Assessment of Saudi Arabia’s Classification and Selection Criteria for Heritage Sites: A Case Study of Barzan Heritage Area in Hail City

Abstract

Cultural heritage has numerous developmental prospects that might contribute to the sustainable development and quality of life of communities. However, cultural heritage products have a complex relationship with many sectors. This paper examines Saudi criteria for the classification and selection of cultural heritage and presents a case study on the implementation of these criteria. It aims to develop local assessment criteria for cultural heritage values and conservation in Saudi Arabia. A theoretical analysis has been conducted to evaluate the criteria for the classification and selection of architectural heritage value and the relationship between whole heritage values. The paper discusses the criteria’s limitations and impacts and identifies misunderstandings of cultural heritage values in Saudi Arabia. The findings of this study indicate that the mechanism of implementing a list can affect both tangible and intangible cultural heritage in different ways and at different levels. The criteria should include all cultural heritage values within a context rather than a single building or object. Thus, one of the main objectives of the criteria is to recognize and highlight the importance of a site through its values. The case study of the Barzan District illustrates the factual impact of current legislation and organizational structures on heritage sites.

1. Introduction

Cultural heritage has numerous developmental prospects that might contribute to the sustainable development and quality of life of communities. Many countries around the world are trying to diversify their sources of national income, and one of the best ways of encouraging this income is through tourism. Cultural heritage has been considered one of the most important resources supporting income from tourism [1,2,3]. Moreover, cultural heritage is essential for enriching the individual lives of citizens and enhancing the heritage values of society. These values have an impact on sites, cities, and the whole identity of communities [4,5,6]. Today, cultural heritage plays a new role, presenting our society with major challenges, including a need for new design and planning strategies in terms of cultural heritage and tourism. However, cultural heritage products have a complex relationship with many sectors, such as the environment, education, and communities.

With its vast oil reserves and proper planning, Saudi Arabia should, in principle, in the short-term, have no problem economically meeting the increase in its cities’ development demands. Yet, decision-makers and the scientific community are increasingly accepting the fact that economic development based on non-renewable resources is unsustainable in the long run. The Saudi Arabia Vision 2030 highlighted the importance of Saudi heritage, whether in terms of quality of life or tourism opportunities [7]. As a result, there is a pressing need to plan for the post-oil era by implementing innovative sustainable tourism solutions such as cultural and architectural heritage. Saudi Arabia’s geographical diversity has resulted in a wealth of architectural and urban products that represent many cultural heritage values; this diversity is evident in the variety of building materials, structures, and elements. This architectural and urban diversity plays an important role in and has a direct impact not only on the tourism industry but also on Saudi cultural heritage.

Understanding the best possible way to address the impediments facing cultural tourism at the local level is also important. The dominant patterns of tourism in Saudi Arabia, such as adventure tourism and agricultural tourism, are important keys to understanding the forms of tourism that are successful in that culture. Additionally, the potential for other forms of tourism, such as cultural tourism or ecotourism, as well as recreational tourism, could be considered when determining the best approach toward enhancing cultural heritage tourism in Saudi Arabia. In this context, many initiatives have been taken towards heritage by the Saudi government, including establishing new authorities and organizations (such as the Ministry of Culture, Architecture, and Design Commission). These efforts will have an effect on cultural heritage in general, but the relationship between tangible and intangible heritage values, particularly architectural value, social value, and environmental value, should be taken into account. Any omission of these values will have an effect on the heritage value.

Enormous research effort has been dedicated to the subject of cultural heritage worldwide, and it is becoming an increasingly higher priority subject in Arab countries in general and in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in particular. The major challenge in managing cultural heritage lies in understanding the variety of values of cultural heritage, particularly the architectural heritage value [8]. The key theme that emerges is the necessity for an interdisciplinary approach. Two of the main disciplines in architectural heritage value are building design and building materials within an urban context. An additional challenge is the creation of an innovative model to manage the heritage sites that, beginning with classification, will define and determine the conditions and the means by which the appropriate principles for architectural heritage, tourism, and the heritage environment can be achieved [9]. Within the framework of a holistic design that responds to the complex requirements of the built environment context, building architectural design can coexist creatively in this [10]. Both behavioral and implementation factors have an effect on cultural heritage sites. One of the elements and processes that contribute to the built environment is the management of historic sites [11]. Not only are regulations and policies implemented via the active system but also via other national and local applications. In the context of the built environment, architectural heritage elements (foundation, roof, walls, windows, doors, floors, and spaces) primarily provide values that connect to other external values. Understanding and managing architectural heritage value necessitates familiarity with civil, religious, and defensive architecture styles, as well as building styles, processes, and stages [12]. Its design and function play a significant role in shaping the value of heritage sites [13,14]. To reach a high-impact standard, an advanced understanding of architectural heritage value within its context is required. The subject of heritage conservation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia appears to have been of interest to the scientific community only in a few numbers of cases, with most publications occurring only in the past few years [15]. Therefore, a comprehensive examination of cultural heritage values is necessary [16]. Redefining the ‘ideal’ conditions for architectural heritage provides a starting point for identifying a solution to enhance cultural heritage. Cultural heritage studies at the national and local levels in Saudi Arabia vary depending on the nature of the research and the researcher’s background, such as history and anthropology [13,17,18], but there is a dearth of specialized architectural studies, which this research seeks to remedy.

This paper reviews and examines Saudi Arabian criteria for the classification and selection of cultural heritage and presents a quantitative case study of the implementation of those criteria. The study is part of a research program conducted at the University of Hail, aiming to develop local assessment criteria for cultural heritage values and conservation in Saudi Arabia. The paper explains how heritage management and tourism have been implemented in Saudi Arabia in general and in Hail, in particular. It identifies the strengths and opportunities of the values of cultural heritage in Hail and its economic and cultural potential. Furthermore, the study identifies ways not just to protect and conserve Hail’s cultural heritage site but also to make it attractive and relevant to its values, as the study helps understand the weaknesses and threats which stand in the way of its development and progress.

2. Literature Review

This section aims to highlight significant areas in the value-based preservation of cultural heritage field. It reviews the definition, concept development, and classification of cultural heritage preservation values. This section highlights a theoretical foundation in which cultural heritage values, criteria, and selection processes are seen as pivotal for heritage preservation systems. Moreover, this review underlines the significance of applying worldwide concepts of preservation values into contexts beyond the Euro-centric domain. Furthermore, this review promotes a methodological framework for investigating the heritage values, criteria, and selection process in architectural heritage cases. The review is divided into two sections: heritage values’ definition and development and heritage values as criteria and selection processes.

