**1. Introduction**

In 2016, and as a part of a doctoral thesis, some of the authors elaborated a catalogue of immovable assets of the Spanish industrial heritage [1]. Despite the main objective of the research work being the design of a methodology based on multi-criteria decision-making tools, previous tasks that were identified included both the need of a wider catalogue of assets and a structure of classification criteria that applied to all of them. At that moment, the Initial Catalogue of the National Plan of Industrial Heritage [2], the Minimum Catalogue of the The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH)-Spain [3], and the catalogue developed by The DOCOMOMO (international committee for DOcumentation and COnservation of buildings, sites and neighborhoods of the MOdern MOvement) Foundation about the industrial buildings of the modern movement in Spain and Portugal [4], were the main cataloguing initiatives in the country. All of them were of great interest, especially with regard to their different approaches to the problem, but the number of assets that was considered in all of the cases was not large enough to be representative of this typology across the whole national territory.

The need to identify and classify the existing assets of value is considered in some of the most recognized documents about protection and actuation regarding the immovable assets of the cultural heritage, such as The Declaration of Amsterdam [5], which is focused on general architectural heritage, and The Niznhy Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage, which is specifically focused on this

typology [6]. However, traditional cataloguing strategies must be revised and improved, both from a general approach to cultural heritage as well as from particular approaches to specific typologies [7,8], as the industrial heritage is [9].

Unfortunately, it is not difficult to identify examples of reuse actions above these kinds of assets in which the relation to the productive process has disappeared. These situations reveal that the concept of industrial heritage and the real value of these assets are not yet sufficiently clear. In that sense, some of the widely recognized definitions describe the industrial heritage as the result of the relation between a social model, the capitalism, and the productive resources of the mechanization [2,3]. This approach involves chronological limits that have been discarded by the authors of this work, who have considered both preindustrial and industrial assets within the catalogue. It is the singularity with regard to aspects such as the technological exclusivity or innovation, the layout and sizing of the productive spaces, the structure or the constructive techniques applied in order to response to the needs of the productive process, or the historical and social role that the activity had in the region, which are the kinds of features that can provide cultural value to these kind of assets [1].

Thus, in the case of industrial heritage, the recording of these assets should enable the understanding of their productive nature from different approaches [10]. In that context, a new catalogue was developed, including 1354 assets that were classified through 54 different criteria. This made it possible to propose a great amount of analyses by combining different criteria in each case. However, some improvement goals have been identified since then.

From a general approach to the initial version of the catalogue of assets, it is obvious that although the number of assets that was considered was significantly higher than the sets of elements, including those referred to in the previous catalogues, there are many more assets of interest that were not identified in that initial version. In addition, the national approach of that first experience required careful work regarding the identification and selection of assets, avoiding any kind of focus on particular territories in order to show real trends. Although this effort developed the analysis of the presence of the typology in a horizontal way through the whole country, it also made it more difficult to address a complete identification of assets. Thus, after the achievement of the initial goal of having a more useful set of assets and a criteria structure applied to all of them, the own needs of this new tool began to appear.

The review of the identification and selection process on the different regions was the first aspect that was identified as a new goal. As in the first attempt, the catalogue needed to be representative of the presence of the typology in Spain, so it is important to avoid any kind of extra effort in the identification of assets in any particular territory. Controlling this through a unique revision above the whole catalogue can be difficult. In addition, considering the number of assets included, reviewing the whole set is a tedious task itself. Therefore, the authors considered the development of subsequent studies focused on particular Autonomous Communities or provinces as the most reasonable strategy for this review process. Thus, some previous review works were developed in territories as the provinces of Vigo, Cádiz, and Huelva [11–13], and in the Autonomous Community of the region of Murcia [14]. All of these works enabled comparisons between the initially obtained trends and the new ones, and at the same time, during their development, some clues about new needs, approaches, and solutions were obtained.

In this context, the whole revision of the initial version of the developed catalogue will be the result of a set of partial review works focused on particular territories. In that sense, this work represents the first significant review experience for the catalogue, since it affects a particularly important territory: the Autonomous Community of Andalusia. This territory has some special characteristics, such as its high number of provinces, the variety of industrial sectors and their different presence through the eight provinces, or the high number of industrial assets identified in this territory in the initial version of the catalogue. All of these reasons make Andalusia one of the best territories for showing the potential of the catalogue as a work tool, and it was also the selected territory when the initial

version of the catalogue was presented to researchers in this field [15]. This way, this new work is understood as a key previous step to reviewing the catalogue at the national level.

In addition to the classification criteria, the developed catalogue includes complementary information, such as web entries and geolocation information for each element listed. Thus, for all of the new assets that were added to the catalogue, geolocation information was included, too. This data field has a special value, because in some cases, the location of these assets is little known given the remote location of many of them. Industrial assets are often abandoned when productive activity ends. Sometimes, even the residential settlements that are the result of these productive activities disappear when production ends. Since the dissemination and promotion of this typology and its assets have a key role in achieving their protection, the geolocation information of a large amount of assets provided a great opportunity for promoting their visit [16]. However, the geolocation of these assets is also important in research contexts, such as for example the implementation of geographic information systems in the study of these elements [17,18]. Figure 1 shows a map generated using Google My Maps. Introducing in this application the data of the columns of the catalogue, which contains the name given to each asset and the geolocation information included for each asset, these kind of maps are automatically created.

