Cities 137 (2023) 104274

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Monitoring and Assessment Heritage Tool: Quantify and classify urban

heritage buildings
Cilísia Ornelas a, *, Fernanda Sousa b, João Miranda Guedes a, Isabel Breda-Vázquez b
a
CONSTRUCT - FEUP, Department of Civil Engineering, Rua Dr Roberto Frias s/n 4200-465, Porto, Portugal
b
CITTA - FEUP, Department of Civil Engineering, Rua Dr Roberto Frias s/n, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Urban areas and historical centres are exposed to climate change, decay, human threats, among other menaces,
Urban heritage which jeopardize their safeguard. Besides, in general, stakeholders, or decision-makers, do not require in­
Complementary dimensions terventions to be sustained by previous evaluations of their impact in the urban heritage. To fill this gap, the
Statistical procedures
international organizations in charge of the protection of cultural heritage (e.g., UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICCROM), in
Quantitative classification
Decision-making processes
line with what happens with the environment, request a holistic and integrated evaluations, regarding heritage
impact assessment to maintain the urban heritage.
The paper proposes a Monitoring and Assessment Heritage Tool (MAHT) to collect data concerning heritage,
technical and social dimensions of urban heritage buildings. This tool aims to create shared databases, using a
systematic assessment and monitoring to identify attributes and transformations, especially regarding physical
features of urban fabrics and buildings, and the quality of life of citizens. It involves data analysis, supported by
statistical procedures, which underline complementarity dimensions, and combined indicators, i.e., distinct
levels of quantitative information. Finally, the paper concludes that, as a holistic assessment tool, MAHT con­
tributes to catalogue buildings in cities, providing structured and systematised data, to support the decision-
making processes of the different stakeholders at different urban heritage levels.

1. Introduction Territorial and Urban Conservation Programme” that developed scien­

Today, the assessment and monitoring of urban heritage buildings
are of utmost importance, in urban areas and historic centres, with
historic townscape, integrity, memory and authenticity values (Guzmán
et al., 2017; Žydrūnė, 2020), as most of these areas are under urban
development pressures (e.g., real estate speculation, gentrification, loss
of population, inappropriate use of urban buildings, uncontrolled
planning, etc.), and natural disasters (Ashrafi et al., 2021; Sesana et al.,
2020). These factors end in causing the loss of crucial elements that
provide identity, integrity and authenticity in urban heritage buildings
and landscapes, which already have placed some World Heritage (WH)
Cities on the List of WH in Danger (WHC, 2020a).
The international organizations in charge of the protection of cul­
tural heritage are making efforts to create guidelines and tools (ICO­
MOS, 2011; UNESCO, 1972; UNESCO, 2021; WHC, 2020b, 2020c) to
provide urban heritage assessment in different contexts, considering
operational specifications within multidisciplinary teams (Rodwell &
Turner, 2018). Therefore, in 1994, ICCROM initiated the “Integrated
tific concepts related to integrated urban conservation and anticipated
the UNESCO (2011) Historic Urban Landscape (HUL). The HUL rec­
ommendations highlight the safeguarding of the historic urban land­
scape as the result of a historic layering of attributes, extending the
notion of historic centre or ensemble to include a broader urban context
and its geographical setting in which heritage is understood as a “live
and complex organism to evolve and not to be frozen on a certain
period” (Tarrafa Silva, 2020). Emerging at the same time, the Heritage
Impact Assessment (HIA) from ICOMOS (2011) has been formulated to
assess monuments and sites with outstanding universal values (OUV),
aiming at mitigating negative impacts (Patiwael et al., 2019).
Besides, there is a need to extend these studies, i.e., to involve studies
concerned with technical surveys related to urban fabrics and buildings'
damage (Esra et al., 2019; Galantucci & Fatiguso, 2019), with the sup­
port of assessment tools that can be easily applied by local authorities
(Ashrafi et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2022) and provide information to a
wider audience (e.g., professionals, multidisciplinary teams, adminis­
trators and citizens). Moreover, the social aspects of the urban heritage

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cilisia@fe.up.pt (C. Ornelas), fcsousa@fe.up.pt (F. Sousa), jguedes@fe.up.pt (J.M. Guedes), ivazquez@fe.up.pt (I. Breda-Vázquez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104274
Received 10 July 2022; Received in revised form 21 February 2023; Accepted 26 February 2023
Available online 14 March 2023
0264-2751/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
C. Ornelas et al.
buildings should be integrated into these studies (Bonet et al., 2020; Ji
et al., 2021; Kiruthiga & Thirumaran, 2017), and this holistic approach
should be included in the decision-making processes by the local
stakeholders, as the city should reflect the evolution of society, as well as
its distinct cultural identity (Najd et al., 2015).
However, still lacks combining the different dimensions (i.e., heri­
tage, technical and social), to contribute with holistic and integrated
data to feed instruments and plans, with sustained and shared databases
(Petti et al., 2019) that will help to maintain the original attributes of the
cities. Therefore, the paper aims to contribute to filling the gap in urban
heritage buildings appraisal, proposing an integrated assessment of
urban heritage, referred to as the Monitoring and Assessment Heritage
Tool (MAHT). It combines four complementary dimensions: Heritage
Attributes (HA), Safety Conditions (SC), Housing Conditions (HC), and
Residential Satisfaction (RS), and determines quantitative indicators.
This study is divided into three parts: analytical framework, appli­
cation of the MAHT to a case study and discussion of the results. The
paper firstly debates: (i) the importance of a holistic and integrated
assessment tool to systematize the urban heritage, contributing for
future diagnoses phases of the buildings, necessary for any evaluation
report involving HIA (ICOMOS, 2011) and going towards a HUL
approach (Khalil & Stravoravdis, 2022; Rodwell & Turner, 2018;
UNESCO, 2011); (ii) the MAHT's dimensions applied to the case study:
residential urban buildings in the historical centre of Porto, Portugal
(WHC, 1996); (iii) the statistical procedures and methods to be applied
to the assessed data. The paper secondly shows: (i) the distinct levels of
information collected with the application of the MAHT to the specific
case study; (ii) the treatment of the information, supported by different
statistical methods (univariate, bivariate and multivariate), and the
establishment of quantitative indicators; (iii) the importance of the re­
sults to identify and quantify loss and damage and to organize urban
buildings in classes (Gordon, 1987; Jolliffe & Cadima, 2016; Sousa &
Tendeiro, 2005). At the end, the paper points out that MAHT outcomes
provide valuable information to the stakeholders' decision-making
processes concerned with urban rehabilitation, management, and
spatial planning policies (Tarrafa Silva, 2020; Tarrafa Silva & Ferreira,
2018), contributing to improve the municipal instruments: i.e., master
plan and heritage charts, aiming to safeguard heritage buildings, urban
landscape, and social diversity, and to promote a more sustainable and
balanced city.
2. Analytical framework: Monitoring and Assessment Heritage
Tool
2.1. Assessment and systematization of urban heritage
Recent studies that discuss the processes of preservation and main­
tenance of urban heritage in cities (Liu et al., 2022; Wardekker et al.,
2020; WHC, 2020c) refer that more efficient and appropriate holistic
assessments to support the protection of urban heritage buildings, as
urban resources, as well as more engagement of the different stake­
holders in urban planning decision-making processes, are still lacking
(Guzmán et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2022). Different studies point out the
need to evaluate urban buildings systematically, creating databases able
to share information and good practices among different stakeholders in
urban heritage management processes (Petti et al., 2019).
