Using natural language processing to identify and evaluate heritage value for buffer zone delineation in Hengdaohezi Town
Source abstract
Abstract
Understanding the value of urban heritage and protecting it effectively has become an increasingly significant challenge for many heritage cities. However, current buffer zone methods often lack comprehensive assessment and merely impose rigid boundaries around built heritage. Here, based on natural language processing, we extracted 17 value themes across 4 value aspects from 960 conservation documents and established a heritage value evaluation system comprising 11 factors. The effectiveness of this approach was demonstrated through a case study of conservation practices in Hengdaohezi Town, China. By quantifying and scoring over 180 heritage attributes and generating value assessment maps, we delineated a conservation core zone covering 22.97 hectares and a development control area covering 34.28 hectares. This study systematically examines a broader range of heritage attributes and their values, offering more precise delineation criteria and reducing the subjectivity of previous conservation practices.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geographic Information Systems Studies · Text and Document Classification Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (52)
Show source-provided references
1. Ashrafi, B., Kloos, M. & Neugebauer, C. Heritage Impact Assessment, beyond an Assessment Tool: A comparative analysis of urban development impact on visual integrity in four UNESCO World Heritage Properties. J. Cult. Herit. 47, 199–207, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2020.08.002 (2021).10.1016/j.culher.2020.08.002 ↗
2. ICOMOS. the Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments, https://civvih.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-Athens-Charter_1931.pdf (1931).
3. Sustainable Development Goal 11.4, https://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/sustainable-development-goal-11-4 (2023).
4. ICOMOS. the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/venice_e.pdf (1964).
5. UNESCO WHC. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000082464 (1954).
6. Garrod, B. & Fyall, A. Managing heritage tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 27, 682–708, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(99)00094-8 (2000).10.1016/s0160-7383(99)00094-8 ↗
7. Tweed, C. & Sutherland, M. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83, 62–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.008 (2007).10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.008 ↗
8. Vecco, M. A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. J. Cult. Herit. 11, 321–324, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006 (2010).10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006 ↗
9. UNESCO WHC. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, https://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf (2005).
10. Court, S. et al. In a world heritage context. (UNESCO PublishGuidance and toolkit for impact assessments ing, 2022).
11. Merino del Río, R., Linares Gómez del Pulgar, M. & Tejedor Cabrera, A. Análisis de los procesos de territorialización en el bajo Guadalquivir a través de la cartografía histórica. EGA Rev. expr. gr.áf. arquit. 26, 102, https://doi.org/10.4995/ega.2021.14255 (2021).10.4995/ega.2021.14255 ↗
12. Ackerman, L. The evolution of heritage management: Thinking beyond site boundaries and buffer zones. Public Archaeol. 13, 113–122, https://doi.org/10.1179/1465518714z.00000000059 (2014).10.1179/1465518714z.00000000059 ↗
13. Krøgli, S. O., Dramstad, W. E. & Skar, B. World heritage and landscape change – heritage buildings and their changed visibility in the coastal landscape of Vega, Norway. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr. 69, 121–134, https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2015.1042910 (2015).10.1080/00291951.2015.1042910 ↗
14. 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 (Basel) 11, 666, https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050666 (2022).10.3390/land11050666 ↗
15. UNESCO WHC. World Heritage and Buffer Zones / Patrimoine mondial et zones tampons, https://whc.unesco.org/document/101965 (2009).
16. Lv, R., Liu, Y., Zhang, L. & Kong, D. Urban historic heritage buffer zone delineation: the case of Shedian. Herit. Sci. 10, 64, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-022-00702-9 (2022).10.1186/s40494-022-00702-9 ↗
17. Xu, Y., Tang, Y. & Zhang, L. Exploring the connotation of “Local Community” in ICOMOS discourse: a textual analysis based on authoritative documents. Herit. Sci. 12, 116, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-024-01222-4 (2024).10.1186/s40494-024-01222-4 ↗
18. Chami, M. F. & Kajiru, E. J. Assessment of 12 years (2011-2023) implementation of the 2003 UNESCO convention on safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) in Tanzania. Cogent. Arts Human. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2254044 (2023).10.1080/23311983.2023.2254044 ↗
19. Nunberg, S., Sanchez, S. A. & Eckelman, M. J. Sustainability Tools in Cultural Heritage: Life Cycle Assessment Examining Crates for Heritage Objects. J. Am. Inst. Conserv https://doi.org/10.1080/01971360.2023.2240996 (2024).10.1080/01971360.2023.2240996 ↗
20. Deák, B. et al. Contribution of cultural heritage values to steppe conservation on ancient burial mounds of Eurasia. Conserv. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14148 (2023).10.1111/cobi.14148 ↗
21. Keitumetse, S. O. et al. Exploring cultural values of African wetlands for sustainable conservation: Okavango Delta World Heritage Site, Botswana. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 13, 501–516, https://doi.org/10.1108/Jchmsd-09-2022-0167 (2023).10.1108/Jchmsd-09-2022-0167 ↗
22. Szromek, A. R. & Bugdol, M. An Attempt to Estimate the Social Value Resulting from Making Cultural Heritage Available in the Form of a Tourist Product. Herit.-Basel 6, 7427–7445, https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6120389 (2023).10.3390/heritage6120389 ↗
23. Abdullayev, S. F. & Abdullayev, S. S. Translation of Cultural Values in the Artistic Heritage of Traditional Applied Arts of Bukhara. Int J. Early Child Sp. 14, 7625–7636, https://doi.org/10.9756/Intjecse/V14i2.873 (2022).10.9756/Intjecse/V14i2.873 ↗
24. Tran, H. T. & Navrud, S. Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries. Aust. J. Agr. Resour. Ec 53, 327–343, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2009.00452.x (2009).10.1111/j.1467-8489.2009.00452.x ↗
25. Brinkley, C. & Stahmer, C. What Is in a Plan? Using Natural Language Processing to Read 461 California City General Plans. J. Plan Educ. Res 44, 632–648, https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x21995890 (2024).10.1177/0739456x21995890 ↗
26. Lindvall, C. et al. Natural Language Processing to Identify Advance Care Planning Documentation in a Multisite Pragmatic Clinical Trial. J. Pain. Symp. Manag 63, E29–E36, https://doi.org/10.1016/japainsymman.2021.06.025 (2022).10.1016/japainsymman.2021.06.025 ↗
27. Fu, X. Y., Li, C. S. & Zhai, W. Using Natural Language Processing to Read Plans A Study of 78 Resilience Plans From the 100 Resilient Cities Network. J. Am. Plann Assoc. 89, 107–119, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2022.2038659 (2023).10.1080/01944363.2022.2038659 ↗
28. Huo, Y. F., Tang, J., Pan, Y. H., Zeng, Y. F. & Cao, L. C. Learning a Planning Domain Model From Natural Language Process Manuals. IEEE Access 8, 143219–143232, https://doi.org/10.1109/Access.2020.3013237 (2020).10.1109/Access.2020.3013237 ↗
29. Fu, X. Y. Natural Language Processing in Urban Planning: A Research Agenda. J Plan Lit, https://doi.org/10.1177/08854122241229571 (2024).10.1177/08854122241229571 ↗
30. Chen, Y., Zhang, L. & Dong, Q. Using natural language processing to evaluate local conservation text: A study of 624 documents from 303 sites of the World Heritage Cities Programme. J. Cult. Herit. 70, 259–270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2024.09.011 (2024).10.1016/j.culher.2024.09.011 ↗
31. Zheng, Y. et al. A Natural Language Processing Model for Automated Organization and Analysis of Intangible Cultural Heritage. J. Organ End. User Com. https://doi.org/10.4018/Joeuc.349736 (2024).10.4018/Joeuc.349736 ↗
32. UNESCO WHC. Managing Historic Cities / Gérer les villes historiques. (UNESCO Publishing, 2010).
33. UNESCO WHC. Decisions Adopted at the 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee (Quebec City, 2008).
34. UNESCO WHC. Format for the nomination of properties for inscription on the World Heritage List, https://whc.unesco.org/document/191594 (2005).
