Ethics in Architecture Conservation the Venice Charter

Buildings are not only important for the function they support but also the cultural and
historical value they represent (Lagomarsino, Cattari, Ferreira & Vicente, 2018). As
Lagomarsino et al., illustrates, historical buildings represent cultural and architectural heritage. If
these buildings are conserved, they can aid in the preservation of architectural techniques and the
materials used to construct them. They (buildings) also reflect the social, economic and political
aspects of people that built them including those that came into contact with them (these
buildings). Therefore, preservation of these buildings helps in preserving these aspects of history.
Still concerning the importance of preservation Summerson (1980), stated that historical
buildings represent cultural heritage as they collectively reflect progressive improvement in
technology, material science and culture of the peoples that built, used or came into contact with
them.
For the last few centuries, much attention is placed on buildings and monuments that
represent heritage of different groups as they become old, vulnerable and face the risk of
collapse. Attention is placed on conservation of such buildings as they give a particular society a
collective identity by appealing to their natural, cultural and/or technological heritage. Buildings
and monuments that have been constructed and influenced by humans and the natural
environment have become ‘witnesses’ of humans’ success and failure. As a result, humans living
today are obligated to protect these buildings for the current and future generations (Jokilehto,
2004).
Numerous factors come into play while conserving old buildings and monuments; these
include the availability of the materials, technology and the existing/intended use. Standards
have been developed to guide the process of reconstruction and conservation of heritage

buildings. The number and the nature of these standards is likely to influence the types of ethics
in architectural practice. However, contradiction arising from varying sources of ethics in the
contemporary can occur.
While the restoration of buildings representing cultural heritage is important, there has been
different codes that have been used to direct restoration. The conservation has been seen to
balance between different areas including protection of the existing parts, reconstruction and
replacement of degraded and missing parts. The subject of conservation is interpreted in the
context of many standards established by different organizations. Some sources of standards of
conservation include the Venice Charter, UNESCO guidelines and numerous frameworks
established by governments. The Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of
Monuments and Sites (henceforth the Venice Charter) refers to a set of rules that was established
by specialists in architecture to guide the process of conservation of buildings and monuments in
the year 1964. The name was obtained from the city in which these specialists met. These rules
have been applied for a long time; they were adopted over 50 years ago (Jokilehto, 1995). In
addition, the Venice Charter is also seen to favor conservation instead of reconstruction despite
the two processes being closely related. Still, the Venice Charter forms the basis of many other
rules on conservation including reconstruction of historical buildings. In addition, this Charter
has been a basis of many discourses regarding reconstruction, conservation of constructed
heritage such as buildings and monuments.
The UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) code is
reflected in the operational code outlined in the Worlds heritage Convention (WHC, 2017). The
standards presented above focus on the transnational aspect of the UN. It provides guidelines for
preserving buildings and monuments of historical, cultural and scientific significance for

posterity. The organization identifies buildings and sights of international significance and gives
advisory on how to preserve them. It also marshals resources to that may be needed for
conservation of sites. Unlike the Venice Charter, UNESCO does not prescribe reconstruction but
advices continued use and maintenance of buildings/monuments. However, its description of
aspects of buildings and monuments from heritage sites that need to be conserved has been
interpreted in the formulation of rules reconstruction and conservation.
Different countries have also established rules for conservation of buildings and
monuments that represent their heritage. Different Countries have developed laws for
conservation of their heritage. These laws are influence by each country’s perception of aspects
of the buildings they consider as the most important for their heritage and cost of reconstruction
and conservation of heritage sites. Despite the differences in national frameworks of
conservation utilized in different nations, conservation and preservation in these countries is
likely to borrow and make reference to Venice Charter and WHC framework described earlier.
However, literature concerning how the Venice Charter applies today, the most important ethical
principles presented in, what aspect of the building should be preserved in conservation and
practice/concept and contradictions of ethics derived from Venice Charter in the context of
contemporary architectural practice remain scanty. Therefore, there is a need to conduct
investigation into this (the Venice Charter) due to its application in the development of modern
standards of conservation. This study aims to investigate the concept of ethics as applied
reconstruction and conservation as discussed in the Venice Charter. To achieve the main aim of
this study, the following central questions will be pursued.
1.2. Research Questions

a) What are the most important ethical principles presented in the Venice Charter as
applied in conservation of heritage sites?
b) From the conservation principles presented in Venice Charter, what aspects of
buildings and monuments should be preserved/ restored?
c) What contradictions exist in the concepts and practice of ethics in contemporary
architecture in the context of conservation of historical structures?

1.3. Objectives
a) To find out what is the most important ethical principles presented in the Venice
Charter, as it is applied in conservation of historical structures
b) To investigate the conservation principles presented in Venice Charter in terms of
aspects of historical buildings and monuments that should be restored and conserved
c) To explore the contradictions that exist in the concepts and practice of ethics in
contemporary architecture in the context of conservation of historical structures

1.4. Justification
As the building technology and materials science have continued to develop over
hundreds of years, a good number of old buildings become defaced and degraded by human or
natural factors in their environment. Restoration of these buildings and monuments is needed and
is done in the context of established professional frameworks most of which borrow from the
Venice Charter. Therefore, there is a needed to study the Venice Charter as one of the documents
that have been used in this area to understand the concept and the context conservation.
Understanding this Charter as one of the bases of ethics in reconstruction and comparing it with
others will pave way for understanding contradiction in the concept and practice of ethics in
contemporary architectural practice in the area of conservation. This can assist in the

understanding the contradiction of the ethical aspects of conservation\ in the contemporary
architectural practice. The findings of this research will provide information to evaluate the
ethical and conservational principles associated with the Venice Charter. This will aid in
determining areas of contradiction between it and other basis of ethics. This can assist students
and architects to take account of contradictions of these ethics during conservations. It can also
assists specialists in developing harmonized standards for conservation of buildings by removing
contradictions in the existing standards.
historical constructions are an important part of the cultural heritage, because ofTheir architectural value and evidence of building techniques. Their conservationover the centuries is a responsibility of our society, in order to pass on to futureGenerations.It is worth noting that the structural safety of historical constructions to per-manent long-term actions, in many cases, has been proved over time. The diagnosisof the present conditions of the building can be made by a complete interdisci-plinary knowledge based on historical notes, technological survey, non-destructivetesting procedures and the interpretation of crack and decay patternsHistorical constructions are an important part of the cultural heritage, because oftheir architectural value and evidence of building techniques. Their conservationover the centuries is a responsibility of our society, in order to pass on to futuregenerations.It is worth noting that the structural safety of historical constructions to per-manent long-term actions, in many cases, has been proved over time. The diagnosisof the present conditions of the building can be made by a complete interdisci-plinary knowledge based on historical notes, technological survey, non-destructivetesting procedures and the interpretation of crack and decay patternsHistorical constructions are an important part of the cultural heritage, because oftheir architectural value and evidence of building techniques. Their conservationover the centuries is a responsibility of our society, in order to pass on to futuregenerations.It is worth noting that the structural safety of historical constructions to per-manent long-term actions, in many cases, has been proved over time. The diagnosisof the present conditions of the building can be made by a complete interdisci-plinary knowledge based on historical notes, technological survey, non-destructivetesting procedures and the interpretation of crack and decay patterns 1.5. Conceptual Framework of Dissertation
This study is based on the understanding that architectural process of conservation of
buildings is guided by standards from which conservation ethics are derived. These standards are
developed by different groups all of which have different understanding of conservation, what
needs to be conserved. For reference, the Venice Charter, which is a basis of standards for
conservation will be compared with other standards. Firstly, Venice Charter including the
definition of how it influences the standards used for conservation and restoration of monuments
will be looked into. The principles described in this Charter and its value in the preservation of
architectural antiquity will also be looked into in addition to the rules derived from this Charter
in contemporary architectural activities especially in preservation of heritage sites. Firstly,
several academic articles will be evaluated to provide adequate information to compare the
standards and ethics derived from the Venice Charter with other standards used in conservation.
Secondly, the understanding of attributes of antiquity buildings that need to be preserved as
interpreted from Venice Charter will be explored. These will be compared with the interpretation
of other basis of ethics. Thirdly, having understood the ethics derived from the Venice Charter as
well as the interpretation of what needs to be conserved in architectural antiquity. This will

assist in elucidating the contradictions in ethics and understanding of what needs to be preserved
in the contemporary architectural practice.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
This study aims to investigate the concept of reconstruction and conservation architectural ethics
as outlined in the Venice Charter. It aims to explore the Venice Charter as a basis of the ethical
standards for conservation of buildings and monuments. The Charter also guides the process of
evaluating aspects of heritage sites that needs to be conserved. The evaluation of this Charter and
other sources of ethics will be used to explore ethical contradictions that architects face in
contemporary practice. The following subsection ions of this chapter will critically evaluate the
literature focusing on the three distinct areas as as described below. Firstly, the chapter will
review studies with an aim of evaluating the ethics derived from the Venice Charter. The second
aspect that will be reviewed in this section is if/how Venice Charter’s interpretation can assist in
determining what aspects of buildings in heritage sites can be conserved. The third aspect that
this literature review will look into is the concept and practice of ethics including how it affects
contemporary architectural practice especially in conservation of heritage sites. This will be done
to identify and discuss the contradictions that architects experience while using different ethics in
reconstruction and conservation of heritage structures. Evaluating the three aspects described
above will aid in anchoring the current study in the existing body of literature.
2.2. The concept of ethics from the Venice Charter
Rojas (2014) expounded the history and explanation of the Venice Chapter to explore the
meaning and the goal of this Charter. To expound the meaning of this Charter, Rojas revealed
that it was referred to International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments

and Sites. From its full name, it can be seen that it was mooted to be used in conservation as well
as restoration of monuments and historical sites. It can be seen that the standard of reconstruction
should include restoring structures to their original forms, materials, functions and history. Rojas
asserted that Charter was created to preserve structures that are imbued with a past message such
that failure to conserve them would lead to loss of message from the past. Therefore, the current
generation is tasked with the responsibility of preserving the knowledge and evidence from the
past and possible use it so solve challenges in man’s environment today. Rojas also illustrated
that heritage that needs conservation is universal such that different groups have sites and
structure they wish to preserve. Also, the study interpreted the scope of conservation as described
in the Venice Charter, and illustrated that it should involve the locations, forms, designs and
techniques, materials, functions and the spirit. However Rojas fails to give clear rules and
standards of restoration as described in the Venice Charter; views in this study cannot be
translated into useable rules/standards for use in reconstruction and conservation of historical
buildings and monuments.
According to Clark, (2001), reconstruction and conservation of heritage sites must
encompass reconstruction of the physical structure and the totality of the history of such
structures and their interaction with the surrounding communities and the natural environment.
According to Clark (2001), reconstruction of historical sites should not be seen to solely focus on
the physical aspects of these structures; such views are also expressed in Sadri (2012). To
preserve the heritage sites, specialists should focus reinstatement of the original materials,
dimensions and all other factors that capture the history of these sites (Clark, 2001; Sadri, 2012).
From the views in Clark, (2001) and (Sadri, 2012) the ethics for reconstruction and conservation
of historical sites should be based on a framework that supports reconstruction of the holistic

heritage value of structures in questions. Clark, (2001), illustrates presence of concept of ethics
in reconstruction but faults the mainstream basis of ethics in this area. The review of Clark,
(2001) and Sadri, (2012) illustrates that the ethics used for reconstruction is not adequate and
need improvements.
Stanley-Price (2009) looks into the context of reconstruction including the principles, the
dilemmas and the uncomfortable truths about the practice. Concerning the principles of
reconstruction, the study notes that general rules exists as developed from the Venice Charter, the
World Heritage Convention and the UNESCO. These principles emphasize reconstruction in the
original materials, forms and style that make reference to people that built the original structures.
Still these principles are subject to further interpretation and evaluation for applicability with
other factors in each site. For instance, the exact materials used in the original buildings may be
unavailable or impossible to obtain, this view and others presents numerous dilemmas of
reconstruction as described in Stanley-Price (2009). Another dilemma that may be experienced is
related to replicating the original functions of these buildings. For instance, the functions of the
original structure may not be clear or may not be applicable today. For instance, the function of
the public bath houses built in the Roman Empire may not be restored as their functions are not
applicable today (Fagan, 2002). Still, there are other monuments whose functions remain
unknown meaning that these functions cannot be restored. For the uncomfortable truths, Stanley-
Price, (2009) notes that the process of restoration is largely driven by restorer understanding of
what original structures looked like. In other instances, reconstruction aspect of conservation
hides some of the history of the structure in question; reconstructing a building that had been
destroyed by war or natural factors may conceal the effects of these events. In both Rojas (2014)
and Stanley-Price (2009), the standards of conservation are seen as relating to maintaining