On the other hand, the HIA aims to support decision-making pro­
cesses, regarding a range of factors affecting urban cultural heritage, and
provide recommendations for enhancing its potentialities and miti­
gating negative impacts (WHC, 2020c). But HIA tends to occur too late
in the planning process to prevent undesired impacts and lacks more
holistic, consistent, and operative procedures, involving local commu­
nities and stakeholders (Patiwael et al., 2019). Also, urban heritage
assessment should be extended beyond the single monument, i.e., to
ordinary buildings in the living cities, monitoring the changes, and
supporting alternatives together to the decision-making processes
2
Cities 137 (2023) 104274
(Rodwell & Turner, 2018).
The HUL recommendations include assessing the perception of the
citizens and the quality of the human environment, emphasising the
need for holistic approaches and periodic assessments. It implies the
application of a range of traditional and innovative tools adapted to
local contexts (i.e., civic engagement tools; knowledge and planning
tools…) to ensure the protection of the integrity and authenticity of the
attributes of urban heritage (UNESCO, 2011). The HUL tools should
involve diverse stakeholders, aiming to empower them.
Therefore, the recognition and safeguard of urban heritage buildings
in their different spheres and scopes, as requested in most of the
guidelines recommended by worldwide organizations, such as UNESCO,
ICOMOS and ICCROM, involve diverse processes to identify its attri­
butes and their authenticity and integrity (ICOMOS, 2011; Patiwael
et al., 2019; Petti et al., 2019; Seyedashrafi et al., 2017; WHC, 2020c).
In this regard, MAHT is an assessment and monitoring tool that
combines different dimensions, in opposition to existing methodologies
and tools (Galantucci & Fatiguso, 2019; Jaillot et al., 2020; Khan et al.,
2022; Masciotta et al., 2019; Taher Tolou Del & Tabrizi, 2020; Vanja &
Čerpes, 2019), gathering comprehensive information able to catalogue
urban heritage buildings with holistic data. In this research, authenticity
and integrity are related to the buildings' urban fabric, namely to the
buildings: form, design, materials, constructive techniques, use, func­
tion, and location, and to its wholeness and intactness. Both are weak­
ened when too many modifications and interventions occur (ICOMOS,
2011; Taher Tolou Del et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2021). Besides, MAHT
includes the needs and satisfaction of residents/communities (Ornelas
et al., 2016a, b), introducing social issues related to the residents'
perception about the attributes of the urban fabrics, and their safety and
housing conditions (Portaria 230, 2018).
The MAHT was developed from the Methodology for the Assessment
of Residential Built Heritage (MARBH) (Ornelas et al., 2021), which was
sustained by the theoretical framework: (i) literature review on the
particular values (Avrami et al., 2000) and attributes of urban fabrics
and buildings embedded in international recommendations and guide­
lines on preservation of cultural heritage, i.e., location, form, design,
typology, function, use, materials, techniques, traditions (ICOMOS,
2011; Tarrafa Silva & Ferreira, 2018; UNESCO, 1972; UNESCO, 2021;
WHC, 2020a, 2020c); (ii) comprehensive analyses and comparisons of
building codes and urban legislation of three Southern European coun­
tries: Italy, Spain and Portugal, and (iii) international research based on
face-to-face interviews to a team of 49 multidisciplinary senior experts
(from different areas of knowledge, concerning rehabilitation and
preservation of built heritage, from academic, governmental, regional
and municipal entities, independent from each other), from these three
countries (Ornelas et al., 2016a; Ornelas et al., 2016b). The MARBH
involves the assessment of four dimensions of urban heritage (Ornelas
et al., 2021): i) heritage attributes (e.g., morphology, typology, building
system, materials and physical characteristics, usage, material tech­
niques); technical features, with the assessment of criteria related to ii)
safety (e.g., structural, fire and usage) and iii) housing conditions (e.g.,
health, hygiene, comfort, accessibility and functionality, i.e. character­
istics associated with the quality of life of the residents in the buildings);
and iv) social characteristics, related to the socio-economic profile of the
residents and the satisfaction with their dwelling and residential area,
including their expectations and difficulties, as well as the perception of
their basic needs (Casals-Tres et al., 2013; Ornelas et al., 2018, 2021).
The materialization of MAHT is based on the selection of the most
representative items of MARBH that characterize the residential urban
buildings of the historic centre of Porto, Portugal, in the four
dimensions.
Under this framework, the research addresses the following key is­
sues: (i) establishment of the MAHT's dimensions and items; (ii) selec­
tion and application of statistical methods to produce systematic
quantitative results from the collected data; (iii) creation of different
levels of indicators within each of the tool's dimensions, associated to
C. Ornelas et al.
different levels of significant quantitative information; (iv) analysis of
the relevance of each of the tools' dimensions and their complemen­
tarity; (v) impact of the results on supporting the decision-making.
2.2. MAHT dimensions in urban heritage buildings
The MAHT is based on the selection of items of MARBH (Ornelas
et al., 2021) that were considered more relevant to identify, quantify
and classify the urban heritage buildings. This analysis took 97 of the
317 items of MARBH, reducing the complexity of the method. The items
are distributed by the four dimensions in the following way: 25 items for
the Heritage Attributes (HA); 36 items for the Safety Conditions (SC); 29
items for the Housing Conditions (HC); and 7 items for the Residential
Satisfaction (RS). The discrepancy between the number of items allo­
cated to each dimension is due to the different nature of the dimensions.
The qualitative items are transformed into quantitative data by assign­
ing them binary variables, 0 or 1. After, the whole set of items receive
weights factors that go from 1 – less preponderant; 2- preponderant; to 3
– most preponderant. These weights were assigned to each item ac­
cording to their relative degree of importance/relevance/impact. They
were established by the experts in the areas addressed, which were
interviewed under this research (Ornelas et al., 2018, 2021).
The MAHT's first dimension is related to the Heritage Attributes (HA)
of the urban heritage buildings. It identifies the physical features, and
constructive characteristics of urban fabrics and buildings. The dimen­
sion has items related to the typology, form and design of the exterior/
interior elements; traditional materials and techniques that are a
remarkable testimony of their authenticity and integrity (ICOMOS,
2011; UNESCO, 1972; UNESCO, 2021). The HA includes 3 sub-
dimensions: Exterior Elements (HA1) with 10 items, identifying partic­
ular exterior features of these buildings; Interior Elements (HA2) with 8
items, distinguishing elements that value the interior of these houses;
and Material Techniques (HA3) with 7 items, representing the building
techniques. The items are assigned weights 1, 2 and 3 (see Fig. 1).
The MAHT's second dimension evaluates the Safety Conditions (SC).
It identifies the presence of damage, malfunction, usable and fire
dysfunctional conditions in the buildings systems and constructive ele­
ments, resulting from advanced deterioration of the structures and/or
neglected interventions (ICOMOS, 2011; UNESCO, 1972; UNESCO,
2021), and, thus, being also related to the loss of attributes referred to in
the HA dimension. The SC form is distributed into 3 sub-dimensions:
Structural Safety Conditions (SC1) with 19 items, regarding damage in
Fig. 1. Heritage Attributes dimension's items of MAHT and corresponding weights.
