The identification of heritage attributes and values in World Heritage: the Tajo de San Pedro in the context of the Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzín (Spain)

Rey‑Pérezetal. Built Heritage (2025) 9:15 https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238‑025‑00182‑3 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access © The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Built Heritage The identification ofheritage attributes andvalues inWorld Heritage: theTajo de San Pedro inthecontext oftheAlhambra, Generalife andAlbayzín (Spain) Julia Rey‑Pérez1* , Marta García‑Casasola1, Francisco José García Fernández1, Francisco‑Javier Ostos‑Prieto2, Beatriz González Sancho2 and José‑Manuel Aladro‑Prieto1 Abstract To ensure that Outstanding Universal Values (OUVs) are not compromised, control and monitoring mechanisms are needed for World Heritage management. This implies working with specific attributes and values that make conservation compatible with possible works at heritage sites. This paper aims to develop a methodology that can be used to systematically identify, order, evaluate and prioritise the attributes and values of World Heritage. This implies a review beyond inscription dossiers, policy and planning documents, and projects. The methodology has been tested in Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzín, particularly in the northern slope area. First, the categories of values and attributes are defined in a table from a transdisciplinary point of view. Second, the values and attrib‑ utes of the OUV Statement are identified. Those that are relevant to the field of study are highlighted. Third, other documents at the national, regional and local levels are reviewed to determine the attributes and values identified by the management institutions. The resulting list of heritage attributes and values is very complex and highlights previously unrecognised issues, e.g., natural, ecological and landscape elements. Institutions can make recommen‑ dations for the management of heritage sites on the basis of this detailed identification. It will also provide a better understanding of the cultural significance of these sites and facilitate the assessment of their impact. Keywords Methodology, UNESCO, Landscape, Monitoring, World Heritage management 1 Introduction The shortand long-term management of assets that are included on the World Heritage List (WHL) is considerably complex and has a large scale. Thus, in many cases, architectural or discursive-narrative works can involve part or the whole asset. The definition of their heritage attributes and values should be as detailed and flexible as possible (Court etal 2022). Thus, the impact of these works can be measured and prevented from influencing (or distorting) people’s understanding of the importance of world heritage. This challenge is faced with the existing information in WHL nominations, most of which were initiated many years ago. Many of these dossiers need to be updated, as the heritage assessment has focused on historical and artistic issues to exclude other contemporary heritage approaches. The incorporation of multidisciplinarity in the preparation of these dossiers, the inclusion of citizens’ perceptions (Ibid, 24; SánchezCarretero etal. 2019), the approach of public institutions, and the implementation of a landscape or climate focus are approaches that were not adopted at the time. If they were included today, completely different registration *Correspondence: Julia Rey‑Pérez [email protected] 1 Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain 2 RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany Page 2 of 17 Rey‑Pérezetal. Built Heritage (2025) 9:15 dossiers would be produced (GarcíaMartínez and DíazSierra 2023). Today, these old documents define the cultural significance of assets and provide the keys that define their heritage uniqueness. However, these documents do not allow for an extensive, comprehensive and inclusive evaluation of heritage. A precise definition is needed to assess the impact of any architectural or discursive-narrative work on the specific characteristics and values of a study area. Thus, the degree of change it might cause to the identified attributes and values must be accounted for when evaluating a specific intervention on these WHL-listed assets. Mechanisms for monitoring and controlling are needed to ensure that the attributes and values are maintained. Other studies have also considered the need to review the OUV of heritage assets. For example, a study by Schmutz and Elliott (2017) examined 811 assessments by international advisory committees between 1980 and 2010 to demonstrate the rationality of the World Heritage evaluation methodology, as well as the degree of reliance on the definition and validation of the OUV. The change in criteria as a result of the revision of the OUV allowed for the protection of the Rosetta/Rachid quarter in Egypt in 1996 (Tawab 2019). On the other hand, the OUV and its criteria are used to measure how tourists perceive heritage to help promote conservation. This was confirmed by 565 surveys conducted in Mount Sanqingshan National Park in China. Tourists showed a stronger connection to the World Heritage Site. Thus, the study concluded that tourism contributes to heritage conservation (Nian etal. 2019). However, the main challenge is the inclusion of other heritage values beyond OUV (Court etal. 2022) and the ability to develop a tool for monitoring them. As Fredheim and Khalaf say, ’a values-based approach is defined as one that seeks to identify, maintain and enhance significance, where significance is understood as the overall value of the heritage, or the sum of its constituent heritage values’ (2016: 466). The aim is to improve the significance and justification of the features identified. This article was commissioned by the Patronato de La Alhambra y Generalife, the institution responsible for the protection, management and