2.1. Heritage Values’ Definition and Development

Heritage values underline the qualities and traits of heritage and cultural resources [4]. Heritage values include many types, such as age, historical, and aesthetic qualities. However, heritage value and how it is perceived has been an essential topic in the field for over a century see, e.g., [6,19,20,21,22,23,24]. The debate around heritage values and their classification dates back to Alois Riegal (1903) [19,25]. According to Riegal, different values imply different goals and outcomes [19]. Sixty years later, the concept of values was raised again as one of the main aspects of the Venice Charter of 1964, and its implications are still relevant today. However, the Venice Charter attempted to employ a generalized worldview of heritage values. Therefore, discussion and debate about more inclusive values become more pressing. The Burra Charter in 1999 greatly impacted the field in which cultural heritage values ideas are discussed from different perspectives. The Burra Charter underlined aspects of cultural significance and intangible values as important valuation aspects of heritage environments. Another significant dialogue was included in the Nara Document in 1994, highlighting different Eastern perspectives regarding authenticity and values. These debates and developments of heritage values underline that discussion of heritage values should also be addressed in different contexts. Several studies suggest addressing heritage values beyond the Euro-centric perspective [26,27,28]. Therefore, the development of heritage values’ perspectives has had a significant shift in the focus on heritage values from aesthetic, art, and physical materials toward cultural, spiritual, and intangible aspects of values [25,29,30]. Such a shift and continuous dialogue on heritage values also instigate discussion on selection criteria. The following section tackles the types of heritage values and their role in crafting the selection criteria of the heritage management process.

2.2. Heritage Values’ Classification and Selection Criteria

There is no doubt that the debate on heritage values and different contexts has changed the practice of heritage preservation [6]. In particular, the process of crafting criteria and selection on national and international levels has become a central interest in the field, see, e.g., [31,32,33,34]. Criteria and selection based on heritage values are not merely subjected to static and intrinsic types of values; they have become more inclusive to changeable and extrinsic aspects of values [6]. According to Araoz (2011), the debate between the West and East around heritage values has underlined a more inclusive paradigm toward the past and significant change in heritage inventories, classification, and interpretation [35]. The broader meaning and perception of heritage values, heritage management toolkits, intangible and landscape aspects, and change management significantly impact how heritage sites are processed and managed [5]. Heritage criteria become oriented toward other types of values, such as belief, rather than the focus on physical artifacts [30]. Other emerging types of values are becoming more relevant nowadays, for instance, cultural, social, and economic values [20,21,22,23].

Additionally, different stakeholders, decision-making processes, transformational forces, and the economy impact the way heritage values are perceived and identified [20]. It is equally important to understand that cultural, social, and economic values impact the selection process. They are not necessarily static or intrinsic values; they change and are affected by different situations, contexts, and interpretations [23,36]. These dimensions in heritage values create different perspectives and ideologies about how heritage is perceived, identified, and managed [29].

This section reviews the literature relevant to cultural heritage preservation values and their association with the criteria and selection process. It provides a broad understanding of how values are perceived and identified in different contexts. Consequently, the review facilitates crafting a methodological application in the next section to study heritage values, criteria, and the selection process in architectural heritage sites.

3. Methodology

This research methodology is divided into two main steps: (1) data collection and (2) data analysis. The data collection step involved site visits, non-participant observation, and acquiring data from national archives. The data used in this study include public documents, reports, photographs, maps, and the criteria of the national form for classifying and selecting urban national heritage sites. These are two different forms, which are (1) Criteria for classifying and selecting villages and districts of urban heritage for preservation and development and (2) Criteria for classifying and selecting urban heritage buildings for preservation and development. In addition, the forms illustrate how the case study (Barzan area) classification and selection process were conducted.

Public documents and reports concerning the policy and regulation of Saudi heritage were also acquired. These data were acquired from the Documentation and Protection Unit, The Center of National Urban Heritage, located in the Saudi Commission of Tourism and National Heritage, the Ministry of Education (MOE), and the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA). In addition, the data collection phase included acquiring secondary supporting materials, such as pertinent scholarly references, data including laws, policies, regulations, and definitions, and unpublished reports from scientific databases and international bodies (conventions, charters, and recommendations from UNESCO, ICOMOS, and the English Heritage).

The data analysis in this research utilized a SWOT analysis that has been conducted to systematically assess and identify internal strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the national criteria for the classification and selection of cultural heritage in Saudi Arabia. In addition, the study assessed the national criteria for the classification and selection of cultural heritage in Saudi Arabia in relation to heritage management and implementation practice. The SWOT analysis facilitates assessing and identifying key issues in the heritage criteria system and helps in recommending a suitable approach to enhance the criteria for the classification and selection of Saudi heritage (see, e.g., various efforts to use SWOT analysis in cultural heritage studies [37,38,39,40]).

Additionally, the study investigates the concept of understanding heritage values; it focuses mainly on architectural heritage values and the relationship between whole heritage values. In the final step, an analysis of the potentially best design solution and the recommendations has been suggested. A theoretical analysis has also been carried out by reviewing the policy and regulation of Saudi heritage and all related concepts and principles, such as heritage building criteria, emphasizing architectural heritage value. The paper discusses the criteria’s limitations and impacts and identifies the misunderstanding of cultural heritage values in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, a real case study is presented to assess the impact of the criteria on Saudi heritage and to show how some heritage values are affected by the criteria evaluation. The primary data used the list of the criteria of classification, and each criterion was analyzed individually and then collectively compared with its numerical value. After that, it was applied to the case study (Barzan area), which led to identifying the gap not just between these criteria but also in the implementation stage. In addition, secondary data from scientific references and unpublished reports from international and national sources played a role in consolidating and increasing data validity.

4. Saudi Cultural Heritage Values

To prevent exclusion and develop this within a real context, cultural heritage values should be incorporated into every evaluation tool. Consequently, it is essential to extract these values from the criteria and thoroughly examine the contents in order to determine the connection with any other criteria, forms, or implementation tools. This is done not only to emphasize the restriction but also to identify potential obstacles and repercussions.

The process that has been followed in developing cultural heritage in Saudi Arabia takes two forms: data and criteria. The data form should be reflected in the criteria form, which is a sequence of development and planning processes. According to UNESCO (2013), there are two main approaches to planning cultural heritage: first, the conventional approach, and second, the values-led approach.

The conventional approach focuses primarily on the preservation of the materials or fabric of the past, also known as monuments (Figure 1) [41]. Before planning conservation interventions, this method entails identifying, documenting, and assessing conditions.

