The increase in destructive natural and anthropogenic phenomena, particularly since the second half of the 20th century, has contributed to erasing a growing number of heritage places.
These destructions often occur on purpose, as in the case of constructing new buildings or roads, mining excavations, ploughing fields, or building dams.
Groups of people often oppose these actions, pointing out how those endangered places represent part of their lives, are connected to memories, and tell a piece of history that is important to them. These and other examples define what is meant by heritage significance/value.
Heritage values were first theorised by Alois Riegl in 1903. Over the 20th century, this concept has been further expanded, particularly through the Burra Charter (first issued in 1979 and then updated in 1999 and 2013). According to these texts, heritage values can be numerous and varied, and a single place or tradition may have more than one type of significance/value.
For example, temples, churches, mosques or synagogues (or even individual objects or furniture located inside these buildings), may be deemed relevant for a group of people due to their sacred value. At the same time, they may carry other values such as architectural or aesthetic ones (owing to the style in which they were built). Below you can find a selection of some of the most recognised values.
It is important to keep in mind that economy does not represent a value for heritage. UNESCO and ICCROM suggest distinguishing economy as a benefit rather than a value.
For example, if the economic value of a historic site is allowed to predominate, the tourism activity that maximizes those economic values can quickly obscure or erode the site’s historical values (visitor traffic destroys historic context and even the resources themselves, perhaps by careless visitors climbing on ruins or taking fragments as souvenirs).