heritage structures in their original locations, shape, material and history.
According to Sheperd, (2014), the Venice Charter provides a series of theoretical and
doctrinal principles that should be considered during the conservation as well as restoration of
built heritage sites. The views in Sheperd, (2014) are in line with those in Stanley-Price (2009)
and Rojas, (2014) in that the Venice Charter does not outline rules for conservation of heritage
sites but provides frameworks for developing these rules. Although Sheperd, (2014)
acknowledged that the authors of Venice Charter were not trying to create a code of belief that
would be valid and incontrovertible across the world, Sheperd admitted that the document
evolved to become a guide for architects and other specialist in the area of conservation for the
last half a decade. It has provided a body of theoretical work for reference in the development of
procedures and codes of restoration and conservation. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
Venice Charter does not provide structures that can be used as a basis of ethics but is used as a
framework for development of standards for use in conservation. Therefore, varied ethics can be
derived from the Venice Charter.
According to Khalaf (2016), there is a difference in the original buildings and what is
obtained through the process of reconstruction. The study notes that while structures designated
as World Heritage Site by UNESCO get damaged by wars, reconstruction specialists can recreate
these buildings and the neighboring communities can assign functions to them. However, Khalaf
argues that reconstruction of these buildings may not lead to recovery of their original value or
outstanding universal value (OUV). In addition, the reconstructed building may have
compromised integrity and authenticity, hence unable to stand like the initial one. Making
reference to the Venice Charter, Khalaf notes that there are significant contradictions in this
Charter and in different ways in which reconstruction is done in real life. This study noted that

reconstruction cannot be done on ‘a priori’. On the contrary, it should be based on empirical
evidence. In post war/disaster reconstruction, the materials and the skills used for reconstruction
may not be adequate. Khalaf does not only indicate that the Venice Charter provides a framework
for development of conservation standards but also illustrates that this Charter is inadequate or
contradictory in reconstruction to recapture OUV.
From the studies reviewed in this subsection, the Venice Charter is not viewed as
providing standards for conservation of heritage sites. As a result, it may not be viewed as a basis
of ethics. Instead, it provides theoretical underpinning for the development of standards of
reconstruction and conservation. Since numerous standards can be derived from the Venice
Charter, this means that as numerous ethics, which can be contradictory, can be derived from the
Venice Charter.
2.3. Aspects of Heritage Sites that should be should be preserved (From Venice Charter)
According to Jokilehto (1995), the definition of the value of a heritage site is crucial in
determining whether it can be conserved or not. It is indisputably appropriate to understand the
concept of heritage site to determine the ones that meet the criterion for conservation and hence
determine the best way to reconstruct and conserve them. Jokilehto (1995) noted that heritage
sites can be those that have been designated by law, which gives this term a legal meaning.
Jokilehto (1995) argued that laws designate buildings and sites that need conservation and can
assign the responsibilities to those that should carry out the process. Still, this study states that
reconstruction and conservation should be done based on verifiable data defining the location,
the shape, size, history and the functions of the historical building/monument. This should be
done to avoid the fluctuations resulting from participants’ thought and emotions among others
and hence assisting in recreation of original work. Other aspects that should be recreated are the

dimensions of time, the evolution value and effects of community’s influence.
According to Khalaf (2016), while the Venice Charter may lead to contradiction
regarding to recreation of OUV, offers a clear definition of monuments and hence giving a
clearer understanding of what should be reconstructed. The first chapter of the Venice Charter
defines heritage sites/historical monuments as distinct architectural establishments which can be
in urban or rural areas and which acts as evidence of past settlement, history or civilization.
Heritage sites/historical monuments must not only be large creations but can be small structures
that have intellectual significance. With a clear understanding of the heritage sites/historical
monuments as defined in the Venice Charter, conservation can hence mean maintaining historical
sites/monuments in a manner that they reflect their history and those of the people that built and
used them through the history. Despite the fact that Khalaf (2016), provides a clearer
understanding of monuments and historical sites and how conservation should be conducted, this
study does not describe what aspects of these sites should be reconstructed.
According to Earl, (1996), during the time period over which the philosophical stance
derived from the Venice Charter has been applied, there has been vibrant and ongoing
development and improvement of standards used in reconstruction and conservation of heritage
sites. This has lead to expansion of perspectives concerning heritage sites and monuments
including in the area of architectural structures, landscapes and societies’ histories/itineraries.
The Venice Charter has been expanded to develop standards for procedures such as salvaging,
reinstatement and conservation of heritage sites. Earl, (1996) also emphasized that the standard
of restorations as developed from the Venice Charter are applied in the context of the prevailing
socio-cultural, economic and political aspects of societies in which these heritage sites are
established. The study also adds that the specialists involved in reconstruction and conservation

need multidisciplinary training to make the process holistic. Views in Earl (1996) differ from
(Jokilehto, 1995) in that the latter focuses on the fact that aspects of heritage sites that need to be
reconstructed and hence be conserved. However, Earl, (1996) seams to look into the social,
political and cultural aspects of heritage and monuments and states that these should be
prioritized in conservation. Still, the concept of what needs to be conserved is not adequately
described in Earl (1996).
According to Embaby (2014), preservation should be done to recover aspects that give
the structure in question its monumental value. Therefore, reconstruction and conservation of
heritage sites should include all aspects that reflect their tangible and intangible value. For this
reason, Embaby emphasized that diverse positions held by specialists regarding the importance
of materials and techniques illustrates that reconstruction and conservation may be perceived to
be related to its physical aspects. Ultimately, the study noted that the conclusion of what should
be preserved/maintained as interpreted from Venice Charter is largely left to be decided by the
specialist undertaking reconstruction and preservation. This means that the specialists involved
in this process are free to refer to other frameworks and decide on what to be reconstructed.
Nonetheless, Embaby noted that the Venice Charter offers high level of vitality and facilitates the
achievement of balance between the forms and functions in the contemporary conservation.
Therefore, using the analysis of the Venice Charter as presented by the Embaby, the concept of
what is to be preserved during restoration and conservation of heritage sites is left to the
specialist undertaking the process. This Charter does not define what should be reconstructed,
preserved or maintained during the conservation work. The views expressed in Embaby, supports
those in Earl, (1996) in that what is preserved is continuously changing in response to the
development of academic and theoretical research work done in this subject.

Feilden (2004) illustrated that the reconstruction of architectural heritage is inherently
complicated in that different factors are considered, which can be analyzed differently by
different specialist to arrive at different conclusions of what needs to be conserved. To emphasize
the complicated nature of the reconstruction of architectural sites, Feilden (2004) stated that the
conservation of buildings must ensure that these buildings remain standing. In addition economic
factors should be considered to ensure that the process is economically Justifiable. In addition,
professionals from different areas of specialization should be involved to add their views to the
reconstruction process. Therefore, the large number of factors that need to be considered in the
conservation of the architectural heritage sites complicates the decision of what should be
conserved. Feilden (2004) illustrates that what needs to be reconstructed/conserved cannot be
described definitively using standards derived from Venice Charter or others. Instead, it should
be arrived at art by determining factors that make such structures to remain standing, cost
implication and consensus of all the specialists involved.
Sadri (2012) emphasized the importance of the architects in the reconstruction and
conservation of heritage sites, and hence in determining what can be reconstructed or conserved.
Sadri (2012) stated that architects posses much power and control as they participate in the
evaluation, reconstruction and conservation. Their areas of expertise not only place them at the
core of regular construction but also in the reconstruction. They are able to determine what needs
to be restored and balance it with what can be restored for effective conservation. According to
Sadri (2012), some architects views and professional ethics can guide the process of
reconstruction and aspects of heritage buildings that are reconstructed for conservation. This
means that the role of the Venice Charter in determining what is reconstructed and conserved
extends as far as architects opinions and professional ethics are influenced by this Charter. This