The values-led approach (Figure 2) is an assessment of the significance of a place based on the values attributed by all stakeholders and the use of a statement of significance as a basis for developing conservation and management strategies [41].

The values-led approach follows these steps: collect data, assess significance (values and attributes), assess conditions, and, finally, plan for conservation and management. It is notable here that the assessing significance step focuses on the values which were missing in the previous approach.

5. Protection and Action

According to Historic England, one of the main objectives of listing a site is to ensure that cultural heritage values are protected [42]. Listing is one of the most important steps in Saudi Arabia, as in other countries, to build up a database in order to take the appropriate decision and action with a clear vision. Orbasli highlighted that ‘in developing countries, for many overworked and underfunded heritage departments, historic buildings become a name on a protection list rather than a cause for action’ [43]. In Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Commission for Tourism and National Heritage (SCTNH) launched a project to create an urban heritage list in 2015.

This project, which allowed SCTNH to compile a list of urban heritage sites, was one of the outcomes of the 2014 law. In accordance with the Antiquities, Museums, and Urban Heritage Law Executive Regulations [44] (specifically under the urban heritage chapter in Section 4, article 15, page 59), SCTNH determines the classification of a site, building, or area of urban heritage prior to its listing based on one or more specific criteria. Classification is defined by law as the ‘determination of the level of significance of an urban heritage site based on historical, cultural, scientific, artistic, or national values’ [44]. Registration is defined as ‘the inclusion of an urban heritage site in the records based on its significance criteria and classification level’ [44].

6. Criteria of Heritage Sites in Saudi Arabia

Establishing such criteria is a great step towards managing heritage values in general and architectural value in particular. These criteria are essential tools for the implementation of heritage sites. It would not be possible to manage or develop heritage sites without these criteria. Classifying architectural value in these criteria shows the level of awareness and understanding of the importance of heritage value. These criteria were designed to cover the past, present, and future. The past is mentioned in two criteria: age and historical importance. Demolition percentage and rarity criteria are focused on the present. The possibility of investment criteria clearly includes the perspective of the future. These criteria are comprehensive and cover most of the crucial elements in terms of heritage values; however, in this paper, we are trying to reduce the gap between these criteria by focusing on weaknesses and threats.

In 2015, SCTNH applied two different forms of criteria for the selection of national heritage sites, (1) Classification and Selection of Villages/Districts of Urban Heritage and (2) Classification and Selection of Heritage Buildings. In addition to the Urban Heritage Site Data Form, the objective of these criteria is to preserve and develop national urban heritage sites and heritage buildings. Both criteria are based on evaluation sheets, which aim to evaluate, classify and select the urban heritage ensembles, sites, and buildings based on some specific metric and weights. At the end of this sheet are the enumeration points that determine the level of the classification: First class (more than 250 points), Second class (150–250 points), and Third class (50–150 points). Consequently, based on the results of the criteria, it is determined whether the site or structure will be preserved or developed. It is unclear, however, what will occur following the classification of sites and who will be responsible for what. This deficiency in the management and implementation procedure could result in an inaccurate list rather than a reason for action.

The villages/districts’ criteria present seven standards: age, historical importance, rarity, status (demolition), style, architectural design and details, and the possibility of investment. The buildings’ criteria show ten standards, which include the previous standards and an extra two: building function and location. However, the architectural design and details standards are divided into two standards in this building criteria form, which are design and architectural details and inscriptions.

It is crucial to discuss each criterion separately in order to understand the whole criteria and standards, identify the limitations and weak points, and ensure that the criteria reflect the real values of cultural heritage. Moreover, it is necessary to evaluate the outcomes of the new law, identify the implementation steps and the impacts on heritage, and propose the best implementation methods. The criteria for the classification and selection of heritage sites in Saudi Arabia are as follows.

6.1. Criterion 1: The Time

The standard gives each ten years three points [45]; the accuracy of this standard weightage with respect to age could be viewed as a kind of age/historic value. However, there is no clear reason for the estimated weights and durations. There should be a link between time and site/building in order to avoid conflicts between ancient and more recent heritage sites/buildings without diminishing their importance. The immovable cultural heritage system in Saudi Arabia has two main classifications for cultural heritage sites to be registered: (1) National Classification for Archaeologies and (2) National Classification of Urban Heritage. As a result, the first classification has nearly eight folds the number of heritage sites that are registered in the latter classification.

However, ‘old’ is not the only criterion for listing; some more recent sites may also be of local significance or interest. Age is a significant criterion when choosing and adjusting to account for distinctive local characteristics. Local characteristics are notable examples of the type and style of cultural heritage that was crucial to the era’s development. The ancient site of Madaen Saleh in Al-Ula, for instance, receives over a thousand points every ten years, while more recent heritage sites, such as the Barzan area in Hail city, fall into the third class of the classification system. Counting in numbers is a quantitative rather than qualitative method, which excludes the majority of heritage values due to the limitations of the results.

6.2. Criterion 2: The History

The historical importance of a village/district or building (historical event) standard consists of four types: 1—Linked to ancient historical events, which equals thirty points. 2—Linked to the history of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which also equals thirty points. 3—Linked to local historical events and valued at fifteen points. 4—Ordinary type (no difference to other villages/districts or buildings), which weighs zero points [45].

The significance criterion used in this instance is unique to the history and should be based on and reflective of all heritage values. In other words, this criterion does not apply to the majority of heritage values, including scientific values, social values, and other values. Ignoring the majority of the heritage values in this criterion would be equivalent to continuing to use the method implemented after the first law was passed in 1972. Undoubtedly, the effect in terms of awareness and implementation will be identical, especially if specific values are emphasized and a heritage image is fashioned based on these values.

In the Historic Cairo project, for instance, historical significance was linked to the period criterion, indicating an integrated relationship between the criteria and the age and history. Moreover, this significance is the result of identifying the period and presenting its era as opposed to evaluating its significance.

6.3. Criterion 3: The Terminology

The terminology is crucial. For instance, the terminology of the Arabic word ‘nudrah’ in English means ‘rarity’, while ‘asalah’ means ‘authenticity’, which was not included in these criteria. Rareness is commonly associated with uniqueness; however, according to UNESCO (2012), ‘a rare item may or may not be unique or irreplaceable: it is one of a small number of surviving examples’ [46]. The rarity criterion is categorized into three types based on a vertical geography scale. The first is rarity at a national level, which gives thirty points weight; the second is rarity at a province level, which gives fifteen points; the third is ordinary with no difference to others, which gives zero point weight [45].