35. Brinkley, C. & Stahmer, C. What Is in a Plan? Using Natural Language Processing to Read 461 California City General Plans. J. Plan Educ. Res 0, 0739456X21995890, https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x21995890 (2021).10.1177/0739456x21995890 ↗
36. Mankad, S., Hu, S. & Gopal, A. SINGLE STAGE PREDICTION WITH EMBEDDED TOPIC MODELING OF ONLINE REVIEWS FOR MOBILE APP MANAGEMENT. Ann. Appl. Stat. 12, 2279–2311, https://doi.org/10.1214/18-aoas1152 (2018).10.1214/18-aoas1152 ↗
37. Fang, Y., Tan, H. & Zhang, J. Multi-Strategy Sentiment Analysis of Consumer Reviews Based on Semantic Fuzziness. IEEE Access 6, 20625–20631, https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2018.2820025 (2018).10.1109/access.2018.2820025 ↗
38. Abdullah, N. A. S. & Rusli, N. I. A. Multilingual Sentiment Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 29, 445–470, https://doi.org/10.47836/pjst.29.1.25 (2021).10.47836/pjst.29.1.25 ↗
39. Xianghua, F., Guo, L., Yanyan, G. & Zhiqiang, W. Multi-aspect sentiment analysis for Chinese online social reviews based on topic modeling and HowNet lexicon. Knowl.-Based Syst. 37, 186–195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2012.08.003 (2013).10.1016/j.knosys.2012.08.003 ↗
40. Qi, F. et al. OpenHowNet: An Open Sememe-based Lexical Knowledge Base. arXiv [cs.CL] (2019).
41. Cambria, E., Olsher, D. & Rajagopal, D. SenticNet 3: A Common and Common-Sense Knowledge Base for Cognition-Driven Sentiment Analysis. Proc. AAAI Confer. Artificial Intell. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8928 (2014).10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8928 ↗
42. Bandhakavi, A., Wiratunga, N., Padmanabhan, D. & Massie, S. Lexicon based feature extraction for emotion text classification. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 93, 133–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2016.12.009 (2017).10.1016/j.patrec.2016.12.009 ↗
43. Gamallo, P. & Garcia, M. 171–175 (Association for Computational Linguistics).
44. Lin, A. arXiv [cs.CL]. Improved Twitter sentiment analysis using naive Bayes and custom language model, (2017).
45. Fu, X., Wang, R. & Li, C. Can ChatGPT Evaluate Plans? J. Am. Plann. Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2023.2271893 (2023).10.1080/01944363.2023.2271893 ↗
46. Meutia, Z. D., Akbar, R., Zulkaidi, D. & Iop. in 1st ITB Centennial and 4th PlanoCosmo International Conference. (2018).
47. Piantadosi, S. T. Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 21, 1112–1130, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0585-6 (2014).10.3758/s13423-014-0585-6 ↗
48. Newman, M. E. J. Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemp. Phys. 46, 323–351, https://doi.org/10.1080/00107510500052444 (2005).10.1080/00107510500052444 ↗
49. Khalaf, R. W. Authenticity or Continuity in the Implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention? Scrutinizing Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, 1978–2019. Herit.-Basel 3, 243–274, https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage3020015 (2020).10.3390/heritage3020015 ↗
50. Xiong, K., Zhang, S., Fei, G., Jin, A. & Zhang, H. Conservation and Sustainable Tourism Development of the Natural World Heritage Site Based on Aesthetic Value Identification: A Case Study of the Libo Karst. Forests. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14040755 (2023).10.3390/f14040755 ↗
51. Seyedashrafi, B., Ravankhah, M., Weidner, S. & Schmidt, M. Applying Heritage Impact Assessment to urban development: World Heritage property of Masjed-e Jame of Isfahan in Iran. Sustain. Cities Soc. 31, 213–224, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.01.002 (2017).10.1016/j.scs.2017.01.002 ↗
52. Omar, S. I., Muhibudin, M., Yussof, I., Sukiman, M. F. & Mohamed, B. George Town, Penang as a World Heritage Site: The Stakeholders’ Perceptions. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 91, 88–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.405 (2013).10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.405 ↗