conservation of the Alhambra. Its purpose is to provide guidelines for conservation and recommendations for further studies to identify the heritage values of this monumental complex. The Alhambra and Generalife were inscribed on the WHL in 1984, with an extended statement in 1994, which also included the Albayzín neighbourhood. The evaluation focused specifically on the northern slope of Alhambra hill. Here, a major threat to the masonry structures and buildings of the Alhambra is the lack of stability of the Tajo de San Pedro, a natural space defined by a vertical slope with an almost parabolic ground plan (Figs.1 and 2). In the medium term, Tajo de San Pedro will require an intervention project. In light of the above, the need has been felt to update the document, identifying the characteristics and values of the Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzín. Once this information has been obtained, it will be possible to propose works to be carried out in the Tajo River. This does not affect the characteristics and values of the whole complex. We found that the values identified in the 1984 and 1994 inscriptions were insufficient. They are limited to architectural aspects and do not consider all the space outside the monument. On the other hand, there is no methodology for a systematic review and updating of these values. Thus, the research questions are as follows: Can a methodology be developed to facilitate identifying, ordering, evaluating and prioritising World Heritage Fig. 1 The Alhambra from the viewpoint of San Nicolás (Source: the authors, taken in 2023) Page 3 of 17 Rey‑Pérezetal. Built Heritage (2025) 9:15 values and attributes? Can this methodology integrate values from the inscription document and new values? The specific objectives of this study are as follows: a. To design a tool for the management of World Heritage values and attributes. These should be both tangible and intangible and open and flexible enough to integrate new ones as they are added over time. b. To develop a working protocol aimed at revising and updating the OUV contained in the inscription document. It also needs to consider the evolution of assets; the changing sensitivities and perceptions of citizens; and the complexity of their relationships, particularly with respect to social, economic and environmental values. c. To identify, analyse and prioritise documents and sources of information that may contribute to the identification of other OUV-compatible attributes that are not included in the registration document. d. To evaluate, in particular, the conditioning factors of the site and its surroundings, as well as its evolution, identify the community of the heritage. To create a stakeholder map of organisations and individuals. e. To develop guidelines and recommendations for conducting World Heritage Impact Assessments by establishing a universal reporting format. A multidisciplinary team of experts defines the categories of values and attributes in a table to achieve these objectives. First, the attributes identified during the methodology are placed in this table according to their features and importance. Second, the values and attributes in the OUV Statement are identified, with emphasis on those that are relevant to the area under study. Third, a review of other documents at the national, regional and local levels is carried out for the identification of other attributes by the management authorities. As a result, the table shows that heritage attributes and values are highly complex. It highlights aspects not previously identified, such as the natural, ecological and landscape dimensions. This detailed identification will allow the managing institutions to make recommendations for the management of these sites and to ensure an understanding of their cultural significance. It is a methodology that can be extrapolated and scaled to any other World Heritage Site, considering any other studies that may be added. The more interdisciplinary the OUV review team is, the more comprehensive the outcome. 2 Approach totheidentification ofheritages value Identifying the multiple values and attributes that characterise heritage can be complex. However, this needs to be done to ensure that heritage is managed according to the current dimension of heritage and the problems of each context. Heritage is considered a broad and diffuse subject of study. Its definition involves several actors and numerous disciplines with a humanistic, scientific, social or legal profile. Its nature is transversal and complex. It is a discipline of disciplines. This implies a work of consensus. It is essential to objectify personal or collective judgements and to use well-founded data and arguments to justify those taken. Identifying cultural values and Fig. 2 Aerial view of Tajo de San Pedro in the surroundings of Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzín. (Source: Google Earth, 2024/02/20) Page 4 of 17 Rey‑Pérezetal. Built Heritage (2025) 9:15 attributes is necessary to develop intervention criteria to guide different action strategies. ’The policy for managing a site should be based on an understanding of its cultural significance’, as stated in the Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, better known as the Burra Charter (ICOMOS 2011). In the context of heritage inflation, many authors have expanded the participatory turn in this context (Quintero 2020). This socialisation process began with the Burra Charter (1979) and reached a milestone with the Intangible Heritage Convention (2003). This marked the transition from the historical vision of heritage to the anthropological vision of culture, issues that are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary (Marchán Fiz 2015). This perspective on heritage understands that the concept of value has the capacity to bring together the demands of different disciplines. It is an open, changing and evolving concept at the same time. In addition to recognising the