Rarity at the national level equals thirty points. However, there is a concern in attempting to define the meaning of rarity and its characteristics in this criterion, namely, what makes any building rare at this level. There are no details as to how rarity should be identified and clarified in this criterion. The lack of clarity in defining rarity could lead to excluding some heritage sites. ‘Of course, not all old objects qualify as heritage’, [18] argued. Usually, something else is required, and rarity is frequently a significant factor. ‘In the case of cultural heritage, rarity is likely to relate directly to price, so a market can begin to function’, he added. In this sense, investment is crucial in the development of cultural heritage. Accordingly, ordinary buildings are equal to zero points, which means there is no visibility to invest in this category. Thus, there are no values in this category. However, the issue here is that rarity is linked to other factors, not just the price, such as values of cultural heritage, which shape the heritage context.

Rarity is an immeasurable criterion unless it has specific classifications and definitions. Most of the heritage villages/districts and buildings—especially in developing countries where the level of awareness caused the loss of many sites—are rare, whether for the person or group of people who share a collective memory. The rarity is a result of discovering and understanding the values and their integration process. Rarity criterion in architectural heritage has a link to what remains from buildings; in other words, being rare is one of the conservation results. Criterion 4 confirms whether there is an understanding of the link between these criteria.

6.4. Criterion 4: The Condition

The village/district’s or building’s status (demolition percentage) has six levels. Level one is for 0% of demolition and weighs forty points; the second level is for 10% of demolition and weighs thirty-five points. The third is for 20% and weighs thirty points. The fourth is for 30% and is equal to twenty-five points. The fifth is for 40% and is equal to twenty points. Finally, the sixth level for 50% of demolition is assessed at fifteen points [45]. At the end of this standard, there is a note that states, ‘there is no preservation for the village/district or building if the assessment of the status amounts to less than fifteen points, unless the village/district or building has more than sixty points in the three previous standards, and as long as it is documented’ [45].

The number of points should be the opposite because the greater the demolition percentage, in the Barzan District area (Figure 3), for example, the more urgent the action needed, as the objective of such criteria is to protect and develop. This approach will increase the number of endangered sites/buildings, which means losing the site/building or costing more for restoration later on.

This criterion focuses on the current status rather than actual values. Furthermore, this represents support for endangered sites and not a tool for excluding them. These limitations will increase the number of endangered sites as a result of the end of urban heritage, which suffered from laws and implementations, and then losing what remains from urban heritage sites. Moreover, such an approach will minimize heritage values and reflect this on societies.

As regards rarity and status, there is no link between these two criteria. For example, a heritage building that has less than half of its structure remaining will not be preserved and developed based on the status criteria. However, the value of this building will increase and become rare due to the limitation in numbers. In addition, due to this criterion, more heritage sites are lost; for example, 50% does not help preserve some heritage sites. Over time, there will be no rare heritage sites because of the criterion evaluation.

6.5. Criterion 5: The Style of Urban Heritage

This standard suggests that if urban heritage is distinctive at the national level, it is equal to twenty points, and at the provincial level, it is equal to ten points. If it is ordinary and similar to any village/district, then its weight is zero [45].

The issue here concerns scaling the distinction, and this standard needs a criterion to identify what is distinctive. A further issue is that there are only national and provincial levels, while the local level, which represents the community, is missing from the criteria. This standard follows a geographical scale and should reach the community and groups of people in order to protect the individual and represent unity.

Urban heritage style is one of the most important criteria for awareness of the context of cultural heritage, as well as understanding different values and integration. In the Historic Cairo project, for instance, there is a separate form for the urban heritage style [47]. This approach to urban heritage has resulted in an urban scale to identify cultural heritage within its context, which is an important step towards linking a single building and context to shape the whole context.

6.6. Criterion 6: Architecture and Details

The architectural design and details standard is assessed at twenty points for very distinctive architectural design, ten points for being distinctive, and zero points for normal architectural design [45]. However, the terminology used in this criterion is not clear and not measurable; for example, the difference between very distinctive and distinctive architectural heritage. There is also no architectural heritage that weighs zero; the problem here is a lack of understanding of architectural heritage values, as well as the method of identifying not just different values but also the value itself and the relationship with other values that shape the whole cultural heritage values. For example, architectural value (Figure 4) is one of the heritage values that need to be understood based on not just the building itself but also its spaces, elements, and people who lived there and their activities. This leads to awareness and inclusion of social, urban, landscape, cultural, and technique values. In terms of the relationship with other values, there are always values that integrate with other values. For example, the integration between architecture and its elements, such as doors and windows, links with technical, social, economic, and urban values, to mention a few.

6.7. Criterion 7: Investment

The final standard is the possibility of investment. In terms, particularly, of tourism and from an economic perceptive, this is one of the most important steps towards implementation and development stages because it shows the awareness of future development plans and whether it is towards name or action. The criterion includes seven points. The first concerns the site and accessibility: twenty points for a site that is accessible and close to urban areas, ten points for distant sites, and zero weight for isolated and difficult-to-access sites. Second, available services and facilities on the site are assessed as equal to twenty points, and for fewer services and facilities, the weight is equal to ten points, while unavailable services and facilities weigh zero. The third point is the feasibility of expected investment: high feasibility deserves twenty points; medium is ten points, and unfeasible sites are equal to zero. Fourth, as regards integration of the village/district with other tourism and urban sites criteria, twenty points are awarded to sites within the group of integrated tourism and urban sites, and ten points for the sites that are close to integrated tourism and urban sites. If the site is far from tourism and urban sites, then it is given zero points. Fifth, existing tourism and permanent cultural activities are weighted twenty points. If seasonal, it is then deserving of ten points, but if there are no tourism and cultural activities, the weight is zero. The capacity of the village/district for tourism, cultural, and heritage activities is the sixth point; it deserves thirty points if the capacity is high, twenty points if it is medium, and no points if it is lower than this. Finally, in terms of the owners’ desire to preserve the village/district and make use of it for tourism, if they are enthusiastic and working to invest, then it deserves twenty points; if there is just a desire, it is equal to ten points, but if the owners are ordinary, the weight is zero [45].

The possibility of investment should focus on the site’s potential rather than the present situation, or at least there should be another list that evaluates the priority of investment in any site before immediate evaluation and judgment. It should also be included as a criterion within classification criteria. The cultural and tourism activities are a result of heritage development. By this standard, if the heritage is undeveloped for any reason, including the laws and policies, or has not been developed or been included in any development plan or list, it would be outside the investment map and could be excluded from the list. Thus, this action will increase the gap between not just heritage and tourism but also between heritage and sites and communities.

