Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Jie Zhang
 -- 1159 2023-12-09 05:30:18 |
2 format correct
Catherine Yang
 Meta information modification 1159 2023-12-11 02:13:14 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
He, D.; Hu, J.; Zhang, J. Sustainable Development Suitability in Linear Cultural Heritage. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52542 (accessed on 28 April 2024).
He D, Hu J, Zhang J. Sustainable Development Suitability in Linear Cultural Heritage. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52542. Accessed April 28, 2024.
He, Ding, Jingchong Hu, Jie Zhang. "Sustainable Development Suitability in Linear Cultural Heritage" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52542 (accessed April 28, 2024).
He, D., Hu, J., & Zhang, J. (2023, December 09). Sustainable Development Suitability in Linear Cultural Heritage. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52542
He, Ding, et al. "Sustainable Development Suitability in Linear Cultural Heritage." Encyclopedia. Web. 09 December, 2023.
Sustainable Development Suitability in Linear Cultural Heritage
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/land12091761

Heritage area development assessments can increase public and government knowledge of the state of heritage areas and aid decision makers in formulating sensible policies or plans to protect and develop heritage areas. The valley is the spatial model of mountain economic development proposed on the basis of a basin combined with the ecological protection, rural development, and cultural inheritance present in mountainous areas.

sustainable development suitability linear cultural heritage analytic hierarchy process

1. Introduction

Linear cultural heritage (LCH) is a cultural heritage collection in a linear geographic space characterized by a sizeable spatial span, thematic prominence, and cultural diversity. LCH can be traced back to historical trails [1], cultural routes [2], and heritage corridors [3][4], and it now encompasses canals, railroads, linear defenses, and other linear features [5][6][7]. Assessing LCH development status and strategies to achieve sustainable development has become increasingly significant [8]. Since the development of LCH involves complex factors, such as cultural preservation, ecological sensitivity, and economic base, and is unevenly distributed geographically, it is necessary to establish comprehensive assessment indicators and scientific evaluation methods to aid decision makers in formulating differentiated spatial development strategies. However, most existing studies have focused on ecological reserves, agricultural land, urban land, and other objects, and LCH has not been evaluated with regard to its suitability for sustainable development [9][10].

2. Status of Sustainable Development Research Regarding Linear Cultural Heritage

Due to the large-scale spatial pattern and the integration of conservation management policies across administrative regions, the LCH process of sustainable development faces the following challenging issues [4][6][7][11][12]: 1. the construction of large-scale infrastructure and rapid urbanization have caused widespread threats and damage to cultural heritage; 2. excessive tourism development has resulted in ecological degradation in some areas; 3. the uneven economic development of heritage areas has resulted in overdevelopment in some areas and population loss and even poverty in other areas. Therefore, the academic community ought to concentrate on the sustainable development of LCH to determine development strategies suitable for the unique conditions of various regions.
In recent years, numerous researchers have established a variety of heritage assessment models that have been continually upgraded and refined. In addition to tourism value assessment [5][13] and risk assessment [14], vulnerability and resilience assessment [15][16] and sustainable development [17][18] have been studied. Researchers have examined urban areas, watersheds, and heritage areas within ecological reserves [7][19][20]. Božić et al. established the cultural route evaluation model (CREM) using the “Roman Emperor’s Route” in Serbia as an example based on the main value and added value [21]; Ferretti and Comino proposed the multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) evaluation method and used Italy’s “La Mandria” Natural Park as an example of a sustainable solution for the management of a complex heritage system [22]. However, few studies have been conducted to assess the SDS of LCH, resulting in a lack of evidence required to formulate pertinent policies.
The national cultural park is a proposed concept and policy instrument for local practice in China for LCH, and its implementation includes the Great Wall, the Grand Canal, and the Long March route [23]. However, most current planning decisions regarding national cultural sites, such as the Great Wall and the Grand Canal, are based on qualitative research or empirical judgments, with few decisions made and support given based on quantitative research [24]. The absence of a quantitative assessment research process precludes a comprehensive evaluation of the impact factors on heritage areas and an integrated balancing of the various factors. Therefore, the current LCH planning policy selects priority development areas without a comprehensive potential study or identifying different development types due to spatial variability and differences in the different dimensions (ecological, cultural, and socio-economic) along the route. Therefore, establishing an objective sustainable development suitability assessment system based on quantitative and qualitative research methodologies is crucial to enabling a more scientific approach to preserving and developing cultural resources.

3. Sustainable Development Suitability of Linear Cultural Heritage

Development suitability is a prerequisite for regional economic development. Development suitability analysis is a mapping process used by urban and rural planners to find the most suitable area for each decision, and it has growing importance in supporting and informing the promotion of cultural resource conservation, ecological improvement, and economic development growth in heritage regions [9][25]. The United Nations’ 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) call for a more excellent balance between sustainable development’s economic, social, and environmental dimensions [18][26]. Due to the complexity and breadth of LCH’s sustainable development, which results from the interaction between three dimensions—cultural heritage resources, socio-economic components, and natural environment—a system that can assess the SDS of LCH is required.
In recent years, scholars have made many efforts to examine the achievement of the SDGs in heritage areas. Bassily connected architectural heritage to the Sustainable Development Goals and documented how various architectural heritage sites contribute to sustainable development [27]. Naheed emphasized the connection between cultural heritage and urban sustainable development and its role in urban planning [28]. Guzman connected SDG11 and SDG13 to evaluate the potential correlation between development factors and the preservation of urban cultural heritage using local indicators [29]. To assess the sustainability of LCH, however, there are still preliminary studies that combine various dimensions (i.e., cultural, socio-economic, and ecological). 

