03038nas a2200301   4500000000100000008004100001653001500042653001500057653001900072653001700091653002600108653003800134653001700172653002600189653001700215653001900232653001900251653001500270653001200285653001600297100001100313700001700324700002200341700000900363245011400372856015200486520209800638                                       d10aAdaptation10aAttributes10aBuilt heritage10aConservation10aCultural significance10aInternational doctrinal documents10aIntervention10aIntervention concepts10aPreservation10aReconstruction10aRehabilitation10aRelocation10aRenewal10aRestoration1 aM. Lin1 aI. Nevzgodin1 aA. Pereira Roders1 aW. y00aThe role of attributes defining intervention concepts in international doctrinal documents on built heritage  uhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85173783622&doi=10.1108%2fJCHMSD-06-2023-0095&partnerID=40&md5=5cf06ca3b624f63f8691873637acb3263 aPurpose: Attributes conveying cultural significance play a key role in heritage management, as well as in differentiating interventions in built heritage. However, seldom the relation between interventions and attributes, either tangible or intangible, has been researched systematically. How do both tangible and intangible attributes and interventions relate? What attributes make interventions on built heritage differ? Design/methodology/approach: This paper conducts a systematic content analysis of forty-one international doctrinal documents—mainly adopted by the Council of Europe, UNESCO and ICOMOS, between 1877 and 2021. The main aim is to reveal and compare the selected eight intervention concepts, namely—restoration (C1), preservation (C2), conservation (C3), adaptation (C4), rehabilitation (C5), relocation (C6), reconstruction (C7) and renewal (C8)—and their definitions, in relation to attributes, both tangible and intangible. The intensity of the relationship between intervention concepts and attributes is determined based on the frequency of the mentioned attributes per intervention. Findings: There were three key findings. First, although the attention to intangible attributes has increased in the last decades, the relationship between interventions and tangible attributes remains stronger. The highest frequency of referencing the tangible attributes was identified in “relocation” and “preservation,” while the lowest was in “rehabilitation.” Second, certain attributes play contradictory roles, e.g. “material,” “use” and “process,” which creates inconsistent definitions between documents. Third, as attributes often include one another in building layers, they trigger the intervention concepts in hierarchical patterns. Originality/value: This paper explores and discusses the results of a novel comparative analysis between different intervention concepts and definitions, with a particular focus on the attributes. The results can support further research and practice, clarifying the identified differences and similarities.