authorised discourse (Smith 2006), it aims to implement the recognition of other values, emphasising the need to adopt a discursive approach (Fouseki 2022). From an axiological perspective, values are cultural constructions. They are under the influence of the social context and specific conditions. If we define ’status’ as a combination of individual, social, cultural and historical elements and circumstances, we maintain that values have existence and meaning only within a concrete and determined situation (Frondizi 1966, 124). For this reason, there is no such thing as ideal values or a framework of values that can serve as a reference for all cultures and all times (Zamora Baño 1997, 38–39). This should not be seen as a limitation to the diagnosis of heritage. In contrast, it is a natural part of the process. It is a natural consequence of heritage consciousness, which exists in a particular ’situation’. Values can be understood only in relation to the social, historical and even spatial contexts that lie behind the lens of whoever defines them. In other words, they do not exist outside the cultural processes that give them meaning (Pastor Pérez and Díaz-Andreu 2022). They are socially constructed in a particular space and time. Because they are contextual, they change with society (Hernández Ramírez, 2003: 84–85). As stated in the Nara Document on Authenticity (ICOMOS 1994), ’All judgements about values attributed to cultural properties as well as the credibility of related information sources may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture. It is thus not possible to base judgements of values and authenticity within fixed criteria. On the contrary, the respect due to all cultures requires that heritage properties must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which they belong (art. 11)’. Values cannot be considered essential and immutable principles. Instead, they are discursive and dynamic and are adapted to those that social groups have at any given moment. They are also a reflection of past experiences that are already integrated into the mental schemata of the subjects (historical dimension). In other words, values change constantly, just as society itself and its sensitivities evolve. They always do so on the basis of previous perceptions. They are perceived by individuals and codified by institutions through laws, charters or recommendations. This explains the cumulative nature of heritage, which grows in importance according to the new concerns, tastes and needs that are projected in each period (García Fernández 2013). This cumulative nature is reflected in new values that complete and enrich the perception, understanding, protection, conservation and interpretation of existing values (Avrami etal. 2019). Given the ideas outlined above, value attribution is presented as a useful tool for dialogue and the introduction of multivocality into the heritage process. As de la Torre and Mason noted, ’value has always been the reason for the conservation of cultural heritage. It is self-evident that no society makes an effort to preserve what it does not value’ (2002, 3). The assumption that the value of heritage is created by the generations of its time and changes over time implies not only the valuation of the outcome but also the valuation of the process. This idea or value is formed from a set of objects or from a cultural manifestation (both tangible and intangible) in which it is located. UNESCO refers to these objective elements as attributes (UNESCO 2014, 33). Both tangible and intangible attributes are considered heritage because of the cultural values that we—as a community, as experts, as residents or as tourists—are attached to them. Thus, the valorisation of heritage requires a clear distinction between what is being valued (the attribute) and why it is being valued (the value) (Court etal. 2022; Tarrafa Silvada Silva and Pereira Roders 2021). These two identifications are necessarily dynamic. They should be continuously updated and are dependent on contextual changes. The task is facilitated by working with a typology of values. Breaking this down allows the identification of all these elements of heritage and the relationships between them in these complex assets. Different value typologies have been proposed by different researchers and organisations in their attempt at identification (Fredheim and Khalaf 2016). Riegl (from the discipline of art history) was the first to distinguish between historical values (’ancient’, ’historic’ and ’commemorative’) and contemporary values (’use’) (Riegl 1982). However, UNESCO defined universal values in the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. These were Page 5 of 17 Rey‑Pérezetal. Built Heritage (2025) 9:15 aesthetic, historical, scientific, ethnological or anthropological (in the case of sites). The 1979 Burra Charter extended this list to recognise an additional class of values, social values. These qualities are defined as those qualities that focus on majority or minority spiritual, political, national or other cultural sentiments (ICOMOS Australia 1979). Over the past 40 years, several approaches have been identified. One of these was that developed by the Swiss economist Bruno Frey in 1997, which has a purely economic focus. Another is the English Heritage approach. Here, the categories of value are structured on the basis of whether heritage is used by people other than elites and experts. Another approach comes from the Getty Conservation Institute. They distinguish between sociocultural values and economic values. This is controversial because the method of measuring the economic value of heritage cannot be applied to other heritage values to determine the significance of a place (Mason 2002). We can assign a wide range of values using different approaches, scales and actors. These can range from the traditional ones proposed by UNESCO to those that are linked to concepts that are currently in use, such as sustainability