3
Cities 137 (2023) 104274
structural and non-structural elements; Fire Safety Conditions (SC2)
with 11 items, checking malfunctions in compartments and in­
stallations; and Normal Usage Conditions (SC3) with 6 items, surveying
the elements that can threaten the normal usage of the buildings by the
residents.
Thus, the SC dimension contributes to the creation of protection and
management actions, through a regular assessment of the state of con­
servation of the buildings. It is focused on the presence of anomalies (0
represents the presence and 1 its absence). As referred to before, the
weights (1, 2 or 3) have been ranked by senior experts in this field, based
on the impact that the SC items have on the buildings' safety conditions
(see Fig. 2).
The MAHT's third dimension assesses the Housing Condition (HC)
under 3 sub-dimensions: Dimension, Functionality and Accessibility
(HC1) with 10 items, evaluating the compartments functionality in
terms of legal requirements; Hygiene and Salubrity (HC2) with 15 items,
regarding natural illumination and ventilation; and Installations in
Buildings (HC3) with 4 items; identifying malfunctions in installations.
Each of the items is assigned weights 2 and 3 (no item with weight 1 was
selected), according to the impact they have on the housing conditions.
This dimension identifies anomalies that can represent threats or loss of
physical integrity that results from neglected interventions, and/or lack
of urban heritage buildings' maintenance (ICOMOS, 2011; UNESCO,
2021), impoverishing the inhabitants' quality of life (see Fig. 3). Thus,
this dimension is also related to the loss of attributes referred to in the
HA dimension (e.g., walls, ceilings, floors, stairs, chimneys…).
The MAHT's fourth dimension considers Residential Satisfaction
(RS). The RS is assessed through face-to-face interviews (Bonet et al.,
2020; Ji et al., 2021; Ornelas et al., 2016b; Vanja & Čerpes, 2019) and it
is distributed into three sub-dimensions: Residents' Satisfaction in
Dwellings/Buildings (RS1) with 5 items, which aims to evaluate the
perception of residents about the urban buildings (e.g., if they perceive
the buildings attributes and feel satisfied with the buildings' living and
physical conditions); the Residents' Global Satisfaction in Dwellings/
Buildings (RS2) with 1 item; and the Residents' Global Satisfaction in
Residential Area (RS3) with 1 item (Jaillot et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2021).
For these 7 items, it is attributed the value 1 for positive answers, with a
weight of 3, and 0 for negative replies (see Fig. 4). The weighted value
attributed to each item per building considers the average of all the
answers, considering the number of interviews that were done per
building: one interview per dwelling/tenant.
To sum up, the MAHT's complementary dimensions promote a
C. Ornelas et al.
Fig. 2. Safety conditions dimension's items of MAHT and corresponding weights.
holistic assessment/monitoring of urban heritage buildings. It allows
quantifying indicators and classifying pairs of variables that give sus­
tained information to support urban planning decision-making
processes.
2.3. Statistical procedures of the MAHT
MAHT categorises four assessment dimensions: Heritage Attributes
(HA), Safety Conditions (SC), Housing Conditions (HC), and Residential
Satisfaction (RS) that are represented by 97 items unequally distributed
across the dimensions. The data processing of MAHT follows a quanti­
tative statistical study that establishes global indicators for the four di­
mensions under analysis, through linear combinations of sets of items/
indicators (the items are considered binary or in a Likert Scale). This
procedure allowed constructing 16 Intermediate Indicators (12 of level
1, II1, and 4 of 2, II2), and 1 Overall Indicator (OI). Each indicator as­
sumes values between 0 and 3 and the full interval [0,00; 3,00] is
divided into 4 equal parts, which, together, quantify and compare
distinct levels of information. The 12 “Intermediate Indicators of Level
1” (II1) correspond to 4 indicators related to HA: HA1, HA2, HA3, 3
indicators related to SC: SC1, SC2, SC3, 3 indicators related to HC: HC1,
HC2, HC3, and 3 to RS: RS1, RS2, RS3. The “Intermediate Indicators of
Level 2” (II2) correspond to the four dimensions under analysis: HA, SC,
HC, RS, and the “Overall Indicator” (OI) combines the 4 II2 into 1 OI (see
Fig. 5). These MAHT procedures can be replied to other cities with
adjusted items to the local context (UNESCO, 2011).
Finally, the MAHT carries out detailed statistical procedures and
methods (univariate, bivariate and multivariate), which allows it to (i)
4
Cities 137 (2023) 104274
sustain, measure and compare variables (indicators) and verify their
complementarity as an all; (ii) reveal which buildings contribute most to
the dimensions under evaluation (Principal Component Analysis - PCA)
and (iii) propose a buildings' classification (Ascendant Hierarchical
Classification - AHC).
2.4. Applied methods
The statistical descriptive methods focus on the set of intermediate
(II1 and II2) and global (OI) indicators, in a total of 17 quantitative
indicators obtained in MAHT's dataset, and are made at 3 levels: uni­
variate, bivariate and multivariate.
In univariate analysis, each variable is described individually, using
location and dispersion measures, and box-plots as a graphical repre­
sentation. In the search for dependency relationships between pairs of
variables (bivariate analysis), the correlation matrix is calculated using
Pearson's correlation coefficient. In the multivariate analyses are pur­
pose, two types of methods: (i) a dimensionality reduction method
(Principal Component Analysis - PCA), which allows perceiving the
existence of redundancy in the set of built indicators, and the possibility
of preserving a large slice of the information collected with a much
smaller number of variables by finding new variables that are linear
functions of those in the original dataset, that successively maximize
variance and are uncorrelated with each other (Jolliffe & Cadima,
2016); (ii) classification methods (Ascendant Hierarchical Classification
- AHC) to construct classes of buildings (typifying the buildings under­
study in a reduced number of categories) and classes of indicators (in­
dicators of the same class must be similar between themselves, and
C. Ornelas et al.
Fig. 3. Housing Conditions dimension's items of MAHT and corresponding weights.
Fig. 4. Residential Satisfaction dimension's items of MAHT and corresponding weights.
indicators of different classes should characterize different aspects of the
phenomenon under study). Note that the AHC classification can be
described as the activity of dividing a set of objects into a smaller
number of classes, in such a way that objects in the same class are similar
between them, and dissimilar to objects in other classes. Those classes
are not known a priori but are built along with the method (Gordon,
1987). The AHC method underlies two choices: i) a measure of com­
parison between pairs of elements to be classified (similarity type, if the
elements to be classified are variables, or dissimilarities if the elements
are individuals); ii) the criterion used to measure the proximity between
2 classes. It should be noted that the double choice mentioned above is
an important factor to consider since it can influence the result of the
method. Classification validation studies this theme (Sousa & Tendeiro,
2005), the best-known result of an AHC is the dendrogram.
3. Application of the MAHT to the case study
The methods and exploratory analysis to validate MAHT were sup­
ported by data collected from a set of 42 inhabited residential urban
buildings located in different city blocks in the centre of Porto, Portugal
5
Cities 137 (2023) 104274
in the period between 2012 and 2013, under a research investigation
(Ornelas et al., 2016a, b, 2018; Ornelas, Miranda Guedes, Sousa et al.,
2021). Currently, and using MAHT, a trained technician can collect the
necessary information from 2 to 3 buildings per working day. A future
update of this information may multiply by two the number of buildings
that can be assessed in the same period.
