Visual experience is a primary channel through which the values of tangible cultural heritage are perceived and governed, making visual evaluation and management central to conservation and to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11.4. However, practice remains fragmented across scales, and many statutory toolkits lag behind advances in geographic information systems (GIS)-based visibility analysis, 3D visualization, remote sensing, and perception-based evidence. We compile, code, and cross-analyze a multi-level corpus spanning 26 international instruments, 293 national items from 112 countries, and 867 World Heritage properties. Using a four-dimensional framework (values, typology, visual-evaluation methods, and visual-management strategies), we apply k-medoids clustering with multidimensional scaling (MDS) at the national level, mask-aware association mapping at the property level, and cross-level diagnostics. Across levels, practice converges on a technical-spatial regime. At the property level, GIS-based viewshed and visual sensitivity analysis, verified visuals and 3D visualization techniques, and GIS-based spatial-historical analysis form a near-universal methodological core and are most frequently translated into zoning and spatial regulation and height or massing controls. Participatory and perception- or experience-based methods remain sporadic. Value framings are dominated by Historic, Social and Political, and Aesthetic emphases, while Ecological and Scientific are comparatively marginal. Cross-level coherence is strongest where governance frameworks are mature, and portfolios are coherent; it weakens where portfolios are heterogeneous or in federated or lower-capacity settings. National portfolios cluster into four method-strategy regimes that explain characteristic object-method-strategy sequences. In response, we outline operational bridges including tiered standards for visibility and 3D evidence, deployable perception protocols, participation modules linked to Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) or Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) triggers, and auditable communication packages. These are organized within a Global Peer Network aligned to portfolio archetypes and method-strategy regimes. The study contributes a reusable global dataset and map of visual-heritage practice and an integration framework that supports more transparent, comparable, and context-sensitive decisions across levels. • Mapped heritage visual practice across international, national, and site levels. • Used a harmonized 4D framework (type/scale, values, evaluation, management) to compare practice across levels. • Proposed an integration framework linking analytical and visualization techniques to routine governance, planning and design. • Proposed an integration framework linking evidence to zoning/design controls to strengthen visual heritage governance.
Wu et al. (Wed,) studied this question.