capturing the intangible and tangible aspects of heritage: personal versus official perspectives in...

This article was downloaded by: [Laurentian University]On: 05 December 2014, At: 10:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Landscape ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20

Capturing the Intangible and TangibleAspects of Heritage: Personal versusOfficial Perspectives in CulturalHeritage ManagementGrete Swensen a , Gro B. Jerpåsen b , Oddrun Sæter c & MariSundli Tveit da Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research , Oslo ,Norwayb Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research, Oslo,Norway and Department of Landscape Architecture and SpatialPlanning , University of Life Science, Ås , Norwayc The Urban Research Program, Oslo University College , Oslo ,Norwayd Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning ,University of Life Science , Ås , NorwayPublished online: 28 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Grete Swensen , Gro B. Jerpåsen , Oddrun Sæter & Mari Sundli Tveit(2013) Capturing the Intangible and Tangible Aspects of Heritage: Personal versus OfficialPerspectives in Cultural Heritage Management, Landscape Research, 38:2, 203-221, DOI:10.1080/01426397.2011.642346

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.642346

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or

howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Capturing the Intangible and TangibleAspects of Heritage: Personal versusOfficial Perspectives in Cultural HeritageManagement

GRETE SWENSEN*, GRO B. JERPASEN**, ODDRUN SÆTER{ &MARI SUNDLI TVEIT{

*Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research, Oslo, Norway **Norwegian Institute for Cultural

Heritage Research, Oslo, Norway and Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning,

University of Life Science, As, Norway {The Urban Research Program, Oslo University College, Oslo,

Norway {Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, University of Life Science, As,

Norway

ABSTRACT In discussions on how to handle local heritage values, local values or insider-ness areoften seen as synonymous with intangible aspects of heritage. At the same time, expert knowledgeis usually associated with material objects, whereby experts have had the power to define what topreserve. In this study of three Norwegian towns, complementary and interdisciplinary methodshave been used to address the relationship between personal and official perspectives on culturalheritage values and their tangible and intangible aspects. Results from interviews asking people todescribe places they value in the area in which they live have been compared with results from astudy of the official heritage plans in three selected towns. The study shows that a gap hasunintentionally been constructed in the understanding of cultural heritage. To bridge the gapadditional methods for documentation of cultural heritage and their contexts have to bedeveloped. Experiments with various forms of active user participation are one way to introducenew additional approaches and thereby create local engagement and awareness of the rolecultural heritage can play.

KEY WORDS: Narratives, memory, sense of place, local planning, landscape

1. Introduction

The focus of this paper is on the tangible and intangible aspects that oursurroundings hold. Although a few of these structures share a role as national orlocal symbols and have a character that has been recognised as particularly valuablefor a reasonably long time, others are primarily appreciated on a private level, asspecial occurrences in individual lives, and appreciated as memorable places. The

Correspondence Address: Grete Swensen, Senior researcher/PhD ethnology, Norwegian Institute for

Cultural Heritage Research, NIKU, Storgata 2, Postboks 736, Sentrum, NO – 0105 Oslo, Norway.

Email: grete.swensen@niku.no

� 201 Landscape Research Group Ltd

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.642346

Landscape Research, 2013Vol. 38, No. 2, 203–221,

selection and safeguarding of the first type of material structures are guided bydirectives stated in the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act (CHA) (http://www.regjer-ingen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/cultural-heritage-act.html?id¼173106) and carried out bythe authorities at national, county and local level. When it comes to the secondcategory of memorable places, they are to a larger extent products of personalaffiliations. Cultural heritage study is a wide and special field, but this paper narrowsit down to an analysis of how people relate to cultural heritage. The study is based onthe use of complementary methods to address the relationship between personal andofficial perspectives on cultural heritage values and their tangible and intangibleaspects. Results from interviews asking people to point to and describe places theyvalue in the area in which they live have been compared with results from a study ofthe official heritage plans in three selected towns, enabling nuances of the complexcharacter of heritage to be illumined.

Tangible and Intangible Heritage

Tangible heritage can be understood as ‘‘all traces after human activities in ourmaterial surroundings’’ ($ 2 in CHA), although in public discussions tangible culturalheritage is most often understood and referred to in the light of how the law ispractised and which assets are formally listed and protected. In the study we make useof the wider definition of cultural heritage, where it is the processes which take place todefine and demarcate the field in focus more than the objects per se in which we take aninterest.We base our analysis of the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural heritagein an understanding of ‘‘heritage as a cultural practice rather than simply as a site,place or intangible performance or event’’ (Smith & Akagawa, 2009, p. 6). Intangibleheritage became a generally acknowledged concept when the UNESCO ‘Conventionfor the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage’ was approved in 2003 (http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/convention/), where ‘‘the intangible’’ replaces theolder terms ‘‘traditional culture’’, ‘‘oral tradition’’ and ‘‘folklore’’ (Ruggles &Silverman, 2009, p. 9). The intangible aspects refer specifically to practices,representations, expressions, knowledge and skills and the cultural spaces in whichthese ‘living heritage’ traditions are played out (Arrunnapaporn, 2009). As has beenpointed out by several researchers, however, all cultural heritage has a proportion ofintangibility in its nature (Marmion et al., 2009) or, as expressed by Carman,‘‘Heritage is . . . a realm of ideas rather than a collection of things’’ (2009, p. 545). Thetangible can only be understood and interpreted through the intangible, and societyand values are thus intrinsically linked (Munjeri, 2004). Focusing on the intangible as aseparate issue has led to an unintended dualism: that of heritage being separated into‘tangible’ remains and the ‘intangible’ into meaning, values, memories and feelings. AsLaurajane Smith (2006) states, there is a decided tendency within the internationalclassification of heritage to define ‘heritage’ and ‘intangible heritage’ as two separatethings, on the one hand the instrumental, material artefacts or structures, and on theother hand the cultural values. This mirrors a situation where cultural heritage hadbeen linked to values which primarily profiled the physical attributes (Munjeri, 2004).We will discuss our results in the light of this dichotomy.

