Editorial 15.1

Place-Branding, Intangible Heritage and Participatory Consultation – Modern Approaches to the Historic Environment

On 23 December the UK government opened the formal consultation on the proposed adoption of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH). The preamble indicates that the consultation is part of the implementation programme and that separately the devolved nations have indicated their support for its adoption. But what does it mean for both policy and practice?

The consultation makes it quite clear that ‘ratifying the Convention does not signal a commitment for any immediate action from the UK government, the devolved administrations, local government or associated public bodies. In particular, ratifying does not automatically place any additional burden, duty, or obligation on any policy-maker or funder.’ As the consultation makes clear ICH is distinct ‘from traditional fixed or material heritage’. Implementation means ‘that compatible inventories [will] be created for each of the four nations of the UK, as well as for participating Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies. These should draw on and complement existing inventories, such as the wiki-inventory maintained by Museums Galleries Scotland, and the Red List of Endangered Crafts compiled by Heritage Crafts, and ensure that each region is well represented. Each inventory will then be collated into the national Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage in the UK.’ Although intended to be as inclusive as possible, the absence of formal designation means this may become another form of non-designated heritage asset; it suggests that ICH will be tested by planning committees, and in the adversarial environment of planning inquiries and in the courts. The opening paper by Will Bedford, Director of Landgage Heritage, is therefore well timed. The author looks at the difference in approach to intangible heritage by the UK government and between England and the devolved authority in Wales. Here a divergence of approaches can be seen within a single sovereign state as national identities are brought into play.

Will Bedford’s paper relies on the distinction which the author proposes, between ‘discernment of heritage’ and ‘embodiment of heritage’. Bedford argues that discernment is ‘the process by which a culture identifies which spaces, objects and artefacts are the correct and meaningful referent for the expression of ICH’ which he maps to the UNESCO definition¹ ‘the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage’. On the other hand, embodiment is the performative aspect ‘the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills’. The latter might include say, the Appleby horse fair, discussed by Jennifer Toyn and John Schofield in vol 13.4.² The relationship between ICH and physical places is clearly complex and of particular interest and debate is the proposal that, for example, the designation of Conservation Areas and recognition of the settings of heritage assets are both strongly linked to the protection of ICH.

On 5 October the London Society published the new ‘London of the Future’.³ In chapters by Kat Hann and Gillian Darley, the role of the historic environment takes centre stage. Kat Hanna, Director, Strategic Advisory and Place Strategy for Avison Young, reviews the future of the Central Business District and the Financial Services Hub and in one of her three scenarios, imagines the City as a UNESCO designated World Heritage site ‘suffocated by the weight of its past’. In contrast, Gillian Darley, architectural historian, and President of the Twentieth Century Society looks at the future of heritage more generously and how the city’s past could be conserved and contribute towards its future, suggesting that a key development would be a better-informed management process. The effects of continuing development, the impacts of climate change and mass tourism, Darley notes, are long-standing issues which have already led to a deterioration in the inherent characteristics of the historic environment. Implicitly attention is drawn to the re-use of historic buildings which threatens their integrity and challenges the authenticity of the historic environment.

The complexities of urban management are taken up in a case study of Beijing’s Forbidden City by Zehao Yao, at the Bartlett School, University College, London. In 2019, 19.3 million tourists visited the Forbidden City, making it one of the most visited places in China. The result is that it is becoming increasingly subject to tourist interests rather than cultural development. The challenge is to preserve the authenticity of Beijing’s Forbidden City. The author’s objective has been to devise a model combining modern digital technologies, informed gentrification, sustainable urbanisation, and cultural tourism. Controversially, Zehao Yao argues, for the plan to work the city authorities will need to develop strategies for the rational location of industrial and economic facilities within the setting of the Forbidden City if they are to preserve its traditional aesthetic and cultural characteristics.

The creation of a digital twin for the Spanish city of Barcelona was launched in 2022 in partnership with the Italian city of Bologna. The digital twin will exploit the potential of the recently commissioned MareNostrum 5 supercomputer to create a data-based replica of itself where potential city planning projects can be tested.⁴ Behind such an initiative lies the community of the city and in a paper by Laia Colomer and Ana Pastor-Perez, both at the Norwegian Institute of Cultural Heritage Research, the evolution of citizen participation in Barcelona is examined for the period between 1986 and 2022. Three case studies illustrate how, through public participation urban spaces were reclaimed as commons combatting the attempted exploitation of such spaces by private entities such as outdoor seating for bars, restaurants, hotels and parking. Cultural heritage elements acted as a catalyst that placed pressure on urban authorities to act and to amend planning policy and in some cases change architectural plans. Since the 1980s, Barcelona has been gradually implementing various forms of participatory democracy. These define the relationship between government bodies and their representatives in urban planning and cultural heritage management, between government bodies and the citizen body and specify the means of citizen participation. This paper explores the architecture of participation in Barcelona and its contribution to cultural heritage management. It analyses the role of cultural heritage as an actor in participatory processes and explores the degree of citizen participation in cultural heritage management. However, the case studies reveal that despite the level of consultation, there is no effective participation in heritage itself. ‘Heritage managers follow their professional guidelines regarding documenting and valuing heritage and decide when to preserve it and how to articulate its enhancement in urban planning and local development. It results in a non-participatory relationship for a citizenry that rubber stamps solutions backed by expert knowledge presented as both free and inevitable.’ The absence of a participatory turn in heritage management in Barcelona echoes Colomer’s work on participation in Norway and the Faro Convention and should be a key concern in any development proposal.⁵

In 2016, Dr Mzalendo Kibunjia, Director General, National Museums of Kenya wrote in the Foreword to ‘Conservation of Natural and Cultural Heritage in Kenya: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach’ that ‘As scientists, historians and archaeologists continue to uncover, study, and promote access to tangible and intangible cultural heritage, there are ever increasing challenges that pervade conservation efforts [in Kenya]. Heritage conservation is threatened as the world globalizes and African economies open up to new realms of growth in the international markets while increased building construction, infrastructural expansion as well as terrorism destroy existing heritage assets.’⁶ The challenges facing heritage conservation in Kenya are highlighted Dominic Gitau, Ephraim Wahome, of Kenyatta University, Nairobi and Mugwima Njuguna of the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology in a paper which reviews three case studies and highlights the extent and causes of systematic heritage destruction in Kenya. Despite Kenya’s heritage laws, the authors show how opportunism, fraud and corruption confront the conservation of the colonial Ojijo Road Flats, Nairobi, the traditional Endorois families of the Rift Valley and the Kaya Forest sacred ritual sites (part of the Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests WHS) of the Kenya coast. In each case, the threat is to a designated (gazetted) site of national significance and the authors draw attention to the complicity of the organisations responsible for conservation as well as development pressures, some of which are the result of political exploitation. The paper makes a strong case for the rule of law, integrity, and the sustainability of heritage values.

Critical discourse analysis has been a familiar approach in the humanities since the 1970s. Typically, a means of deconstruction where ‘larger units than isolated words and sentences…. And … units of analysis: texts, discourses, conversations, speech acts, or communicative events … [leads to an].extension of linguistics beyond sentence grammar towards a study of action and interaction’⁷ At the same time interpretation and implementation of the law and administration in America rests on the principles of the Anglo-American tradition where ‘within single-policy domains there may be close relationships between particular interest groups and the bureaucratic agencies. Rather than engaging in open bargaining among interests, as in corporatism, there tends to be a more symbiotic relationship between interests and the agencies. The interest groups want access and policies that support them, and the agencies need political support for their budgets and their policy proposals. While exclusive relationships between groups and agencies have been reduced somewhat with the growth of policy networks and epistemic communities these relationships remain closer and more exclusive than in most other consolidated democracies.’⁸

Representation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights in policy and practice is an important development which has been the subject of papers in this journal in recent editions. Such rights differ across the world. In a case study from the United States, Erin Seekamp, at NC State University, and her colleagues outline some of the terminological constraints found in policy documentation and frameworks that enable exclusionary practices in relation to Indigenous Peoples. Their objective is to understand what the authors describe as ‘miscommunication’ between state or federal policies and the rights of Tribal Nations. The authors argue that collaboratively defining terms and concepts serves to reveal shared or divergent values and that finding shared values strengthens trust and can help rebuild relationships leading to improved resource stewardship. Although in America there is no collective voice representing all Tribal Nations, it remains important to recognise pathways for meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities. This is particularly important for federal or state lands with archaeological sites whose living ancestors have been excluded from the physical space for generations, and where the subsurface ‘beings’ and resources are largely intangible to all parties concerned.

In 2015, Oevermann and Meig assembled a series of case studies from Europe, the United States and India to illustrate the wide range of planning considerations guiding as well as confronting the re-development of industrial heritage. A key attribute identified by Oevermann and Meig and their contributors was the retention of authenticity. In the discussion, it was argued that authenticity should not be ‘thwarted by adapting the old values, polishing the material remains, and adding a whole new image’.⁹ The importance of image or branding has been a subject of concern in the 21^st century. In 2016 ‘Heritage Counts’ published research on place branding in England. Summarising the results, the research found that although local organisations were actively engaged in place branding there was a concern that it might be perceived as marketing jargon.¹⁰ Nevertheless, heritage was found to contribute to authenticity and distinctiveness, bringing credibility to place brands. Importantly, the use of heritage in place branding extended beyond the built environment to include less prominent intangible heritage. Ultimately, the report concluded that the role of heritage in place making and place branding would grow. The emphasis of the study on local initiatives hinted that the issues raised by place branding also extend to the identity and significance of specific heritage assets. It was this point that Zehao Yao had noted in Beijing where he argued that by using media content effectively the Palace Museum fostered both innovation and ensured brand promotion.

Using branding and brandscaping as a point of departure, Greta Swenson and Maja Granberg at the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage examine how textual and visual presentations are integrated in planning documentation as a way to signal the role assigned to industrial heritage. Citing two large former industrial sites: Klosterøya, Skien, and Verket, Moss, Swenson and Granberg show how images provide positive associations to evoke atmosphere, in relation to the historical buildings and infrastructures selected for adaptive reuse in the initial planning phases. The authors, though, conclude that text and images function primarily as rhetoric in branding the sites’ future character and warn that ‘to bring out the full potential of adaptive reuse of industrial heritage, it is important to ensure that they do not end up as empty visual themes or vague images of former landscapes’. If ideas are not brought up in the early stages of development, it may be impossible to gain support for changes later once plans have been adopted.

Natural and Cultural Heritage: In recent decades, natural and cultural heritages have seen a meeting of the ways: blending ways of thinking, ways of managing change, ways of doing things differently. In part, this is a consequence of new approaches in cultural heritage conservation, acting more sustainably and holistically to respect environments and ecologies on individual sites and in wider cultural landscapes. Boundaries are dissolving between the traditional conservation management of material heritage – buildings, monuments, townscapes, designed landscapes – and sustainable management of the living heritage of places and practices in a rapidly changing climate and natural environment. To negotiate this complexity requires collaboration with the interests of communities in these places, addressing notions of loss, instincts to ‘save’ and ‘preserve’ both cultural and natural assets.¹¹ It calls for understanding and respect for tensions that can arise out of contested priorities in new green agendas, such as ‘re-wilding’, curated decay, and managed retreat.

While such perspectives on sustainable conservation practice are still evolving in western cultures – nuancing care for cultural and natural resources in inclusive frameworks for change – in other parts of the globe the partitioning of culture and nature is an artificial one. It is a separation unrecognised in the traditions of many indigenous cultures where sustainable land use and cultural practice have lived hand in hand and who continue to adapt their heritages to meet the challenges of the climate crisis. This volume will bring together insights from international case studies and innovative policy development to examine the entanglement of natural and cultural heritage in historic environments, ways forwards for green heritage futures and new approaches.

If you are working in this area and would like to contribute, please send contact Dr Gill Chitty at [email protected]

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. UNESCO, 2003.

2. Toyn and Schofield, 2022, 459.

3. Tritton, 2023.

4. Hernández-Morales, 2022.

5. Colomer, Laia., 2023.

6. KibunjiaIn 2016.

7. Wolak & Meyer, 2015, 1

8. Peters, 132–133

9. Overmann and Harald, 203

10. Heritage Counts 2016. ‘Heritage and Place Branding’ Accessed January 28, 2024. https://historicengland.org.uk/content/heritage-counts/pub/2016/heritage-and-place-branding-pdf/

11. See for example the Institute for Sustainable Development in Africa ISDAF Accessed January 29, 2024. https://isdafrica.org/