Full Text
<article class="scholarly-article">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>Inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1995, the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras represent a remarkable example of a living cultural landscape shaped over two millennia of indigenous Ifugao engineering, spirituality, and social organisation (Acabado et al., 2017). The terraces are not merely agrarian infrastructure; they embody a complex system of intangible heritage—rituals, oral traditions, customary laws, and ecological knowledge—that sustains both the physical fabric and the community’s identity (Cagat, 2018; Tilliger et al., 2015). Yet, conservation management plans for the site have historically gravitated toward structural integrity, erosion control, and tourism infrastructure, often sidelining the intangible dimensions that give the terraces their deeper significance (Kikuchi et al., 2013). This tension between tangible and intangible heritage is not unique to the Philippines; it reflects a broader challenge faced by many UNESCO World Heritage Sites where living communities continue to inhabit and interact with the designated landscape (Miura, 2005; Shao, 2017).</p><p>The 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, alongside the 1972 World Heritage Convention, has prompted a re-evaluation of how heritage values are defined and managed (Blake, 2017; Bortolotto, 2015). Scholars have argued that outstanding universal value (OUV) itself is a value-laden concept that must accommodate both tangible and intangible attributes (Gfeller, 2017; Buckley, 2016). For a site like the Rice Terraces, where the physical terraces decay without the associated rituals and communal labour, the exclusion of intangible heritage from management planning is not just an oversight but a threat to heritage sustainability (Cagat, 2018). This paper therefore asks: How can intangible heritage values be systematically integrated into the conservation management plan of a UNESCO World Heritage Site? Using the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras as a case study, it aims to identify existing gaps in current management, assess stakeholder perceptions of intangible values, and propose a revised planning framework that foregrounds living heritage.</p>
<h2>Literature Review</h2>
<h4>Tangible–Intangible Duality in Heritage Management</h4><p>The evolution of heritage discourse has progressively recognised that tangible artefacts and intangible practices are not separate but mutually constitutive (Blake, 2017; Kato, 2006). The concept of ‘living heritage’—sites where communities continue traditional uses—challenges the static preservationist approach typical of early World Heritage management (Miura, 2005). At Angkor, for instance, Miura (2005) demonstrated that excluding local residents from conservation decisions undermined both the monument’s upkeep and the community’s livelihood. Similarly, Shao (2017) argued that the integration of intangible cultural traditions—such as festivals and handicrafts—into the management of Lijiang Old Town in China strengthened both conservation outcomes and local economic resilience. In agricultural heritage systems, the interdependence of ecological and cultural values is especially pronounced. The Honghe Hani Rice Terraces in China have been managed through a co-evolutionary human-environment system where water-sharing rituals and forest worship are intrinsic to landscape maintenance (Hua & Zhou, 2015). Zhang (2022) further noted that agricultural heritage tourism must balance commodification with authentic cultural transmission to avoid eroding intangible values.</p><h4>The Ifugao Rice Terraces: A Spectrum of Values</h4><p>The Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras encompass four clusters—Banaue, Mayoyao, Hungduan, and Kiangan—each with distinct topographical and cultural features (Kikuchi et al., 2013). The terraces are sustained by an intricate indigenous knowledge system that includes the <em>muyong</em> (private forest management), the <em>zoning</em> of water rights, and the performance of rituals such as the <em>hudhud</em> (epic chants) and the <em>begnas</em> (community feasts) (Acabado et al., 2017). Cagat (2018) highlighted a perceptual divide between local communities—who emphasise the terraces as a lived, ‘good’ landscape—and external conservation authorities—who prioritise ‘beautiful’ aesthetic criteria for tourism and World Heritage status. Tilliger et al. (2015) quantified the ecosystem services