means that architects’ professional ethics are crucial for determining what should be recovered.
For the reason described in the above paragraph, Sadri (2012) emphasized the importance
of Ethical uprightness as one of the most important for partial or full reconstruction of heritage
sites. The study notes that there should be ultimate authenticity in the choice of the materials to
be used in the process. Sadri notes that while reconstruction and conservation of monuments and
other heritage sites has been done numerous times throughout the history, efforts need to be
intensified such that not only the original materials and technology is used but also the functions,
history of the structures and communities that built them. Sadri (2012) does not describe what
should be recovered and hence be conserved. Sadri (2012) and Feilden (2004) differ from
Jokilehto (1995), Stanley-Price (2009) and Earl, (1996) in that the former group of others do not
directly interpretation of the Venice Charter but only make limited reference to it. However, their
analysis assist in illustrating that there is general lack of consensus on what should be conserved
in studies interpreting the Venice Charter.
The views in Sadri (2012) accentuates the perspectives that there is no consensus of what
is aspects of heritage buildings should be reconstructed or be conserved from the interpretation
of the Venice Charter; this is seen in Jokilehto (1995), Stanley-Price (2009) and Earl, (1996). In
all these studies, the concept of what should be preserved in the reconstruction and conservation
of architectural heritage sites is determined by a number of factors including the understanding
of what these buildings have lost their perceived values, costs and architectural ethics among
others. This means that the context of what is lost is a subject consideration of all factors in the
sites and different architects can view different factors as being the most important to be
conserved.
2.4. Contradictions in the Concepts and Practice of Ethics in Contemporary Architecture

Khalaf (2017) presents one of the most important contradictions in the conservation of
the historical sites. This study conducted an exploratory of how to us Immersive technology to
raise people’s awareness about the conservation of the heritage sites. It describes how Virtual
Reality games can be made where the players can be allowed to interact with virtual 3D models
historical monuments and heritage sites. Even for illustration, the reconstruction of Brocken
models in the 3D models illustrates assumption that this is reconstruction. Considering that the
physical monuments are constructed to be seen as societies’ memorabilia. Therefore, having
virtual replicas of the same for people replaces the need for physical monuments. This is
determent for conservation of technology, material science and social among other aspects of the
monuments, as described in Rojas, (2014), Jokilehto (1995) and Stanley-Price (2009). This is so
since the virtual model is unlikely to accurately preserve the materials used in the original
monument. In addition, it is unlikely to accurately represent the location and the building
technology of the ancient heritage site and only preserves images. Also, it is unlikely to reflect
changes that may occur to monuments as they interact with communities and factors in its
environment. Khalaf (2017) alludes to the possibility of preserving heritage sites through VR
which clear contradiction of views in Rojas, (2014), Jokilehto (1995) and Stanley-Price (2009),
Sadri (2012), Feilden (2004), Embaby (2014), Earl, (1996), and Sheperd, (2014).
Hurol, Yüceer & Başarır, (2015), also presents ethical contradiction in the reconstruction
and conservation of heritage sites including monuments. This study aimed to establish the
guidelines for promoting ethical guidelines for structural reconstruction and maintenance of
small stone house. The study also took into account the status of these buildings including their
sizes, the extent of degradation status; intact or semi intact. It studied internationally accepted
conservations rules and national laws relating to the conservation of the historical sites. The

study looked into the structural interventions for preserving heritage sites especially those made
of masonry walls and structural core to preserve them. It illustrates that there is a need to have
strong value systems to develop new ways of preserving this heritage especially its construction
materials and building technology. The study noted that there was notable unremarkable
incongruence in the ethics of reconstruction. The documents that have been used as a reference
point and the national laws prescribe different things and could be contradictory. Areas of
contradiction include if to reconstruct and extent to which reconstruction should be done. Also
contradiction may occur in, the materials, technology and societies history. With these
differences in ethics surrounding reconstruction, architects and other specialists in this are likely
to make varied decisions regarding this subject.
According to Su, Song & Sigley, (2019), there is consensus in the academic and political
circles that architectural heritage sites need to be preserved to secure the technology and right
history of these buildings and the communities around them. However, this study as is the case
with Hurol, Yüceer & Başarır, (2015) illustrates that the standards and the concepts for used in
reconstruction and conservation are different. Su et al the discourses relating to the conservation
and noted that there is dichotomy in the eastern (china) and western discourses Europe and the
North America. As a result, Su et al tried to investigate and provide a clearer understanding
Western Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) and HOW it influences the conservation of
heritage in China. Defining AHD as a consensus of all the rules, standards and ethics of
conservation in the western conservation work, the study established that this consensus is
largely different from the one in china. The study concluded that the east and west consensus are
different and leads to confusion in determining what is ‘authentic’ cultural heritage sites which
can hence be conserved. AHD plays a role in the preservation of the Chinese cultural sites

including the Shaolin temples in both authoritative and accommodative way. The convolution of
the eastern and the western paradigms, which are both based on different principles and concepts
and illustrates that there numerous concepts and basis of ethics which can be cooperative,
complimentary or conflicting.
Gao, Zhang, & Liu, (2019) demonstrated existence of a tacit consensus justifying
recreation and conservation of heritage sites. However, emphasized the process of reconstruction
must be geared towards achievements of OUV. This study aimed to explore how to construct
heritage value can be contracted relative to the OUV in the context of world tourism in the
Chinese context. Gao et al that OUV based on the tour guides perspective as the study illustrates
using the case of Kaiping Diaolou and related villages. To illustrate this point Gao et al states
that a heritage sites should have attributes that makes tour guides to feel like visitors can learn
something substantial from visiting such a site. To assess the OUV value of a site, semi-
structured questionnaires were administered to find out what tourist and tour guides felt was the
most crucial for OUV. The survey found out that Eurocentric view of OUV was based on the
materiality of the heritage sites. In the china centric view, the study found out that tour guides
tended to go beyond build features and focus people that built including those that have been in
contact with these sites and which can assist in communicate the ‘Chinese attributes of these
sites to visitors. Therefore, even if the sites are heritage specific, reconstruction, maintenance
and study, experience and interpretation of these sites. From the above description, it can be seen
that every region has different view of the value of heritage sites including what defines
‘ordinary’ heritage structures and OUV sites. With these differences in views being associated
with geography and culture is likely to result to differences the concepts and the ethics of
reconstruction. Architects and conservation specialist view these processes as being involved in