or ecology. With the aim of implementing a broader heritage assessment, the Historic Urban Landscape Recommendation document proposes the identification of attributes from a landscape approach (UNESCO 2011), a question that relates to an understanding of the concept of landscape as a process (Taylor 2018). In 1992, in its definition of an OUV, UNESCO included ’cultural landscapes’ as a protection category. However, the importance of landscape values at many World Heritage Sites has not been reexamined. On the other hand, the European Territorial Strategy (European Commission 1999) and the European Landscape Convention (Conseil de L’Europe 2000) were published in response to concerns about the protection and management of landscapes. These have been the basis for the documents and regulations drawn up by both the Spanish State and the Autonomous Communities. In this case, they justify the inclusion of this new category. Additionally, the document ICOMOS-IFLA Principles concerning Rural Landscapes as Heritage, adopted by the 19th ICOMOS General Assembly in New Delhi (ICOMOS 2017), focuses on "tangible and intangible rural heritage". This means that the identification of heritage attributes and values should be seen as an open-ended process. It should be constantly updated and flexible according to the needs and requirements of the current context. Furthermore, it is important to recognise the need to undertake heritage evaluation and management by methodologically overcoming the dichotomy between the monument and its setting (Rodwell and Turner 2018). 3 Case study: Tajo De San Pedro The Alhambra is located at a natural height. Its border with the city is marked by steep slopes. Some of them are more than 20%. Around the perimeter of the Nasrid palace, these steep slopes are covered with dense vegetation, forming a forest. The Tajo de San Pedro is located on the northern slope between Alhambra and the Darro River. A unique slope in the terrain results from a combination of geological and anthropic processes over time (Azañón etal. 2007). It is called the Tajo de San Pedro (Fig.3) because of its location in the area known as the Alhambra Forest or the San Pedro Forest. This reference to San Pedro comes from the church opposite the river, from which it takes its name. Although its origins are probably older, there has been evidence of its existence since at least the 16th century. In 1524, a fire in Alhambra and the northern forest triggered large landslides, which precipitated the evolution of the landscape. Later, a lack of soil protection due to new vegetation and rain led to the slope being damaged (Justo et al. 2005). In 1590, the explosion of a gunpowder factory near the church of San Pedro caused significant damage and a large sinkhole that formed the Tajo de San Pedro (Valladar 1890). This was followed by the flooding of the river in 1600. This created a sinkhole at the foot of the hill, which exacerbated the deterioration of Tajo (Justo etal. 2005). The northern slope underwent significant changes as a result of various events in the 16th century. The state of preservation of Tajo in this period can be seen in the earliest known image of this part of the Alhambra. It was drawn by Hoefnagel and was published in 1596 (Fig.4). Until the beginning of the 20th century, the Tajo area was characterised by a general lack of vegetation, in contrast to the other slopes of the Alhambra. A project to increase the amount of vegetation on the northern slope was approved in the 1960s. The introduction of an irrigation system and the replanting of trees has been a singular transformation of the landscape of this area, creating the current San Pedro Forest (Fig.1). The location of this place has made it one of the most famous and most photographed views of the Alhambra. It is possible to see how Tajo de San Pedro has shaped the image and landscape of the Alhambra and Granada from the Albayzín neighbourhood. Today, the Tajo de San Pedro appears to be a hollow on the northern slope of the Alhambra. Its current dimensions are 45.50m above the level of the river, with a slope of 67° (Mateos etal. 2015). Since the 16th century, there has been a gradual increase in the size of Page 6 of 17 Rey‑Pérezetal. Built Heritage (2025) 9:15 Tajo and a threat to the walls of the Alhambra. Despite the numerous studies and reinforcements that have been carried out in the area, there is still horizontal retreat of the rocky slopes of 8cm per year. However, given that this process is not constant, it is possible that it could continue to increase in the foreseeable future (Justo et al. 2005). The unsolved historical situation has been documented in several studies and proposals since the end of the 19th century, especially in the last quarter of the 20th century (Justo etal. 2005). The importance of identifying other (natural) attributes in addition to those currently recognised has been highlighted by the need to intervene in the structural consolidation of this natural element (UNESCO 1984,1–3; 1994, 63–65). The impact of Tajo could significantly influence the understanding of the landscape values of this area, as well as those of Alhambra. Currently, owing to its uniqueness, geology, landscape characteristics and importance in the history of the Alhambra and the Albayzín, the Tajo de San Pedro is part of the group of catalogued assets Fig. 3 Study area. Tajo de San Pedro next to the Alhambra Forest, with the same name, and the left bank of the Darro River (Source: the authors, drawn in 2022) Fig. 4 View of Tajo de San Pedro in the view of the Alhambra and Granada from Valparaíso (Source: Civitates Orbis Terrarum, 1564) Page 7 of 17 Rey‑Pérezetal. Built Heritage (2025) 9:15 near the Alhambra. For this reason, a contemporary perspective is needed to update the process of identifying the attributes and values of heritage as it is applied to this case study. 