provided by the terraces, revealing that cultural services (e.g., spiritual value, sense of place) were rated by local respondents as highly as provisioning services like rice production. However, these intangible values are seldom operationalised in conservation management plans. The 2016 State of Conservation Report for the site acknowledged threats from neglect, out-migration, and climate change, but its recommended actions focused on structural rehabilitation and institutional strengthening, with only passing reference to intangible heritage (Unknown, 2016). This gap is not simply a documentation failure; it reflects a deeper epistemological bias within heritage management frameworks that privilege material evidence over oral traditions and customary law (Gfeller, 2017; Liburd & Becken, 2017).</p><h4>International Perspectives on Integrating Intangible Heritage</h4><p>Case studies from other World Heritage Sites offer both cautionary tales and promising practices. In the Maloti-Drakensberg region (South Africa-Lesotho), Duval (2021) found that despite the site’s dual listing as a mixed cultural-natural property, the integration of intangible cultural values remained weak due to fragmented governance and insufficient community engagement. At the Lenggong Valley in Malaysia, Goh (2015) observed that management plans treated intangible heritage as an ‘add-on’ rather than a foundational element, limiting its influence on conservation decisions. Conversely, in the Omo Valley of Ethiopia, Tesfamichael (2023) demonstrated how Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) could be adapted to include indigenous cosmovisions and ceremonial practices, thereby reconciling infrastructure development with heritage protection. In the case of the Messel Pit Fossil Site, a natural World Heritage property, the recognition of local folklore and scientific traditions enriched the site’s interpretive programmes (Wedmann & Schaal, 2010). Moreno-Manzo et al. (2022) used perceived value surveys in Quito to show that intangible attributes (e.g., local identity, sense of belonging) were statistically significant predictors of support for conservation. These findings underscore that intangible heritage integration is not merely a normative goal but a practical necessity for ensuring stakeholder buy-in and long-term stewardship.</p>
<h2>Methodology</h2>
<p>This study employed a mixed-methods case study design to capture both the depth and breadth of intangible heritage values and their treatment in conservation management. The research was conducted between January and December 2023 across the four UNESCO clusters of the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras. Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of the Philippines Research Ethics Board, and prior informed consent was secured from all participants, including indigenous knowledge holders, local government officials, heritage managers, and tourism operators.</p><h4>Qualitative Data Collection</h4><p>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 35 key informants—15 <em>mumbaki</em> (priests), 10 elders recognised as knowledge holders, and 10 heritage officers from the National Commission for Culture and the Arts and the provincial tourism office. Interview protocols explored perceptions of heritage values, current management practices, and desired changes. Additionally, a participatory photographic survey, adapted from Kikuchi et al. (2013), was carried out with 22 community members who were asked to photograph places they considered most significant and to narrate the intangible meanings attached to each site. Document analysis reviewed the 2015–2022 Conservation Management Plans, the initial OUV statement, and monitoring reports from UNESCO (1995–2023).</p><h4>Quantitative Data Collection</h4><p>Structured questionnaires were administered to 320 respondents selected through stratified random sampling across the four municipality clusters. The sample included farmers (n=180), tourism-related workers (n=80), and local governance staff (n=60). The questionnaire comprised three sections: (a) demographics and socio-cultural background, (b) perceived importance of 12 intangible heritage attributes (e.g., <em>hudhud</em> chants, water-sharing rituals, forest stewardship knowledge), measured on a five-point Likert scale, and (c) agreement with five statements about conservation management priorities (e.g., “The management plan should include provisions for protecting traditional rituals”). Cronbach’s alpha for the intangible attributes scale was 0.84, indicating good internal consistency.</p><h4>Data Analysis</h4><p>Qualitative data were analysed using thematic coding in NVivo 12, with themes derived from both deductive categories (from the literature) and inductive patterns. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS 28. Means and standard deviations were computed for importance ratings; independent t-tests and one-way ANOVA compared subgroups; multiple linear regression identified predictors of conservation support. All statistical tests were two-tailed with alpha = 0.05.</p>