the recreation of the original value, making the original value the main goal and the guiding
principle of reconstruction and conservation. Consequently reconstruction and conservation
ethics and concept are developed based on these divergent lines which make them potentially
different and even conflicting. These views are congruent with the findings in Khalaf (2016)
which illustrate that conservation of individual heritage sites should be aimed at recovering and
maintaining the totality of value including the knowledge, the material, technology and the
history of the heritage sites.
Poloni, Ferreira & Marchi, (2018) looks into the changes in the ownership and the
management of architectural heritage sites and stated that the difference between these parties
may lead to conflict in the process of conservation. Poloni, at al aimed to discuss the relationship
between the management approaches of the world heritage sites, nation states and the local
communities/owners of these sites. To give a context for these differences, the study notes what
are seen today as heritage sites were ordinary structure for personal, social or religious use; such
includes the site at Guarani that was initially constructed by the Jesuit missions. After these sites
were used over time, it became integrated into the lives of the local population and became a
cultural site. With the, the local and the state government would participate in the management
and conservation of this site. Poloni, at al noted that in the recent times, world heritage sites have
made local heritage sites to be considered global and their management is centrally managed by
global bodies. Therefore, there has been conflicting views about the heritage sites which has also
influenced the management sites, to the architects viewing heritage sites as belonging to the local
population, these sites are hence viewed as a way of accentuating factors that distinguish a given
community/ nation from others. These sites are hence viewed as medium for expression. On the
other hand, architects that take a global view of heritage sites view these sites as a collection and

preservation of material science, building technology and people’s history that the world should
learn. As a result, classification of a heritage local heritage sites into a global heritage site as a
resignation of global value and meaning to these sites. While the two views can be
complementary, there are stack differences; these differences are also reflected in the ethics and
context of reconstruction. This can make the processes as informed by the two architectural
perspectives to be ideologically antagonistic as one process is driven by different purposes,
goals and ethical underpinnings.
Alsalloum & Brown (2019), argue for a unified framework for reconstruction,
rehabilitation and maintenance especially for post war rehabilitation of heritage sites. This has
been so especially due to elevated threats of decimation and destruction of heritage sites resulting
from the presence of armed conflicts. Noting that there is lack of unified framework for
delineating sites that need processes for reconstruction of heritage sites. Alsalloum & Brown
proposes a comprehensive methodology for selection of sites that are most suitable for
reconstruction/preservation, the best way to recover their heritage value and how to get the
reconstructed sites re-nominated as global heritage sites. This can play a crucial role in providing
robust conservation framework and resources. The findings in Alsalloum & Brown (2019)
illustrates of diverse, inadequate standards that are used as the basis of the practice and the ethics
of the architects in the reconstruction and conservation. The inadequacy and contradiction in the
standards for determining and the procedure for reconstruction and reintegration into the world
heritage sites is likely to cause confusion in the concept and practice of ethics in the conservation
of heritage sites. This contradiction is likely to be solved if there is uniforms framework for
identification and reconstruction are developed which be moved into rules that can support
ethics.

From the studies reviewed in this subsection, the contradictions in the concepts and the
practice of ethics in the contemporary architecture regarding to reconstruction and conservation
of heritage sites is apparent. The practice of identifying the heritage sites, assigning the
responsibility of conservation. Actual reconstruction and conservation and maintenance remain
varied. The literature also illustrates contradiction in who is responsible for most heritage sites
were build by communities and have gained global significance over time. Therefore, there is
contradiction in the practice and concept of ethics resulting from the above two perspectives on
heritage sites. Other differences in the concept and the practice of ethics is in the dichotomy in
the goals of reconstruction; reconstruction for conservation and constriction to achieve OUV.
With the above difference in the basis of ethics, architects and other specialists in reconstruction
are likely experience contradictions in the practice and concept of ethics while conducting
reconstruction and conservation.
2.5. Chapter’s Overview
The evaluation of the Venice Charter by different scalars illustrated that the existing
literature does reveal the most important ethical principle from the Charter. Instead, the literature
illustrate how the Charter provides a framework for formulation of standards and rules from
which ethics to be used in reconstruction can be derived. Therefore, the Charter leads to creation
of varying types of ethics. The review of literature illustrated that the literature does not list or
rank the numerous types of ethics that can be derived from the Venice Charter.
The review of literature illustrates that the existing literature does not conservation
principle that can be used to guide the aspects of heritage buildings should be preserved. Instead,
the literature alludes that the process should be done in a manner that it covers the totality of the
value of such sites. In other instances, the, literature illustrate that the recover/creation of OUV

can be used to guide the selection of sites to be conserved and the process of undertaking the
conservation. From the numerous ethics that can be derived from the Venice Charter and other
sources of standards for reconstruction and conservation, the literature illustrates that there are
potential contradictions in the concept and practice of ethics. As the existing literature fails to
illustrate the most important ethical principles as well as aspect that can aid in the determination
of what should be conserved as interpreted in the Venice Charter, the current study aims to fill
this gap in the body of literature. In addition, It will explore the above two aspects and their
resultant contradictions in the concepts and practice of ethics in contemporary architectural
practice.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
This chapter is meant to describe the procedure that was used to collect and analyse data to be
used to respond research questions of this paper. The data was collected and analyzed in line
with the main aim of this paper. This study aimed to investigate the concept of ethics as applied
reconstruction and conservation as discussed in the Venice Charter. The process of arriving at the
philosophy, the approach and the methods of choosing the sources of data, collecting and
analyzing it was done using a framework illustrated in Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, (2009).
This framework described factors that should be take in into consideration in the data collection
and analysis process and also provides an order in which these factors are considered. From
Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, (2009), these factors as ordered from the general to specific are
research philosophy, approach, strategy, time period, and research procedure. The following
subsections describe the above factors and justify why the researcher made different choices at
each states.