In discussions on how to handle local heritage values, local values or insider-nessare often mentioned as synonymous with intangible aspects and personal or

G. Swensen et al.204

individual values (Howard, 2007, cited in Jones et al., 2007). At the same time, expertknowledge is usually associated with material objects and the fact that experts havehad the power to define what to preserve and how to define the history of a place orcountry. Laurajane Smith (2006) has introduced the concept of the authorisedheritage discourse (AHD). Smith defines the AHD as a set of texts and practices thatdictate the ways in which heritage is defined and employed within any contemporaryWestern society. This is an important concept and of relevance in this study whichfocuses on personal versus official perspectives in cultural heritage management(Benton, 2010). Normally it is emphasised that locals have a different perspectivefrom that of experts, who are shaped by their academic discipline (Svensson, 2009).One difference is that insiders’ heritage is much more concerned with sites, activitiesand people than national or expert heritage management (Nora, 1989, cited in Joneset al., 2007). Others stress the importance of acknowledging local competencebecause it has the ability to enrich and improve the established expert knowledge(Syse, 2010). Svensson turns it the other way around when she argues that localsstrive for experts to be involved in their local heritage sites. Consequently they feelthat their heritage is taken seriously and valued by the experts (Svensson, 2009).These observations also relate to a landscape approach that says that alllandscapes are equally important, and speak of the historic landscape instead ofsingle heritage objects in a landscape (Howard, 2004). Fairclough and colleaguesclaim that what matters to someone is what is around them in their daily life, butthat many individuals’ historic landscapes are common features that will seldomappear on national or regional lists. Heritage values are therefore about definitionand how values are attributed rather than a matter of essential unquestionablevalues as such. They argue that the role of the experts is to find a good balancebetween handing down wisdom or helping people find ‘their’ heritage (Faircloughet al., 2008).

When cultural heritage plans like the ones that are described and analysed in thispaper are developed they are included in the formal planning system at municipallevel. It is primarily a responsibility placed at local level, although advice can besought from the Cultural Heritage Administration at county level. The NorwegianCultural Heritage Act (CHA) is the most important measure available to ensure thathistoric remnants remain. Only a fraction of cultural heritage assets are, however,protected through the CHA. To ensure protection of other important elements in thebuilt environment, other acts of legislation can be invoked, notably the Planning andBuilding Act (PBA), which is the main planning tool concerning the built environmentat the municipal level (The Planning and Building Act, http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/Act-of-27-June-2008-No-71-relating-to-Planning-and-the-Processing-of-Building-Applications-the-Planning-and-Building-Act-the-Planning-part.html?id¼570450).

All three towns examined in this study had made cultural heritage plans: Levangerin 1995 (Kommunedelplan kulturminner 1996–1999, Levanger kommune), Sarps-borg in 2005 (Kommunedelplan for kulturminner, Sarpsborg kommune 2005)and Svolvær in 2008 (regional plan for Lofoten) (Kulturminneplan for Lofoten). Inboth Levanger and Sarpsborg local heritage organisations had surveyed localheritage monuments and taken part in the planning process by participatingin meetings and reference groups. The reference groups made the selection of

Capturing the Intangible and Tangible Aspects of Heritage 205

cultural heritage monuments and environments to be included in the heritageplans.

What we would like to argue in this paper, supported by our results, is that localheritage values are not necessarily just intangible stories but are based on materialobjects or related to specific places. They are neither just personal nor individual, butrelated to common places important for a town’s identity and character.

We raise the following questions: what is the relationship between personal andofficial perspectives on cultural heritage values and tangible and intangible aspects ofthese? Is it best described as a relationship of opposition, exclusion or generalacceptance, or may it also in some cases and situations be intertwined with others?

2. Theoretical Approaches

People and Places

Place and landscape constitute an important frame for studying people’s relationshipwith cultural heritage. This is an underlying premise of our discussion of culturalheritage. Consequently, we pay attention to certain theorists’ views that have helped usin our interpretation of the results. We use the concept landscape as something that is‘‘produced and lived in an everyday, practical, very material and repetitivelyreaffirming sense’’ (Duncan & Duncan, 2004, p. 7). This is in accordance withDuncan and Duncan when they place emphasis on the way everyday embodiedpractices are embedded in a spatial context. In this way landscape is as muchconstituted by social practices as it is constitutive of them. ‘‘Landscape is importantbecause it really is everythingwe see when we go outside. But it is also everything we donot see’’ (Mitchell, 2008, p. 47). According to Mitchell, all cultural historic landscapesare the result of active intervention in the world, and are anchored in functional needs.Landscapes are not fully understood if they are merely studied in a local setting; theyshould be interpreted in relation to context, history, and power. Power and socialjustice relate to dimensions hidden in the landscape and are an important part of whatMitchell means when he states that landscape is also ‘‘everything we do not see’’(Mitchell, 2008, p. 47). According to him, landscape is ‘‘a way into a foundation for theexploration of all that there is—the social totality within which we live’’ (Mitchell,2008, p. 47). He also stresses that landscape studies should be centred round therelationship between material form and ideological representations.

The philosopher Martin Heidegger is often used as a starting point when the ideaof place is discussed as he presents a phenomenological perspective on places. Hestudies the relation between to be, to live and to build (Heidegger, 1975). We build tolive, but we already live by our building, is his standpoint. We are human beingsthrough our practice in places. ‘‘An individual is not distinct from his place, he isthat place’’, as Edward Relph holds (1976, p. 43). Relph makes another distinction interms of the inside and outside perspectives on places: from the outside one looksupon a place as a traveller might look upon a town from a distance: from the insideone experiences a place, is surrounded by it and is part of it. The inside–outsidedivision thus presents itself as a simple but basic dualism, one that is fundamental inour experiences of lived-space and one that provides the essence of place (Relph,1976).

Sensual Affiliation and Memory

Although the visual is known to play an important role in how people relate to theirsurroundings, we also know how sensual experiences such as smell, sound, touch ortaste influence the memories that people have of places or material structures (seeBachelard, 1994; Benjamin, 1950, 1992; Casey, 1987; Feld & Basso, 1996; Waskulet al., 2009). The study of senses has become a thematic field of growing interest tohistorians, sociologists, anthropologists, geographers and literary scholars, accord-ing to Howes (2006). ‘‘The emergence of the senses as a focus for cultural studies hascome at the end of a series of paradigm shifts or ‘turns’ in the social sciences andhumanities over the last forty years’’ (Howes, 2006, p. 114). We have foundinspiration in an article by Edensor based on an encounter he had with anabandoned industrial landscape, where he focuses on the multiple and contrastingsensual experiences that can be provoked by moving through an industrial ruin(Edensor, 2007) and we ask ourselves whether some of his reflections about thesentiments this landscape raises can be transferred to how people relate to heritageassets.