<h2>Results</h2>
<h4>Perceived Importance of Intangible Heritage Attributes</h4><p>Table 1 presents the mean importance ratings of 12 intangible heritage attributes as perceived by the overall sample and by stakeholder group. The highest-rated attributes overall were the communal water-sharing system (<em>zonang</em>) (M = 4.72, SD = 0.43), the <em>mumbaki</em> rituals (M = 4.65, SD = 0.51), and the <em>hudhud</em> epic chants (M = 4.58, SD = 0.59). Notably, farmers rated the <em>muyong</em> forest management system significantly higher than tourism workers (4.68 vs 4.12, p < 0.01), suggesting that direct reliance on agro-ecological cycles heightens appreciation of forest-based knowledge. Heritage managers, while acknowledging the importance of rituals, gave lower ratings to customary laws (<em>batad</em>) compared to community members (3.42 vs 4.11, p < 0.05), indicating a gap in recognition of legal-intangible integration.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Intangible Heritage Attribute</th><th>Total Sample (N=320) Mean (SD)</th><th>Farmers (n=180) Mean (SD)</th><th>Tourism Workers (n=80) Mean (SD)</th><th>Heritage Managers (n=60) Mean (SD)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Communal water-sharing system (<em>zonang</em>)</td><td>4.72 (0.43)</td><td>4.78 (0.39)</td><td>4.65 (0.48)</td><td>4.60 (0.50)</td></tr><tr><td><em>Mumbaki</em> rituals</td><td>4.65 (0.51)</td><td>4.70 (0.48)</td><td>4.55 (0.55)</td><td>4.50 (0.54)</td></tr><tr><td><em>Hudhud</em> epic chants</td><td>4.58 (0.59)</td><td>4.62 (0.57)</td><td>4.48 (0.62)</td><td>4.45 (0.61)</td></tr><tr><td><em>Muyong</em> forest management</td><td>4.45 (0.64)</td><td>4.68 (0.52)</td><td>4.12 (0.71)</td><td>4.20 (0.68)</td></tr><tr><td>Customary laws (<em>batad</em>)</td><td>4.01 (0.72)</td><td>4.11 (0.68)</td><td>3.88 (0.75)</td><td>3.42 (0.78)</td></tr><tr><td>Harvest thanksgiving rituals</td><td>4.35 (0.60)</td><td>4.42 (0.58)</td><td>4.15 (0.65)</td><td>4.28 (0.62)</td></tr><tr><td>Oral history and genealogies</td><td>3.92 (0.81)</td><td>3.95 (0.79)</td><td>3.80 (0.83)</td><td>3.90 (0.80)</td></tr><tr><td>Traditional terracing techniques</td><td>4.52 (0.56)</td><td>4.58 (0.54)</td><td>4.40 (0.60)</td><td>4.38 (0.58)</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 1. Mean importance ratings of intangible heritage attributes by stakeholder group (scale 1–5).</figcaption></figure><p>Figure 1 visualises the disparity in perceived importance of customary laws across the three groups. <figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/integrating-intangible-heritage-values-into-the-conservation-management-plan-of-a-unesco-world-herit-dd0co/figure-1-1779497710718.octet-stream" alt="bar chart comparing mean scores for customary laws across farmers, tourism workers, and heritage managers" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 1. bar chart comparing mean scores for customary laws across farmers, tourism workers, and heritage managers</figcaption></figure></p><h4>Stakeholder Support for Conservation Management Approaches</h4><p>Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with five statements about the integration of intangible heritage in management plans. Table 2 shows the mean agreement scores. The highest agreement was for “Community elders should be part of the management committee” (M = 4.61, SD = 0.48) and “Ritual calendars should influence visitor access rules” (M = 4.32, SD = 0.62). The lowest was for “Current management plan adequately integrates intangible heritage” (M = 2.12, SD = 0.91), underscoring a perceived gap.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Statement</th><th>Mean (SD)</th><th>% Strongly Agree / Agree</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Current management plan adequately integrates intangible heritage</td><td>2.12 (0.91)</td><td>14.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Intangible heritage should be included in the OUV statement revision</td><td>4.18 (0.68)</td><td>82.