3.2. Research Philosophy
Research philosophy refers to researcher’s belief regarding the nature of data and, how a given
data is suitable for the research in question and how the data should gather and analysed. This
study used interpretivist philosophy; this philosophy is suitable for interpreting data to find and
analyse themes that respond to research questions (Schwandt, 1994). This philosophical stance
was suitable for this study as it is based on interpreting literature to explore the subject of ethics
in reconstruction as presented in the Venice Charter. It also aims to interpret literature to find out
the practice and the concept ethics in conservation. The interpretivist view of this philosophical
stance would assist the researcher to interpret data and respond to research questions. This

philosophical stance also promotes the integration of the human aspects in the interpretation of
data. This will assist in taking into consideration the role of culture, religion and economics and
political systems in the reconstruction and conservation of heritage sites. Other human aspects
that that may influenced the interpretation of the concept and the practice of ethics in
reconstruction and conservation of heritage sites in contemporary architectural practice will also
be put into clearer perspective.
3.3. Research Approach
Research approach refers to a plan/a system of the collective opinion and assumptions that the
research is based on. It also refers to assumptions used in the collection, examination and
analysis of data. The approach chosen is based on the nature of research being conducted and
describes the approach of collecting and the reasoning on which analysis would be based on.
Inductive research was used for this research; the collection of data was done through analysis of
selective published sources to many themes that would be used to respond to research questions.
The sourcing of many themes was chosen as it would assist responding to the objectives of this
research but also create new concept and theories about this study. This research approach was
chosen due to its suitability for this research; it allows in-depth analysis of a subject by reviewing
many published studies and hence enabling the researcher to develop a holistic perspective of the
subject under investigation. Its suitability for this research is also seen in that this research is not
based on hypothesis testing where a two way question is expected. The current research needed
evaluation of views from numerous researchers and evaluations of themes and hence holistically
respond to the study’s research questions and develop new theories and concepts to expand the
discourse of this subject.
3.4. Strategy,

In the current study sued grounded theory (GT) approach, this approach is used with a systematic
gathering and analysis of qualitative data, where the findings of the research are derived using
inductive interpretation. This approach is based on the analysis qualitative data to respond to
research questions. GT as an approach was chosen since the current research is aimed at
analysing qualitative data to investigate the status of ethics in architecture as illustrated the
Venice charter. This strategy is suitable for this study due to its being methodical and allowing
evaluation of many themes from qualitative data. As a result, it provides for provision of wide
information needed for inductive analysis to create new knowledge.
3.5. Time Period
This defines the period of time over which the research subject was investigated. The current
study was cross-sectional in nature as the subject was investigated at one time. This was time
period was selected as there was no need to investigate this subject over a long time,
3.5. Research Procedure
This research used a single method; literature search was done. This involved searching through
the on line libraries for such as, Google scholar, EBSCO, JSTOR and, Questia. From these
electronic libraries, the researcher used search terms such as the ethics an interpretation of the
Venice charter, ethics in conservation of heritage sites, contradiction ethics in architectural
practice. The researcher skimmed through these books to select the ones needed to respond to
research question. The selection criteria used by the researcher is seen in the table below.

Studies selected Studies not selected
Related to the subject of this research Not related to the subject of this research
Written in English Written in other languages

Accessible in full Not accessible in full
Journal articles Blogs and social media posts
With verifiable methodology Without verifiable methodology

After obtaining the studies obtained from the above processes, the researcher read through the
articles obtained. The themes arising from these studies as evaluated on the basis of research
questions were evaluated and compared against each other. This provided the themes that would
be used to respond to the research question of this study. After obtaining the data needed, the
researcher used this data to respond to research questions of the current study. In addition, the
researcher, the researcher Evaluated and interpreted the data obtained in the context of the study
objective to create new concepts and theories and hence expand the discourse of the current
research.
3.6. Ethics
Conducting this secondary research, the researcher foresaw an ethical concerning related to
plagiarism. Since the research involved evaluating published sources, the researcher noted that
there was a risk that some of ideas and perspective obtained from other studies being presented
as those of the researcher. To prevent this, the researcher sited all information obtained from
published sources using recognized referencing style.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Introduction
In this chapter, the findings of this research will be outlined an be discussed. This will be done in
line with the aims and research question of this study, forming a culmination of the work done in
the three chapters above. As seen in the introduction section, this study aimed to investigate the
concept of ethics as applied reconstruction and conservation as discussed in the Venice Charter.
The following subsections offer an outline and also discussions of the findings of this research
presented according the research questions.
4.2. What are the most important ethical principles presented in the Venice Charter as
applied in conservation of heritage sites?
Analysis of 10 studies all related to the interpretation and the role of the Venice charter in
architectural ethics revealed 3 themes. These are: Venice Charter and architectural ethic; the
variability of ethics and conflicts in the concept/practice of ethics. The following section present
these themes and the verbatim obtained from the analysis of data.
4.2.1. Venice Charter and Architectural Ethic
The Venice charter is presented as providing legal, theoretical and professional views that can
assist in the development of architectural standards for reconstruction. However, the literature
illustrates that the charter is not prescriptive in describing the rules that should be followed in
reconstruction and does not gives rules regarding how to reconstruct and conserve heritage sites;
this is seen in rojas 2014, p. 1,
“The Venice Charter was developed to form bases for creation of guidelines for reconstruction a
of heritage sites”
This shows that the charter does not constitute reconstruction rules. On the contrary Silva, 1983,
p. 40) illustrates that the Venice charter assists in revealing the theoretical needs of

reconstruction as seen below
“The Venice Charter outlined the theoretical needs of conservation of heritage sites in the 1960s
by objectively providing the global conservational needs”
Still, Petzet, (2004, p. 7) states the following
It remains an exceptional theoretical mechanism for reconstruction and conservation at the
international level.
From Rojas (2014), the explanation of the Venice charter illustrates that architects performing
reconstruction specialists can develop standards to guide the process. Since theses specialists are
likely to have varying views and interpretation of the charter, this illustrates that the charter can
be used as a basis for numerous conservation ethics. Therefore, it is a source of numerous ethics
that can be used in this process. However, Petzet, (2004) illustrates that the Venice charter largely
focused on the materials used in these sites. Using this perspective, the standards that can be
developed from this charter are more likely to relate to the materials that should be used in
reconstruction that the processes. However, the process of reconstruction comprises both the
processes and the materials used in reconstruction. In this sense, Petzet, (2004) expands the
scope of Rojas 2014 by illustrating that it can aid architects can develop new rules for
conservation based on the materials that are used in this process. Therefore, this illustrates that
the Venice charter can be used in the development of various standards of reconstruction, all of
which can be used as a bases for numerous ethics.
In sharp contrast with the above Petzet, (2004, p. 7) views the Venice charter as a theoretical
mechanism for reconstruction and management of cultural sites. As a result, the charter can be
used for studying this sybject or as teaching material for students and specialists in this area.
While this perspective seems plausible, its use for teaching and research does not make it