4 Methodology forvalue andattribute identification The development of methods for identifying values and attributes is ongoing. It has been in parallel with the evolution of the concepts that have been the hallmark of cultural theory in the field of heritage. The main contribution in this evolutionary context is the creation of a simple table capable of synthesising the characteristics and meanings of World Heritage. The following work phases and procedures were followed: • Phase 1: The definition of the categories of values and attributes that we will be working on. The aim of this phase is to define the framework of attributes and values into which the information under review will be classified. For this purpose, international documents were reviewed. Different values from the 20th century were identified. The values on which the definition framework will be built are identified through a critical analysis of the documents, supported by the vision of the multidisciplinary team carrying out the review (architects, historians, archaeologists, urban planners and biologists). Regarding attributes, the Operational Guidelines for World Heritage Implementation (UNESCO 2005) were used as a reference. Tangible and intangible attributes have been identified. In both categories, different nuances were then identified. Tangible attributes are defined in terms of scale and relationship to context. Intangible attributes are related to use and tradition. The design of a table of values and attributes systematises this information. • Phase 2: An analysis of the OUV Statement. Through the study and reading of the dossier, the attributes that appear in the text are identified. To do so, not only the values established in the document (aesthetic/artistic, historical and scientific) but also those established in the OUV Statement were accounted for. Once the attributes have been identified and are in the table, the next step is the identification of the main attributes of the object under study. This facilitates a deeper exploration of its problems. • Phase 3: An analysis of local official documents affecting the World Heritage Site to identify values and attributes beyond the perspective of the Statement. To visualise the attributes that may affect the various values identified, the multidisciplinary team perspective (archaeology, urbanism, architecture, art history and ecology) is considered essential to crossreference all the information studied. As in the previous case, once all the information has been collected, the main attributes of the object of study are identified to conduct an in-depth study of its problems. As stated in the Introduction, this type of heritage value report is intended to serve as a reference for the study of the impact of heritage values on World Heritage sites. In the absence of precedents, a methodology has been proposed. It may be useful for any UNESCO World Heritage property of any category. Its main benefit is to make it easier to review and update the values and attributes of its inscription according to new considerations. For this purpose, a tabular information management tool was created. This tool can be adapted to the specific features of each World Heritage Site or can even be extended. Moreover, new values and types of attributes can be added as necessary. Finally, it offers the possibility not only to identify attributes but also to organise them, evaluate them, prioritise them and even quantify them. This methodology is applicable and scalable to other national, regional or local heritage sites, not just World Heritage Sites. Its ergonomics and adaptability do not depend as much on the level of inscription or the category of the assets as on the aspects related to their context and scale. The experience of the team in other sites and contexts where the same methodology has been successfully applied confirms its usefulness. In this sense, the differences between urban and nonurban contexts, or even between small and large cities, are more decisive. Scale is relevant regarding the urban, territorial or landscape integration of assets. For example, this would explain the differences between the Alhambra and the Generalife and the Mosque of Cordoba, both of which are World Heritage Sites. On the other hand, Alhambra’s typology and character share many elements with other medieval fortifications, such as the Castle of Bujalance (Córdoba). In fact, the latter has only been declared an asset of cultural interest (BIC) by the Spanish State, with the category of Monument. The same could be said of a building with a lesser declaration or even one that has not yet been declared. In all cases, the differences take the form of a greater or lesser development of some attributes with respect to others, a greater importance of some values over others, or even the appearance of new attributes appropriate to these assets. Like any cell-based valuation table, this table can be adapted to the needs of the case without losing its theoretical approach and methodology. Page 8 of 17 Rey‑Pérezetal. Built Heritage (2025) 9:15 5 Methodological development ofthecase study After the problem of the Tajo de San Pedro and the need to update the Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzín dossiers are outlined, the methodology is presented. This method is proposed to help identify the characteristics and values of the monumental complex. We consider what is defined in the World Heritage Statement, as well as the official documents drawn up by the administrations, from national to state, regional and local, and other reference documents relating to the area studied. 5.1 Phase 1 The definition ofthecategories ofvalues andattributes onwhich we are going towork First, it has been reviewed by the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Article 1 of the Convention states that the properties of OUV (both cultural and natural) should be defined from the point of view of history, art, science, anthropology and ethnology (UNESCO 1972). Later, we added the contribution of ICOMOS to the Burra Charter, which also recognised social value. These are a new class of cultural values. As a result, the first part of the table consists of the following values: aesthetic/artistic, historical, scientific and social. However, UNESCO has gone a step further. In its most recent documents, it refers to the need to include values related to sustainability, which are defined as ecological (environmental) and economic (UNESCO 2016; Pereira Roders 2007). To these six values, a seventh—landscape dimension—must be added. This is a holistic and transversal value that is not limited to the aesthetic or formal concept of landscape, that is, landscape as perceived and represented by an artist or landscape as the trace of human action on the territory. Landscape is considered the dimension in which human communities coexist. Thus, it goes beyond overcoming the dichotomy between natural and cultural heritage inherited from the 1972 World Heritage Convention itself (Pastor Pérezand DíazAndreu,2022). It refers to how communities relate to the physical environment and each other, forming a complex system that must value not only ecological, economic, social and political but also cultural dimensions (Tesser 2000). Indeed, it is the sensory, emotional and symbolic dimension that has contributed most to renewing the scientific consideration of landscapes as a field of study, particularly with respect to the construction of identity (Nogué 2011). With respect to attributes, both tangible and intangible attributes have been referenced, as it is impossible to ignore the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2003) and the numerous references to the latter concept in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO 2008). It should be noted, however, that the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, adopted in 2005, refer to attributes(point No. 82): Depending on the type of cultural heritage, and its cultural context, properties may be understood to meet the conditions of authenticity if their cultural value (as recognised in the nomination criteria proposed) are truthfully and credibly expressed through a variety of attributes including: form and design; materials and substance; use and function; traditions, techniques and management systems; location and setting; language, and other forms of intangible heritage; spirit and feeling; and other internal and external factors (UNESCO 2005, 21). An identification of tangible and intangible attributes has been proposed according to the different scales of approach to the asset and the questions suggested by the Operational Guide (Table1). Tangible attributes are divided into 1) materials and techniques; 2) buildings and complexes; 3) urban structure; and 4) the physical environment and natural areas. Attributes reflecting constructive uniqueness or the use of specific materials are related to ’materials and techniques’. Related to ’Building and Complex’ are those that focus directly on the architecture produced, the group of buildings or a particular urban complex. In relation to ’urban structure’, the aim of this attribute is to capture those elements that influence the urban configuration of the asset. Finally, in relation to the ’physical environment and natural areas’, the aim is to reflect those aspects related to the area, including the orography, physiography and ecology, as well as their relation to locations. Intangible attributes are divided into 1) relationships with the cultural context, 2) relationships with use/function, 3) relationships with traditions and habits/practices and 4) relationships with the social context. The attributes related to ’relationship to cultural context’ focus on the ideas behind the design, such as period, style or ideology. Attributes relating to the ’relationship to the use/ function’ that society gives to the property or place can be approached from the perspective of the past (e.g., the lifestyle of the emirs in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries) or as a current use. The ’relationship to traditions and habits/practices’ seeks to capture those local practices, traditions or knowledge of a community or group that are often linked to a particular place or property or to tangible outputs such as tools or instruments. Finally, "relationship to the social context’ refers to aspects related to the feelings and meaning created in the Page 9 of 17 Rey‑Pérezetal. Built Heritage (2025) 9:15 relationship between a World Heritage asset and a person, i.e., issues related to cultural identity or diversity. This information is systematised in the Table of Values and Attributes (Table1). 5.2 Phase 2—An analysis oftheOUV Statement oftheAlhambra, Generalife andAlbayzín The information contained in the OUV Statement is examined in detail in this section. For Alhambra and Generalife (Table2), the descriptions in the "Brief Synthesis’ section, which are located in the justification of the criteria for inscription on WHL, and the ’Authenticity and Integrity’ section have been revised. The criteria for the inscription of the Alhambra and Generalife on the WHL are as follows: "Criterion (i): representing a masterpiece of human creative genius"; "Criterion (iii): unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilisation, living or extinct"; and "Criterion (iv): an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history". The identified attributes are classified according to the scale and characteristics of what they represent. Once they have been identified, it is important to reflect on their significance to assign the values they represent. An attribute can have more than one value. Among the various attributes identified in the statements of Alhambra and Generalife, those whose alterations significantly affect their understanding or appreciation, or which are considered a priority for conservation, have been selected. These features are described as they appear in the reference documents. The exact text is given in