Main Article Content
This study aims to emphasize the growing importance of Heritage Impact Assessment in managing world cultural heritage, as it faces various challenges posed by urban development policies. Heritage Impact Assessment is seen as a crucial tool for achieving the balance between preserving cultural heritage and fostering development. The study focuses on the outcomes of the application of Heritage Impact Assessment in five world cultural heritage sites, each facing unique development projects, located in different countries. A case study research method was adopted to provide an in-depth analysis within specific contexts. The results were obtained through a comparative qualitative analysis, which aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the correlation between the timing of implementation and its connection to the efficacy of the evaluation. The results showed that the timing of the implementation of Heritage Impact Assessment can have a significant impact on the final outcome of the evaluation but other factors also play a role, adequate methodology, contextual, and institutional factors. The results demonstrated the two-fold nature of heritage impact assessment, dependent on the time of application: proactive assessment, which helps enhance the world heritage's resilience and prepare it for future development initiatives, and curative assessment, which serves as a corrective measure for specific projects.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2. Ashrafi, B., Kloos, M., & Neugebauer, C. (2021). Her-itage Impact Assessment: Beyond a Assessment Tool: A comparative analysis of the impact of urban development on visual integrity in four UNESCO World Heritage Properties. Journal of Cultural Herit-age, 47, 199-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2020.08.002
3. Ashrafi, B., Neugebauer, C., & Kloos, M. (2021). A Conceptual Framework for Heritage Impact Assess-ment: A Review and Perspective. Sustainability, 14(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010027
4. Belčáková, I., Gazzola, P., & Pauditšová, E. (2019). Landscape Impact Assessment in Planning Process-es. In Landscape Impact Assessment in Planning Processes. De Gruyter Open Poland.
5. De Meur, G., Rihoux, B., & Yamasaki, S. (2002). Com-parative Quali-Quantitative Analysis (AQQC-QCA): Approach, Techniques and Applications in the Hu-manities.
6. Fleming, A. (2011). Assessing Impacts: A Construc-tive Relationship between Heritage Conservation and Development. Proceedings of the Heritage In-ternational Conference on Conservation and Devel-opment—Partners or Rivals.
7. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.
8. Gagnon, Y. C. (2012). Case Study as a Research Method. PUQ.
9. ICOMOS (2011). Guidelines for Heritage Impact Studies for World Cultural Heritage Sites [https://www.icomos.org/]
10. ICOMOS (2015). Heritage Impact Assessment Ap-plied to World Cultural Heritage Sites [https://whc.unesco.org/document/139488]
11. Jo, E., Mackay, R., Murai, M., & Therivel, R. (2022). Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments in a World Heritage Context. UNESCO Publishing.
12. Jokilehto, J. (2006). Considerations on Authenticity and Integrity in a World Heritage Context. City & Time, 2(1)
13. Kloos, M. (2017). Heritage Impact Assessments as an Advanced Tool for a Sustainable Management of Cultural UNESCO World Heritage Sites: From Theory to Practice. In M.-T. Albert, F. Bandarin, & A. Pereira Roders (Eds.), Going Beyond (pp. 335-350). Spring-er International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57165-2_24
14. Legewie, N. (2013, September). An introduction to applied data analysis with qualitative comparative analysis. In Forum Qualitative Sozi-alforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Re-search (Vol. 14, No. 3).
15. Patiwael, P. R., Groote, P., & Vanclay, F. (2019). Im-proving Heritage Impact Assessment: An Analytical Critique of the ICOMOS Guidelines. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25(4), 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1477057
16. Patiwael, P. R., Groote, P., & Vanclay, F. (2020a). The influence of framing on the legitimacy of impact as-sessment: Examining the heritage impact assess-ments conducted for the Liverpool Waters project. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(4), 308‑319.