4. Method for Determining LCH Sustainable Development Suitability

The implementation of an LCH sustainable development suitability assessment involves a multi-criteria decision-making process (MCDM) requiring most stakeholders and professionals to establish normative guidelines [30][31]. In the case of the heritage area SDS assessment, consensus-based approaches are best suited to the development of rating-based assessment frameworks, especially if multiple dimensions need to be considered. In the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), pairwise comparisons are used to determine the relative significance of the various elements at each level of the hierarchy. Such comparisons can also be used to evaluate options at the lowest level of the hierarchy to ensure that the best decision can be made among multiple options, thereby transforming subjective opinions into objective measures for decision makers [32][33]. AHP has been applied in areas such as urban planning, environmental sciences, tourism management, and agriculture [34][35][36][37]. Despite concerns regarding the uncertainty of the AHP, the majority of studies have demonstrated that the AHP-generated suitability maps are not significantly different from those generated via other methods at the final step [9][38]. AHP is still an effective technique in terms of evaluating heritage areas, particularly in multi-dimensional and multi-indicator studies, because, in addition to its simplicity and adaptability, it requires fewer skills than other techniques [39][40]. In this study, AHP was used to determine the allocation of indicator weights in the SDS assessment procedure.
In multipurpose spatial decision-making studies, the combined GIS and AHP approach can select areas based on various objectives and criteria and support decision-making in heritage and regional planning [9][20]. However, most studies lack the consideration of complex spatial characteristics or disregard the variability in different regions after conducting a global assessment; therefore, this study employs a triangle illustration method to examine the suitability typology of internal regions after conducting a sustainability suitability assessment of LCH. This integrated method helps us to identify suitable areas for development and corresponding development strategies [37].

