This research proposes a risk-based framework for delineating heritage buffer zones, suggesting proactive land-use regulations for urban cultural sites.
Rapid urbanization increasingly threatens urban cultural heritage. While buffer zones are crucial for mitigating external pressures, conventional delineation relies on value-based or geometric rules, overlooking parcel-scale heterogeneous externalities. This study addresses this gap by proposing a parcel-based, risk–value coupling framework that delineates heritage buffer zones and supports differentiated land-use regulations. In this study, “negative-impact risk” is operationalized as a composite proxy of cumulative urban development pressures that may increase the likelihood and potential severity of adverse externalities on heritage settings, rather than a full hazard–exposure–vulnerability risk model. And we construct a multi-source indicator system with 12 parcel-level indicators to characterize negative impact risk and heritage value, and adopt a hybrid weighting strategy integrating an AHP, entropy weighting, and game-theoretic combination to reconcile expert judgement and data-driven heterogeneity. To address uncertainty in multi-criteria evaluation, a cloud model maps indicator sets into discrete management levels. The framework is applied to the Pingjiang Historic District in Suzhou, China, using 121 land parcels as decision units. Results show that the approach identifies spatial risk–value patterns and delineates an operational buffer prioritizing parcels with elevated coupled scores. Compared with a fixed-distance buffer, it achieves greater coverage of high-risk parcels while maintaining a smaller regulatory scope. The parcel classification is then translated into tiered planning controls, including development intensity limits, land-use rules, and monitoring priorities. The framework integrates risk management and heritage conservation to support uncertainty-aware, proactive, and transferable zoning decisions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: