See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264349577

Is the heritage really important? A theoretical framework for heritage

reputation using citizen sensing

Article in Habitat International · July 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.022

CITATIONS READS

31 7,007

3 authors:

Vasco Monteiro M. Painho

Universidade NOVA de Lisboa Universidade NOVA de Lisboa
5 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS 206 PUBLICATIONS 4,187 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eric Vaz
Toronto Metropolitan University
142 PUBLICATIONS 2,194 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ConTIG View project

SPS – Sustainability Performance Assessment Framework and Benchmarking of the Public Sector View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Painho on 20 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Habitat International 45 (2015) 156e162

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Is the heritage really important? A theoretical framework for heritage

reputation using citizen sensing
Vasco Monteiro a, *, Marco Painho a, Eric Vaz b
a ~o de Informaça
Instituto Superior de Estatística e Gesta ~o (ISEGI), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus Campolide, 1070 Lisboa, Portugal
b
Department of Geography, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3 Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Heritage value, conservation and protection are significant issues in heritage studies and urban and
Available online 18 July 2014 regional planning. In a time where both urban and tourism growth impact the heritage, understanding
the relationship between the surrounding heritage and the citizens, especially the local communities, can
Keywords: play an important role in urban and regional planning. This paper aims to provide a theoretical frame-
Heritage reputation work for heritage reputation, that integrates the heritage value and the causal framework regarding
Framework
beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behaviors towards an object, in this case the heritage. Heritage repu-
Citizen sensing
tation can be strategic for urban and regional planners when analyzing and implementing policies.
Public opinion
Social media
Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge, web 2.0 and social media play a significant role in today's society
Web 2.0 because this new source of information can help modeling the evolving human landscape, com-
plementing the existing methods. Indeed, location-based user-generated content can be a relevant
source for heritage studies and citizen sensing can be used to model and measure heritage reputation.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction increasingly the location-based information available. Social media

services, one of the characteristics of web 2.0 technologies, are
“Heritage is an important part of societal and community well- impacting on and stimulating social change (Sui & Goodchild,
being” and therefore a major component of quality of life (Tweed & 2011). Such services are producing user-generated geospatial data
Sutherland, 2007). The dimensions of heritage value over time and providing unprecedented opportunities to understand users'
in different cultures have been broadly studied in academia (Carver, behavior (Fischer, 2012; Stefanidis, Crooks, & Radzikowski, 2013),
1996; Darvill, 1995; Deeben, Groenewoudt, Hallewas, & Willems, community interests, opinions and experiences at a global scale
1999; Dix, 1990; Drury & McPherson, 2008; English Heritage, (Reips & Garaizar, 2011).
1997; Frey, 1997; ICOMOS, 2000; Lipe, 1983; Mason, 2002, ; Riegl, Goodchild (2007a, 2007b) considers humans as a type of sensor
1996) and heritage value is considered to be the intrinsic reason network, more interesting than electronic ones since they own five
for heritage protection and conservation (De la Torre & Mason, senses and the intelligence to gather and interpret what they sense,
2002). and are free to roam around the world. The role of this multisensory
In the urban and regional planning field the growing preoccu- experiences in interpret the individual's surroundings environ-
pation of endangerment of heritage due to urban growth and urban ments, places, landscapes and tourist experiences has been focus of
sprawl has been studied (Al-hagla Khalid, 2010; de Noronha Vaz, many studies (Agapito, Mendes, & Valle, 2013; Degen, 2008; Jütte,
Cabral, Caetano, Nijkamp & Painho, 2012; Tweed & Sutherland, 2005; Porteous, 1985; Rodaway, 2002). Now, this network of citizen
2007) and decision-making and participation in economic devel- sensors, with over seven billion components globally, has its abil-
opment by local communities (Hampton, 2005; Li, 2006). ities augmented with devices that collect other geographic infor-
In the last years, web 2.0 technologies have resulted in the mation, such as smart phones with GPS (Goodchild, 2007a, 2007b).
increased production of user-generated content (UGC) and are However, further work is required to understand the capabilities of
this citizen sensing and it is desire to improve the process of har-
vesting, processing and disseminating this information.
This paper proposes a theoretical framework for heritage
* Corresponding author. þ351 939 155 888.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Monteiro), [email protected] reputation and how citizen sensing can help model and measure it:
(M. Painho), [email protected] (E. Vaz). the possibility of using location-based social media data to provide

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.022
0197-3975/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 V. Monteiro et al. / Habitat International 45 (2015) 156e162 157

knowledge with spatial-temporal information about the relation According to Van der Aa (2005), five dimensions of heritage
between the citizens and heritage. value can be distinguished: which values (functional values of
The remainder of this paper is divided as follows: first we pre- heritage), whose values (person or group-related), where values
sent the heritage reputation theoretical framework, where we (scale level: local, national, and global level), when values (past,
analyze the various constructs of the framework: values, beliefs, contemporary or future), and uniqueness values (exceptional or
attitudes, intentions and behaviors; second we analyze the citizen general).
sensing and its potential to measure heritage reputation; third the Table 1 summarizes the first dimension proposed by Van der Aa
theoretical framework is revisited and finally the conclusions are (2005), with the various heritage value typologies developed and
presented. published by various scholars and organizations over time and
across different cultures. In an analogy proposed by Mason (2002),
these typologies tend to describe the same pie, only sliced in
Heritage reputation as a theoretical framework different ways. Normally they tend to implicitly elevate or mini-
mize some kinds of values and/or lead to conflicts between the
In order to create the theoretical framework for heritage repu- adoptions of certain values at the expense of others. Labadi (2007)
tation, the point of start is the heritage value, a concept that has notes that the social value, for instance, does not appear in the
been the focus of much academic research (Carver, 1996; Darvill, early-heritage value typologies, although in the Burra Charter's
1995; Deeben et al., 1999; Dix, 1990; Drury & McPherson, 2008; typology (ICOMOS, 2000) it is referred to, and it predates Lipe's
English Heritage, 1997; Frey, 1997; ICOMOS, 2000; Lipe, 1983; typology (Lipe, 1983); after the mid-1990s almost all the typologies
Mason, 2002; Riegl, 1996) and then a reputation framework used mentioned in Table 1 have the social value included. (Mason, 2002)
for corporate reputation is explored (Money & Hillenbrand, 2006), argues that the most comprehensive and balanced is the English
based on the causal framework of Fishbein & Ajzen (1975). Heritage (1997) typology. As pointed out by Labadi (2007), if we
examine the heritage typologies by regions, for example, we see
that the Australian Burra Charter (ICOMOS, 2000) and the Dutch
Heritage value
system by Deeben et al. (1999) do not indicate the market and
economic value, but English Heritage (1997) and the American
Value is the intrinsic reason for heritage protection and con-
Getty Conservation Institution (Mason, 2002) do mention it.
servation: “It is self-evident that no society makes an effort to
However in the heritage values proposed in 2008 by the English
conserve what it does not value” (De la Torre & Mason, 2002). The
Heritage (Drury & McPherson, 2008) the economic and market
previous sentence underlies that the protection and conservation
value is not explicitly mentioned, showing changes in the principles
are the consequence of the heritage value. The English Heritage
of this institution in the 21st century.
(EH), in its strategy for 2005e2010 has conceptualized a heritage
The second dimension proposed by Van der Aa (2005) analyses
cycle, adapted from Thurley (2005) (Fig. 1), which embodies the
how different stakeholders assign different values to heritage. He
motto “Making the Past Part of our Future”, where the value is
states that each one of us would make a different preferred heritage
highlighted and emphasizes the caring, as conservation and pro-
list, due to different values in relation to heritage sites; and says
tection, as a consequence of value. Fig. 1 depicts the Heritage Cycle:
that lists made by academics and by the general public are likely to
‘by understanding they will value the heritage, by valuing they will
differ. Relph (1993) and Aitchison, MacLeod, and Shaw (2000)
want to care for it, by carrying it will help people enjoy it and from
argue that this happens because we experience places individu-
enjoying it come a thirst to understand’. The EH strategy wants “to
ally with our attitudes, experiences and intentions and from our
help people develop their understanding of the historic (…), to get
unique circumstance. Leblanc (1984) argues that a list proposed
(…) onto other people's agenda (…) [in order] to enable and pro-
only by experts would have problems, because they have often
mote sustainable change (…) [and] to help the local communities to
different points of view and even opposing ideas regarding heritage
care” (Thurley, 2005).
value, while Van der Aa (2005) notes that the same diversity of
views would occur when the general public composes lists. Relph
(1993) points out that the valuation of heritage is typically done
by elite groups or individuals that do not represent the expression
of the values of all the community members, while Van der Aa
(2005) emphasizes that powerful groups can deny the existence
of identities other than their own, which can affect other groups,
especially minorities.
The third dimension, the where values dimension, is related to
the scale level. Van der Aa (2005) explains that the heritage sites
can be esteemed at different scale levels, from the individual to the
global. LeBlanc (1993) states that “heritage begins with you and
grows all the way to the whole world”, referring first to our per-
sonal heritage (family pictures, personal objects, special persons in
family traditions) and secondly to the things, persons and traditions
which are considered to be our common heritage e “Places such as
the Pyramids of Giza, the Acropolis of Athens or Mount Everest (…)
do not belong to Egypt, Greece or Nepal. They are part of humanity's
heritage and these countries are simply the custodians of these
incredible treasures.” (Fig. 2, adapted from LeBlanc, 1993).
The fourth dimension concerns the time scale in heritage
valuation. Dix (1990) notes that this valuation varies over time and
Lowenthal (1998) emphasizes that heritage lists are drawn up in a
Fig. 1. Heritage Cycle (adapted from Thurley, 2005). current context. Indeed, Stovel (1992) argues, for example, that a
158 V. Monteiro et al. / Habitat International 45 (2015) 156e162

Table 1
Summary of the heritage value functional dimension.

Riegl (1996 [1903]) Burra charter (1979 revised Lipe (1983) Dix (1990)
in 1981, 1988, 1999) (ICOMOS, 2000)

Age Aesthetic Economic Emotional Values

Historical Historic Aesthetic (Wonder, Identity, Spiritual,
Commemorative Scientific Associative/Symbolic Symbolic)
Use Social Informational Cultural Values
Newness Spiritual (Historic, Archaeological,
Scarcity)
Usage Values
(Functional, Economic,
Social, Political)

Darvill (1995) Carver (1996) Frey (1997) English Heritage (1997)

Use Market value Monetary Cultural

(Archaeological research, scientific research, (Capital/estate value, production Option Educational and academic
creative arts, education, recreation and value [including agricultural, mineral Existence Economic
tourism, legitimation of action, social extraction, etc.], commercial, residential) Bequest Resource
solidarity and interaction, monetary Community value Prestige Recreational
and economic gain) (Amenity value [provides something to Educational Aesthetic
Option be shared by the community], political
(Stability, Mystery and enigma) value [a vote winner], minority/disadvantaged/
Existence descendant value [wins the support of the
(Cultural identity, resistance to change) disaffected], local style value [wins the
support of the elders]
Human value
(Environmental value, archaeological value)

Deeben et al. (1999) Mason (2002) English Heritage

(Drury & McPherson,
2008)

Perception Sociocultural values Evidential

(Aesthetic value, historical value) (Historical, cultural/symbolic, social, Historical
Physical quality spiritual/religious, aesthetic) Aesthetic
(Integrity, Preservation) Economic values Communal
Intrinsic quality Use (market value)
(Rarity, Research potential, Group Non-use (non-market) value
value, Representativity) (Existence, Option, Bequest)

world heritage list made one hundred years ago would have a exceptional to general. Glantz and Figueroa (1997) note that in the
different cultural significance that one prepared in the present day. world heritage sites (WHS) nomination files superlatives and ab-
The fifth dimension is related to the uniqueness value. Van der solutes are used to identify outstanding universal value (OUV), like
Aa (2005) describes uniqueness values as having a range from ‘the largest’, ‘the last’, ‘the unique’, among others. They argue that
not all WHS actually have this superlative or absolute nature, but
they can still have a global significance because they represent a
category.

Heritage reputation

Reputation can have many definitions depending on the

perspective we are analyzing (e.g. psychological, sociological, eco-
nomic, among others) (Marchiori, 2012). In the Oxford English
Dictionary (2013), reputation is defined as following:

1. “(a) Opinion, supposition; also, the opinion or view of one about

something (b) Account or estimation of a thing;
2. The common or general estimate of a person with respect to
character or other qualities; the relative estimation or esteem in
which a person or thing is held;
3. The condition, quality, or fact, of being highly regarded or
esteemed; credit, note, or distinction; also, respectability, good
report;
4. The honor or credit of a particular person or thing; one's good
name, good report, or fame in general.”

The definition in the Corporate Reputation field proposed by

Fombrun (1996) brings an insight to this discussion and for appli-
Fig. 2. What is Heritage? (Adapted from LeBlanc, 1993). cation in this theoretical framework: “A Corporate Reputation is a
 V. Monteiro et al. / Habitat International 45 (2015) 156e162 159

perceptual representation of a company's past action and future space and time can be dimensions to characterize heritage, and
prospects that describes the firm's overall appeal to all of its key therefore included in the heritage characterization bottom level, it
constituents when compared to leading rivals”; because it is a was decided, to include the axis regarding these dimensions outside
combination of both perceptual and attitudinal constructs (Money the pyramid. In this framework, the space dimension axis is related
& Hillenbrand, 2006). to the heritage tangibility (from intangible to tangible) and the
A clear distinction between two concepts e image and reputa- temporal dimension axis is related to the relevance of time (from
tion e is required. Marchiori (2012) referred to image as a mental absence to relevance of time).
representation, a perception of attributes, the “I Think”. In contrast
reputation would be a verbalization of image, an opinion shared Citizen sensing to measure heritage reputation
among a group of stakeholders, the “We tell”. Marchiori (2012)
concluded “image assumes the potential to activate reputation as Today, anyone with a device with internet connection has the
soon as it is propagated within the relevant population”. ability to give real-time reports and broadcast their opinions and
Finally, under the study of reputation it is important to mention experiences of their everyday life (Liu et al., 2011; Longueville,
the ‘causal framework’ of Fishbein & Ajzen (1975), i.e. a theory on Smith, & Luraschi, 2009; Mandarano, Meenar, & Steins, 2010;
which many of the concepts used in reputation measurement are Stefanidis et al., 2013). Web 2.0 technologies and social media
based on. It states that experiences are related to the creation of services (e.g. Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, among
beliefs and beliefs determine people's attitudes towards an object, others) are stimulating and impacting the society (Sui & Goodchild,
and these attitudes are related to people's intention to perform 2011) due to their growing popularity and are shrinking the dis-
certain behaviors regarding an object. tance between people (Sui, Goodchild, & Elwood, 2013). These
Fig. 3 is a representation proposed by Money and Hillenbrand services are facilitating the production and distribution of geo-
(2006) of the Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) causal framework and spatial information by citizens providing unprecedented opportu-
Fig. 4 shows the integration between the Fishbein and Ajzen's nities to understand users' behavior regarding local sensitivities
model with the causal framework of corporate reputation at a and needs, how are the public spaces used, or in case of significant
personal level (Money & Hillenbrand, 2006), a very relevant or unexpected events (e.g. wars, natural disasters, among others)
framework for this theoretical framework. (Fischer, 2012; Stefanidis et al., 2013). There is an opportunity to
understand community interests, opinions and experiences at a
Heritage reputation theoretical framework global scale, because we have many individuals generating this
information (Reips & Garaizar, 2011) and therefore, this is an op-
Fig. 5 integrates the various theories in one reputation frame- portunity to map and model the evolving human landscape
work for measuring the heritage reputation. At the bottom of the (Stefanidis et al., 2013). This data can help us measuring the heri-
pyramid is heritage characterization, which includes the heritage tage reputation and obtaining a public opinion/trust radar
location and other thematic characteristics (e.g. natural and/or cul- regarding the implementation of urban and regional policies, and
tural heritage, tangible or intangible, included in protection list, age/ more specifically the ones that involve heritage.
period in history, etc.). The objective of this paper is not to clarify the
heritage concepts, but to emphasize that the heritage character- Public opinion and eWOM
ization is an important construct in the evaluation of heritage site
reputation and in order to assess if the most reputed heritage tend to Word-of-mouth (WOM) was first defined as an “oral, person-to-
share specific characteristics. In the next level, the heritage values person communication between a receiver and a communicator
that refer to the intrinsic reason for heritage conservation, an ante- whom the receiver perceives as non-commercial, regarding a
cedent for its reputation. These two first levels of the pyramid are the brand, a product or a service” (Arndt, 1967). Lately, Blackwell,
most stable over-time and for this reason they are at the bottom of Miniard, and Engel, (2001) redefined WOM focusing on the
the pyramid. Following the former levels are the beliefs and atti- “informal transmission of ideas, comments, opinions, and infor-
tudes towards heritage. The attitudes are a consequence of the mation between two or more individuals, neither one of which is a
values (more constant in time) and the beliefs (most likely to change marketer.” In the Internet and more specifically in the web 2.0 and
overtime, when new information is at stake). The penultimate level social media a similar concept is electronic word-of-mouth.
is the heritage reputation itself that is the sum of the first three Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh and Gremler, (2004) define,
levels of the pyramid. The consequences of the heritage reputation eWOM in a corporate context, as ”any positive or negative state-
are in the last level of the pyramid that include the intentions and ment made by potential, actual, or former customers about a
behaviors towards heritage, the consequences of the heritage product or company, which is made available to a multitude of
reputation that include the heritage protection and conservation. individuals and institutions via the Internet”. Sharma, Morales-
Two additional axes are included in the framework (at the bottom) Arroyo, and Pandey (2012) summarized the eWOM ecosystem as
related to two important dimensions: space and time. Although (i) participants (both sender and receiver), and actions, which are

Fig. 3. Causal Framework relating experiences, beliefs, attitudes and intentions (Adapted from Money & Hillenbrand, 2006).
160 V. Monteiro et al. / Habitat International 45 (2015) 156e162

Fig. 4. Causal Framework of Corporate Reputation integrated with Fishbein and Ajzen's model (Adapted from Money & Hillenbrand, 2006).

Fig. 5. Heritage reputation framework.

activities done by the participants performed as WOM units, (ii) Stefanidis et al., 2013). Longueville et al. (2009) reinforce that web
WOM units: participant generated online content (e.g. reading a 2.0 technologies have resulted in the increased production of user-
post, replying or composing a comment, recommending or sug- generated content (UGC) and are increasingly the form of location-
gesting content to others), and (iii) venues: locations where WOM based information that is available about non-specialist users,
activities take place, such as social media services. Marchiori (2012) around the globe and to everyone. Manyika et al. (2011), in the
reinforced that eWOM can be used to understand the public McKinsey report, reinforces this idea of valuable observations and
opinion in many instances, because social media services allow significant amount of data, highlighting global “personal location
large number of users to participate in the public-opinion building data” as one of the five domains of big data.
process. Regarding the heritage theoretical framework mentioned Several terms are used to describe this new kind of geospatial
above, the eWOM can be seen as a behavior, because is a sharing of information from different communities: “from crowdsourcing to
an opinion in the public arena and a way to propagate opinions to a UGC, from Geoweb to the semantic web, from volunteered
relevant population. geographic information (VGI) to neogeography, (…), citizen science
and eScience” (Sui et al., 2013). All these terms describe the idea of
Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge, citizen sensing, web 2.0 and the use of the Internet to create, share, and analyze geospatial in-
social media formation via different devices or platforms including desktops,
tablets and smartphones (Sui et al., 2013). The term VGI proposed
Rapid advances in various technologies including Global Posi- by Goodchild (2007a), with reference to UGC that refers to the
tioning System (GPS), sensor networks, cloud computing, smart- explicit characterization of the geographic domain, is the most
phones and especially web 2.0 technologies have fundamentally widely used in the literature. In location-based social media ser-
altered the way geospatial information is gathered, stored, distrib- vices, a few terms have emerged to differentiate data produced in
uted, analyzed, visualized and used (Sui et al., 2013). Web 2.0 are a these services, from the VGI term of Goodchild (2007a): Ambient
variety of technologies that facilitate interactive information Geographic Information (AGI) (Stefanidis et al., 2013), spatial lo-
sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration of cality (Lee, 2012) and Involuntary Geographic information (iVGI)
the World Wide Web (O'Reilly, 2005). Hudson-Smith, Batty, Crooks, (Fischer, 2012). This distinction from VGI is important since users
and Milton, (2009) pointed out that web 2.0 has led to a renaissance are not actively volunteering geographic knowledge per se, but
in geographic information, in relation to spatial data. These most rather, the data is used for purposes other than what users intended
recent geospatial data sources are generating significant amounts of them to be (Fischer, 2012; Stefanidis et al., 2013). Although they are
valuable observations by web 2.0 users with their mobile devices convening a message that has geographic footprints, “geography is
(Elwood, Goodchild, & Sui, 2012; Fischer, 2012; Havlik et al., 2011; not their message” (Stefanidis et al., 2013). The term AGI refers to
 V. Monteiro et al. / Habitat International 45 (2015) 156e162 161

Fig. 6. Heritage reputation framework.

information provided through social media that captures people's considered in academic literature as the central issue regarding
reference locations that represent momentary hotspots (Stefanidis heritage conservation and protection management, with the causal
et al., 2013); the spatial locality term is described as a set of densely model of experiences, beliefs, attitudes and intentions on a per-
located geo-referenced messages regarding the same topic (Lee, sonal level.
2012), and the concept of iVGI is a more broaden concept First, the framework allows the various stakeholders on heritage
(Fischer, 2012) that could be considered as an umbrella for the management, including urban and regional planners, to measure
other terms. the heritage reputation and the consequences of this reputation on
The concept of collecting data from sensors for monitoring the public opinion. Second, introduces the citizen sensing as source
purposes for which they were not originally designed is called of information to understand community interests and experiences
“opportunistic sensing” (Havlik et al., 2011). In this case of UGC with and with the potential to map and model the human landscape
geospatial information, is an opportunistic sensing, in the sense for globally, and in this case the relationship between the communities
the fact that this information included in the metadata is comple- with the heritage, which can be very important when analyzing
mentary to the information that was generated by users. Never- and implementing certain policies regarding urban and regional
theless, there has been a widespread interest in exploring the planning, that can impact on heritage.
potential of these geospatial sources, because they are timely and
cost effective sources of observations and it complements tradi- References
tional measurements using instruments and observations
(Goodchild, 2007a; Longueville et al., 2009). Agapito, D., Mendes, J., & Valle, P. (2013). Exploring the conceptualization of the
sensory dimension of tourist experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 2(2), 62e73.
Heritage reputation theoretical framework revisited Aitchison, C., MacLeod, N. E., & Shaw, S. J. (2000). Leisure and tourism landscapes:
Social and cultural geographies (Vol. 9). Psychology Press.
Al-hagla Khalid, S. (2010). Sustainable urban development in historical areas using
The citizen sensing as a new source of information can help us the tourist trail approach: a case study of the Cultural Heritage and Urban
perform both temporal and geographic analysis of heritage repu- Development (CHUD) project in Saida, Lebanon. Cities, 27(4), 234e248.
Arndt, J. (1967). Word of mouth advertising: A review of the literature. Advertising
tation. Fig. 6 represents the change over time and over space of a
Research Foundation.
specific heritage and the citizen sensing as a tool for measuring it. Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2001). Consumer behavior (9th ed.).
Citizen sensing can help to measure heritage reputation by Carver, M. (1996). On archaeological value. Antiquity, 70(267), 45e56.
Darvill, T. (1995). Value systems in archaeology. In J. Carman, M. Cooper, A. Firth, &
assessing the heritage values - specifically ‘whose’ values (in this
D. Wheatley (Eds.), Managing archaeology (pp. 40e45). London: Routledge.
case the general public that uses the web 2.0/social media), ‘where’ Deeben, J., Groenewoudt, B. J., Hallewas, D. P., & Willems, W. J. (1999). Proposals for
values (the geographic perspective), and ‘when’ values (over time), a practical system of significance evaluation in archaeological heritage man-
accordingly to the Van der Aa (2005) dimensions - knowing how agement. European Journal of Archaeology, 2(2), 177e199.
Degen, M. M. (2008). Sensing cities: Regenerating public life in Barcelona and Man-
these values impact in beliefs and attitudes and therefore in its chester (Vol. 24). Psychology Press.
intentions and behaviors towards heritage. De la Torre, M., & Mason, R. (2002). Introduction. Assessing the Values of Cultural
Heritage, 3e4.
De Noronha Vaz, E., Cabral, P., Caetano, M., Nijkamp, P., & Painho, M. (2012). Urban
Conclusion heritage endangerment at the interface of future cities and past heritage: a
spatial vulnerability assessment. Habitat International, 36(2), 287e294. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.10.007.
A theoretical framework for heritage reputation has been pro- Dix, G. (1990). Conservation and change in the city. Third World Planning Review,
posed in this paper. This framework integrates the heritage value, 12(4), 385.
162 V. Monteiro et al. / Habitat International 45 (2015) 156e162

Drury, P., & McPherson, A. (2008). Conservation principles, policies and guidance for temporal data on forest fires. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Workshop
the sustainable management of the historic environment. English Heritage. on Location Based Social Networks (pp. 73e80). Seattle, Washington: ACM.
Elwood, S., Goodchild, M. F., & Sui, D. Z. (2012). Researching volunteered geographic Lowenthal, D. (1998). The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Cambridge
information: spatial data, geographic research, and new social practice. Annals University Press.
of the Association of American Geographers, 102(3), 571e590. Mandarano, L., Meenar, M., & Steins, C. (2010). Building social capital in the digital
English Heritage. (1997). Sustaining the historic environment: New perspectives on the age of civic engagement. Journal of Planning Literature, 25(2), 123e135.
future: An English heritage discussion document. English Heritage. Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., et al. (2011). Big
Fischer, F. (2012). VGI as big data: a new but delicate geographic data-source. data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. McKinsey
GeoInformatics, 15(3), 46e47. Global Institute.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An intro- Marchiori, E. (2012). Destination reputation in online media: Covered topics and
duction to theory and research. perceived online dominant opinion. Universita  della Svizerra italiana.
Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard Mason, R. (2002). Assessing values in conservation planning: methodological issues
Business Press. and choices. Assessing the values of cultural heritage (pp. 5e30).
Frey, B. S. (1997). The evaluation of cultural heritage: some critical issues. Economic Money, K., & Hillenbrand, C. (2006). Using reputation measurement to create value:
perspectives on cultural heritage (pp. 31e49). London: Macmillan. an analysis and integration of existing measures. Journal of General Manage-
Glantz, M. H., & Figueroa, R. M. (1997). Does the Aral Sea merit heritage status? ment, 32(1), 1.
Global Environmental Change, 7(4), 357e380. O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? design patterns and business models for the next
Goodchild, M. F. (2007a). Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. generation of software. Retrieved July 6, 2013, from http://oreilly.com/web2/
GeoJournal, 69(4), 211e221. archive/what-is-web-20.html.
Goodchild, M. F. (2007b). Citizens as voluntary sensors: spatial data infrastructure Oxford English Dictionary. (2013). Oxford English dictionary online. Retrieved from
in the world of web 2.0. International Journal, 2, 24e32. http://oxforddictionaries.com.
Hampton, M. P. (2005). Heritage, local communities and economic development. Porteous, J. D. (1985). Smellscape. Progress in Physical Geography, 9(3), 356e378.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 735e759. Reips, U.-D., & Garaizar, P. (2011). Mining twitter: a source for psychological wisdom
Havlik, D., Schade, S., Sabeur, Z. A., Mazzetti, P., Watson, K., Berre, A. J., et al. (2011). of the crowds. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 635e642.
From sensor to observation web with environmental enablers in the future Relph, E. (1993). Modernity and the reclamation of place. Dwelling, Seeing, and
internet. Sensors, 11(4), 3874e3907. Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology, 25e40.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word- Riegl, A. (1996). The modern cult of monuments: Its essence and its development. I:
of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to artic- Historical philosophical issues in the conservation of cultural heritage. Los
ulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38e52. Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute [Originally Der moderne Denkmal-
Hudson-Smith, A., Batty, M., Crooks, A., & Milton, R. (2009). Mapping for the kultus, sein Wesen, seine Entstehung. Wien, 1903].
masses: accessing web 2.0 through crowdsourcing. Social Science Computer Rodaway, P. (2002). Sensuous geographies: Body, sense and place. Routledge.
Review, 27(4), 524e538. Sharma, R. S., Morales-Arroyo, M., & Pandey, T. (2012). The emergence of electronic
ICOMOS, A. (2000). The burra charter: The Australia ICOMOS charter for places of word-of-mouth as a marketing channel for the digital marketplace. Journal of
cultural significance 1999: With associated guidelines and code on the ethics of co- Information, Information Technology, and Organizations, 6, 2011e2012.
existence. Australia ICOMOS. Stefanidis, A., Crooks, A., & Radzikowski, J. (2013). Harvesting ambient geospatial
Jütte, R. (2005). A history of the senses: From antiquity to cyberspace (J. Lynn, Trans.). information from social media feeds. GeoJournal, 78(2), 319e338.
Polity. Stovel, H. (1992). The evaluation of cultural properties for the world heritage list.
Labadi, S. (2007). Representations of the nation and cultural diversity in discourses Nature & Resources, 28(3), 30e36.
on world heritage. Journal of Social Archaeology, 7(2), 147e170. Sui, D., & Goodchild, M. (2011). The convergence of GIS and social media: challenges
Leblanc, F. (1984). An inside view of the convention. Monumentum. for GIScience. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 25(11),
LeBlanc, F. (1993). Is everything heritage. ICOMOS Canada Bulletin, 2(2), 2e3. 1737e1748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2011.604636.
Lee, C.-H. (2012). Mining spatio-temporal information on microblogging streams Sui, D., Goodchild, M., & Elwood, S. (2013). Volunteered geographic information, the
using a density-based online clustering method. Expert Systems with Applica- exaflood, and the growing digital divide. In D. Sui, S. Elwood, & M. Goodchild
tions, 39(10), 9623e9641. (Eds.), Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge (pp. 1e12). Springer Netherlands.
Li, W. (2006). Community decisionmaking participation in development. Annals of Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_1.
Tourism Research, 33(1), 132e143. Thurley, S. (2005). Into the future. Our strategy for 2005e2010. Conservation
Lipe, W. D. (1983). Value and meaning in cultural resources. Bulletin, 49, 26e27.
Liu, Y., Piyawongwisal, P., Handa, S., Yu, L., Xu, Y., & Samuel, A. (2011). Going beyond Tweed, C., & Sutherland, M. (2007). Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban
citizen data collection with mapster: a mobileþcloud real-time citizen science development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(1), 62e69.
experiment. In e-Science Workshops (eScienceW), 2011 IEEE Seventh International Van der Aa, B. J. M. (2005). Preserving the heritage of humanity? Obtaining world
Conference on (pp. 1e6). IEEE. heritage status and the impacts of listing. Unpublished thesis. University of
Longueville, B. D., Smith, R. S., & Luraschi, G. (2009). “OMG, from here, I can see the Groningen.
flames!”: a use case of mining location based social networks to acquire spatio-

View publication stats