impossible to use it for development of standards for reconstruction and conservation of heritage
sites. This makes the views in Petzet, (2004) and Rojas (2014) applicable in understanding how
this charter can be used to derive ethics. Therefore, it can be seen that this charter is used as a
basis for various standards guiding the material and procedures of conservation of architectural
heritage sites.
Variability of Ethics
Vecco, 2010 p. 322, Erder, C. (1977), Hardy, 2008 p. 387) and Khalaf R. W., (2016). Illustrates
that the ethics used in reconstruction and conservation of heritage sites are varied. The verbatim
presented below,
“Documents developed from the Venice Charter offers general definition of the principles of
identifying heritage sites and provides for development of rules of safeguarding them” (Vecco,
2010 p. 322)
“Despite the Venice charter being several decades old it continuous to offer reliable groundwork
for development of standards to be applied in conservation”
Erder, C. (1977).
policy document oncultural heritage. This report asserts that not only heritage sites but also cultural practicesmust be preserved because any loss to the world’s diverse body of material culture harmsthe world’s ‘‘reservoir of knowledge.policy document oncultural heritage. This report asserts that not only heritage sites but also cultural practicesmust be preserved because any loss to the world’s diverse body of material culture harmsthe world’s ‘‘reservoir of knowledge.policy document oncultural heritage. This report asserts that not only heritage sites but also cultural practicesmust be preserved because any loss to the world’s diverse body of material culture harmsthe world’s ‘‘reservoir of knowledge.“The Venice charter is a basis for numerous policy documents for preservation of architectural
heritage. From these policies both architectural and cultural heritage is preserved since loss of
global diversity in material culture is detrimental to preservation knowledge”. Hardy, 2008 p.
387).
“The ethics used in reconstruction are developed from different bases and along different lines,
all with an aim of recovering the value of buildings and history of communities that have been in
contact with these sites” Khalaf (2016, p. 45)
From the description described in Vecco, 2010 p. (322), Erder, (1977), Hardy, 2008 p.
387) and Khalaf (2016), reconstruction and conservation is done in the context of different
standards including the Venice Charter. With the divergent rules of how conversation should be
conducted, the ethical considerations to be observed during the conservation are varied. This is

so since ethics refer to excepted code of behaviors in a group/society. Having divergent sources
of ethics is likely to cause contradiction in the understanding and application of procedures
related to identification, reconstruction and conservation of sites of architectural heritage.
Different standards of preservation represent different priorities in terms of the materials, the
technology, functionality and the cost of preservation. The difference in the standards of
reference for conservation is likely to lead to presence of many bases of ethics in the process

From Khalaf (2016) and Hardy, 2008, buildings including the ones build today reflect
and preserve different sets of information, which may include the culture, political and economic
systems of the people that build them. Different standards of ethics are developed to preserve this
information. Secondly, they reflect the material science and the building technologies of the
people and the times they are made. Sometimes, they can reflect humans and natural factors that
have acted upon them in over the time that these buildings have existed. For instance, a building
or a monument that was build for a given religion may be refitted over history to be used for
other religion which can reflect not only how a building has changed but also how the
communities surrounding such a building has changed. Due to the importance of buildings in
preserving aspects of history such as the socio-political and economic systems of their location;
the building technologies; materials science and revealing natural and manmade events in
buildings history, conservation of these buildings and monuments is needed.
From the above studies, the standards of reconstruction are developed based on the
requirements of sites, the existing theoretical groundwork including the Venice charter, the need
to preserve architectural and cultural heritage and specialists’ interpretation of all these factors.
Based on the varied nature of this charter and different translations that can be ascribed to them,
this shows that numerous ethics can /have been developed for this area.

Conflicts in the Concept/Practice of Ethics
As described in Khalaf (2016) and Richmond, Backer & Bracker, (Eds.). (2009), there
are conflicts arising from the practice and concept of ethics. With differences in the standards of
ethics derived and used for conservation of heritage sites, decisions made based on these ethics
are likely to be contradictory. This is seen below;
“Since ethics used in conservation are developed along different lines, this is likely to cause
conflicts and contradictions in conservation related decision” Khalaf (2016, p. 2)
Similarly, Richmond, Bracker, & Bracker, (2009)
“Conflicts are common due to differences between scientific and social perspectives on
conservation” (Richmond, Bracker, & Bracker, 2009, p.34)
“Conflicts have also been experienced when moral imperatives are applied alongside ‘high
moral ground’ (Loulanski, T. (2006).p.147)
“Dilemmas in reconstruction are experienced due to differences in ethics, functionality, values
and aesthetic quality” (Safiullin, Gafurov, Shaidullin, & Safiullin, 2014, p. 19)
As seen in Khalaf (2016, p. 2), the direction of the development of ethics to be used for
reconstruction can lead to conflicts between those applying these ethics. Ethics as the expected
code of conducts in a group guides how people behave such that if people are guided to make
different decisions concerning similar situation, this can cause contradiction. Loulanski, T.
(2006).p.147) points out to the existence of conflict between the moral imperative and high
moral ground. For the former, while the codes of ethics applied in reconstruction can compete
individuals to make decisions in one direction, this may contradict the views/decisions of persons
and institutions that are expected to provide the way forward in these matters. Richmond,
Bracker, & Bracker, 2009, points’ conflict that can arise due to scientific and social aspects of

ethics. However, this conflict is unclear since these two areas are concerned with different
aspects of conservation. For instance, instance the scientific aspects are related to materials and
technology while the social aspects relate to people that built or have been in contact with the
given site. Safiullin, et al., 2014, demonstrates how the ethics developed are likely to be applied
differently due to factors such as functionalities and aesthetics. Subjects such as aesthetics are
higkly subjective and personal which Fagan, 2002 illustrates that regaining functionalities of
heritage sites is complicate since original functions can be unknown, poorly understood for
functions while some functions are not applicable in modern times. The views presented in
Safiullin, et al., 2014. Hold less weight as architect’s professional standards advice on how to
balance these aspects. Still, aesthetic and functionalities carry less weigh while conserving
heritage sites as emphasis is plased on preservation of materials, technology and history.
Views in Khalaf (2016) and (Loulanski, (2006).p.147) illustrates the conflicts in reconstruction
and conservation ethics plausibly. They illustrate a situation where the ethics, which are
supposed to regulate architects interpretation and standardize their views towards reconstruction,
have been varied. As a result, different architects are likely to use different ethics while working
in cases which is likely to make their decisions different and contradictory.

4.3. From the Venice Charter, what Aspects of Buildings And Monuments Should Be
conserved?
From the analysis of Ehrenfeld (2000). Steinberg (1996) and Embaby, (2014), what should be conserved
in the architectural heritage sites is as much as can accurately present the materials, technologies and
the social cultural history of these buildings. This results from the fact that these sites are for the purpose
of maintaining the materials, technology and history of these buildings to future generation. The views
from different studies are presented in by the following quotes

“The Venice charter describes how to preserve heritage sites for posterity, the process of preservation
should capture all the information that the current generation would not like lost” (Ehrenfeld, 2000, p.23).
“…Heritage such as material science, building technology and history of relations between the building
and the community”. Steinberg (1996)
“Conservation of heritage sites should be focused at recovering aspects that give these
structures their monumental value”. ( Embaby 2014),
In shape contrast with the above studies Sadri (2012) states that what should be preserved in
heritage sites is not defined; this is seen in the quote
There is general lack of consensus of what aspects of architectural heritage sites should be
preserved. (Sadri 2012, p. 5)
Presents a mid ground of the views presented in the above studies
The parts, materials, measurement and components of architectural heritage sites that need to be
conserved can vary from one site to the next. Harun, 2011, p. 66).