Recently, this area has been under high urban development pressure
and has a lack of participation of local communities in these processes
(Fernandes et al., 2018; WHC, 2020a). The data collection is made by
visual inspection of the interior and exterior of the 42 inhabited resi­
dential urban buildings spread over city blocks; and 62 questionnaires to
the residents (i.e., adults, mostly elderly, with low income, low educa­
tion level and long-term residents) through face-to-face interviews. The
criteria to select the buildings were: (i) having physical and constructive
characteristics that framed them as typical old buildings of the city, (ii)
exhibiting signs of degradation and (iii) being inhabited by different
socioeconomic vulnerable populations.
The MAHT statistical methods aim to bring new outcomes to the
maintenance and rehabilitation actions that took place during the pre­
vious years, which ended in important urban heritage buildings
C. Ornelas et al.
Fig. 5. The MAHT statistical procedures of the 97 binary or Likert scale variables.
elements loss, (e.g., free intervention on non-structural and structural
elements, with removal or substitution of original elements and deco­
rative coatings, namely walls, ceilings, windows, doors… by new,
contemporary materials) (Tarrafa Silva, 2020; WHC, 2020b).
3.1. Characterization of the buildings
The residential urban buildings were built between the XVII and the
first half of the XX centuries, with morphology and typology that
constitute a singular urban fabric (long buildings with narrow volumes;
facades with ornamentations and decorations, usually without openings
on the sidewalls; and stairs located in the middle, topped by a skylight,
dormers, and attics). These buildings were constructed by local crafts­
people using traditional materials, such as masonry and timber. Their
preservation is essential to safeguard the integrity and authenticity of
the historical city centre fabric of Porto, Portugal. Part of the selected
urban buildings (27) was in the historical centre of Porto classified as
WH City by UNESCO in 1996. The WH committee considers that the
site's values lie in the “urban fabric and its many historic buildings bear
remarkable testimony to the development over the past thousand years of a
European city that looks outward to the west for its cultural and commercial
links” (WHC, 1996); the other urban buildings (15), although having
similar features, were located in the buffer zone and surrounding areas
(parishes) of the classified area.
This section shows the results of the application of the MAHT to the
case study, presented herein, together with the statistical procedures
described before to compute the corresponding II1, II2 and OI
6
Cities 137 (2023) 104274
indicators. It also includes univariate, bivariate and multivariate ana­
lyses of these indicators.
The characterization of the case study includes a previous identifi­
cation of the century of construction and the location of the buildings
per parishes in and out of the classified urban area as WH City by
UNESCO. The highest percentage of buildings are from the XIX century
(45,24 %), followed by buildings from the XVIII (35,71 %). The sample
has a smaller number of buildings from the XX (14,29 %) and the XVII
centuries (4,76 %), (see Fig. 6).
3.2. Univariate analysis of MAHT Indicators
In the univariate analysis, the II1, II2, and OI indicators obtained by
the application of the MAHT to the case study reveal the behaviour of
the sample in the most representative descriptive measures: average,
standard deviation, minimum, 1st quartile, median, 3rd quartile and
maximum, (see Table 1).
Therefore, looking in detail at the 17 indicators in Table 1, HA, HA1,
HA2, and HA3 have generally high values: HA has an average of 1,91, a
median of 2,07 and a maximum of 2,78; HA1 (Exterior Elements) and
HA2 (Interior Elements), present values below the average (respectively
1,85 and 1,88); HA3 (Material Techniques) is the indicator with the
highest measures, in average (2,00), and a maximum of 3,00.
The SC (Safety Conditions) indicator has an average of 1,80 and a
median of 1,79, the maximum is 2,67. However, it is for the SC1
(Structural Safety Conditions) indicator that the observed values are, in
general, lower (average 1,58, median 1,30, maximum 2,99), but with
C. Ornelas et al. Cities 137 (2023) 104274

Fig. 6. Location of buildings in the Porto parishes and century of construction.

Table 1
Main statistical measures of II1, II2, and OI indicators.
II1, II2, OI Average Standard deviation Minimum 1st quartile Median 3rd quartile Maximum

HA1 1,85 0,58 0,69 1,38 2,02 2,31 2,77

HA2 1,88 0,87 0,00 1,42 2,21 2,68 2,84
HA3 2,00 0,67 0,50 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00
HA 1,91 0,66 0,40 1,42 2,07 2,42 2,78
SC1 1,58 0,81 0,36 0,87 1,30 2,31 2,99
SC2 1,91 0,58 0,64 1,52 1,98 2,38 2,79
SC3 1,91 0,67 0,37 1,51 2,04 2,67 2,67
SC 1,80 0,59 0,76 1,32 1,79 2,40 2,67
HC1 1,57 0,43 0,37 1,33 1,50 2,00 2,33
HC2 1,30 0,39 0,53 1,10 1,23 1,65 2,00
HC3 1,45 0,99 0,00 0,75 1,50 2,25 3,00
HC 1,44 0,50 0,65 1,00 1,36 1,89 2,42
RS1 2,19 0,56 1,20 1,80 2,40 2,45 3,00
RS2 1,69 0,81 0,00 0,99 2,01 2,01 3,00
RS3 2,35 0,56 0,99 2,01 2,01 3,00 3,00
RS 2,07 0,46 1,06 1,94 2,11 2,42 3,00
OI 1,81 0,34 1,08 1,56 1,74 2,02 2,59

the greatest dispersion (standard deviation 0,81), which means that
some buildings of the sample do not have acceptable SC1. The SC2 (Fire
Safety Conditions) and SC3 (Normal Usage Conditions) have higher
averages, but a lower maximum than SC1. Therefore, SC indicators
reveal that some buildings do not have acceptable safety conditions,
especially in what concerns SC1 (e.g., roof, ceilings, floorings, staircases,
walls degradation), which, on the other hand, is related to failure to
comply with some conditions associated with SC2 and SC3 indicators.
The HC (Housing Conditions) indicators have lower measures than
the other indicators. HC1 (Dimension, Functionality and Accessibility)
has the highest measures, with an average of 1,57, a median of 1,50 and
a maximum of 2,33. This behaviour is because the residential houses of
Porto have appropriate dimensions but do not have reasonable func­
tional conditions in some compartments and access to the buildings is
difficult. Also, HC2 (Hygiene and Salubrity) has the lowest measures of
average (1,30), median (1,23) and maximum (2,00). These measures

7
C. Ornelas et al.
show that buildings have poor housing conditions concerned with nat­
ural ventilation and lighting and water infiltration. The water supply,
sewer and rainwater drainage systems degradation are also evident in
the HC3 (Installations in Buildings).
The RS (Residential Satisfaction) indicators have the highest values
of central tendency and the lowest values of dispersion. The RS1 (Res­
idents Satisfaction in Dwellings/Building) has an average of 2,19, a
median of 2,40, and a standard deviation of 0,56. It shows that few
residents feel the unpleasant temperature in winter, have difficulty in
accessing the buildings and staircases and feel insecure in the buildings,
but also that most consider the need for better living conditions. How­
ever, the residents show the lowest overall satisfaction with dwellings
since the average RS2 (Residents' Global Satisfaction in Dwellings/
Building) indicator is 1,69 and the median is 2,00, also the highest
standard deviation is 0,81. The RS3 (Residents' Global Satisfaction in the
Residential Area) with an average of 2,35 and the 3rd quartile of 3,00,
shows that the residents, in general, are satisfied with their residential
area.
