function with urban development strategies [7] (p. 11).

These examples demonstrate that aligning heritage management with urban development by founding urban planning on heritage involves tailored strategies that consider each city’s unique context. Approaches such as community engagement, research collaborations, policy integration, and strategic urban policies contribute to heritage-based urban development that respects and preserves cultural heritage within its context [84].

5. Conclusions

Historic urban landscapes represent a heritage system which is defined by a variety of different elements and processes. They can also be understood as a resource for sustainable development.

This entry emphasises the significance of cultural heritage as both a valuable asset and a defining feature of urban environments, particularly from a development perspective. It highlights the need for a comprehensive strategy to tackle the modern challenge of preserving and managing historic urban landscapes while also accommodating the inevitable changes driven by socio-economic progress. Initially framed by a static, monument-focused perspective, heritage was predominantly treated as a constraint to be managed within urban development. The historic urban landscape approach marked a turning point, introducing a systemic understanding of historic urban environments as layered sociocultural, ecological, and economic systems. It redefined heritage as a living, adaptive resource and developed tools—such as its six-step methodology—to embed heritage within broader urban planning and governance frameworks.

Building on this foundation, heritage-based urban development advances the discourse by positioning heritage not only as a component of development but as the starting point for shaping inclusive, sustainable, and resilient urban futures. It formalises the use of heritage systems in planning logics and decision architectures, supported by case-based scoping, participatory engagement, and context-responsive policy alignment. The transition from HUL to HBUD represents not merely an extension but a reorientation of urban development—where cultural memory, community value, and long-term transformation are equally foundational.

This progression, as demonstrated throughout the entry, underscores the emergence of heritage as a proactive, strategic asset in urban governance—grounded in a systemic perspective. Methodologically, HBUD is carefully structured and grounded in historical, cultural, and forward-looking values.