However, the possibility of investment is not a criterion for the classification of the development and preservation of any heritage site. Investment is a tool to develop heritage sites and not a criterion to judge whether it deserves to be developed.

Applying these criteria in a real case will show the limitations and impacts, as well as confirm whether it is a name on a list or a cause for action. However, before that, it is crucial to highlight the limitations and impacts of these criteria by analyzing the integration between criteria, distribution of weights, terms used, and other limitations.

7. Limitation and Impact

In order to understand the impacts of the current criteria in Saudi Arabia, it is crucial to highlight other criteria used in different experiences. In the English Heritage criteria, for example, there are three grades for buildings. Grade I buildings are of exceptional interest, Grade II buildings are particularly important buildings of more than special interest, and Grade III buildings are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them [42]. It is notable that none of these grades are ‘not important’; rather, they focus on classification, which means that importance is already recognized. For instance, the criteria classify the level of importance such as ‘exceptional interest’, ‘more than special interest’, and ‘special interest’.

The listing criteria, which have been suggested by English Heritage (EH), are age, rarity, aesthetic or design merit, group value, archaeological interest, historical association, landmark status, social value, and documentation [48].

8. The Integration

These criteria include information, evaluation, and decision approaches. At the same time, there is a need for separate sheets for each step. For example, there is a sheet for the data collection step, which should include all the information for the site/building in the description method. Then, there is another sheet for analysis, and the confirmation of the database should be for the output of the data collection concurrently with the evaluation step, which should be the result of the data collection sheet and analysis sheet, and then the evaluation form. One of the most notable limitations in the current approach is that the form of the site information includes the result of the evaluation criteria and tourism importance, which creates a mixed approach.

The purpose of the criteria is protection and development at the same time. However, there is a need to divide the process into integrated steps to achieve these different objectives. This is because all heritage buildings and villages/districts need to be protected, and some also require development. Moreover, the majority are endangered. The existing criteria do not help endangered sites; on the contrary, these will be affected negatively through ignorance and the exclusion standards, such as demolition percentage and zero evaluation points. The legacy concept of protection, which applied in the past as a result of the 1972 law and MOE, as fenced and locked monuments, should be changed.

Another factor is the link between criteria; for example, historical importance should be linked to the age criterion. Additionally, urban style cannot be separated from architectural style and details criteria. The integration between these criteria seems to be lacking due to the separate weights. This approach will impact not only architectural heritage but also the values of the urban cultural heritage and its context.

9. The Distribution

In terms of weights, the numbers should be analyzed quantitatively to present the equality, reality, and fairness in the criteria. The distribution of weights of these criteria is on two levels. Level one is the distribution between the whole criteria, and the second is within the criterion itself.

9.1. The Distribution across the Criteria

Comparing the weights of the criteria, Figure 5 and Figure 6 below illustrate the total weights and percentages for the whole criteria. Almost 40% of the total weight is for the investment criterion, while architectural design and the urban style criteria are weighted only 5%. The status is in the second heavyweight (30%), while historical importance and rarity are 14% and 8%, respectively. Almost 70% of the weight is for investment and the status criteria, even though the investment criterion has no relation to cultural heritage values in its contents. Moreover, it is only one of the twenty-one criteria that shape the cultural heritage values. Unequal distribution of weight across the whole spectrum of criteria impacts the value of each criterion; thus, it will impact not just the target, whether building or site, but also the context of the urban cultural heritage.

9.2. The Distribution within the Criterion Itself

The historical significance (historical event) criterion, for example, displays the weight distribution in relation to its standards in terms of the criterion itself (

Table 1. Distribution of the weights in the historical importance criterion.

Criterion 2: Historical Importance (Historical Event)
No	Standard	Points	Weight %
1	Important (it has a link to ancient historical events)	30	40%	80%	100%	100%
2	Important (it has a link to the history of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)	30	40%
3	Important (it has a link to local historical events)	15	20%	20%
4	Ordinary (no difference to other buildings)	0	0%	0%	0%

). It awards 75 points across 4 criteria. The first and second criteria are worth a combined 60 points (30 each). This weight distribution assigns 80% of the weight to the first and second standards, 20% to the third standard, and 0% to the fourth standard. Due to the fact that the first and second criteria are equivalent, the ancient historical event is comparable to the history of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Due to its relationship with the age requirement, the first standard should not be equal to the second. In addition, more time equates to an increase in activities and events, which results in an increase in value. In addition, the fourth criterion should not be null, as no heritage site exists without activities and events. Communities also remember more recent events, indicating their historical significance. Consequently, this significance is a source of cultural heritage values that must be preserved and passed on to future generations as a guiding principle and objective of heritage preservation and development.

10. The Terminology Used

Terms such as important, moderate, unique, very unique, close, far, high, etc., are unmeasurable and impracticable, especially when used in a quantitative, not qualitative approach. In other words, there is no specific definition for these terms, whether in the criteria or any other support references and guidelines. It depends on the evaluator’s emotion, knowledge, perspective, and awareness, which cannot be an accurate and fair tool for the evaluation, classification, and selection of any village/district or building that needs to be protected and developed.

Due to uncertain definitions and unquantifiable terms such as ‘ordinary, unique, and distinctive’, the rarity criterion, for instance, becomes a reason for excluding certain sites from the first or second list of sites requiring protection and development. These issues are prevalent in multiple criteria, including urban design, architectural style, and architectural details.

11. Other Limitation

One of the main limitations of these criteria is that they do not cover urban areas. In other words, the components of the village/district, such as public spaces, streets, and plazas, which shape any urban settlement, seem to be uncovered and misunderstood, and the focus is mainly on objects and materials. This method will affect the whole cultural heritage, including intangible, due to the focus on buildings and materials without consideration of the transformation of life and activities. In contrast, in Historic Cairo, for instance, the criteria were expanded to include streets, plazas, and even the function of surrounding buildings and areas.

11.1. The Overlooked Role of Intangible Cultural Heritage

On the other side of the coin, insufficient consideration of intangible cultural heritage values and links, which shape the cultural heritage form, has impacted the criteria. For example, evaluating a heritage site without consideration of urban areas or social value confirms the approach that focuses on heritage materials. Focusing on materials, such as buildings, villages, architectural design, and other object targets leads to ignorance of the intangible and separation from its context. This directs efforts toward shaping an incomplete image of heritage, which affects not just the heritage itself but also the perception of the community. Thus, indirectly, conflict is caused not just between community and heritage but also between heritage and stakeholders, making decisions more complex.