quotation marks and is also shown in the table. Those that are considered a priority for the case study, Tajo de San Pedro, are shown in bold type. Table 2 includes all the attributes. An example is "Integration of architecture, vegetation, water". This is a transversal attribute identified in the category of "urban structure", which affects different values, such as artistic/ historical and landscape values. This attribute also refers to the historical and artistic periods of the Alhambra and Generalife, up to its current conformation. It is a palimpsest made up of tangible elements such as architecture, vegetation and water. This integration establishes a relationship with Tajo de San Pedro, which contributes to the landscape of the Darro Valley. The same procedure Table 1 Table of attributes and values Page 16 of 17 Rey‑Pérezetal. Built Heritage (2025) 9:15 Data availability The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This research was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards and guidelines set forth by the University of Seville, which govern the responsible conduct of research. The nature of the study did not involve any direct interac‑ tion with human or animal subjects, nor did it involve sensitive data or other ethical concerns requiring formal review by the university’s ethics committee. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Received: 8 July 2024 Revised: 24 February 2025 Accepted: 26 February 2025 References Avrami, E., S. Macdonald, R. Mason, and D. Myers, eds. 2019. Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Approaches and Research Directions. Los Ángeles: Getty Publications. https:// muse. jhu. edu/ book/ 74916. Accessed 04 Feb 2025. Azañón, J. M., A. Azor, J.L. De Justo Alpañés, W. Martín‑Rosales, R. Mateos, and V. Pérez‑Peña. 2007. Deslizamientos e inundaciones cuaternarias en la cuenca vertiente del río Darro. La génesis del Tajo de San Pedro (La Alhambra, Granada). In Contribuciones al estudio del periodo cuaternario, eds. Javier Lario Gómez and Pablo G. Silva Barroso, 13–14. Madrid: Univer‑ sidad Politécnica de Madrid. Council of Europe. 2000. The European Landscape Convention. Italy: Florence. Court, S., E. Jo, R. Mackay, M. Murai, and R. Therivel. 2022. Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments in a World Heritage Context. UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN. https:// whc. unesco. org/ en/ guida nce‑ toolk it‑ impact‑ asses sments/. Accessed 04 Feb 2025. De la Torre, M. R. Mason. 2002. Introduction. In Assessing the values of Cultural Heritage. Research report, ed. M. De la Torre, 3–4. Los Ángeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. https:// www. getty. edu/ conse rvati on/ publi catio ns_ resou rces/ pdf_ publi catio ns/ pdf/ asses sing. pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. España. 2003. Decreto 186/2003, de 24 de junio, por el que se amplía la delimi‑ tación del conjunto histórico de Granada, declarado conjunto histórico‑ artístico mediante Real Orden de 5 de diciembre de 1929. Boletín Oficial del Estado 201, 22 August: 32478–32515. España. 2004. Decreto 107/2004, de 23 de marzo, por el que se declara y delimita el bien de interés cultural, con la categoría de monumento, de la Alhambra y el Generalife de Granada. Boletín Oficial del Estado 127, 26 May: 19635–19654. España. 2017. Decreto 43/2017, de 14 de marzo, por el que se inscribe en el Catálogo General del Patrimonio Histórico Andaluz como Bien de Interés Cultural, con la tipología de Zona Patrimonial, el Valle del Darro, en los términos municipales de Beas de Granada, Granada y Huétor Santillán (Granada). Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía 59, 28 March: 102–139. European Commission. 1999. European Territory Strategy. Potsdam. Fouseki, K. 2022. Heritage dynamics. Understanding and adopting to change in diverse heritage contexts. London: UCL Press. Fredheim, L.H., and M. Khalaf. 2016. The significance of values: Heritage value typologies re‑examined. International Journal of Heritage Studies 22 (6): 466–481. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13527 258. 2016. 11712 47. Frey, B.S. 1997. Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Frondizi, R. 1966. ¿Qué son los valores? Introducción a la axiología. Fondo de Cultura Económica. México. García Fernández, F.J. 2013. La conciencia patrimonial como construcción social. In Compartiendo el patrimonio: Paisajes culturales y modelos de gestión en Andalucía y Piura, eds. J. Hernández Ramírez and E. García Vargas, 105–126. Sevilla: Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. García Martínez, E., and R. Díaz‑Sierra. 2023. El patrimonio cultural en las eval‑ uaciones de impacto ambiental. In Ge-Conservacion 23 (1): 18–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 37558/ gec. v23i1. 1148. ICOMOS. 1994. The Nara Document on Authenticity. Nara. ICOMOS. 2011. The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas. Paris. ICOMOS. 2014. The Florence Declaration on Heritage and Landscape as Human Values. Florence. ICOMOS‑AUSTRALIA. 1979. Burra Charter. Burra. https:// opena rchive. icomos. org/ id/ eprint/ 2145/. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. ICOMOS‑IFLA. 2017. Principles concerning rural landscapes as heritage. 19th ICOMOS General Assembly. https:// www. icomos. org/ images/ DOCUM ENTS/ Gener al_ Assem blies/ 19th_ Delhi_ 2017/ Worki ng_ Docum ents‑ First_ Batch‑ August_ 2017/ GA2017_ 6‑3‑ 1_ Rural Lands capes Princ iples_ EN_ final 20170 730. pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. Justo, J.L., N. Vázquez, and P. Durand. 2005. Proyecto de restauración del Tajo de San Pedro de La Alhambra de Granada. Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir y Patronato de La Alhambra y Generalife. Marchán Fiz, S. 2015. Patrimonio: resistir en la globalización. Astrágalo: Cultura de la Arquitectura y la Ciudad, no. 20: 35–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 12795/ astra galo. 2015. i20. 