**Figure 1.** Visualization of the assets identified in Andalusia within a map created using Google My Maps and thanks to the geolocation information included for each asset in the catalogue.

Moreover, as it was previously introduced, the catalogue was born as support for the multi-criteria structures designed for the management and decision making about the reutilization of this type of assets, operating as one of the parts of a global methodology [19]. This methodology included three levels. Two of them were focused on the application of multi-criteria decision techniques, both for the valuation of the cultural interest of the analyzed assets and for the selection of the more compatible new activities. However, any decisions within these two levels had to be supported by a deep knowledge of this typology. In that context, a first version of a wide catalogue of industrial assets located in Spain was developed. In addition to the large number of assets considered in comparison to previous initiatives [2–4], the main characteristic of this catalogue was the application of a wide structure

of classification criteria. This structure was applied to the whole set of assets, and by combining different classification criteria, it was possible to make a great variety of analyses of great interest in order to characterize this typology in Spain. Thus, the developed catalogue represents the necessary groundwork for those other criteria structures focused on multi-criteria decision-making, but these kinds of techniques are not applied within the catalogue.

During the operation of this methodology as a management tool, some new potential information fields of interest were identified. This work responses to these needs, and represents a first improvement of the classification criteria structure of the catalogue, increasing the number of criteria applied to the assets from 54 to 62. Multi-criteria approaches, such as the one developed by the authors, are considered of great interest, and it is actually possible to identify other proposals for the study of cultural heritage based on these techniques [20–22]. Thus, not only the previously obtained trends are reviewed, but also new possible analyses are exposed, and also in achieving this goal, the geolocation information had a key role, as will be exposed below.

Thus, this work proposes several analyses of the industrial heritage in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, all of them by using the developed catalogue. These analyses enable characterizing this heritage typology in this territory and the review trends that were previously obtained, but they also show the potential of the catalogue as a tool for the study, promotion, and management of these assets. Furthermore, the incorporation of new classification criteria represents the first enlargement of the criteria structure of the catalogue. This means an increase in the variety of analyses and approaches enabled by this tool, and the improvement of the catalogue as the response to a need identified during its use as support for research activity [19]. In that sense, new possible lines of improvement are commented upon, and the main conclusions of the work are finally exposed.

#### **2. Methodology**

In this section, the main methodological aspects that were applied in this work are exposed. Thus, the growth process of the set of assets, the criteria structure of the catalogue, its use as analysis tool, and the special considerations of some of the classification criteria considered are defined and explained.

#### *2.1. Set of Assets Increase*

The first task addressed in this work was the identification and selection of new assets of interest in the territory considered as study case, which is in this case Andalusia. This searching work was not only an additive process focused on the increase of the set of assets considered, but also a review of that set and its capability of being representative of this typology in Andalusia. Perhaps the first goal that comes to mind when a recording initiative such as this one starts is achieving a wide enough set of elements to be representative of the reality that is to be characterized. In the case of the industrial heritage, the large number of assets falling under this term makes the identification of all of the elements difficult.

Nevertheless, the catalogue developed by the authors is not only a list of assets of interest, but also a whole criteria structure that is applied to all of them, so one of the main opportunities that the catalogue offers is the wide variety of analyses allowed by combination of these criteria. While accepting that including all of the existing assets of this type is very difficult, the wider the set of assets is that are considered, the more reliable and representative the trends of the territory that are observed through the run analyses. In this sense, the number of assets that is included in the catalogue for Andalusia was increased from 166 to 350, which means more than double the entries that were initially considered for this territory.

Figure 2 shows in blue the initial distribution of assets through the eight provinces of the Autonomous Community of Andalusia. The new assets that are included for each territory are marked in orange, and the total number of assets is indicated above each bar in the graph.

**Figure 2.** Assets initially considered for each province: new assets included, and actual number of assets identified.

Firstly, it is possible to appreciate significant changes from the initial distribution. Thus, territories with less importance at the initial distribution, such as Almería, Cádiz, Huelva, and Jaén, now have a greater role. On the other hand, territories with the highest number of assets at the initial distribution—Córdoba and Sevilla—and the ones in intermediate positions—Granada and Málaga—have experimented much lower increases. This can be perceived as an attempt to equilibrate the distribution trend, but similar resources and efforts were inverted in all of the cases. The new territorial distribution after the actualization of the catalogue will be analyzed in more depth in the later sections.

Another consequence of this study focused on Andalusia is the imbalances that the actualization of the sample in this territory causes in the territorial distribution at the national level. Before this work, Andalusia was the third territory by the number of assets included in the catalogue, only behind Catalonia and Madrid, and very close to the Basque Country. Actually, its 350 assets make it the leading territory in assets contribution to the catalogue. Due to this, similar works must be developed for each one of the other autonomous communities, and for those future works, the present study must establish a reference baseline.
