Framing the Values of Vernacular Architecture for a Value-Based Conservation: A Conceptual Framework

Abstract

While a growing number of researchers have provided series of tough critiques of the typology-led heritage value assessment over the recent years, the impacts have been constrained by the continued obsession with expanding the list of the predetermined value typologies rather than escaping its limitations. While these sustained debates have provided important insights, this article argues that operationalizing these predetermined ‘one-size-fits-all’ value typologies is symptomatic of a number of shortcomings, especially in the context of capturing the pluralities of values in contextualized heritage such as vernacular architecture. It also often undermines inclusivity and participation in the valuing processes. However, rather than simply rejecting the values-based paradigm, this article proposes a conceptual value assessment framework that is informed by the theorization of vernacular architecture as a contextualized heritage. The proposed Vernacular Value Model (VVM) puts forward the ‘when(s)’ and ‘how(s)’ of amalgamating both technical and normative processes to capture the range of contextual values present in built vernacular heritage. To this end, this article posits that by drawing on such a proposed flexible framework, the conservation strategy for built vernacular heritage can be propagated as an inclusive and participatory process which captures the wide range of values for a more sustainable practices for conservation.

Computation of heritage values: Towards a holistic method to assess built heritage

“…Research compiled by Mason [13], Yung and Chan [14], de la Torre [11], Doğan [15], Chen and Li [16] and Olukoya [17] formed the basis for Table 1. In this quantitative overview, 37 leading sources from the turn of the twentieth century were classified in terms of the following value typologies: 1) spiritual/religious, 2) cultural/symbolic, 3) social/community, 4) political, 5) anthropological (archaeological and environmental), 6) typological/townscape, 7) contextual, 8) historic, 9) rarity, 10) prestige/legacy, 11) commemorative, 12) aesthetic/artistic, 13) architectural, 14) scientific/structural, 15) technical/constructional, 16) economic, 17) option, 18) use, 19) tourism, 20) evidential, 21) educational, 22) newness, 23) ecological/landscape, and 24) authenticity.…”

A Sustainable Proposal for a Cultural Heritage Declaration in Ecuador: Vernacular Housing of Portoviejo

“…These include solutions for the conservation of cultural heritage [4], digital management methods [5,6], the need for funding heritage projects [7], indicators of vulnerability and risk [8], as well as multi-threat studies of cultural heritage [9][10][11]. For the present work, progress is also being made in creating theoretical frameworks for conserving vernacular houses based on values [12,13].…”

A non-destructive method for fixing placards with masonry structures

“…This practice is destructive and causes irreversible damage to the building fabric, as well as having indisputable aesthetic impacts, especially problematic with culturally significant heritage buildings. Based on a qualitative overview of heritage value typologies covered by leading publications (notably by Mason [5], Yung and Chan [6], de la Torre [7], Doğan [8], Chen and Li [9] and Olukoya [10]), the most important markers of the heritage value of a building is its aesthetic/artistic qualities, followed by its historic, cultural/symbolic, social/community and economic value [11].…”