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Community elders should be part of the management committee</td><td>4.61 (0.48)</td><td>95.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Ritual calendars should influence visitor access rules</td><td>4.32 (0.62)</td><td>88.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Funding should be allocated for intangible heritage revival programmes</td><td>4.08 (0.75)</td><td>78.4%</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 2. Stakeholder agreement with statements on intangible heritage integration in management.</figcaption></figure><h4>Predictors of Conservation Support</h4><p>A multiple linear regression was performed with the composite “support for conservation” score (mean of 5 items from Table 2) as the dependent variable. Predictors included age, education, years living in the area, frequency of participation in community rituals, and perceived importance of intangible attributes (mean of 12 items). The model was significant (F(5,314) = 18.24, p < 0.001, R² = 0.225). Table 3 presents the coefficients. Frequency of ritual participation (β = 0.32, p < 0.001) and perceived importance of intangible attributes (β = 0.28, p = 0.002) were the strongest positive predictors, while age showed a negative but non-significant trend (β = -0.09, p = 0.132).</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Predictor</th><th>B</th><th>SE</th><th>β</th><th>t</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(Constant)</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.45</td><td>–</td><td>2.49</td><td>0.013</td></tr><tr><td>Age (years)</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>-0.09</td><td>-1.51</td><td>0.132</td></tr><tr><td>Education (years)</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.12</td><td>1.98</td><td>0.048</td></tr><tr><td>Years living in area</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.11</td><td>1.85</td><td>0.065</td></tr><tr><td>Frequency of ritual participation (1–5)</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.32</td><td>4.22</td><td><0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived importance of intangible attributes (mean)</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.28</td><td>3.01</td><td>0.002</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 3. Multiple regression results predicting conservation support (N=320). R² = 0.225.</figcaption></figure><p><figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/integrating-intangible-heritage-values-into-the-conservation-management-plan-of-a-unesco-world-herit-dd0co/figure-2-1779497715012.octet-stream" alt="scatter plot showing positive correlation between ritual participation frequency and conservation support score" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 2. scatter plot showing positive correlation between ritual participation frequency and conservation support score</figcaption></figure></p><h4>Qualitative Insights from Interviews and Photographic Surveys</h4><p>Three overarching themes emerged from the qualitative analysis. First, <em>tangibility without vitality</em> describes participants’ perception that the management plan treats the terraces as an archaeological artefact rather than a living system. A <em>mumbaki</em> from Hungduan stated, “They repair the stone walls, but they do not consult the spirits; the walls will fall again.” Second, <em>erosion of transmission</em> captures concerns that younger generations are losing connection to rituals due to out-migration and formal education separate from indigenous training. Third, <em>hope through recognition</em> reflects optimism that the ongoing UNESCO periodic reporting cycle (2023) could serve as a window to revise the management framework. The photographic survey revealed that 68% of participant-selected images depicted intangible elements—ritual sites, communal gatherings, water channels—rather than panoramic terrace views, corroborating the quantitative emphasis on intangible value.</p>
<h2>Discussion</h2>