References

  1. Wu, Z.; Ma, J.; Zhang, H. Spatial Reconstruction and Cultural Practice of Linear Cultural Heritage: A Case Study of Meiguan Historical Trail, Guangdong, China. Buildings 2022, 13, 105.
  2. Oikonomopoulou, E.; Delegou, E.T.; Sayas, J.; Moropoulou, A. An innovative approach to the protection of cultural heritage: The case of cultural routes in Chios Island, Greece. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2017, 14, 742–757.
  3. Chen, Y.; Dang, A.; Peng, X. Building a cultural heritage corridor based on geodesign theory and methodology. J. Urban Manag. 2014, 3, 97–112.
  4. Li, H.; Jing, J.; Fan, H.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Ren, J. Identifying cultural heritage corridors for preservation through multidimensional network connectivity analysis—A case study of the ancient Tea-Horse Road in Simao, China. Landsc. Res. 2021, 46, 96–115.
  5. Zhang, S.; Liu, J.; Pei, T.; Chan, C.-S.; Wang, M.; Meng, B. Tourism value assessment of linear cultural heritage: The case of the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal in China. Curr. Issues Tour. 2023, 26, 47–69.
  6. Jiang, P.; Shao, L.; Baas, C. Interpretation of value advantage and sustainable tourism development for railway heritage in China Based on the analytic hierarchy process. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6492.
  7. Li, L.; Feng, R.; Xi, J. Ecological risk assessment and protection zone identification for linear cultural heritage: A case study of the Ming Great Wall. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11605.
  8. Vecco, M.; Srakar, A. The unbearable sustainability of cultural heritage: An attempt to create an index of cultural heritage sustainability in conflict and war regions. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 33, 293–302.
  9. Bamrungkhul, S.; Tanaka, T. The assessment of land suitability for urban development in the anticipated rapid urbanization area from the Belt and Road Initiative: A case study of Nong Khai City, Thailand. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 83, 103988.
  10. Akbari, M.; Neamatollahi, E.; Neamatollahi, P. Evaluating land suitability for spatial planning in arid regions of eastern Iran using fuzzy logic and multi-criteria analysis. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 98, 587–598.
  11. Boley, B.B.; Johnson Gaither, C. Exploring empowerment within the Gullah Geechee cultural heritage corridor: Implications for heritage tourism development in the Lowcountry. J. Herit. Tour. 2016, 11, 155–176.
  12. Zheng, D.; Liang, Z.; Ritchie, B.W. Residents’ social dilemma in sustainable heritage tourism: The role of social emotion, efficacy beliefs and temporal concerns. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1782–1804.
  13. Ristić, D.; Vukoičić, D.; Nikolić, M.; Božović, S.; Milinčić, M. Tourism value assessment model of ‘UNESCO-listed’monasteries: Kosovo and Metohija. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 2098–2102.
  14. Yang, J.; You, Y.; Ye, X.; Lin, J. Cultural heritage sites risk assessment based on RS and GIS—Takes the Fortified Manors of Yongtai as an example. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023, 88, 103593.
  15. Calgaro, E.; Lloyd, K.; Dominey-Howes, D. From vulnerability to transformation: A framework for assessing the vulnerability and resilience of tourism destinations. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 341–360.
  16. Hu, H.; Qiao, X.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, L. Developing a resilience evaluation index for cultural heritage site: Case study of Jiangwan Town in China. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 26, 15–29.
  17. Niu, S.; Lau, S.S.Y.; Shen, Z.; Lau, S.S.Y. Sustainability issues in the industrial heritage adaptive reuse: Rethinking culture-led urban regeneration through Chinese case studies. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2018, 33, 501–518.
  18. Cucco, P.; Maselli, G.; Nesticò, A.; Ribera, F. An evaluation model for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage in accordance with 2030 SDGs and European Quality Principles. J. Cult. Herit. 2023, 59, 202–216.
  19. Ost, C. Inclusive economic development in the urban heritage context. In World Heritage and Sustainable Development; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 53–67.
  20. Nicu, I.C. Cultural heritage assessment and vulnerability using Analytic Hierarchy Process and Geographic Information Systems (Valea Oii catchment, North-eastern Romania). An approach to historical maps. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 20, 103–111.
  21. Božić, S.; Tomić, N. Developing the Cultural Route Evaluation Model (CREM) and its application on the Trail of Roman Emperors, Serbia. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016, 17, 26–35.
  22. Ferretti, V.; Comino, E. An integrated framework to assess complex cultural and natural heritage systems with Multi-Attribute Value Theory. J. Cult. Herit. 2015, 16, 688–697.
  23. Li, F.; Zou, T. National Culture Park: Logical, origins and implications. Tour. Trib 2021, 36, 14–26.
  24. Mei, Y.; Yao, X.; Liu, X. Analysis on the Cognition of National Culture Park from the Perspective of Cultural Value: Reflections Based on the Practice of the Grand Canal National Culture Park. Mod. Urban Res. 2021, 7, 7–11.
  25. Kazemi, F.; Hosseinpour, N. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis for urban agriculture development based on pollution distributions. Land Use Policy 2022, 123, 106426.
  26. Jayasooria, D. Sustainable development goals and social work: Opportunities and challenges for social work practice in Malaysia. J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work 2016, 1, 19–29.
  27. Bassily, V.; Abufarag, T.; Goubran, S. Heritage Buildings’ Façades as Facilitators for Local Sustainable Development: The Case of Cairo’s El Korba Area. Heritage 2022, 5, 2689–2731.
  28. Naheed, S.; Shooshtarian, S. The role of cultural heritage in promoting urban sustainability: A brief review. Land 2022, 11, 1508.
  29. Guzman, P. Assessing the sustainable development of the historic urban landscape through local indicators. Lessons from a Mexican World Heritage City. J. Cult. Herit. 2020, 46, 320–327.
  30. Della Spina, L. Adaptive sustainable reuse for cultural heritage: A multiple criteria decision aiding approach supporting urban development processes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1363.
  31. Lazar, N.; Chithra, K. A comprehensive literature review on development of Building Sustainability Assessment Systems. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101450.
  32. Ma, H.; Li, S.; Chan, C.-S. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)-based assessment of the value of non-World Heritage Tulou: A case study of Pinghe County, Fujian Province. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 26, 67–77.
  33. Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98.
  34. Awad, J.; Jung, C. Extracting the planning elements for sustainable urban regeneration in Dubai with AHP (analytic hierarchy process). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 76, 103496.
  35. Kittipongvises, S.; Phetrak, A.; Rattanapun, P.; Brundiers, K.; Buizer, J.L.; Melnick, R. AHP-GIS analysis for flood hazard assessment of the communities nearby the world heritage site on Ayutthaya Island, Thailand. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 48, 101612.
  36. Zabihi, H.; Alizadeh, M.; Wolf, I.D.; Karami, M.; Ahmad, A.; Salamian, H. A GIS-based fuzzy-analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP) for ecotourism suitability decision making: A case study of Babol in Iran. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 36, 100726.
  37. Peng, J.; Liu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Hu, X.; Wang, A. Multifunctionality assessment of urban agriculture in Beijing City, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 537, 343–351.
  38. Foroozesh, F.; Monavari, S.M.; Salmanmahiny, A.; Robati, M.; Rahimi, R. Assessment of sustainable urban development based on a hybrid decision-making approach: Group fuzzy BWM, AHP, and TOPSIS–GIS. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 76, 103402.
  39. Pinero, I.; San-Jose, J.T.; Rodriguez, P.; Losanez, M.M. Multi-criteria decision-making for grading the rehabilitation of heritage sites. Application in the historic center of La Habana. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 26, 144–152.
  40. Nadkarni, R.R.; Puthuvayi, B. A comprehensive literature review of Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods in heritage buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101814.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Architecture And Design; Asian Studies; Regional & Urban Planning
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Ding He
,
Jingchong Hu
,
Jie Zhang
View Times: 183
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 11 Dec 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback