![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
Due to political reform and the shifting values of heritage, Taiwan’s industrial heritage attracts much more attention in the past decade. Additionally, there is not only an expectation of reusing industrial heritage for the purpose of the economy but a perspective of seeing it as the barrier to urban progress. As Lowenthal (2005) notes, (Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign country.) heritage is further corrupted by being politicised, commoditised and popularised. The idea of participatory governance has also permeated gradually into Taiwan’s industrial heritage issues. In recent times, these progressive views have received greater attention with calls for bringing citizenship to the core of the participatory agenda. The comparative study which explores the Chiayi Forestry Park and Taipei Zhongzheng Bridge, respectively aims to better understand the participatory governance process on conserving industrial heritage by conducting Osmani’s Three-Gap Analysis (Osmani, “Participatory Governance.”).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the both staff of the Forestry Bureau and Taipei Cultural Foundation for their kind assistance in the preparation of this study.
Notes
1. Six out of 23 UNESCO World Heritage sites inscribed in 2015 are industrial heritage. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1318.
2. Douet, Industrial Heritage Re-tooled.
3. Smith, Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies.
4. Li, Modern Historical Buildings in Taiwan.
5. Cultural Heritage Preservation Act was enacted in 1982.
6. According to the statistic of the Bureau of Cultural Heritage. https://www.boch.gov.tw/boch/.
7. Greasley and Richardson, “Introduction.”
8. Osmani, “Participatory Governance.”
9. Including Comprehensive Community Building Plan (1994), Public Art Projects (1992), White Paper on Cultural Affairs (1998), National Culture and Arts Foundation (1996), National Museums and Cultural Centres (1980) etc.
10. Tien and Lin, “The Welfare State.”
11. Han, “Review of National Cultural Policy.”
12. Ibid.
13. Wang, The Reference Materials; Chen, Review and Analysis; and Qi, “The Pros and Cons.”
14. Including Repurposing of Unused Space Project (2000), New Hometown Community Building Programme (2002), Local Museums (2002) and Cultural and Creative Industries Development Plan (2002).
15. In 1997 (1st, 2nd), 2000 (3rd), 2001 (4th), 2005 (5th), and 2011 (6th).
16. Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, (1997).
17. Ibid.
18. Wang, “A Vehicle Conveying its Own Culture.”
19. Lin, History of Taiwan.
20. TICCIH, “Taipei Declaration.”
21. García, “Cultural Policy in European Cities.”
22. Kong, “Cultural Policy in Singapore.”
23. Throsby, “Determining the Value of Cultural Goods.”
24. Mitlin, “Reshaping Local Democracy.”
25. Fischer, “Participatory Governance,” 19.
26. John, “Citizen Governance.”
27. Fischer, “Participatory Governance,” 20.
28. Hendriks and Topps, “Everyday Fixers as Local Heroes,” 476.
29. Hirst, “Democracy and Governance.”
30. Rhodes, “Governance and Public Administration,” 63.
31. Sullivan and Skelcher, Working across Boundaries, 1.
32. See Chhotray, “The Negation of Politics”; Chhotray, “Who Cares about Participation?”; Cooke and Kothari, Participation: The New Tyranny?; and Mosse, “Peoples’ Knowledge.”
33. Osmani, “Participatory Governance,” 28.
34. Chhotray and Stoker, Governance Theory and Practice, 213.
35. Chuang, “Cultural Heritage of Forestry.”
36. The Instruction of Forestry Cultural Park Workshop, Forestry Bureau, 2015. (Unpublished).
37. Bardhan and Ray, “Methodological Approaches.”