Fig. 7 shows the box-plots of the distributions of indicators II1 and
II2. Each box-plot, constructed with the distribution values: minimum,
1st quartile, median, 3rd quartile and maximum, exhibits 4 intervals,
each with 25 % of the respective distribution. The box-plot set allows a
comparison between indicators II1 and II2, for each dimension, and the
comparison of indicators between dimensions.
The HA1, HA2, and HA indicators show strong concentrations in the
second half of the distribution. The HA2 box-plot reveals an accentuated
negative asymmetry of the distribution. The SC1 shows a concentration
in the 1st half of the distribution (positive asymmetry) and SC3 and SC
present concentrations in the 2nd half (negative asymmetry). HC1 and
HC2 present a strong concentration between the 1st quartile and the
median. As for the indicators RS1, RS2, and RS3, all present very strong
concentrations in some quarters of the distributions; RS1 and RS2 be­
tween the median and the 3rd quartile and RS3 between the 1st quartile
and the median. Regarding the comparison of the 4 dimensions, it is
concluded that the distribution of HA is the one with the greatest range
of values and RS with the least. In the RS box-plot, a small set of lower
moderate outliers is visible. Fig. 7 also compared the behaviour of the II2
(HA, SC, HC and RS) and the OI indicators. The distribution of the HA
indicator has the largest range of values and that of OI the lowest. The RS
and OI indicators generally assume higher values than those of the
remaining indicators.
This study shows which indicators and dimensions are most affected,
i.e., that have higher impact on the buildings, giving crucial information
to stakeholder (landlords and local authorities), namely concerning the
prioritization of the intervention actions.
Fig. 7. The box-plots of II1, II2 and OI indicators.
8
Cities 137 (2023) 104274
3.3. Bivariate analysis of MAHT Indicators
In the bivariate analysis of the indicators II1, II2, and OI, Pearson's
correlation calculates correlation values for all pairs of the indicators
(see Fig. 8). This analysis shows that the II1 indicators are correlated
with the II2 indicators in each dimension and also between them. The
HA correlation values are higher than in SC, since the degradation of the
buildings is not similar to the SC indicators but has implications for the
loss of their physical heritage attributes. The correlation values between
the SC and HC indicators are medium, or weak (in the interval [0,29;
0,70]) and between the RS and the other indicators are the lowest. On
the other hand, there is a medium correlation between the OI, SC and HC
indicators, with values in the interval [0,54; 0,68], and a higher corre­
lation with the HC, with the value of 0,77.
3.4. Multivariate analysis of MAHT Indicators
The multivariate analysis of the 17 indicators (II1, II2, and OI) uses
different methods to exhibit the complementarity of the indicators of the
MAHT, as well as to show their contributions to the characterization of
the buildings in the sample.
Considering the various criteria to choose the number of principal
components to retain, they lead to the decision to consider the first 3,
which contribute to explaining 75 % of the total information contained
in the dataset (see Table 2). In this table, it is possible to verify that the
first principal component (PC1) has a strong correlation with Safety and
Housing Conditions and OI indicators. The second principal component
(PC2) has a strong correlation with Heritage Attributes indicators, and
the third (PC3) has a strong correlation with Residential Satisfaction
indicators. Thus, the PCA method separates the different dimensions of
MAHT, allowing a clear interpretation of the 3 components: PC1 as
“Overall Indicator, Safety and Housing Conditions”, PC2 as “Heritage
Attributes” and PC3 as “Residential Satisfaction”. Therefore, the dark
grey colour, in Table 2, represents the indicators that most contribute to
the correlation within the 3 first components, and the light grey colour
the less representative indicators.
For the interpretation of the individuals (set of buildings numbered
from 1 to 42), the projection of the point cloud in the principal planes is
used; Plane (PC1; PC2) and Plane (PC1; PC3) in Fig. 9. The analysis
shows that buildings that most positively contribute to PC1 are: 19, 9,
30, 5, and 24, which have high values in the indicators of Safety and
Housing Conditions and Overall Indicator.
On the other hand, the buildings that most negatively contribute to
PC1 are 26, 25, 22, 34, and 6, which have lower values in these in­
dicators. In the analysis of PC2, the buildings that most contribute
positively to this component are 41, 37, 14, 36, and 29, with higher
values in the Heritage Attributes indicators, and buildings 16, 40, 18, 4,
and 13 are those that most contribute negatively, with lower values in
C. Ornelas et al.
Fig. 8. Pearson's correlation values for all pairs of the indicators II1, II2, and OI.
these indicators. The buildings' coordinates in the plane (PC1; PC3)
show the buildings that most contribute positively to PC3 (higher values
in Residential Satisfaction indicators) are 28, 40, 20, 11 and 18, and
those that most contribute negatively (lower values in Residential
Satisfaction indicators) are 35, 16, 34, 21 and 30.
This analysis shows the buildings that most contribute to PC1 (OI,
SC; HC), PC2 (HA) and PC3 (RS). In particular, “low attributes” (PC2)
are mostly associated to low safety and poor housing conditions (PC1),
which also reflect the residents' dissatisfaction in the dwellings (PC3).
Moreover, this analysis allows establishing hierarchical levels of
intervention.
The AHC method was applied to the dataset under study, considering
Pearson's correlation coefficient for the measure of comparison between
pairs of elements. The ACH was applied to classify the 42 buildings, in
classes of similar elements, using the Euclidean distance to compare
pairs of buildings and the Complete Linkage criterion to compare pairs
of classes (see Fig. 10). The dendrogram produced three classes (A, B,
and C) or five classes (A1, A2, B, C1, and C2). Therefore, the class A
includes 18 buildings: 7 buildings from the class A1 (2, 3, 7, 15, 20, 27,
28) and 11 buildings from the class A2 (1, 6, 11, 14, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29,
31, 42). The class B comprises 11 buildings (8, 10, 12, 17, 21, 33, 34, 35,
36, 39, 41). The class C contains 13 buildings: 5 buildings from the class
C1 (4, 13, 16, 18, 40) and 8 buildings from the class C2 (5, 9, 19, 24, 30,
32, 37, 38).
Notice that the ACH method in Fig. 10 identifies the buildings with
the same characteristics and classifies them into 3 and respectively 5
classes of buildings. Note that, in general, the buildings that makeup
class A2 appear united, as being the ones that most negatively contribute
to the formation of PC1, while those in class C1 are the ones that most
contribute positively to this main component. Class C2 buildings are the
ones that most negatively contribute to PC2. This analysis demonstrates
9
Cities 137 (2023) 104274
that PCA and AHC are complementary methodologies since they reveal
some common and other distinct interpretations.
4. Discussion
The findings highlight the relevance of MAHT as a holistic assess­
ment tool that includes different items and builds indicators in four
complementary dimensions, supported by statistical methods. The dis­
cussion analyses the diverse levels of data that MAHT provides in the
assessment of the urban heritage buildings. It also shows the contributes
of MAHT's tool to catalogue buildings in cities, providing structured and
systematised data to support the decision-making processes of different
stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, practitioners, technicians, urban
planners, and researchers…) at different urban heritage levels.
The application of MAHT to the case study and the analysis of data
through different statistical methods (Gordon, 1987; Jolliffe & Cadima,
2016; Sousa & Tendeiro, 2005), give information that quantifies and
classifies the dataset. The univariate analysis of the II1 indicators shows
that, the buildings tend to maintain the exterior elements (HA1) and
material techniques (HA3). On the contrary, it is the loss of interior el­
ements (HA2) that most contributes to the buildings' urban heritage loss.