The method of sharing stories about heritage sites/buildings by enhancing collective memory is a means of bringing tangible and intangible heritage together at the same time in a real context. This could not happen if the criteria did not cover all heritage values and take into account communities’ participation.

The Eid celebration, for instance (Figure 7), not just in Hail but also in many communities in Saudi Arabia and most Arab and Muslim countries, as a social, religious, and cultural value, is an opportunity to link and practice intangible and tangible at the same time within a real heritage context.

Customs, traditions, hospitality, sharing stories, and other activities are the main parts of Eid, during which time the community sits together and participates in social activities. Indeed, linking heritage values with a specific period or temporary activity is not the target. However, it could be a tool to employ activities sustainably. This social value does not exist in the criteria and, unfortunately, is not considered a value that could have a major impact on heritage, community, and stakeholders.

The criteria would be realistic when built based on the site/building information. Furthermore, the evaluation should consider this information rather than a single object or site/building materials. It is more practical to have a data form that includes weights in order to determine the priority of preservation and development and not to include or exclude any urban heritage site. Based on the building or village information, the judgment will be more accurate because it presents the reality of the building rather than emotions or perspectives and terminologies. Separating the site information form from the criteria of classification and selection form will lead to ignoring many sites. The sites might be endangered because only the criterion of demolition has a high percentage, while the opposite action should be taken. Additionally, the reality of the building and the data form should include all heritage values without any exceptions. The current approach leads to the creation of a protection list rather than a cause for action and a tool for exclusion with no consideration of heritage values.

11.2. From the Cultural Heritage Values Extracted Criteria

Another limitation can be identified by highlighting heritage values within these criteria. To extract the values from these criteria, it is necessary to follow the same method used to extract the values from the 1972 law. In the latter case, the main objective was to extract values from the text and the meaning of the criteria directly and indirectly.

Table 2. Cultural heritage values extracted criteria.

International Values	Criteria Values	International Values	Criteria Values
1. Aesthetic		12. Intangible
2. Archaeological		13. Integrity
3. Authenticity		14. Intrinsic	√
4. Character	√	15. Physical	√
5. Cultural		16. Political	√
6. Ecological		17. Scientific
7. Economic	√	18. Setting
8. Educational		19. Social
9. Historic	√	20. Spiritual
10. Human		21. Sustainable
11. Identity		Total	6/21

shows the values included in the criteria. It is clear that 6 out of 21 values are included in the criteria, and more than 70% of the globally well-known values are not covered. It would be understood if the site data form included these values and the criteria were a result of it. Unfortunately, the criteria are separated and become part of the data form. The failure to cover these values has had an impact on both criteria and heritage.

The inability of the evaluators to comprehend the distinctions and interrelationships between the cultural heritage values may result in conflicts. In addition, training is required for those who develop, apply, and review the criteria. Architects who understand vernacular architecture and are able to determine the value of architectural elements and details, for instance, are required for the evaluation of architectural value. Architects have received training at universities whose curricula play a significant role in the preservation and development of cultural heritage. In addition, other organizations, such as SCTNH and MOMRA, play an important role in employing qualified individuals in the appropriate positions and implementing training programs on various levels and in various ways. One of the best strategies for the preservation and development of cultural heritage, not only for architects but also for the education system and communities, is an integrated approach between organizations and universities. This also contributes to raising awareness.

12. Case Study: Barzan District Area in Hail City Center

12.1. Introduction

Hail Province occupies about 6% of the total land area of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Figure 8). The northern third of the province is covered by the Nafud Desert. Jabal Shammar extends through the central area and comprises Jabal Aja and Jabal Salma. Hail City is situated at the eastern base of Jabal Aja and lies at about 1000 m in elevation. The southern area is a relatively high plain with some mountains and hills. Aquifers lie near the west-central border, northeast of Hail, and a large area southeast of the city. The aquifers support extensive areas of irrigated agriculture. The southern half of the province lies on the Arabian Shield, which has limited water resources [49,50,51].

Hail has a long history extending from prehistoric and pre-Islamic periods to the Islamic and present periods of unification and independence commencing in 1932. Many ruins and other remains of these historic periods constitute important types of historic heritage sites. The legendary figure of Hatim Al Tai, known for his acts of generosity and hospitality, is associated with Hail. Major historic trade and pilgrimage routes extended through Hail city. Hail also nurtured historically important poets and intellectuals [49]. The Hal city center and the Barzan District area have significant urban heritage assets that have remained poorly researched. They contain significant endangered architectural heritage buildings, which made the study of this area both crucial and fundamental, not only to preserve the physical material but also to protect remaining aspects of intangible heritage and collective memory and make them valuable cultural heritage resources, contributing to development. Additionally, the study of this area could be considered a case study that could be applied to other heritage sites in Saudi Arabia.

12.2. Hail’s Diverse Architectural Heritage

In order to manage and control the administrative responsibilities of these provinces, the government structure has defined provincial boundaries. However, there is no relationship between provincial diversity and administrative boundaries. In other words, building materials primarily derived from local resources may be applicable to multiple provinces and cities. Due to differences in building materials or architectural styles, for instance, each city’s heritage site is of provincial and local significance.

There are eight main territories within the province boundary of Hail: Hail City, Jubbah, Baqaa, Moqeq, Faid, Samira, and Alslimi (Figure 9). Each territory has its character, architectural style, building materials, and urban style. This diversity in architectural heritage, for example, makes every building relevant and unique when compared with these territories at the province level (Figure 9). It does not regard only architectural heritage but also all cultural heritage values. For instance, building materials in Baqaa were mainly stones, while in Jubbah, mainly mud bricks were used. These materials are from the local environment and help contribute to the urban and architectural style. The stone material at the province level is scarce, but at the local level, when applying the criteria, it is a reason to exclude the site from being preserved and developed due to the similarity between building materials. This concept is applied to all criteria; thus, the impact is on all cultural heritage values, including intangible cultural heritage.

12.3. Barzan District Area

The Barzan area is located in the center of Hail City (Figure 10). It has many historical buildings and is surrounded by several cultural heritage sites such as Barzan Palace, Barzan Souk, Airif Castle, Al-Qeshlah Palace, and the Barzan heritage district (Figure 11). The Barzan area is an example of a Saudi city representative of cultural heritage sites. Al-Hawwas (2002) illustrated the vernacular architecture in Hail Province and how rich these areas are in terms of architectural heritage. However, if we apply such criteria, will the results reflect reality? It is crucial to highlight the limitations by applying and examining the criteria in one real case in order to understand their types and impacts and to identify misunderstandings of the values of cultural heritage in Saudi Arabia.

