pisco_log
banner

Beyond Fabric Conservation: Assessing Experiential Heritage Values in the Ma Family Courtyard

Mengyuan Kang

Abstract


This paper develops an experiential heritage value assessment framework for the Ma Family Courtyard in Pingyao. Conventional
assessment of architectural heritage often privileges age, fabric, structural condition, craftsmanship, and visual integrity, while giving less
systematic attention to movement, sensory atmosphere, cultural legibility, and reflective meaning. Drawing on value-based conservation,
the Historic Urban Landscape approach, setting theory, and research on visitor perception, the study translates the formation of spatial
experience into six assessable dimensions: cultural legibility, spatial integrity, route continuity, perceptual coherence, atmospheric authenticity, and experiential significance. The framework is applied to the Ma Family Courtyard as an interpretive case rather than a quantitative
survey. It identifies the heritage attributes supporting each dimension, the principal risks that may weaken them, and corresponding conservation priorities. The paper proposes an assessment-to-action process comprising attribute identification, value assessment, risk diagnosis,
priority setting, adaptive intervention, and post-intervention monitoring. It argues that experiential value is not a substitute for material
authenticity; it is the process through which authentic fabric, spatial relations, and cultural knowledge become meaningful to visitors and
communities.

Keywords


Experiential heritage value; Ma Family Courtyard; Shanxi merchant courtyard; Spatial integrity; Atmospheric authenticity; Heritage assessment

Full Text:

PDF

Included Database


References


[1] UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Ancient City of Ping Yao[EB/OL]. Paris: UNESCO, 1997.

[2] UNESCO. Practical Conservation Guidelines for Traditional Courtyard Houses and Environment in the Ancient City of Pingyao[R].

Paris: UNESCO, 2015.

[3] ICOMOS. Xi'an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas[R]. Paris: ICOMOS, 2005.

[4] UNESCO. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape[R]. Paris: UNESCO, 2011.

[5] Havinga L, Colenbrander B, Schellen H. Heritage significance and the identification of attributes to preserve in a sustainable

refurbishment[J]. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 2020, 43: 282-293.

[6] Ornelas C, Guedes J M, Breda-Vázquez I. Quantify and classify urban heritage buildings: The Monitoring and Assessment Heritage

Tool[J]. Cities, 2023, 134: 104149.

[7] Jones S. Wrestling with the social value of heritage: Problems, dilemmas and opportunities[J]. Journal of Community Archaeology &

Heritage, 2017, 4(1): 21-37.

[8] Chen D, Wang Y, Li J. How visitors perceive heritage value: A quantitative study on perceived value and satisfaction of architectural

heritage through structural equation modelling[J]. Sustainability, 2023, 15(11): 9002.

[9] Laing J, Wheeler F, Reeves K, Frost W. Assessing the experiential value of heritage assets: A case study of a Chinese heritage

precinct[J]. Tourism Management, 2014, 40: 180-192.

[10] Wang G W. Renjian Cihua[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Classics Publishing House, 1998.

[11] Zong B H. Aesthetic Walks[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1981.

[12] Ye L. Principles of Aesthetics[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2009.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.70711/rcha.v4i8.10187

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.