On the other hand, the buildings exhibit damage in structural elements
(SC1), mostly associated with the lack of proper interventions, or
maintenance actions. In addition, the buildings lack fire safety condi­
tions (SC2) and normal usage conditions (SC3). They reveal poor
housing conditions (HC1, HC2, HC3), due to the lack of regular main­
tenance and improper use of the buildings by the residents. However,
residential satisfaction (RS) has the highest value in the dataset, being
interesting to see that the old residential buildings of Porto have
assumed cultural meaning to their residents (Esra et al., 2019; Havinga
et al., 2020). Nevertheless, most of the residents consider the need for
C. Ornelas et al. Cities 137 (2023) 104274

Table 2 elements that are crucial to maintain the integrity and authenticity of
The correlation of the indicators within the 3 first com­ the urban heritage.
ponents are represented in grey colour scale according to The results of the bivariate analysis of the indicators II1, II2 and OI,
their relevance. that are calculated through Pearson's correlation measures, shows that
II1, II2 and OI CP1 CP2 CP3 there is a correlation between sets of indicators, namely: i) HA, HA1,
HA2 and HA3; ii) RS, RS1, RS2 and RS3; and iii) SC, SC1, SC2, SC3, HC,
HA1 0,1 0,89 -0,14 HC1, HC2, HC3 and OI. These results confirm the complementarity of
HA2 0,04 0,939 -0,156 MAHT's dimensions. Therefore, they complement each other, being
efficient to organize buildings' information with similar characteristics
HA3 0,041 0,887 -0,262
in the four dimensions of analysis.
HA 0,061 0,971 -0,2 The outcomes emphasise the importance of a multivariate analysis of
SC1 0,749 -0,372 -0,124 the urban buildings. Two methods were used to treat the dataset and
SC2 0,729 -0,268 -0,149 obtain complementary results: the PCA and AHC. The PCA method
SC3 0,76 -0,095 -0,094 allowed the identification of the most representative buildings of the
dataset in the 3 founded principal components: PC1, PC2 and PC3,
SC 0,874 -0,297 -0,142
allowing to establish hierarchical levels of intervention. Also, the AHC
HC1 0,564 0,3 -0,288 method, through the Complete Linkage criterion, identified 3 classes
HC2 0,755 -0,097 -0,119 that corresponded to the 3 dimensions found in the PCA, producing 3
HC3 0,808 -0,176 -0,2 classes (A, B, and C) or 5 classes (A1, A2; B; C1, C2) of buildings with
HC 0,889 -0,055 -0,245 similar characteristics in the indicators under analysis; the 5 classes
correspond to the disaggregation of classes A and C into 2 classes by
RS1 0,177 0,305 0,471
establishing more strict boundaries concerning the buildings similar
RS2 0,566 0,047 0,604 characteristics. Thus, the two last methods showed similar results
RS3 0,304 0,287 0,67 regarding the MAHT's indicators: the PCA method identified the most
RS 0,521 0,264 0,806 and least representative buildings among the 42 and in the three di­
OI 0,908 0,414 0,025 rections (PC1, PC2, PC3) that integrate the 4 dimensions in analysis (HA,
SC, HC, RS) and the OI indicator; the AHC method identified three
Eigenvalue 6,32 4,26 2,10
classes of buildings with similar characteristics, or five if one wants to
Explained
increase the level of detail. In short, while the PCA method recognised
variance (%) 37,19 25,08 12,37
buildings in the principal components, the AHC method was crucial to
Accumulated aggregate buildings with similar characteristics, and both identified
variance (%) 37,19 62,27 74,64 buildings that should have priority interventions.
Thus, the MAHT statistical procedures and results were crucial to
identify: i) physical and constructive characteristics; ii) trustworthy data
concerning in-situ technical conditions of urban heritage buildings
better living conditions (RS1) and do not have a good general perception (Fernandes et al., 2018; UNESCO, 2019; Galantucci & Fatiguso, 2019;
of the buildings (RS2). On the contrary, they are very satisfied and Masciotta et al., 2019; Taher Tolou Del & Tabrizi, 2020; WHC, 2020a;
confident in living in their residential area (RS3). WHC, 2020c); iii) residents/community perceptions and satisfaction
Therefore, this research shows that the univariate analysis allows a (Bonet et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2021; Kiruthiga & Thirumaran, 2017; Vanja
detailed study of each variable of the four dimensions, identifying the & Čerpes, 2019); iv) potential threats (Ashrafi et al., 2021; Khan et al.,
most current problems on urban heritage buildings. In particular, these 2022; Patiwael et al., 2019; WHC, 2020a; WHC, 2020b); and v) priority
results show that urban heritage buildings are endangered, and identify intervention actions, related to data results (Ornelas et al., 2018; Ornelas
potential threats within the four dimensions in analysis, namely the loss et al., 2021; Ornelas et al., 2016a; Taher Tolou Del et al., 2020).
of original elements that compose the façades (windows and door The results show that MAHT allows to gather data and perform
frames, skylights, ornamentations and decorations) and the inside of the statistical treatment, two necessary actions to i) assess urban heritage,
buildings (walls lining, flooring, ceilings, staircases, ornamentations and namely the general state of conservation of the buildings and the resi­
decorations), and material techniques (stucco-work and tilework), dents' needs, establishing a systematic monitoring procedure that opens

Fig. 9. Buildings' representation in the planes (PC1; PC2) and (PC1; PC3).

10
C. Ornelas et al.
Fig. 10. Dendrogram for the 42 buildings, using Euclidean distance and
Complete Linkage criterion.
a path to prevent an HIA procedure (ICOMOS, 2011; WHC, 2020b;
Patiwael et al., 2019; Ashrafi et al., 2021); ii) mitigate potential negative
impacts in urban buildings, especially when located, in WH Cities and
buffer zones (Guzmán et al., 2017; Sesana et al., 2020; WHC, 2020c),
namely those linked to urban development pressures (Ashrafi et al.,
2021; Sesana et al., 2020; Seyedashrafi et al., 2017; Wardekker et al.,
2020; Žydrūnė, 2020); and iii) prioritize the intervention actions, ac­
cording to the results of the assessment of urban buildings and data
processing (Ornelas et al., 2021; Taher Tolou Del et al., 2020; Tarrafa
Silva, 2020). MAHT also allows policy makers, in charge of urban
planning and management, to feed the existing territorial plans and
management instruments (e.g., master plans, urban rehabilitation areas,
urban rehabilitation operations…) with updated information, namely: i)
to support the decision-making of practitioners/technicians with mea­
sures and levels of interventions on urban buildings (Esra et al., 2019;
Ornelas et al., 2021; Petti et al., 2019; Tarrafa Silva, 2020; Tarrafa Silva
& Ferreira, 2018; Wardekker et al., 2020); and ii) to support urban
planners and practitioners/technicians with crucial data to improve and
promote the conservation of urban heritage in holistic, sustainable and
proactive perspectives (Guzmán et al., 2017; Havinga et al., 2020; Khalil
& Stravoravdis, 2022; Martínez Pino, 2018; Seyedashrafi et al., 2017).