To comprehend the significance of Hail’s heritage sites and the challenges they face today, it is essential to demonstrate how the city, particularly the city center, has evolved. By comparing satellite images from different time periods, it is possible to demonstrate the degree of change and the condition of historical sites. For instance, an old map of Hail (Figure 12) depicts the urban tissue and development of the city, which includes numerous heritage sites as well as urban areas and landscapes that are of cultural significance. In contrast, a recent satellite image of Hail (Figure 13) demonstrates how these heritage sites, urban areas, and landscapes have changed and, in most cases, disappeared. Consequently, the number of heritage sites has decreased significantly. For instance, the Barzan Palace was a significant Hail landmark. Several buildings, such as the Barzan Towers, are frequently isolated from their surroundings in the present day (Figure 14). In this regard, the responsibility of both administrations and communities towards heritage sites is extremely high, and actions are essential to preserve and develop what remains within the context of urban cultural heritage. Moreover, what remains today will increase in value for future generations. Otherwise, Hail will lose these tangible and intangible heritage values, and the loss will be multiplied.

What remains today, from the cultural heritage sites in Hail city center (Figure 15), are an example of two issues. The first concern is the preservation efforts towards, for example, political values (Al-Qeshlah Palace and A’Airf Castle), as a result of the 1972 law, besides the awareness level from planning and development organizations such as MOMRA when they are dealing with development plans. The second issue concerns the impact of the current criteria in terms of losing more values, such as architectural and social values.

Barzan is crucial because of its strategic positioning and abundance of cultural heritage sites (Figure 11), but the city is currently struggling to deal with threats to these sites (Figure 13 and Figure 14). In addition, the criteria aim to classify preservation and development as steps toward implementation. The first order of business is to determine Barzan’s category using these standards. The implications of these restrictive criteria for both the site and the surrounding neighborhood must then be discussed. The impact of the criteria evaluation on certain heritage values can then be illustrated through a few case studies.

12.4. Criteria Underlying the Classification and Selection of Barzan Heritage Area for the Purpose of Conservation and Development

The criteria for the classification and selection of Saudi heritage sites have been applied in the Barzan case by the SCTNH branch in Hail Province. The result classified the site in the third class, with 116 points, which means that it will not be preserved and developed.

According to the results of the criteria, Barzan District, like many other districts across Saudi Arabia, will not be on the first or second list of preservation and development. It is also not known when it will be preserved and developed. In this context, it is clear that these criteria are important because they do not constitute a list to classify the priority of preservation and development.

It is important to know the reasons behind excluding this site, and likely other similar sites, from being preserved and developed. The integration between criteria, distribution of weights, and the terms that have been used in the criteria are crucial to highlight.

One method for identifying the risk of the decision and its effect on the historic site is to emphasize zero weights. The similarity in vernacular architecture, which borrows materials from the local environment, is evidence of integration and connection between people and the environment, not a justification for excluding heritage sites. The site has a zero weight because it is common and comparable to other sites, there is no historical event that has been documented, and there are no ancient events, links to Saudi history, or local events. There is no heritage site in the absence of a socially significant historical event for multiple generations of local residents. Such a determination can be made to exclude certain heritage sites, even if they possess other exceptional qualities (scientific, architectural, educational, etc.). This may highlight additional values or a distinct aspect of the overall heritage image. In addition, documentation is required and could be included in the output of the Site Data Form. This assessment excluded the site and highlighted the negative impact of the similarity; thus, it did not present the heritage image. In fact, a century for the district is more valuable than this assessment, but the challenge is to correctly discover and interpret the historical value, as well as the connections to other values in its context. In addition to criteria for historical value, there should also be criteria for heritage value. Additionally, these values should be clearly defined and weighted.

12.5. Examples of Exclusion of Some Cultural Heritage Values in Barzan District

As a result of applying these criteria in the Barzan area, and more likely in other sites, the values of cultural heritage are impacted. Urban style, architectural style, and details criteria are reasons for excluding a site from being preserved and developed because the weighting is zero. In terms of architectural details and materials, for example, the gypsum works (Figure 16a,c,e,f), which were being used in other sites/buildings, constitute a negative factor of heritage value because the criteria suggest that ordinary architectural details and the similarity in products are equal to zero.

Gypsum as a building material has been used internally and externally. The internal uses (Figure 16a,c) are present mainly in the living room ‘Majles’, where guests are honored and the sharing of stories takes place. The external uses (Figure 16i,j) are in the columns and wall edges. This has two functions: first, for protecting the mud block, and second, for decoration. For internal functions, it has decorative and storage purposes.

The content of the criteria appears to be lacking narratives about building materials, such as transporting gypsum from surrounding urban areas, participating in its preparation, designing and constructing it collaboratively, and applying it. In other words, social values are not included in the criteria, which has repercussions for other cultural heritage values. These criteria also influence the level of involvement and participation of local communities in the built environment. It is not just the end result but the entire process that aims to create and shape cultural heritage values. When a homeowner begins construction, for instance, these actions are exemplified. Everyone in the community participates, and they all join the workforce. Their efforts contribute immediately to defining values, which involves establishing and sharing collective memory. Consequently, the same procedure is followed by other owners and the remainder of the neighborhood.

Architectural details and building techniques (Figure 16a,c–f,h) cannot equal zero, especially when the values and the context are taken into account. Construction style shows the power of building multi-stories using mudbricks about a century ago, and they are still durable. The history of these walls and doors and the connection between places and people (Figure 16g–i) is judged of value. It is valuable not just because of the place but also the building, town, society, and nation.

An ordinary building in the rarity criterion equals zero, while in terms of heritage, this ordinariness is a result of cooperation between communities to build houses. Additionally, using building materials from local resources results in the architectural style and building technique in a particular area as identified for the community. To clarify this concept, comparing architectural heritage in each city within Hail Province confirms the importance of understanding the concept of unity and diversity in terms of cultural heritage values.

This mechanism of the implementation process and criteria attempts to manage the loads and responsibilities of stakeholders as regards cultural heritage. However, applying these criteria to any heritage site/building will affect both tangible and intangible cultural heritage at local, national, and international levels.

12.6. Barzan District Area: SWOT Analysis

This section depicts the classification and selection process for the Barzan District area’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. In (

Table 3. SWOT Analysis of Barzan District area.

Strengths	Weaknesses
Barzan District area has material and tangible values such as historic, artistic, etc. Hal city center is regarded as an important urban cultural heritage designation Unique cultural tourism destination Local community of heritage sites around the Barzan District will increase environmental interaction by expanding agricultural areas Publicity and promotion of the change story, as well as the development of its own cultural brand	There is no consideration and inclusiveness of the intangible cultural heritage values of the site, nor do the classification and selection criteria emphasize intangible dimensions The immediate action of SCTNH through creating site lists according to quantitative criteria Criteria approach impacts not only cultural heritage buildings but also their values and context Current approach excluded some sites from being developed and conserved The focus is mainly on objects and materials without consideration of the transformation of life and activities
Opportunities	Threats
Handicrafts and traditional products express the location and way of life of people Allow communities to organize festivals and events in response to community needs Increase community involvement, particularly in terms of economic and social values Expressing the present-day life for users to enhance the urban cultural heritage context Closeness to main infrastructure Linking Barzan District with other nearby cultural heritage landmarks (e.g., Qeshlah Palace and A’Airf Castle)	The top-down approach makes developing cultural heritage sites at the local level difficult The development of cultural heritage is not a clear goal for key stakeholders, particularly at the local level The design and development of heritage space require careful assessment The integration and relationship between the intimate memory and users on the site are missing A gap between tangible and intangible heritage storytelling No clear approach to preserving the spirit of the cultural heritage site

) we go into greater detail about the case study’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The district’s strengths highlight many aspects, such as the district’s tangible values; Barzan is a great cultural heritage and tourism destination. These aspects are necessary for any cultural heritage site and are supported by numerous sources in the field [1,2,3,52]. Barzan has a good interaction between the local community and the environment, and Barzan has a high potential for promoting the site’s story as well as its cultural brand. Local community participation is a key aspect of developing successful and sustainable cultural heritage sites [53]. On the other hand, Barzan’s flaws are found in a number of areas. For example, the criteria used to classify and select sites disregard intangible values; the implementation of SCTNH’s criteria emphasizes a quantitative approach, which has an impact on the values and context of cultural heritage sites and buildings, and it excludes some sites from conservation and development. The importance of intangible values and critically addressing heritage sites is essential in any heritage evaluation and management process [6,54,55,56,57].

Furthermore, the Barzan District area offers some opportunities to highlight aspects of potential handicrafts and traditional products that represent local communities and their economies. Furthermore, the site encourages local community participation in economic and social activities. It is equally essential for cultural heritage sites to incorporate heritage economics as a driving force in the heritage valuation process [58,59,60]. Furthermore, the Barzan District area is close to major infrastructure as well as other nearby cultural heritage sites and landmarks. Finally, the Barzan District area faces several threats, including a top-down approach that makes local development difficult and stakeholders who are unclear about the development goals. Furthermore, there is no clear strategy for preserving the spirit of the cultural heritage site. Furthermore, a link between the memory of the cultural heritage site and the user is missing, as there is a gap between tangible and intangible heritage storytelling. These threats result from needing a proper heritage classification system and criteria selection. Therefore, threats and problems are arising with the site, and the need for the heritage classification system and criteria selection to be critically rethought and reevaluated is essential [54,55,56].

13. Conclusions

In Saudi Arabia, the implementation of steps for the development and management of cultural heritage is governed by laws, regulations, and organizational structures. In response to the recent legislation, a list has been compiled [45]. However, the implementation mechanism for this list has had varying effects on both tangible and intangible cultural heritage.

In the early stages of heritage management implementation in Saudi Arabia, the quantitative approach was used. It has been argued that such a scale is used to exclude rather than include heritage sites within the criteria, which contradicts any objective of the criteria in any culture, including English Heritage. This is particularly true if the criteria are used to determine whether or not a site should be preserved or developed.

Instead of a single structure or object, the criteria should encompass all cultural heritage values within a given context. In addition, the criteria should not be based on opinions or estimates but rather on actual information and documentation. Therefore, one of the primary objectives of the criteria is to recognize and emphasize the significance of the site’s values rather than to determine whether it should be protected and developed.

Because heritage values within the criteria were not considered and there was a lack of real information and documentation about the sites, there was insufficient integration between criteria in terms of weight distribution across or within criteria and terms used. Similarly, intangible cultural heritage has been overlooked. Although Saudi Arabia has adopted a numerical value system for classification and selection, it fails to effectively manage its cultural heritage because it disregards other forms of intangible values during the implementation process. Thus, it is essentially vital to rethink the heritage classification and evaluation system and criteria selection from a critical perspective [54,55,56].

The findings of this study suggest that heritage sites should be assessed and evaluated based on a holistic approach that takes into consideration intangible cultural heritage aspects in the classifying and selection process. Tangible and intangible cultural heritage aspects play significant roles in making more inclusive and effective selection criteria and heritage classification systems. The following guidelines point out crucial aspects to be considered and incorporated in the classifying and selection process of cultural heritage.

• Intangible values play a key role in classifying and selecting architectural and urban cultural heritage. Therefore, it is equally important to incorporate the intangible dimension in the selection and classifying process, implementation strategy, heritage management of the site, and its storytelling and interpretation.
• Using only a quantitative approach for classifying and selecting heritage sites will project an incomplete list of heritage and exclude significant heritage sites that are not applicable to the quantitative approach.
• A bottom-up approach is also recommended, which engages local communities in the decision-making process.
• A holistic approach that integrates tangible and intangible aspects of values is essential to be more inclusive to all heritage sites and to unlock the full potential of heritage sites.
• Socio-economic aspects are essential for heritage site development and promotion, such as culture, environment, historic assets, tourism, traditional craftsmanship, infrastructure, and nearby amenities.
• The partnership between public–private stakeholders and local communities is key to creating a more sustainable approach and implementing a successful heritage management approach.

As with most heritage sites in Saudi Arabia, the case study of the Barzan District area demonstrates the impact of laws and organizational structures on local implementations. The diversity of Hail Province’s architectural heritage, whether in Hail City, Jubbah, Baqa’a, Faid, or any other city in the province, attests to its rarity. As opposed to material similarity, this rarity should be considered a valuable resource when comparing buildings in the same location, as the criteria suggest.

The discussion of the Barzan District in Hail City confirms that not all preservation efforts were focused on heritage values as a result of the 1972 law but rather on a select few. In addition, the Barzan case study illustrates the level of urban heritage protection awareness among planning and development organizations such as MOMRA. Consequently, the current criteria have contributed to the loss of architectural and social values. Urban and architectural style and detail criteria, for instance, are reasons for the third class, which means exclusion from the preservation and development list. Barzan exemplifies how such criteria can influence both tangible and intangible cultural heritage.