04. Mason, R. 2002. Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices. In Assessing the values of Cultural Heritage. Research report, ed. M. De la Torre, 5–30. Los Ángeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. https:// www. getty. edu/ conse rvati on/ publi catio ns_ resou rces/ pdf_ publi catio ns/ pdf/ asses sing. pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. Mateos, R.M., F.J. Roldán, J.M. Azañón, L.J. García‑Pulido, J.P. Galve, J.V. Pérez‑ Peña, P. Sánchez‑Gómez, and M. Pérez Asensio. 2015. Itinerario 1. El paisaje geológico de Granada a través del tiempo. Cuadernos De Campo Del Cuaternario 2: 3–15. Nian, S., H. Zhang, L. Mao, W. Zhao, H. Zhang, Y. Lu, Y. Zhan, and Y. Xu. 2019. How Outstanding Universal Value, Service Quality and Place Attachment Influences Tourist Intention Towards World Heritage Conservation: A Case Study of Mount Sanqingshan National Park. China. in Sustainability 11 (12): 3321. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su111 23321. Nogué, J., and J. De San Eugenio Vela. 2011. The communicative dimension of landscape. A theoretical and applied proposal. Revista De Geografía Norte Grande, no. 49: 7–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4067/ S0718‑ 34022 01100 02000 02. Pastor Pérez, A., and M. Díaz‑Andreu. 2022. Evolución de los valores del patri‑ monio cultural. Revista De Estudios Sociales, no. 80: 3–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7440/ res80. 2022. 01. Pereira Roders, A.R. 2007. Re‑architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built herit‑ age – scapus. PhD diss., Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. https:// doi. org/ 10. 6100/ IR751 758. Quintero, V. 2020. La participación en patrimonio y sus protagonistas. Límites, contradicciones y oportunidades. Revista PH Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, no. 101: 122–145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 33349/ 2020. 101. 4687. Riegl, A. (1903) 1982. The modern cult of monuments: Its character and its origin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rodwell, D., and M. Turner. 2018. Impact Assessments for Urban World Herit‑ age: European Experiences under Scrutiny. Built Heritage 2 (4): 58–71. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ BF035 45684. Sánchez Carretero, C., J. Muñoz‑Albadalejo, A. Ruiz‑Blanch, and J. Roura‑ Expósito. 2019. El imperativo de la participación en la gestión patrimonial. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. http:// hdl. handle. net/ 10261/ 208999. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. Schmutz, V., and M.A. Elliott. 2017. World heritage and the scientific consecra‑ tion of ‘outstanding universal value’. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 58 (2): 140–159. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00207 15217 70377. Smith, L. 2006. The uses of heritage. London: Routledge. Tarrafa Pereira da Silva, A.M., and A. Pereira Roders. 2021. Taxonomias do signifi‑ cado cultural do património: valores e atributos. In Gestão do Património Cultural: experiências e desafios, eds. C. Almeida Marado, T. Valente, and J. Pedro Bernardes, 10–31. Faro: University of Algarve. https:// doi. org/ 10. 34623/ vt4s‑ 7r64. Page 17 of 17 Rey‑Pérezetal. Built Heritage (2025) 9:15 Tawab, A.A. 2019. The Assessment of Historic Towns’ Outstanding Universal Value Based on the Interchange of Human Values They Exhibit. Heritage 2 (3): 1874–1891. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ herit age20 30114. Taylor, K. 2018. Connecting Concepts of Cultural Landscape and Historic Urban Landscape: The Politics of Similarity. Built Heritage 2 (3): 53–67. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ BF035 45710. Tesser, A. 2000. On the confluence of self‑esteem maintenance mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4 (4): 290–299. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 7957P SPR04 04_1. UNESCO. 1972. Carta del Restauro 1972. Rome. UNESCO. 1984. World Heritage List No 314. Paris. https:// whc. unesco. org/ en/ list/ 314/ docum ents/. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. UNESCO. 1994. World Heritage List Granada No 314bis. Paris. https:// whc. unesco. org/ en/ list/ 314/ docum ents/. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. UNESCO. 2003. Text of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris. https:// ich. unesco. org/ en/ conve ntion. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. UNESCO. 2005. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris. https:// whc. unesco. org/ en/ guide lines. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. UNESCO. 2008. Directrices Prácticas para la aplicación de la Convención del Patrimonio Mundial. Paris. https:// whc. unesco. org/ en/ guide lines. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. UNESCO. 2011. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, including a glossary of definitions. http:// portal. unesco. org/ en/ ev. php‑ URL_ ID= 48857 & URL_ DO= DO_ TOPIC & URL_ SECTI ON= 201. html. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. UNESCO. 2016. Culture Urban Future. Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development. París. http:// unesd oc. unesco. org/ images/ 0024/ 002459/ 24599 9e. pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. Valladar, F.P. 1890. Continuación de la novísima Guía de Granada. Granada: El Incendio de la Alhambra. Villafranca Jiménez, M.M., and P. Salmerón Escobar. 2020. Plan Director de la Alhambra y Generalife 2007/2020. Patronato de la Alhambra y Generalife. https:// www. alham bra‑ patro nato. es/ patro nato/ infor macion‑ insti tucio nal/ plan‑ direc tor‑ 2007‑ 2020. Accessed 4 Feb 2025. Zamora Baño, F. 1997. Ética y Patrimonio Cultural. Boletín PH, no. 21: 37–41. Seville: Consejería de Cultura. https:// doi. org/ 10. 33349/ 1997. 21. 564. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub‑ lished maps and institutional affiliations.