Sustainable Continuity of Cultural Heritage: An Approach for Studying Architectural Identity Using Typo-Morphology Analysis and Perception Survey

Abstract

Architecture plays a crucial role in expressing identities. Cultural heritage as a sustainable process identifies the representation of architectural identity and its continuity. This study aims to create a model of the sustainable continuity of cultural heritage as an approach to studying architectural identity in Erbil. This study contributes to revealing a comprehensive model that includes the relationship between inherited and created sustainable elements related to cultural heritage that affects the continuity of architectural identity. The study combined visual analysis using graphical representation, the analysis of previous studies, field surveys, and questionnaire surveys as methods of data collection. The rationale behind selecting Erbil is related to its unique sustainable developments related to its cultural heritage through the ages, as the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. This paper built two hypotheses. The first assumes that there is a significant correlation between elements that represent cultural heritage as a sustainable process and the continuity of architectural identity, and the second assumes that certain elements of cultural heritage have a greater effect on the continuity of architectural identity. The proposed model revealed a strong correlation between independent variables that represent cultural heritage frameworks such as the typo-morphology of house layouts and facades, sociocultural factors, and sustainable development factors and the dependent factor of the continuity of architectural identity in houses situated in Erbil. The regression analysis demonstrated that the most effective factor contributing to the continuity of the architectural identity of houses in Erbil is the physical characteristics related to the typo morphology of the house’s plan layout.

Can Architectural Identity Be Measured?

“…The model includes two a itudes: the first sheds light on the differences between groups, while the second searches for similarities among them (see Table S1). In parallel, Khaznadar and Baper [14] suggested a model that defines identity as a continuous process by combining two opposite perspectives (see Figure 6). The first declares that architectural identity is inherited through generations, while the second approach believes that architectural identity can be constructed due to new technologies and scientific sightings.…”