Cultural heritage assets represent shared cultural values that reflect the past, present, and future of societies and humanity as a whole. Their protection at both national and international levels is essential for ensuring cultural continuity. The storage and management of both spatial and non-spatial data related to heritage assets are therefore of critical importance. As the volume of information has increased, traditional methods of information storage have become insufficient. Today, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide an effective framework for managing both spatial and attribute data of cultural heritage assets within a unified digital environment. In addition to enabling digital storage and backup, GIS technologies enhance data security and facilitate continuous updating processes. Cultural Heritage Information Systems (CHIS), referred to in Türkiye as Protected Cultural Assets Information Systems (KUVAR BİS), have become fundamental tools for the effective management of heritage resources. However, differences in national governance structures (centralized vs. decentralized systems) and legal protection frameworks significantly influence the architecture and functionality of these systems, making it difficult to define universally applicable best-practice models. This study conducts a comparative analysis of cultural heritage information systems from different national contexts: Türkiye’s Culture Portal, England’s system (Historic England/National Heritage List for England – NHLE), Scotland’s regional system (Historic Environment Scotland – HES), and France’s centralized system (Plateforme Ouverte du Patrimoine – POP). Using a multiple case study methodology, the research identifies four principal findings. The analysis reveals that Türkiye and France offer strong automation in legal registration processes within centralized administrative frameworks, whereas the United Kingdom models prioritize transparency and public accessibility. In terms of mobile user experience, Scotland (HES) demonstrates a more participatory model through its location-based guidance applications. Regarding data standardization, France, England, and Scotland align with international standards such as CIDOC CRM and achieve full integration with the Europeana platform, while Türkiye’s portal infrastructure shows a tendency toward compatibility with Europeana Data Model (EDM) vocabularies. Differences in national protection legislation directly shape the data collection and presentation architectures of these systems. Ultimately, this four-country comparison demonstrates that the effectiveness of Cultural Heritage Information Systems depends not only on the scope of inventory coverage but also on compliance with international standards, digital integration of legal frameworks, and the participatory implementation of mobile technologies.
Information System, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Historic Environment Scotland (HES), Protected Cultural Assets, Cultural Heritage, Database, Culture Portal (Türkiye), National Heritage List for England (NHLE), Plateforme Ouverte du Patrimoine (POP Platform)