The importance of bodily attachment to place has been underlined by thephilosopher Edward Casey, and for him it is our bodily attachment to places ratherthan our intellectual and imaginational orientation which is central. Due to ourbodily affiliation to places, they become both a departure and a homecoming point.We make imprints on places, and places make imprints on us; our place experiencesare embodied. Casey calls those subjective place experiences ‘the geographical self’,which also means that we cannot imagine space before our bodies have experiencedplaces. ‘We are part of places’ is Casey’s message. This is an existential perspectivewhere not just our reflection and imagination are included, but our whole body(Casey, 2001).

In our study we are interested in different positions when defining andappreciating place values. Alfred Schutz (1964/1979) deals with the differentpositions a social researcher can choose to observe the world from; like the personin the street, the cartographer as the expert and the stranger. The person in the streetis the person living in a community or a group. He/she does not reflect much on his/her surroundings in his/her daily life: his/her acts are not the object of his thinking;they are taken for granted. The cartographer, or the expert, is interested in certainparts of the life of others, and observes chosen elements, making a map or a systemout of them, and he/she reflects about people in a community or a town. Thestranger is the person coming in from outside, trying to understand the practices andthe cultural codes and habits of the inhabitants. He/she does not share the insidehabits and understandings of the inhabitants. We will later illustrate how our studycombines all these positions (Swensen & Sæter, 2009; Swensen et al., 2010), and alsodiscuss if Schutz’s three positions can be applied in terms of the actors living andworking in the three towns: inhabitants, bureaucrats working with heritage politicsin the town, and people visiting the town, some of them knowing it from childhood.Others may be tourists, or experts from outside town who are making maps andplans for heritage conservation.

Schutz adds to the three positions described above the homecomer as an ideal type.To the homecomer, home shows—at least in the beginning—an unaccustomed face:

‘‘She believes herself to be in a strange country, a stranger among strangers, until thegoddess dissipates the veiling mist. The homecomer’s attitude differs from that of thestranger’’ (Schutz, 1964/1971, p. 106). The homecomer is not a stranger, but maybehave like one when defining what is missing after many years of absence. Theelement of strong childhood memory makes the homecomer miss old structures andartefacts, and may represent the nostalgic position in heritage discourses.

The personal narratives we have collected in this study can tell us something aboutpersonal belonging to places. Here we have seen how feelings and personal memoriesremind people about certain places and qualities of their home town whenconfronted with our question: what is your dearest heritage memory?

3. Methods

Interdisciplinary Approach

The project has a strong interdisciplinary profile and includes archaeology,ethnology, landscape architecture/planning and sociology. Interdisciplinary researchcan be defined as research cooperation that involves more than just a shared researchtopic because it also relies on varying degrees of synthesis or integration of methods,theories and concepts originating from different disciplines (Aagaard, 2003). Theresults presented in this paper are based on two different approaches developedwithin the project in order to study both tangible and intangible cultural heritage.The theoretical basis of the integrated approach is the idea of a dialectic relationshipbetween the physical and the experienced landscape. The individual and mentallandscape experience is therefore not created independently from the physicallandscape but is influenced by it (Ingold, 2000; Jacobs, 2002; Setten, 1999).

In order to assess the physical heritage an integration of visual and archaeologicallandscape analysis was developed and applied. Qualitative interviews were alsoapplied in order to assess local and intangible heritage values. In addition, we carriedout document studies within three different case studies related to cultural heritageplans. The different methods are presented below.

Case Studies

The research has been done as case studies, that is, close-up studies of three towns.Today, case studies are a commonly used methodology in various disciplines in thesocial sciences and the humanities, and involve the utilisation of a wide range ofdifferent data sources and analytical strategies (Curran & Perceman, 2006; Flyvbjerg,2006). The selected towns fulfil certain criteria. They are regional towns whichconsist of the old town municipality and some more recently incorporatedneighbouring rural municipalities; they have cultural heritage plans that aredeveloped with a certain degree of user participation; they are situated in differentcounties. Applying these criteria, we chose three urban areas in Norway as studysites: Sarpsborg, Levanger and Svolvær. They share some common features. Allthree are district centres of medium size and typical for their region. The older towncentre is surrounded by a belt with multifunctional landscapes, included dispersedfarm settlements. They are small in comparison to central European towns, although

they have a certain international transfer value. The different towns are presentedbelow, and we later discuss how the characters of the towns are related to people’spreferences and affiliations, and how these differ from one to another.

Sarpsborg is a town situated in Østfold fylke in south-east Norway. Sarpsborgwas founded in 1016, and the city is the third oldest in Norway. In 1992Sarpsborg was fused with the surrounding municipalities Skjeberg, Tune andVarteig. In 2005 the local authorities agreed on a cultural heritage plan. Localsurveys mainly executed by members of the local historical organisation haveplayed a role in the initial stage of the planning process. The main aim of the planwas to register, secure and communicate a selection of the cultural heritagemonuments in the municipality, as well as improve the knowledge andconsciousness about cultural heritage of citizens, administration and politicians.Sarpsborg also took part in the project ‘Municipality plans for cultural heritage’run by the Directorate for Cultural Heritage. Sarpsborg has a long history as anindustrial town, particularly because of its association with two companiesBorregaard and Hafslund, both established in the late nineteenth century.Borregaard has mainly produced pulp, paper and later chemicals while Hafslundis an important power company. The contemporary town is to a great extent aresult of industrial activity as the biggest rivers in Norway, the Sarpsfossen andGlomma, run through the city and thus have made extensive industrial activitypossible. Hafslund and Borregaard also represent an upper class with economicand political power in local society.

Levanger is a town situated in Nord-Trøndelag in the central part of Norway,north of Trondheim. In 1962 Levanger was merged with four neighbouringmunicipalities; Asen, Skogn, Ytterøy and Frol. They made a cultural heritage plan in1994/95. The landscape is varied, with coastal, forested and mountain areas.Levanger has been a trade city since the Iron Age with old trading routes to Swedenand has been a commercial centre in the region. The municipality has severalindustrial establishments, such as the paper industry. They also have several collegesfor different professional studies. The town is well known for its well-preservedwooden buildings. Its identity is very much linked to the surrounding farmland andforested areas. It is a small city in the countryside.

Svolvær is situated in the Vagan municipality in Lofoten in Nordland County innorthern Norway. Svolvær is a rather young town established in the nineteenthcentury, emerging as the third main town in the region after Kabelvag and Vagar,which are old commercial settlements dating from the age of the Vikings and theMiddle Ages respectively. The town and the region are well known for themagnificent wildlife, the mountains and the sea. The traditional industry was fishing,going back to the Middle Ages (The Lofoten Fisheries), and most of the culturalheritage is related to fishing. Tourism is now the dominant industry as the fisherieshave declined. The expansion of the town has taken place along the coastline, mostlyin the harbour. The area and the town are exposed to different kinds of industrialpressure which also threaten heritage areas and objects.

The first two towns had made their own cultural heritage plans; the third one wasincluded in a regional one. In all towns, local heritage organisations had surveyed thelocal heritage monuments and taken part in the planning process by participating inmeetings (Svolvær to a much lesser degree, however).

Studies of the Planning Process

In order to study the planning process, both document studies and interviewing werecarried out. The document studies primarily involved examination of three relevantcultural heritage plans in the three different towns.

The interviewing process included collecting some ‘city narratives’ (Franzen,1997). These involve different citizens belonging to an area, but also texts from thelocal media and from different texts, images and performances produced withreference to activities and events in the area. The method is inspired by semiotics andinvolves analysing how people describe and interpret symbols, traces, landscapes andbuildings in their surroundings.

The interviews were carried out with a selection of relevant agents. Focus groupinterviews with planners and cultural heritage managers were based on an interviewguide and were carried out as a semi-structured conversation that lastedapproximately 1.5 hours. The objective of these interviews was to gain an insightinto planning processes related to cultural heritage at a municipality level and therole public participation has played in these processes. Interviews with the local non-governmental groups (NGOs) were either performed as interviews with the NGOleader or as focus group interviews with a group consisting of representatives fromrelevant NGOs.

Analysis of Readability

The applied method for analysing the readability and cultural heritage sites andmonuments combined an archaeological landscape analysis with a landscapeaesthetic approach (Gansum et al., 1997; Jerpasen, 2009; Ode et al., 2008; Tveitet al., 2006). The archaeological landscape analysis evaluates the cultural heritageelements and environments, their condition and readability in a historical contextincluding an assessment of the spatial context of cultural monuments and sites.The archaeological readability is a measure of how easy or difficult it is to perceivethe connections between monuments and landscape, and will depend on vegetationand modern changes that have occurred in the form of buildings and othermodern constructions. Simultaneously, a visual assessment was performed,identifying key aspects of the visual landscape including perceived historicity.Historicity is used as an expression of the richness of historical elements andenvironments and historical continuity or time-depth in a landscape (Clark et al.,2004; Fairclough et al., 1999; Fairclough & Rippon, 2002). The framework appliedencompasses nine key concepts of landscape visual character: stewardship,naturalness, complexity, visual scale, historicity, imageability, disturbance,coherence and ephemera. In the field, all key aspects of the visual landscapewere assessed, to explore how perceived historicity relates to the other aspects ofthe visual landscape and particularly with regards to readability. The visualhistoricity analysis complements the archaeological analysis through addressingthe visual cultural heritage elements and contexts from a lay people’s perspective.A sample of the registered prehistoric monuments were located and their conditionassessed according to the archaeological landscape assessment and visualhistoricity assessments described above.

Capturing the Intangible Heritage

To reach the local inhabitants an interview method we named the ‘mall method’ wasapplied: people were approached in places where they found themselves as part oftheir daily routine and asked about the dimensions which influenced their views onthe local heritage assets they valued most.

The shopping malls that we chose for the data collection were located both in thecity centre (Sarpsborg) and in the outskirts of the town (Levanger, Svolvær). Theprocedure followed in the three towns was quite similar, and for three days weattended the stall from approximately 11.0 am to 1.0 pm and from 4.0 pm to 7.0 pm.As a first step and to establish communication with people visiting the mall, we useda selection of photos as a way of triggering reflection on ‘What does this mean tome?’. The photos included a wide range of places, consciously selected to present notjust ‘well recognised heritage values’ but also new buildings or artefacts from morerecent decades. People who showed interest in talking were asked to mark on themap which heritage objects they valued. We noted their comments on a blank sheetattached to the map. We sometimes helped people with their reflections by providingpossible examples (although we were careful not to steer their thoughts), andsometimes a short conversation with us was the beginning of a longer or shorter‘story of memory’. In total we obtained maps with examples and narratives from 37persons in Sarpsborg, 12 from Levanger and 41 in Svolvær. There was a roughlyequal gender division among our informants. The maps with notes worked out in co-operation between us and the informants are the most important data from this partof the study. When analysing them, we found that there are some common themesregarding what people value most (the method is discussed more fully in Swensen &Sæter, 2009; Swensen et al., 2010).

An important factor in our study of Levanger was the problem of applying amethod which was well suited to Sarpsborg and Svolvær, but turned out to be lesssuited to Levanger. In methodological terms we should talk of the importance ofbeing conscious of cultural contexts when applying different methods, as we learntthat there are some differences in communication culture between the towns.

4. Results

Through the different and complementary methodological approaches the researchteam was able to gain a comprehensive impression of intangible and tangible aspectsof cultural heritage in the three towns that were studied. The cultural heritageinterests identified through the mall method were compared with the findings in thereadability analysis and the analysis of the cultural heritage plans and processes. Anoverview of the categories of cultural heritage identified is shown in Table 1.

Voices from the Three Towns

Generally, people we talked to showed a high consciousness of the places theythemselves valued. To some extent this appreciation revolved around places thatpeople knew well and that played a role in their daily routines. In Sarpsborg we weretold the inhabitants were very proud of their working-class history, which is linked to

the town’s paper industry (one of the big industries in Norway). This was apparentlyvery different from a neighbouring town, where people were ashamed of theirindustrial history, and wanted to forget and hide it through heritage initiatives linkedto architecture, culture and aesthetics. Some people mentioned the main industrialbuilding in Town I, an old, beautiful and monumental administration buildingsurrounded by a beautiful park, and the headquarters of the most importantworkplace for many people living in the town. In this town, the heritage work has toa great extent been concerned with safeguarding the factory buildings and theworking-class housing, a workers’ garden, and other spaces linked to their industrialhistory. Some mentioned the park in the centre of the town, or the small industrial orresidential buildings in the old centre and market-place, whereas others pointed to anold church and the rock carvings just outside town, or the library building with itspeaceful atmosphere, and a stamp mill near the town centre. Several other objects,places and tracks were also mentioned.

The fact that people’s affiliations to a place are influenced by a series of complexfactors was fully illustrated by the stories we were told. We were presented withstories that underlined that subjective memories are strongly linked to sensualaffiliations, to smell (the smell from the factory reminding the storyteller of smokedham, the smell of fish from the fishing industry), sound (childhood memory from thestone-quarry close to where an interviewee grew up) and visual perception (the rolethat the old factory chimney played as a landmark, the mountains as the dominantskyline, the built-in seashore).

The results show that the great majority of cultural heritage identified through themall method is highly visible physical elements. Many of these elements wereidentified in the cultural heritage plans and had been assessed through the readabilityanalysis. The results from the mall method, however, also show that many peopleidentified non-visible aspects, such as sound, smell and memories of people andactivities, when asked about their most significant cultural heritage element. Manypeople also identified elements and places that have already been lost as their

Table 1. Tangible and intangible aspects in the surroundings.

Intangible Tangible

Recent Lost places and objects Meeting places MonumentsActivities and

social actionsPlaces Environments

Sounds Landmarks ElementsSmells Memorial monuments

(no: minnesmerker)Buildings

Traditions Symbols Natural elements andenvironments

Traditional forms ofproduction and trade

Materialised traditions

Memories about personsAncient Cultural elements and

environments automaticallyprotected by the NorwegianCultural Heritage Act

strongest associations in terms of cultural heritage. The memories of these places liveon despite being lost from the map and consequently from plans and presentationsof cultural heritage in the three towns.

Results from the Investigation of Heritage Plans and Planning Processes

The investigations of the cultural heritage plans and planning processes revealedsome interesting similarities and differences. The plans are different in theirformat, as Sarpsborg and Levanger have municipal plans, whereas Svolvær is partof a regional plan. The three plans all reflect the identities of their regions. Theplan from Sarpsborg has a strong industrial focus reflecting the elements andevents of importance for the development of the city. It includes mainly moderncultural heritage elements and environments linked to industry and the lives ofindustrial workers. The plan focused on cultural environments from historic times(after 1537), which were not already protected by law. The 12 most valuablecultural environments in their municipality were chosen for the heritage planreaching from manor farms to labour houses and technical remains from previousindustrial activity. The plan from Levanger is broad and lacking such a clearfocus as the plan for Sarpsborg. It is not very urban in its focus, reflecting historyas a rural commercial centre. The majority of the elements included are culturalelements and environments automatically protected by the Cultural Heritage Act(fornminner) and also plans for the management of these. Levanger had chosen tofocus on many different single monuments. It was thematically organised intogroups such as ‘prehistoric monuments’, ‘settlement and agriculture’, ‘industry’,‘communication’ and ‘defence’. Concrete actions were included to safeguard theconditions of the monuments for the future. The cultural heritage plan of Svolværwas part of a regional plan developed and decided upon by regional heritagemanagement in the county of Nordland. This implies that the heritagemonuments of national and regional value were most focused upon in the plan.Svolvær has strong roots in fisheries and coastal culture. This is reflected in theselection of elements and environments in the plan. It is also more narrative thanthe others.

The interviews with the municipal planners and heritage managers wereconcerned with the initial stages of the planning processes and the assessmentsinvolved in the preparatory work. In Sarpsborg, separate meetings were held withthe local heritage organisation. Open meetings for all inhabitants were also held.The responsible person had an overall knowledge in cultural heritage and goodinsight into the planning process. According to one informant, the mostimportant effect is increased awareness of cultural heritage in their localenvironments among people. The responsible planner in Levanger had first-handknowledge of the plan. The local heritage monuments in the plan to some extentoverlapped with the national registers, several of them were located in the forestedareas. The municipal planners in Svolvær took part in the dialogue with thecounty heritage management, but not all suggestions were included. When askedabout effects the regional cultural heritage plan for Lofoten will have for the townSvolvær, they answered that the plan was meant to give guidance in futureenvironmental planning.

Variations between the Three Towns

Table 2 shows the categories resulting from the analysis of the individual responsesfrom the mall method approach. As can be seen from the table, the results from thethree towns differ in their emphasis along the axes from intangible to tangible andfrom recent time to ancient time. In Svolvær, people put stronger emphasis on themore modern cultural heritage elements and environments, often including placesand traditions of current importance, for example, meeting-places, city squares,market-places and streetscapes. The explanation for this could be that the oldesttown centre is situated six kilometres outside the modern town centre, and extensivedevelopment focusing on tourist growth is taking place. In Sarpsborg and Levangerthe overlap between the cultural heritage elements and environments included in thecultural heritage plans was greater. Many of the elements and environments linkedto industry and commerce were identified both through the mall method andthrough inclusion in the plans. In these two towns, people included cultural elementsand environments automatically protected by the Cultural Heritage Act (fornminner)to a larger extent in their responses, which could be partly due to the effects from thecultural heritage plan. This seems to be particularly true for elements that werefound to be highly visible and readable in the readability analysis (Tveit & Jerpasen,2009). Very few of the elements and environments of low readability were mentionedby respondents in the mall method. It is, however, worth noting that some elementsthat were non-existent, that is, had already been lost, were mentioned.

In both Sarpsborg and Levanger the process of making the cultural heritage planshad involved local registrations carried out by local volunteers. These volunteerswere often members of local interest groups. The volunteers were provided withmethods for registration and evaluation of local heritage elements and environmentsand the material collected was extensive. In the process of developing the plan andselecting the elements and environments to be included, local registrations had beenneglected to a large extent. The material had been published in a separate database(Sarpsborg) or not at all (Levanger). The inclusion of local registrations in the finalplans was very limited. What became apparent through the analysis of the resultsfrom the mall method was that the local registrations did not overlap with either thecultural heritage emphasised in the plans or with the interests of lay people.

5. Discussion

Returning to the initial questions and the relationship between personal and officialperspectives on cultural heritage values, we now recall Alfred Schutz’s description ofthe different positions as the person in the street, the cartographer/expert, or thestranger, and ask how they affect definition and appreciation of place values. In thelight of the study results we start by discussing to what extent Schutz’s threepositions can also be applied in characterising the positions of actors living andworking in the three towns. Such actors are town inhabitants, bureaucrats workingwith heritage politics in the town, and former inhabitants visiting the town, some ofthem knowing it from childhood. Others may be tourists, or experts from outsidetown who are making maps and plans for heritage conservation. To what extent are

2.Variationsin

thetangible

andintangible

aspects

ofheritagein

thethreetowns.

YIntangible

Tangible

SVOLVÆR

Commerce

Citysquaresandmarket

places,

streetscapes

Elements

placesandobjects

orialmonuments

innesmerker

Environments

aboutpersons

Materialisedtraditions

Landmarks

Meetingplaces

SARPSBORG

SoundsandSmells

Meetingplaces

Monuments

Activitieslinked

toindustry

Places

Industrialenvironments

Festival

orialmonuments

innesmerker

environments,parks.water

aboutpersons

Symbols

Outdoorrecreationalactivities(urban)

Materialisedtraditions

Culturalelem

andenvironments

automaticallyprotected

egianCulturalHeritageAct

LEVANGER

Silence,therural(sounds)

Streetscapes,meetingplaces

Industrialheritageelem

andenvironments

placesandobjects

Naturalelem

environments

Buildings

Activities

Places

Elements

Monuments

Naturalelem

andenvironments

Culturalelem

andenvironments

automaticallyprotected

egianCulturalHeritageAct

their different positions mirrored in their attitudes to heritage, both tangible andintangible, and can these views be seen as complementary rather than opposing?

Many inhabitants have strong feelings linked to places and town landscapes. Byinterpreting the stories we were told it has been possible to bring into focus aspects ofthe relationship between human beings and places, where both the issue of everydaypractice and the role of memory are of special interest. Generally, people we talkedto showed a high consciousness of the places they themselves valued. To some extentthis appreciation revolved around places that people knew well and that played arole in their daily routines, whether it was places they passed through to and fromwork or school or visited for recreational purposes. The stories they shared with usare in accordance with the implications we find in works both by Heidegger (1975)and Casey (2001) who stress the important bond between practice and experiences ofplaces, sometimes unconscious and non-articulated, but also uttered in placenarratives of different kinds, like for instance the stories we were told at the mall.Schutz (1964/1971) also adds to the three positions shown above the homecomer asan ideal type, which in our case may be called the nostalgic position. The old town—at least in the beginning—shows an unaccustomed face to the homecomer. The joyof meeting old surroundings is mixed with a feeling of loss when old places havechanged. We met some homecomers in two of the towns. An engineer who had leftthe town in his early 20s was currently visiting for the purpose of selling his parents’house, where he had lived as a child. Both of his parents were now dead. The clearingof his family home before selling it evoked a lot of feelings, which he shared with us.Our conversation led to a discussion about childhood memories and places ofchildhood experiences. The feelings of this man can be interpreted as both those ofthe homecomer, who finds that everything has changed, and those of the stranger;the two roles are experienced simultaneously. He has both the distant perspectiveand the perspective of ‘the person in the street’, having a body and a biographylinked to the place.

We recognised some of the same patterns of response in Svolvær where thehomecomers were upset to see how their home town had been changed by tourism,now a flourishing industry, and the fact that the seafront was filled with newbuildings, which to them looked like artificial fishing cottages (rorbuer). The mostappreciated heritage object in Svolvær was the fringe area between sea and land. Inthis town, however, both the homecomer and the person in the street could agreeabout experiencing the loss of the sea, and this was one of the most common issuesraised at our stall. Lost places and objects were referred to as important heritageaspects in both Levanger and Svolvær (see Table 2).

In the stories we were told there are no clear boundaries between the tangible andintangible aspects. The transition (cross-over) between these two aspects of culturalheritage is evident. Not unexpectedly we have discovered that places stay more easilyin the memory when they have been personified via subjective experiences throughrecurrent visits than they otherwise would via, for instance, abstract learning. Theseobservations underline Casey’s (2001) considerations concerning the importance ofbodily attachments to place, and are also in accordance with Relph’s and laterresearchers’ works (Ingold, 2000) where they stress the intertwined relationship thatexists between beings and surroundings or, as Relph states, ‘‘An individual is notdistinct from his place, he is that place’’ (1976, p. 43). This partly explains why most

of the stories we were presented with evolved around places and cultural heritageassets of rather recent origin, whereas official cultural heritage management is legallyrequired to pay more attention to cultural heritage dating from before 1537(‘ancient’). Location of archaeological findings requires both special interest and atrained eye that most people do not have (Tveit & Jerpasen, 2009). As Mitchell(2008, p. 47) pointed out, ‘‘History does matter’’ for understanding culturallandscapes; representation of history in the landscape is not immanent in thelandscape itself, but rather a product of struggle over meaning.

Schutz’s third party, the cartographer/expert, is in this context represented by thebureaucrats working with heritage politics in the towns. One of the main aims of ourinvestigation of the planning process was to identify the role and significance thelocal cultural heritage plans have for the inhabitants and for the monuments. Localknowledge has definitely played a role in the initial stages of the planning processesin two of the towns presented in the paper, but the form and degree of involvementdiffer. In both Sarpsborg and Levanger the plans were results of pilot projects whereuser participation was emphasised as one of the important project goals. Whereasthe responsible parties in Levanger had organised local surveys as sub-projects underleadership of the NGOs, in Sarpsborg they had chosen to arrange separate meetingswith the local heritage groups as well as open meetings for all inhabitants. In theregional cultural heritage plan that includes Svolvær, user participation did notfeature. It was primarily based on data provided by the cultural heritage managersthemselves.

When examining how the local surveys were taken into account in the process ofmaking the heritage plans, we found that the cultural heritage managers did not fullysucceed in the case where the intentions had been strongest to involve and use thelocal surveys provided by the NGOs (Levanger). Even though local heritage groupshad been invited to take part in the planning process by performing their ownsurveys, very few of the local monuments these local groups registered wereincorporated in the heritage plans (see a broader discussion of the role of userparticipation in Swensen et al., 2010).

When analysing the stories people told us about valued places in the three towns,we have concluded that these places can be seen as supplements, not rivals, to theassets, monuments and memories stressed in the heritage plans. This is bound upwith the general public heritage discourses which take place today. In Sarpsborg andLevanger, museums and local history play a role; in Svolvær private collectors andthose with particular interest in ancient history are very active, and these agentsinfluence the local heritage discourses considerably. In the conversations at the mallwe found that many of the women, and a few men, were especially interested in localmuseums and local history work. People with such interests were particularly likelyto stop and show us what they were especially interested in. Some of them were veryinterested in making the heritage list complete, adding buildings or places that werenot mentioned. Suggestions for new heritage objects which ought to be added to themunicipal plan were often concerned with places of memory (old buildings, meeting-places like the park and small shops at street level). Events linked to childhood,youth and everyday life seem to prompt suggestions made by the people who livethere. This is partly because people interviewed at the mall were encouraged to thinkabout the places, buildings and artefacts which they themselves appreciated most.

There is no direct opposition between what people underline as particularlyvalued and the assets underlined in the towns’ plans as important for futuresafeguarding. It is rather a question of applying a different focus or initial position.The tendency Smith (2006) points to in the international classification of heritage,to define the tangible and the intangible as two separate phenomena, is notapparent in the way people relate to heritage in their familiar surroundings. Manystories can be read as a supplement to the cultural heritage plan by putting theplaces, landscapes and monuments in the context of personal perception andexperiences. The personal stories add flavour to a rather formal and register-oriented plan in Levanger and a more catalogue-oriented one in Sarpsborg.Because the plan that includes Svolvær primarily is a regional plan, very few assetsin the town are included. The few assets mentioned there also occur in some of thestories we were told, but there is a lack of context which only the personal storiescan provide. Therefore such material helps to illuminate to an outsider a fractionof the cultural landscape Mitchell (2008, p. 47) refers to when he talks about‘‘everything we do not see’’.

The Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD) to which Smith (2006) refers is nota discourse that exists as something permanent and fixed in time, althoughheritage management often meets criticism outside its own circles for beingoutdated in its approaches. Changes continuously occur in accordance withbroader societal changes, and more focus on inclusive aspects in heritagemanagement of the last decade is at least partly a result of globalisation andmigration. The character of the heritage plans mirrors this situation. Whereas theplan in Levanger from 1994/95 focuses on representativity, the plan fromSarpsborg from 2005 has a more inclusive form as it includes the cultural heritagefrom the working class, and the regional plan that includes Svolvær from 2008 hasa more narrative character.

More discussions about the intentions behind the cultural heritage plans could beof service. If it is merely to be used in municipal and regional land-use planning, aplan based on expert knowledge can be sufficient to fulfil its intention. If the plan ismeant to increase the general awareness and interest in place development and therole cultural heritage plays there, supplementary means of communication with thepublic are appropriate. The stories underline the importance physical structures holdas an anchor of subjective memories, and act as ‘‘props of recall’’ (Feuchtwang,2003, p. 76).

6. Conclusion

The study has shown that the distinction between the tangible and intangible isirrelevant to most people. We could ask whether it is primarily an academicconstruction, although it is important to stress the role the focus on intangibleheritage has played internationally in safeguarding oral traditions, festivals, etc. Inour study of the three towns we have found that it is the intangible aspects—thenarratives—that make cultural heritage real to people.

To bridge the gap that has unintentionally been constructed in the understandingof cultural heritage, additional methods for documentation of cultural heritage andtheir contexts have to be developed. Experiments with various forms of active user

participation could offer new additional approaches and create local engagementwith and awareness of the role cultural heritage can play. Social media have openedup to innovative methods by engaging inhabitants in participatory processes, makingit much easier to take both local and personal narratives into account.

Acknowledgement

The project ‘Local heritage values and cultural heritage plans in urban fringe areas’was funded by The Norwegian Research Council (2008–2010) and was carried outas a co-operation between researchers from the Norwegian Institute for CulturalHeritage Research, the Department of Landscape Architecture and SpatialPlanning, the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, and the Urban Programmeat Oslo University College. We thank the informants for kindly sharing theirknowledge with us. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpfulcomments.

References

Aagard, K. (2003) Forskningspolitik og tværdisciplinaritet. Rapport 2003/7, Analyseinstitut for

Forskning, Arhus.

Arrunnapaporn, A. B. (2009) Interpretation of intangible: Atrocity heritage of ‘Death Railway’ of the

River Kwai, in: S. Lira et al. (Eds) Sharing Cultures 2009. International Conference on Intangible

Heritage, pp. 149–156 (Barcelos, Portugal: Green Lines Institute).

Bachelard, G. (1994) The Poetics of Space (Boston, MA: Beacon Press).

Benjamin, W. (1950) Berliner Kindheit um Neunzehnhundert (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag).

Benjamin, W. (1992) Paris, 1800-talets huvudstad: passagearbetet. Bind 1 (Stockholm: Brutus Ostlings

bokforlag Symposion).

Benton, T. (2010) Understanding Heritage and Memory (Manchester: Manchester University Press).

Carman, J. (2009) ‘Castles in the Air’: The intangible of the tangible. in: S. Lira et al. (Eds), Sharing

Cultures 2009. International Conference on Intangible Heritage, pp. 543–548 (Barcelos, Portugal: Green

Lines Institute).