In the analysis of what needs to be preserved, there is a consensuss in all the studies that
heritage sites have asopects that need to be conserved for future generation. In addition, they all
illustrate that these sites represents aspects of civilisation of the community that built of the ones
that have remained in conmtact with these sites. However, different studies have different view
on what aspects should be preserved.

d) What contradictions exist in the concepts and practice of ethics in contemporary
architecture in the context of conservation of historical structures?

References

Harun, S. N. (2011). Heritage building conservation in Malaysia: Experience and

challenges. Procedia Engineering, 20, 41-53.

Steinberg, F. (1996). Conservation and rehabilitation of urban heritage in developing

countries. Habitat International, 20(3), 463-475.

Embaby, M. E. (2014). Heritage conservation and architectural education:“An educational
methodology for design studios”. HBRC Journal, 10(3), 339-350.

Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2000). Defining the limits of restoration: the need for realistic goals. Restoration

ecology, 8(1), 2-9.

Loulanski, T. (2006). Cultural heritage in socio-economic development: local and global
perspectives. Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies, 34(2).
Safiullin, L. N., Gafurov, I. R., Shaidullin, R. N., & Safiullin, N. Z. (2014). Socio-
economic development of the region and its historical and cultural heritage. Life Science

Journal, 11(6s), 400-404.

Richmond, A., Bracker, A., & Bracker, A. L. (Eds.). (2009). Conservation: principles,

dilemmas and uncomfortable truths. Routledge.

Hardy, M. (Ed.). (2008). The Venice Charter revisited: Modernism, conservatism and
tradition in the 21st century. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Erder, C. (1977). The Venice Charter under Review. Journal of Faculty of Architecture,

METU, Ankara, 25.

Vecco, M. (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the
intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(3), 321-324.
Silva, R. (1983, March). The significance of the Venice International Charter for the
Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, with special reference to Eastern
Countries. In International Congress on Architectural Conservation. First International
Congress on Architectural Conservation. University of Baisle, Switzerland (pp. 10-13).
Petzet, M. (2004). Principles of preservation: an introduction to the international charters

for conservation and restoration 40 years after the venice charter.
Fagan, G. G. (2002). Bathing in public in the Roman world. University of Michigan Press.
Alsalloum, A., & Brown, A. (2019). Towards a Heritage-Led Sustainable Post-Conflict
Reconciliation: A Policy-Led Perspective. Sustainability, 11(6), 1686.
Poloni, R. J. S., Ferreira, M. L. M., & Marchi, D. D. M. (2018). National Identities, New Actors,
and Management of World Heritage Sites: The Case of Ouro Preto and a Jesuit Mission
of the Guaranis in Brazil. In Aspects of Management Planning for Cultural World
Heritage Sites (pp. 195-207). Springer, Cham.
Gao, J., Zhang, C., & Liu, L. (2019). Communicating the outstanding universal value of World
Heritage in China? The tour guides’ perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 1-14.
Su, X., Song, C., & Sigley, G. (2019). The Uses of Reconstructing Heritage in China: Tourism,
Heritage Authorization, and Spatial Transformation of the Shaolin
Temple. Sustainability, 11(2), 411.
Stanley-Price, N. (2009). The reconstruction of ruins: principles and practice. Conservation:
Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths. Oxford: Elsevier, 32-46.
Khalaf R. W., (2016)., A viewpoint on the reconstruction of destroyed UNESCO Cultural World
Heritage Sites. Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Heritage Studies on 26
December 2016, available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2016.1269239
Lagomarsino., S., Cattari. S., Ferreira M. T., & Vicente R (2018). Cultural Heritage Monuments
and Historical Buildings: Conservation Works and Structural Retrofitting. Springer
Nature Singapore
World Heritage Centre (WHC) (2017). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the

World Heritage Convention- United Nations educational, scientific and cultural
organization Intergovernmental Committee For The Protection Of The World Cultural
And Natural Heritage. UNESCO.
Khalaf, R. W. (2017). A viewpoint on the reconstruction of destroyed UNESCO Cultural World
Heritage Sites. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(3), 261-274.
Hurol, Y., Yüceer, H., & Başarır, H. (2015). Ethical Guidelines for Structural Interventions to
Small-Scale Historic Stone Masonry Buildings. Science and engineering ethics, 21(6),
1447-1468.

Clark, K. (2001) Informed Conservation. Understanding historic buildings and their landscapes
for conservation. London: English Heritage.
Earl, J. (1996) Building Conservation Philosophy. Dorset: Donhead.
Embaby, M. (2014) Heritage conservation and architectural education: ‘An educational
methodology for design studios. HBRC Journal, Volume 10 (3), pp.339-350. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.hbrcj.2
013.12.007 [Accessed 17 May 2019].
Feilden, B. M. (2004). Conservation of Historic Buildings. Oxford: Butterworth. 
Jokilehto, J. (1995) “Reconstruction of ancient ruins”. In Conservation and Management of
Archaeological Sites. London: James & James. 
Jokilehto, J. (2004) A History of Architectural Conservation. Oxford: Butterworth.   
Rojas, E. (2014) Historic Cities and the Venice Charter: Contributions to the Sustainable
Preservation of Urban Heritage. US ICOMOS Symposium, Change Over Time, Volume 4,
pp.1-16. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279293216_Historic_Cities_and_the_Venice_C

harter_Contributions_to_the_Sustainable_Preservation_of_Urban_Heritage [Accessed 15
May 2019].
Sadri, H. (2012) Professional Ethics in Architecture and Responsibilities of Architects towards
Humanity. Turkish Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 5, Issue 9, pp.86-96. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278685325_Professional_Ethics_in_Architectur
e_and_Responsibilities_of_Architects_towards_Humanity. [Accessed 15 May 2019].
Sheperd, R. J. (2014) Civilization-Making and Its Discontents: The Venice Charter and Heritage
Policies in Contemporary China. George Washington University, pp.382-397. Available
at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279293161_Civilization-
Making_and_Its_Discontents_The_Venice_Charter_and_Heritage_Policies_in_Contemp
orary_China [Accessed 16 May 2019].
Summerson, J. (1980) The Classical Language of Architecture. Thames & Hudson.
The Committee. (1964) International Charter for the Conservation and Preservation of
Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter). Venice. Available at:
https://www.icomos.org/Charters/venice_e.pdf [Accessed 19 May 2019].