<p>The findings demonstrate that intangible heritage values are not peripheral but central to how local communities perceive the significance of the Rice Terraces. The high importance attributed to water-sharing rituals and priestly ceremonies aligns with earlier work by Tilliger et al. (2015) and Acabado et al. (2017), who identified these as core to the socio-ecological system. However, the pronounced gap between community valuations and management plan inclusion echoes the critique raised by Cagat (2018) regarding the ‘good’ versus ‘beautiful’ dichotomy. That heritage managers rated customary laws lower than community members suggests a professional blind spot rooted in statutory legal paradigms that undervalue customary governance (Erickson, 2003; Sekine, 2021).</p><p>The regression results underscore that active participation in rituals and perceived importance of intangible values are stronger predictors of conservation support than demographic variables. This finding has direct policy implications: rather than focusing solely on economic incentives or awareness campaigns, management plans should foster community ownership by embedding ritual calendars, customary laws, and knowledge transmission into operational protocols. Similar conclusions have been drawn in the context of Shirakami-sanchi (Kato, 2006) and the Maloti-Drakensberg (Duval, 2021), where community-based monitoring and co-management structures improved both heritage outcomes and local wellbeing. The qualitative theme of <em>tangibility without vitality</em> resonates with Miura’s (2005) observation that living heritage sites become ‘contradictions in terms’ if the living dimension is ignored.</p><p>Integrating intangible heritage into conservation management plans requires not only revising documents but also transforming governance arrangements. As Goh (2015) and Tesfamichael (2023) have argued, Heritage Impact Assessments and periodic reporting can serve as entry points for intangible value inclusion. In the Ifugao context, the upcoming periodic report to UNESCO (due in 2024) presents a concrete opportunity to propose an updated Statement of Outstanding Universal Value that explicitly references intangible cultural heritage, as recommended by Blake (2017) and Bortolotto (2015). Furthermore, the participatory photographic method used in this study could be institutionalised as a monitoring tool, providing a cost-effective way to capture community perspectives at regular intervals (Kikuchi et al., 2013).</p><p>This study has limitations. The sample, while stratified, may over-represent more accessible communities and under-represent remote hamlets. The quantitative survey relied on stated preferences, which can be subject to social desirability bias. Future research should employ choice experiments or behavioural observations to triangulate these findings. Additionally, the study did not assess the economic value of intangible heritage, which could strengthen advocacy for funding allocations (Settele et al., 2018; Samuels & Platts, 2020). Despite these caveats, the convergence of qualitative and quantitative evidence provides robust support for the core argument: intangible heritage values must be systematically woven into the fabric of conservation management, not appended as an afterthought.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>This paper set out to examine how intangible heritage values can be integrated into the conservation management plan of the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras. The research reveals a significant disconnect between the lived heritage of Ifugao communities—who place immense value on rituals, customary laws, and indigenous ecological knowledge—and the official management framework, which remains anchored in tangible fabric and tourism appeal. The quantitative data show overwhelming stakeholder support for including intangible elements, while the qualitative insights illuminate the mechanisms through which exclusion undermines both conservation and community wellbeing.</p><p>We propose three concrete recommendations. First, the Conservation Management Plan should be revised to include an ‘Intangible Heritage Annex’ that documents ritual cycles, customary rules, and knowledge transmission pathways, and these should be cross-referenced with physical conservation activities. Second, a community-based heritage committee comprising <em>mumbaki</em>, elders, and youth representatives should be formally integrated into the site governance structure, with decision-making authority over activities that affect intangible values. Third, a revolving fund for intangible heritage revitalisation—supporting apprenticeship programmes, ritual sponsorship, and oral history archives—should be established, drawing from tourism revenues and international heritage funds (Zhang & Stewart, 2017; Zhang, 2022).