Volume 9, Issue 2 (9-2026)                   KCR 2026, 9(2): 76-90 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.66224/kcr.9.2.76

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ghaderian E, Adib M, Norouzian-Maleki S, Malekpourasl B. A Systematic Review of Multilateral Methods for Cultural Landscape Assessment Using Emerging Technologies. , KCR. 2026; 9 (2) :76-90
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/kcr/article-1-211-en.html
A Systematic Review of Multilateral Methods for Cultural Landscape Assessment Using Emerging Technologies
Elham Ghaderian , Morteza Adib , Saeid Norouzian-Maleki * , Behzad Malekpourasl
Shahid Beheshti University
Abstract:   (1007 Views)
Cultural landscapes are formed through the interaction between human communities and the natural environment. They include physical elements such as settlements, agricultural lands, roads, vegetation, water systems, and land-use patterns, as well as non-material dimensions such as collective memory, cultural identity, local knowledge, social practices, visual experience, and emotional attachment to place. Cultural landscapes should therefore be understood as living environments rather than as fixed physical settings. Their multidimensional character makes assessment complex. Methods that focus only on physical form or visual quality cannot fully identify historical, social, cultural, perceptual, and ecological values. Traditional approaches, including historical documents, field observation, interviews, questionnaires, and community participation, provide information about local identity and lived experience, but may be limited in documenting spatial relationships, monitoring change, or visualizing interventions. Emerging technologies have expanded assessment possibilities. Geographic Information Systems, remote sensing, photogrammetry, laser scanning, three-dimensional modeling, virtual reality, eye tracking, and electroencephalography can support data collection, analysis, visualization, and interpretation. They can improve spatial accuracy, reconstruct historical environments, compare scenarios, and provide evidence about users’ responses. However, they cannot independently reveal collective memory, cultural meaning, indigenous knowledge, or sense of belonging. Their value is greatest when combined with historical, perceptual, and participatory methods. This study aimed to identify and compare cultural landscape assessment methods, examine the opportunities and limitations of emerging technologies in combination with perceptual and participatory approaches, and propose a flexible, phased pathway for multidimensional assessment.
Keywords: Cultural landscape, Visual assessment, Virtual reality, Emerging technologies, Stakeholder participation, 3D analysis
Full-Text [PDF 1053 kb]   (342 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Review Article | Subject: Application of modern sciences, technologies, equipment, materials and methods
Received: 2025/03/2 | Accepted: 2026/08/1 | Published: 2026/09/29
References
1. Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J. F., Cañas-Madueño, J. A., & Ruiz-Avilés, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 115-125. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029 [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029]
2. Bemanian, M. R., Ansari, M., & Almasifar, N. (2011). Rehabilitation of Takhteh Soleyman cultural (historical) landscape. Urban Management, 8(26), 7-26. (In Persian)
3. [بمانیان، محمدرضا؛ انصاری، مجتبی؛ و الماسی‌فر، نینا. (۱۳۸۹). باززنده‌سازی «منظر فرهنگی» تخت سلیمان با تأکید بر رویکردهای بازآفرینی و حفاظت از میراث جهانی. مدیریت شهری و روستایی، ۸(۲۶)، ۷-۲۶] .
4. Bennett, R., Welham, K., Hill, R. A., & Ford, A. (2012). A comparison of visualization techniques for models created from airborne laser scanned data. Archaeological Prospection, 19(1), 41-48. doi: 10.1002/arp.1414 [DOI:10.1002/arp.1414]
5. Council of Europe. (2000). European Landscape Convention (European Treaty Series No. 176). Council of Europe.
6. Della Spina, L., & Giorno, C. (2021). Cultural landscapes: A multi-stakeholder methodological approach to support widespread and shared tourism development strategies. Sustainability, 13(13), 7175. doi: 10.3390/su13137175 [DOI:10.3390/su13137175]
7. Demetrescu, E., d'Annibale, E., Ferdani, D., & Fanini, B. (2020). Digital replica of cultural landscapes: An experimental reality-based workflow to create realistic, interactive open world experiences. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 41, 125-141. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2019.07.018 [DOI:10.1016/j.culher.2019.07.018]
8. Dupont, L., Ooms, K., Antrop, M., & Van Eetvelde, V. (2016). Comparing saliency maps and eye-tracking focus maps: The potential use in visual impact assessment based on landscape photographs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.007 [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.007]
9. Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., & Khamis, M. (2012). Community stakeholders' knowledge in landscape assessments: Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators, 18, 421-433. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.004]
10. Fang, Y.-N., Zeng, J., & Namaiti, A. (2021). Landscape visual sensitivity assessment of historic districts: A case study of Wudadao Historic District in Tianjin, China. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(3), 175. doi: 10.3390/ijgi10030175 [DOI:10.3390/ijgi10030175]
11. Gajardo, L. J., Sumeldan, J., Sajorne, R., Madarcos, J. R., Goh, H. C., Culhane, F., Langmead, O., & Creencia, L. (2023). Cultural values of ecosystem services from coastal marine areas: Case of Taytay Bay, Palawan, Philippines. Environmental Science & Policy, 142, 12-20. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2023.01.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2023.01.004]
12. Haines-Young, R., & Potschin-Young, M. (2018). Revision of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): A policy brief. One Ecosystem, 3, e27108. doi: 10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108 [DOI:10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108]
13. Hajirasouli, A., Banihashemi, S., Kumarasuriyar, A., Talebi, S., & Tabadkani, A. (2021). Virtual reality-based digitisation for endangered heritage sites: Theoretical framework and application. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 49, 140-151. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2021.02.005 [DOI:10.1016/j.culher.2021.02.005]
14. Hearn, K. P. (2021). Mapping the past: Using ethnography and local spatial knowledge to characterize the Duero River borderlands landscape. Journal of Rural Studies, 82, 37-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.024 [DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.024]
15. Hu, M., & Roberts, J. (2020). Built environment evaluation in virtual reality environments: A cognitive neuroscience approach. Urban Science, 4(4), 48. doi: 10.3390/urbansci4040048 [DOI:10.3390/urbansci4040048]
16. Krnáčová, Z., Barančok, P., Pavličková, K., & Platková-Demčáková, A. (2021). Comparison of methodological approaches for the evaluation of ecosystem services for options to develop sustainable tourism forms (ecotourism): Example of Bratislava IV. Ekológia (Bratislava), 40(2), 189-200. doi: 10.2478/eko-2021-0021 [DOI:10.2478/eko-2021-0021]
17. Leach, J., Wiseman, C., O'Leary, M., McDonald, J., McCarthy, J., Morrison, P., Jeffries, P., Hacker, J., Ulm, S., Bailey, G., & Benjamin, J. (2021). The integrated cultural landscape of North Gidley Island: Coastal, intertidal and nearshore archaeology in Murujuga (Dampier Archipelago), Western Australia. Australian Archaeology, 87(3), 251-267. doi: 10.1080/03122417.2021.1949085 [DOI:10.1080/03122417.2021.1949085]
18. López, F. J., Lerones, P. M., Llamas, J., Gómez-García-Bermejo, J., & Zalama, E. (2018). A review of Heritage Building Information Modeling (H-BIM). Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(2), 21. doi: 10.3390/mti2020021 [DOI:10.3390/mti2020021]
19. López Sánchez, M., Tejedor Cabrera, A., & Linares Gómez del Pulgar, M. (2020). Landscape indicators overview and data model proposal for a GIS-based heritage management system. In P. Ortiz Calderón, F. Pinto Puerto, P. Verhagen, & A. J. Prieto (Eds.), Science and digital technology for cultural heritage: Interdisciplinary approach to diagnosis, vulnerability, risk assessment and graphic information models (pp. 21-25). CRC Press. doi: 10.1201/9780429345470-3 [DOI:10.1201/9780429345470-3]
20. López-Santiago, C. A., Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Plieninger, T., González Martín, E., & González, J. A. (2014). Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: The case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 27. doi: 10.5751/ES-06401-190227 [DOI:10.5751/ES-06401-190227]
21. Ludwig, D., & Macnaghten, P. (2020). Traditional ecological knowledge in innovation governance: A framework for responsible and just innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(1), 26-44. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2019.1676686 [DOI:10.1080/23299460.2019.1676686]
22. Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D. J., & Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 44. doi: 10.5751/ES-05790-180344 [DOI:10.5751/ES-05790-180344]
23. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
24. Minasi, S. M., Lohmann, G., & Valduga, V. (2023). Geographic Information Systems are critical tools to manage wine tourism regions. Tourism Geographies, 25(1), 198-219. doi: 10.1080/14616688.2020.1861081 [DOI:10.1080/14616688.2020.1861081]
25. Orengo, H. A., Krahtopoulou, A., Garcia-Molsosa, A., Palaiochoritis, K., & Stamati, A. (2015). Photogrammetric re-discovery of the hidden long-term landscapes of western Thessaly, central Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science, 64, 100-109. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2015.10.008 [DOI:10.1016/j.jas.2015.10.008]
26. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [DOI:10.1136/bmj.n71]
27. Pihel, J., Sang, Å. O., Hagerhall, C., & Nyström, M. (2015). Expert and novice group differences in eye movements when assessing biodiversity of harvested forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 56, 20-26. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.04.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.04.004]
28. Portman, M. E., Natapov, A., & Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. (2015). To go where no man has gone before: Virtual reality in architecture, landscape architecture and environmental planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 54, 376-384. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.05.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.05.001]
29. Rahman, N. (2021). Amelioration of historic rural landscape of Haftador in Yazd [Master's thesis, Shahid Beheshti University]. (In Persian)
30. [رحمان، نادیا. (۱۴۰۰). بهسازی منظر تاریخی روستای هفتادر یزد [پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی].
31. Sang, K., Fontana, G. L., & Piovan, S. E. (2022). Assessing railway landscape by AHP process with GIS: A study of the Yunnan-Vietnam Railway. Remote Sensing, 14(3), 603. doi: 10.3390/rs14030603 [DOI:10.3390/rs14030603]
32. Sauer, C. O. (1925). The morphology of landscape. University of California Publications in Geography, 2(2), 19-53.
33. Sevara, C., Verhoeven, G., Doneus, M., & Draganits, E. (2018). Surfaces from the visual past: Recovering high-resolution terrain data from historic aerial imagery for multitemporal landscape analysis. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 25(2), 611-642. doi: 10.1007/s10816-017-9348-9 [DOI:10.1007/s10816-017-9348-9]
34. Sottini, V. A., Bernetti, I., Pecchi, M., & Cipollaro, M. (2018). Visual perception of the rural landscape: A study case in Val di Chiana Aretina, Tuscany, Italy. Aestimum, 72, 5-26. doi: 10.13128/Aestimum-23967 [DOI:10.13128/Aestimum-23967]
35. Stephenson, J. (2008). The cultural values model: An integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(2), 127-139. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.07.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.07.003]
36. Taylor, K. (2009). Cultural landscapes and Asia: Reconciling international and Southeast Asian regional values. Landscape Research, 34(1), 7-31. doi: 10.1080/01426390802387513 [DOI:10.1080/01426390802387513]
37. Termorshuizen, J. W., & Opdam, P. (2009). Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology, 24(8), 1037-1052. doi: 10.1007/s10980-008-9314-8 [DOI:10.1007/s10980-008-9314-8]
38. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2008). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO.
39. Vervust, S., Kinnaird, T., Dabaut, N., & Turner, S. (2020). The development of historic field systems in northern England: A case study at Wallington, Northumberland. Landscape History, 41(2), 57-70. doi: 10.1080/01433768.2020.1835183 [DOI:10.1080/01433768.2020.1835183]
40. Zarei, Fatemeh. (2020). Improving the rural landscape of Komsar Village in Guilan Province [Master's thesis, Shahid Beheshti University]. (In Persian)
41. [زارعی، فاطمه. (۱۳۹۹). بهسازی منظر روستایی کمسار بزرگ واقع در استان گیلان [پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی].
42. Zerbe, S. (2022). Restoration of multifunctional cultural landscapes: Merging tradition and innovation for a sustainable future. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-95572-4 [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-95572-4]
43. Zoderer, B. M., Tasser, E., Erb, K.-H., Lupo Stanghellini, P. S., & Tappeiner, U. (2016). Identifying and mapping the tourists' perception of cultural ecosystem services: A case study from an Alpine region. Land Use Policy, 56, 251-261. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.004]
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.