The information obtained by MAHT is also important to improve the
HUL urban heritage conservation procedures (UNESCO, 2011) through
local stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, practitioners, urban planners,
researchers, and technicians…), aiming: i) to integrate the decision-
making of local planning policies, preventing and mitigating historic
townscapes' loss (identifying authenticity, integrity) (Liu et al., 2022;
Seyedashrafi et al., 2017; Žydrūnė, 2020); and ii) to enhance the quality
of life of the diverse residents and citizens (Martínez Pino, 2018;
11
Cities 137 (2023) 104274
Rodwell & Turner, 2018; Vanja & Čerpes, 2019).
5. Conclusion
This paper proposes a Monitoring and Assessment Heritage Tool
(MAHT), which comprises sustained, cohesive and complementary di­
mensions (HA, SC, HC and RS). It aims to collect and collate systematic
and actual data on buildings in urban heritage areas to support different
stakeholders' decision-making processes in this domain. The paper
presents the MAHT qualitative indicators in the different dimensions,
but also the statistical procedures and methods (univariate, bivariate,
multivariate) that sustained the quality and complementarity of the
assessed data and provided three levels of quantitative information (II1,
II2 and OI). The MAHT analysis was supported to the collected data from
urban residential buildings in Porto, Portugal. The univariate shows
which indicators and dimensions are most affected by loss and damage.
The bivariate analysis (“Pearson's correlation values for all pairs of the
indicators”) confirms the complementarity of MAHT's dimensions. The
multivariate analyses (PCA and AHC methods) identify the dependency
relationship between the pairs of variables, underlining the MAHT po­
tential to classify the urban heritage buildings and create degrees and
measures of intervention.
Therefore, the MAHT results open a path towards a new holistic
paradigm in the assessment of urban heritage buildings (Martínez Pino,
2018), by providing diverse levels of quantitative information. This data
is essential: (i) to enrich the information on urban heritage buildings
that feed the municipal instruments: master plans and heritage charters
(Fernandes et al., 2018), and to create shared databases, supported by
ICT tools (Khalil & Stravoravdis, 2022; Khan et al., 2022; Petti et al.,
2019), that will help to maintain the original attributes of the cities (e.g.,
the heritage city of Porto); (ii) to sustain different measures and levels of
interventions of buildings in urban areas; (iii) to include the residents'
participation in urban rehabilitation processes (Esra et al., 2019; Gon­
çalves, 2018; Tarrafa Silva, 2020; UNESCO, 2011).
The information obtained by the MAHT is, therefore, crucial to
prevent the loss of buildings' heritage attributes. Moreover, the findings
show that the MAHT is a tool that can be integrated into the HIA and
HUL approaches (ICOMOS, 2011; UNESCO, 2011) by supporting the
collection and collating of data to the HIA periodic reports; providing
essential information to the main regional and local stakeholders to
strengthen building-capacity within HUL recommendations, contrib­
uting to define local strategies in the scope of urban heritage; promoting
inclusive and sustainable interventions to attain liveable urban build­
ings, with more diverse and happy citizens.
Finally, MAHT is a tool that can be adapted to different local/urban
contexts, with the support of local authorities/stakeholders in charge of
urban heritage preservation, i.e., items can be removed and new, or
modified items can be included to fit the particular characteristics (e.g.,
heritage attributes and building systems) of different urban areas or sets
of buildings. In addition, the technicians should have training on the
general and specific aspects of MAHT tool to be able to apply it within a
certain context. In the future, it can also be transformed into an ICT user-
friendly tool to manage the urban heritage buildings, feeding, and
updating digital and common databases and instruments at an urban
scale (e.g., through GIS information), and contributing to the digital
transition of urban tools. Future work will consider the application of
MAHT to other urban areas in different cities.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
C. Ornelas et al.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by the Base Funding - UIDB/
04708/2020 and Programmatic Funding - UIDP/04708/2020 of the
CONSTRUCT - Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e Construções - funded by
national funds through the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC). The work developed
by the author Cilísia Ornelas was financially supported by FCT -
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal, co-funded by the
European Social Fund, namely through the Stimulus Programme for
Scientific Employment, with the Reference No. 2021. 01733.CEECIND;
and by the Base Funding allocated by the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC) to
CITTA - Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment
(UIDB/04427/2020). The authors also thank the anonymous reviewers
for their valuable suggestions.
References
Ashrafi, B., Kloos, M., & Neugebauer, C. (2021). Heritage Impact Assessment, beyond an
Assessment Tool: A comparative analysis of urban development impact on visual
integrity in four UNESCO World Heritage Properties. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 47,
199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2020.08.002
Avrami, E., Mason, R., & De la Torre, M. (2000). Values and heritage conservation: Research
report. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/
gci_pubs/values_heritage_research_report.
Bonet, L., Margarita Greene, E., & de Dios Ortúzar, J. (2020). Subjective valuation of
tangible and intangible heritage neighbourhood attributes. Habitat International, 105,
Article 102249.
Casals-Tres, M., Arcas-Abella, J., & Burgos, A. C. (2013). Aproximación a una
habitabilidad articulada desde la sostenibilidad: raíces teóricas y caminos por andar.
INVI, 28(77), 193–226. ISSN: 0718-8358.
Esra, E., Taşcı, B., & Gustafsson, C. (2019). An evaluation of decision-making process on
maintenance of built cultural heritage: The case of Visby, Sweden. Cities, 94, 24–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.030
Fernandes, F. B., Ferreira, T. C., Póvoas, R. F., & Dias, L. T. (2018). Estudo de
Caracterização e diagnóstico sobre o tema Valores Patrimoniais. In Plano Diretor
Municipal do Porto, Relatório de caraterização e diagnóstico (pp. 1–109). Porto: CEAU.
http://www.cm-porto.pt/assets/misc/img/PDM/ECD/30_PDMP_ECD_Val_
Patrimoniais.pdf.
Galantucci, R. A., & Fatiguso, F. (2019). Advanced damage detection techniques in
historical buildings using digital photogrammetry and 3D surface analysis. Journal of
Cultural Heritage, 36, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.09.014
Gonçalves, A. (2018). Património Urban(ístic)o e Desenvolvimento. Uma década de
estudos sobre a dimensão urbana do património. In Imprensa da Universidade de
Coimbra (pp. 1–239). https://doi.org/10.14195/978-989-26-1457-1
Gordon, A. D. (1987). A review of hierarchical classification. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society. Series A (General), 150(2), 119–137. www.jstor.org/stable/
2981629. Accessed 15 Jan. 2021.
Guzmán, C., Pereira Roders, A., & Colenbrander, B. (2017). Measuring links between
cultural heritage management and sustainable urban development: An overview of
global monitoring tools. Cities, 60, 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2016.09.005
Havinga, L., Colenbrander, B., & Schellen, H. (2020). Heritage significance and the
identification of attributes to preserve in a sustainable refurbishment. Journal of
Cultural Heritage, 43, 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.08.011
ICOMOS. (2011). Guidance on heritage impact assessments for cultural world heritage
properties. Paris, France https://www.icomos.org/world_heritage/HIA_20110201.
pdf.
Jaillot, V., Istasse, M., Servigne, S., Gesquière, G., Rautenberg, M., & Lefort, I. (2020).
Describing, comparing, and analysing digital urban heritage tools: A methodology
designed with a multidisciplinary approach. Digital Applications in Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage, 17, Article e00135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2020.e00135
Ji, L., Krishnamurthy, S., Roders, A. P., & van Wesemael, P. (2021). Imagine the Old
Town of Lijiang: Contextualising community participation for urban heritage
management in China. Habitat International, 108, Article 102321. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102321
Jolliffe, I. T., & Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: A review and recent
developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374, 20150202.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0202
Khalil, A., & Stravoravdis, S. (2022). Digital buildings data longevity and interoperability
challenges in the documentation of heritage buildings. In Int. Arch. Photogramm.
Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLVI-2/W1 (pp. 283–289). https://doi.org/10.5194/
isprs-archives-XLVI-2-W1-2022-283-2022
Khan, M. Y., Zaina, F., Abedin, Z.u., Tariq, S., & Khan, M. (2022). Evaluation of risks to
UNESCO World Heritage (WH) sites in Taxila, Pakistan using ground-based and
satellite remote sensing techniques. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 55, 195–209.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2022.03.011
Kiruthiga, K., & Thirumaran, K. (2017). Visual perception on the architectural elements
of the built heritage of a historic temple town: A case study of Kumbakonam,India.
Frontiers of Architectural Research, 6(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foar.2016.10.002
12
Cities 137 (2023) 104274
Liu, Y., Jin, X., & Dupre, K. (2022). Engaging stakeholders in contested urban heritage
planning and management. Cities, 122, Article 103521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2021.103521
Martínez Pino, J. (2018). The new holistic paradigm and the sustainability of historic
cities in Spain: An approach based on the world heritage cities. Sustainability, 10(7),
2301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072301
Masciotta, M., Morais, M., Ramos, L., & Sanchez-Aparicio, L. (2019). A digital-based
integrated methodology for the preventive conservation of cultural heritage: The
experience of HeritageCare project. International Journal of Architectural Heritage.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2020.e00135
Najd, M. D., Ismail, N. A., Maulan, S., Mohd Yunos, M. Y., & Dabbagh Niya, M. (2015).
Visual preference dimensions of historic urban areas: The determinants for urban
heritage conservation. Habitat International, 49, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
habitatint.2015.05.003
Ornelas, C., Miranda Guedes, J., & Breda-Vázquez, I. (2016a). Cultural built heritage and
intervention criteria: A systematic analysis of building codes and legislation of
southern European countries. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 20, 725–732. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.culher.2016.02.013
Ornelas, C., Miranda Guedes, J., & Breda-Vázquez, I. (2016). The role of a systematic
analysis of building codes to support an assessment methodology for built heritage.
In C. Modena, F. da Porto, & M. R. Valluzzi (Eds.), Brick and block masonry – Trends,
innovations and challenges (pp. 701–708). London: Taylor & Francis Group. https://
doi.org/10.1201/b21889. ISBN 978-1-138-02999-6.
Ornelas, C., Miranda Guedes, J., & Breda-Vázquez, I. (2018). Integrated built heritage
assessment: The development of MAPEH. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 24(1),
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000287, 04017031.
Ornelas, C., Miranda Guedes, J., Sousa, F., & Breda-Vázquez, I. (2021). Supporting
residential built heritage rehabilitation through an integrated assessment.
International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 15(11), 1641–1654. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15583058.2020.1712496
Patiwael, P., Groot, P., & Vanclay, F. (2019). Improving 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
Petti, L., Trillo, C., & Makore, B. (2019). Towards a shared understanding of the concept
of heritage in the European context. Heritage, 2(3), 2531–2544. https://doi.org/
10.3390/heritage2030155
Portaria 230. (2018). 1.◦ Direito - Programa de Apoio ao Acesso à habitação. In , 158.
Decreto-Lei 37/2018, Lisboa: Diário da República, Série I (pp. 4216–4223). https://dre.
pt/home/-/dre/116090203/details/maximized.
Rodwell, D., & Turner, M. (2018). Impact assessments for urban world heritage:
European experiences under scrutiny. Built Heritage, 2(4), 58–71. https://built-
heritage.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/BF03545684.pdf https://built
-heritage.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/BF03545684.pdf.
Sesana, E., Gagnon, A., Bonazza, A., & Hughes, J. (2020). An integrated approach for
assessing the vulnerability of World Heritage Sites to climate change impacts.
Journal of Cultural Heritage, 41, 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
culher.2019.06.013
Seyedashrafi, B., Ravankhah, M., Weidner, S., & Schmidt, M. (2017). Applying heritage
impact assessment to urban development: World heritage property of Masjed-e Jame
of Isfahan in Iran. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31, 212–224. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scs.2017.01.002
Sousa, F., & Tendeiro, J. (2005). A validation methodology in Hierarchical Clustering. In
International Symposium of Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis (pp. 396–403).
ASMDA. ISSN: 0718-8358.
Taher Tolou Del, M., Sedghpour, B., & Tabrizi, S. (2020). The Semantic Conservation of
Architectural Heritage: the missing values. Heritage Science, 8(70), 1–13. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40494-020-00416-w
Taher Tolou Del, M., & Tabrizi, S. (2020). A methodological assessment of the
importance of physical values in architectural conservation using the Shannon
entropy method. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 44, 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.culher.2019.12.012
Tarrafa Silva, A. (2020). The substance of cultural significance on spatial planning
policies: The materialization of intangible to tangible heritage on Municipal Master
Plans. In , 26. Conference proceedings: Safeguarding in Development (pp. 18–32).
Coimbra: CESContexto - Debates. https://www.ces.uc.pt/publicacoes/cescontexto/
ficheiros/cescontexto_debates_xxvi.pdf.
Tarrafa Silva, A., & Ferreira, T. C. (2018). Cartas Municipais de Património: do inventário
ao instrumento de gestão. Porto. In T. Marat-Mendes, et al. (Eds.), PNUM 2018:
Urban morphology in Portuguese speaking countries (pp. 18–19). https://hdl.handle.
net/10216/120777.
UNESCO. (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
Adopted by the General Conference, the session, 16 November, Paris, France
https://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf.
UNESCO. (2011). Recommendation on the historic urban landscape Accessed 18 May
2022 http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php_URL_ID=48857%26URL_DO=DO_TOPIC
%26URL_SECTION=201.html.
UNESCO. (2019, July 10). The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization - Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage. https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines.
UNESCO. (2021). The operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. Available at. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization - Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines.
C. Ornelas et al.
Vanja, S., & Čerpes, I. (2019). Comprehensive assessment methodology for a liveable
residential environment. Cities, 94, 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2019.05.020
Wardekker, A., Wilk, B., Brown, V., Uittenbroek, C., Mees, H., Driessen, P., Wassen, M.,
Molenaar, A., Walda, J., & Runhaar, H. (2020). A diagnostic tool for supporting
policymaking on urban resilience. Cities, 101, Article 102691. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cities.2020.102691
WHC. (1996). The Historic Centre of Oporto Portugal, C (iv), Cultural Properties,
Properties which the Committee inscribed on the World Heritage List. In Convention
Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO. Report
13
Cities 137 (2023) 104274
of the 20th Session of the Committee. Mexico: Merida, 2-7 December. https://whc.
unesco.org/archive/repcom96.htm#755.
WHC. (2020). World heritage in danger. Available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/158.
WHC. (2020). Heritage impact assessments at world heritage properties: Database and
guidance tools. Paris, France https://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/907.
WHC. (2020). World Heritage Cities programme. http://whc.unesco.org/en/cities.
Žydrūnė, M. (2020). Criteria selection for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings. 11.
Moksla: Lietuvos Ateitis/ Science – Future of Lithuania. https://doi.org/10.3846/
mla.2019.11347