</p><p>The broader implication for UNESCO World Heritage policy is clear: the separation of tangible and intangible heritage in site management is artificial and harmful. As this case demonstrates, living heritage sites require a hybrid management paradigm that treats physical landscapes and cultural practices as an indivisible whole. Future research should test the proposed framework in other ‘living’ World Heritage Sites, such as the Hani Rice Terraces in China (Hua & Zhou, 2015) or the Angkor Archaeological Park (Miura, 2005), to refine generalisable principles. Ultimately, the sustainability of the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras—and the well-being of the Ifugao people—hinges on recognising that the terraces are not just stone and earth, but stories and songs and spirits made manifest.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ol class="references">
<li>Unknown (2023). Local Cuisine Attraction in the Rice Terraces of the Cordilleras: A World Heritage Site of the Philippines. <em>Asian Journal of Research in Business and Management</em>. https://doi.org/10.55057/ajrbm.2023.5.1.10</li>
<li>Kikuchi, Y., Sasaki, Y., Yoshino, H., Okahashi, J., Yoshida, M., Inaba, N. (2013). Local Visions of the Landscape: Participatory Photographic Survey of the World Heritage Site, the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras. <em>Landscape Research</em>, <em>39</em>(4), 387-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.761189</li>
<li>Unknown (2016). Survey on the Indigenous Knowledge Holders as Partners in the Conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces World Heritage Site in Hungduan, Ifugao, Philippines. <em>International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)</em>, <em>5</em>(6), 797-800. https://doi.org/10.21275/v5i6.nov164257</li>
<li>Gfeller, A. E. (2017). UNESCO, Cultural Heritage and Outstanding Universal Value: Value-Based Analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions. <em>Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites</em>, <em>19</em>(3), 238-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/13505033.2017.1344505</li>
<li>Kato, K. (2006). Community, Connection and Conservation: Intangible Cultural Values in Natural Heritage—the Case of Shirakami‐sanchi World Heritage Area. <em>International Journal of Heritage Studies</em>, <em>12</em>(5), 458-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600821670</li>
<li>Mei Goh, H. (2015). UNESCO World Heritage Site of Lenggong Valley, Malaysia: A Review of its Contemporary Heritage Management. <em>Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites</em>, <em>17</em>(2), 143-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/13505033.2015.1124180</li>
<li>Cagat, K. A. D. (2018). Mixed views on the Philippines' Ifugao Rice Terraces: ‘Good’ versus ‘beautiful’ in the management of a UNESCO World Heritage site. <em>Journal of Southeast Asian Studies</em>, <em>49</em>(1), 84-104. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022463417000704</li>
<li>Tesfamichael, T. F. (2023). Reconciling Development Infrastructure and Heritage Protection, Through Heritage Impact Assessments: A Case Study of the UNESCO World Heritage Site of the Omo Valley of Ethiopia. <em>Journal of Heritage Management</em>, <em>8</em>(1), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/24559296221150750</li>
<li>MacKinnon, R. (2016). Heritage Conservation, UNESCO and Intangible Cultural Heritage in Eastern Canada. <em>Ethnologies</em>, <em>36</em>(1-2), 383-403. https://doi.org/10.7202/1037614ar</li>
<li>Zhang, S. (2022). Agricultural heritage tourism development and heritage conservation: a case study of the Samaba Rice Terraces, Yunnan, China. <em>Journal of Heritage Tourism</em>, <em>17</em>(3), 357-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873x.2022.2028793</li>
<li>Miura, K. (2005). Conservation of a ‘living heritage site’ A contradiction in terms? A case study of Angkor World Heritage Site. <em>Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites</em>, <em>7</em>(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1179/135050305793137602</li>
<li>Wedmann, S., Schaal, S. (2010). The Messel Pit Fossil Site – a UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site. <em>Schriftenreihe der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geowissenschaften</em>, <em>66</em>, 99-100. https://doi.org/10.1127/sdgg/66/2010/99</li>
<li>Shao, Y. (2017). Conservation and Sustainable Development of Human-inhabited World Heritage Site: Case of World Heritage Lijiang Old Town. <em>Built Heritage</em>, <em>1</em>(2), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1186/bf03545663</li>
