Editorial

How should we transmit historical and cultural heritage to future generations? Heritage does not remain static; its functions, meanings and contexts evolve over time. Some structures lose their original purpose, while others continue to be used yet require adaptation to new social, environmental or technical conditions. In all such cases, their continued existence is not self-evident. Decisions must be made regarding preservation, transformation or even partial loss. In some instances, allowing gradual decay may be considered an authentic response. Yet in many situations, inaction risks not only the erosion of cultural value but also physical danger, particularly in the case of structures and artefacts embedded within living communities.Heritage conservation therefore requires difficult decisions. The principle of minimum intervention has long guided practice; however, preserving value and intervening in fabric can often generate confliction. To sustain heritage as a living cultural resource, it is essential to identify its fundamental values and determine what should be transmitted to the future. The best available technologies of each era can then be mobilized to enable safe and meaningful engagement for present and future generations. Intervention is not simply a technical matter; it is a decision making process grounded in ethical and social deliberation among stakeholders.The first paper in this issue examines mineral loading docks along the Spanish coast as significant yet vulnerable elements of industrial cultural landscapes. It distinguishes between two principal structural typologies – pile-supported and cantilever systems – each shaped by local coastal conditions and historical construction practices. Many have been lost since mining ceased to be a major industry, and several of the surviving docks, once constructed using cast or puddled iron and later steel, now face severe deterioration under aggressive marine exposure.Through detailed historical investigation and structural assessment, the study explores how corrosion, material degradation and section loss affect load-bearing capacity. The authors highlight the challenges inherent in evaluating existing metal structures whose material properties and fabrication details vary and are not always fully documented. Decisions must therefore balance accurate condition assessment, appropriate safety margins and the principle of minimum intervention. Drawing on three recent restoration projects, the study demonstrates how careful documentation, structural analysis and targeted reinforcement can reconcile conservation with adaptive reuse. By integrating these former industrial infrastructures into tourism and leisure activities, the projects seek not only to preserve authenticity but also to generate renewed socioeconomic relevance. The paper underscores that engineering intervention is rarely a single event; it requires long-term maintenance strategies and sustainable economic models to ensure that heritage remains a viable cultural asset rather than a public burden (Hernández Lamas and Martín-Caro, 2026).The second contribution addresses a different yet complementary dimension of intervention: digital restoration of mural heritage through artificial intelligence. Recognising the limitations and risks of conventional physical restoration methods, the study proposes a framework that enhances and reconstructs mural images using advanced image-processing and deep-learning techniques. By achieving high levels of efficiency and visual accuracy, the approach expands the conservation technology while reducing invasive treatment.In many heritage contexts, especially where the scale is considerable, preserving the entirety of the physical fabric in situ demands substantial technical effort, financial commitment and ongoing maintenance obligations over extended periods. This raises a fundamental question: should priority be given to the material fabric itself onsite, or to the continuity of place, its social context and lived experience? In some cases, fragments may be relocated, artworks transferred and archaeological remains reburied after excavation to protect the original material. Digital reconstruction can then provide a powerful means of documentation, interpretation and public engagement. Because intervention in original fabric is often irreversible, the possibility of restoring or visualising heritage in the digital domain allows evolving knowledge to be applied without further material loss. While cultural heritage is never solely a visual experience and its physical presence remains invaluable, digital technologies broaden the spectrum of technically feasible options (Liu, 2026).Taken together, these contributions illustrate two technically distinct yet conceptually related responses to the same fundamental challenge: how to sustain heritage without compromising its essential values. The restoration of mineral loading docks demonstrates a comprehensive in situ strategy, combining structural reinforcement, adaptive reuse and maintenance planning to ensure that large-scale industrial heritage can remain physically present and socially relevant. In contrast, the digital restoration of mural heritage represents a deliberately restrained approach to material intervention, preserving fragile fabric while extending interpretation and accessibility through virtual reconstruction. By designing technically sound strategies proportionate to scale, material condition and cultural significance, engineering practice can mediate between preservation and contemporary engagement. This issue of Engineering History and Heritage reflects that expanding spectrum of approaches, inviting continued dialogue on how evolving technologies may responsibly serve the cultural heritage we inherit.