17. Patiwael, P. R., Groote, P., & Vanclay, F. (2020b). The influence of framing on the legitimacy of impact as-sessment: Examining the heritage impact assess-ments conducted for the Liverpool Waters project. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(4), 308‑319. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2020.1734402
18. Pereira Roders, A., & van Oers, R. (2012). Guidance on heritage impact assessments: Learning from its application on World Heritage site management. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sus-tainable Development, 2(2), 104‑114. https://doi.org/10.1108/20441261211273671
19. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Mov-ing beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley,1987, p.137
20. Rihoux, B., & De Meur, G. (2009). Crisp-set qualita-tive comparative analysis (csQCA). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques, 51, 33‑68.
21. Roders, A., Bond, A., & Teller, J. (2013). Determining effectiveness in heritage impact assessments. In IAIA 2013 Conference Proceedings. Impact As-sessment the Next Generation 33rd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assess-ment.
22. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Re-search methods for business students. Pearson edu-cation.
23. Seyedashrafi, B., Ravankhah, M., Weidner, S., & Schmidt, M. (2017). Applying Heritage Impact As-sessment to urban development: World Heritage property of Masjed-e Jame of Isfahan in Iran. Sus-tainable Cities and Society, 31, 213‑224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.01.002
24. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. sage.
25. Tara, A. (2017). Measuring visual attributes for as-sessing visual conflicts in urban environments. PhD, Queensland University of Technology.
26. Thiem, A., & Duşa, A. (2013). Boolean minimization in social science research: A review of current soft-ware for Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Social Science Computer Review, 31(4), 505-521.
27. Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, dis-course, and structure. Qualitative inquiry, 17(6), 511-521.
28. UNESCO. (1972). Convention concerning the Protec-tion of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage the General Conference of UNESCO adopted on 16 No-vember 1972 [http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention]
29. UNESCO. (2005). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention p.15 [https://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-fr.pdf]
30. UNESCO. (2010). The Kasbah of Algiers, UED. [Online]. https://whc.unesco.org/fr/list/565
31. UNESCO. (2012a). Villa Adriana (Tivoli), Periodic Reporting Cycle 2, Section II [https://whc.unesco.org/fr/list/907/documents]
32. UNESCO. (2012a). Villa Adriana (Tivoli), State of Conservation [https://whc.unesco.org/fr/soc/124]
33. UNESCO. (2013a). The Kasbah of Algiers, State of Conservation [https://whc.unesco.org/fr/soc/1891]
34. UNESCO. (2013b). Meidan Emam, Esfahan, State of conservation [https://whc.unesco.org/fr/soc/1956]
35. UNESCO. (2015a). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention [https://whc.unesco.org/fr/orientations/]
36. UNESCO. (2015b). The Kasbah of Algiers, State of Conservation.
37. UNESCO. (2015c). Meidan Emam, Esfahan [https://whc.unesco.org/fr/decisions/6407]
38. UNESCO. (2015c). WHC-15/39.COM/7, 2015 [https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2015/whc15-39com-7-en.pdf]
39. UNESCO. (2016). Adoption of retrospective State-ments of Outstanding Universal Value.
40. UNESCO. (2017). Towards an Integrated Approach to Heritage and Environmental Impact Assessments [https://whc.unesco.org/document/167397]
41. UNESCO. (2019). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paragraph 49 of the UNESCO Guidelines, 2019, p.21 [https://whc.unesco.org/fr/orientations/]
42. UNESCO. (2021a). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
43. UNESCO. (2021b). Report of the decisions adopted at the 44th session of the World Heritage Commit-tee.
44. UNESCO. (2021c). Liverpool - Merchant Port [Online].
45. WHITRAP & ICCROM. (2020). Impact Assessment for World Heritage. Webinaire[ https://whc.unesco.org/fr/list/1150/documents/]
46. WHITRAP. (2012). Heritage impact assess-ments[http://www.whitr-ap.org/]
47. Woodside, A. G., & Wilson, E. J. (2003). Case study research methods for theory building. Journal of business & industrial marketing, 18(6/7), 493-508.
48. Yilmaz, Y., & Gamil, R. E. (2018). The Role of Herit-age Impact Assessment in Safeguarding World Her-itage Sites: Application Study on Historic Areas of Is-tanbul and Giza Pyramids. Journal of Heritage Man-agement, 3(2), 127‑158. https://doi.org/10.1177/2455929619833198