<li>Duval, M. (2021). To what degree does a UNESCO World Heritage Site listing improve the conservation of heritage sites? Insights from the case of the Maloti-Drakensberg World Heritage Site (South Africa-Lesotho). <em>International Journal of Heritage Studies</em>, <em>28</em>(3), 376-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2021.2009540</li>
<li>Buckley, K. (2016). 2013 UNESCO, Cultural Heritage, and Outstanding Universal Value: Value-based Analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions. <em>Heritage & Society</em>, <em>9</em>(2), 191-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159032x.2017.1301050</li>
<li>Unknown (2023). Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings as Hotel in George Town UNESCO World Heritage Site: Tourism Industry Perspectives. <em>International Journal of Business and Technology Management</em>. https://doi.org/10.55057/ijbtm.2023.5.s2.2</li>
<li>Liburd, J. J., Becken, S. (2017). Values in nature conservation, tourism and UNESCO World Heritage Site stewardship. <em>Journal of Sustainable Tourism</em>, <em>25</em>(12), 1719-1735. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1293067</li>
<li>Nilsson, T. (2008). Heritage Values in Site Management: Four Case Studies. <em>Journal of Heritage Tourism</em>, <em>3</em>(2), 154. https://doi.org/10.2167/jht028b.0</li>
<li>Moreno-Manzo, J., Gassiot-Melian, A., Coromina, L. (2022). Perceived value in a UNESCO World Heritage Site: the case of Quito, Ecuador. <em>Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development</em>. https://doi.org/10.1108/jchmsd-03-2022-0049</li>
<li>Barton, J. (2009). 3D laser scanning and the conservation of earthen architecture: a case study at the UNESCO World Heritage Site Merv, Turkmenistan. <em>World Archaeology</em>, <em>41</em>(3), 489-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438240903112518</li>
<li>Bortolotto, C. (2015). UNESCO, cultural heritage, and outstanding universal value: value-based analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions. <em>International Journal of Heritage Studies</em>, <em>21</em>(5), 528-530. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2015.1024462</li>
<li>Tilliger, B., Rodríguez‐Labajos, B., Bustamante, J. V., Settele, J. (2015). Disentangling Values in the Interrelations between Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Conservation—A Case Study of the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Philippines. <em>Land</em>, <em>4</em>(3), 888-913. https://doi.org/10.3390/land4030888</li>
<li>Hua, H., Zhou, S. (2015). Human-Environment System Boundaries: A Case Study of the Honghe Hani Rice Terraces as a World Heritage Cultural Landscape. <em>Sustainability</em>, <em>7</em>(8), 10733-10755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70810733</li>
<li>Settele, J., Heong, K. L., Kühn, I., Klotz, S., Spangenberg, J. H., Arida, G. S. (2018). Rice ecosystem services in South-east Asia. <em>Paddy and Water Environment</em>, <em>16</em>(2), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-018-0656-9</li>
<li>Zhang, L., Stewart, W. P. (2017). Sustainable Tourism Development of Landscape Heritage in a Rural Community: A Case Study of Azheke Village at China Hani Rice Terraces. <em>Built Heritage</em>, <em>1</em>(4), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1186/bf03545656</li>
<li>Sekine, K. (2021). The Potential and Contradictions of Geographical Indication and Patrimonization for the Sustainability of Indigenous Communities: A Case of Cordillera Heirloom Rice in the Philippines. <em>Sustainability</em>, <em>13</em>(8), 4366-4366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084366</li>
<li>Erickson, C. L. (2003). Agricultural Landscapes as World Heritage: Raised Field Agriculture in Bolivia and Peru. <em>ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania)</em>.</li>
<li>Acabado, S., Martin, M., Datar, F. A. (2017). Ifugao Archaeology. <em>Advances in Archaeological Practice</em>, <em>5</em>(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2016.7</li>
<li>Samuels, K. L., Platts, E. J. (2020). An Ecolabel for the World Heritage Brand? Developing a Climate Communication Recognition Scheme for Heritage Sites. <em>Climate</em>, <em>8</em>(3), 38-38. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8030038</li>
<li>Blake, J. (2017). From Traditional Culture and Folklore to Intangible Cultural Heritage: Evolution of a Treaty. <em>Santander Art and Culture Law Review</em>(2). https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.17.021.8422</li>
</ol>
</article>