Casey, E. S. (1987) Remembering: A Phenomenological Study (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).

Casey, E. (2001) Body, self and landscape, in: P. Adams et al. (Eds) Textures of Place. Exploring Humanist

Geographies, pp. 403–425 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

Clark, J., Darlington, J. & Fairclough, G. (2004) Using historic landscape characterisation. English

Heritage and Lancashire County Council.

Curran, S. R. & Perceman, E. (Eds) (2006) The SAGE Handbook for Social Science Field Research. Essays

and Bibliographic Sources on Research Design and Methods (London: SAGE).

Duncan, J. S. & Duncan, N. G. (2004) Landscapes of Privilege. The Politics of the Aesthetic in an American

Suburb (New York and London: Routledge).

Edensor, T. (2007) Sensing the ruin, The Senses & Society, 2(2), pp. 217–232.

Fairclough, G. & Rippon, S. (Eds) (2002) Europe’s Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists and the

Management of Change (Exeter: Short Run Press Ltd).

Fairclough, G., Harrison, R., Schofield, J. & Jameson, J. H. (Eds) (2008) The Heritage Reader (London:

Routledge).

Fairclough, G., Lambrick, G. & Mcnab, A. (Eds) (1999) Yesterday’s World, Tomorrow’s Landscape. The

English Heritage Historic Landscape Project 1992–94 (London: English Heritage).

Feld, S. & Basso, K. H. (Eds) (1996) Senses of Place (Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research

Advanced Seminar Series).

Feuchtwang, S. (2003) Loss: Transmission, recognition, authorisations, in: S. Radstone & K. Hodgkin

(Eds) Regimes of Memory, pp. 76–90 (London: Routledge).

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) Five misunderstandings of case study research, Qualitative Inquiry, 12, pp. 219–245.

Franzen, M. (1997) City narratives: The peculiarities of Stockholm south side, in: O. Kalltorp et al. (Eds)

Cities in Transformation: Transformation in Cities. Social and Symbolic Change of Urban Space, pp. 184–

204 (Aldershot: Avebury).

Gansum, T., Jerpasen, G. B. & Keller, C. (1997) Arkeologisk landskapsanalyse med visuelle metoder.

AmS Varia 28, Arkeologisk Museum, Stavanger.

Heidegger, M. (1975) Poetry, Language, Thought (New York: Harper & Row).

Howard, P. (2004) Spatial planning for landscape: Mapping the pitfalls, Landscape Research, 29(4), pp.

423–434.

Howes, D. (2006) Chartering the sensorial revolution, The Senses & Society, 1(1), pp. 113–128.

Ingold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill (London:

Routledge).

Jacobs, J. (2002) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Random House).

Jerpasen, G. (2009) Application of visual archaeological landscape analysis: Some results. Norwegian

Archaeological Review, 42(2), pp. 123–145.

Jones, M., Howard, P., Olwig, K.R., Primdahl, J. & Sarlov-Herlin, I. (2007) Multiple interfaces of the

European Landscape Convention, Norwegian Journal of Geography, 61, pp. 207–216.

Kommunedelplan kulturminner 1996–1999, Levanger kommune, Kultur- og miljøetaten, juni

Kommunedelplan for kulturminner i Sarpsborg kommune 2005–2016 – nyere kulturminner. Utgitt av

Sarpsborg kommune 2005.

Kulturminneplan for Lofoten. Utvalgte nasjonalt og regionalt viktige kulturminner i Lofoten. Utgitt av

Nordland fylkeskommune 2008, Tapir Akademisk forlag, Trondheim.

Marmion, M., Wilkes, K. & Calver, S. (2009) Heritage? What do you mean by heritage?, in: S. Lira et al.

(Eds) Sharing Cultures 2009. International Conference on Intangible Heritage, pp. 575–584 (Barcelos,

Portugal: Green Lines Institute).

Mitchell, D. (2008) New axioms for reading the landscape: Paying attention to political economy and

social justice, in: J. L. Wescoat Jr & D. M. Johnston (Eds) Political Economics of Landscape Change.

Places of Integrative Power, pp. 29–50 (Dordrecht: Springer Science).

Munjeri, D. (2004) Tangible and intangible heritage: From difference to convergence, Museum 221–222,

56(1–2), pp. 12–20.

Ode, A., Tveit, M. & Fry, G. (2008) Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base

with landscape aesthetic theory, Landscape Research, 33, pp. 89–118.

Relph, E. (1976) Place and Placelessness (London: Pion).

Ruggles, D. F. & Silverman, H. (2009) From tangible to intangible heritage, in: H. Silverman & D. F.

Ruggles (Eds) Intangible Heritage Embodied, pp. 1–13 (New York: Springer).

Schutz, A. (1964/1971) The stranger: An essay in social psychology, in: Collected Papers II, Studies in

Social Theory, pp. 91–105 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff).

Setten, G. (1999) Den nye kulturgeografiens landskapsbegrep, Nordisk samhallsgeografisk tidsskrift, 29,

pp. 54–71.

Smith, L. (2006) Uses of Heritage (London: Routledge).

Smith, L. & Akagawa, N. (2009) Introduction, in: L. Smith & N. Akagawa (Eds) Intangible Heritage, pp.

1–9 (London and New York: Routledge).

Svensson, E. (2009) Consuming nature and producing heritage: Aspects on conservation, economical

growth and community participation in a forested, sparsely populated area in Sweden, International

Journal of Heritage Studies, 15(6), pp. 540–559.

Swensen, G. & Sæter, O. (2009) Multiple memories: Subjective dimensions in heritage appreciation, in: S.

Lira et al. (Eds) Sharing Cultures 2009. International Conference on Intangible Heritage, pp. 603–611

(Barcelos, Portugal: Green Lines Institute).

Swensen, G., Jerpasen, G. B., Sæter, O. & Sundli, M. S. (2010) Memory and monuments: Towards

integrated cultural heritage management in the urban fringe, in: G. J. Casjens (Ed.) Landscape Legacy.

Landscape Architecture and Planning between Art and Science, pp. 162–163 (CD-ROM, track 152,

Maastricht, The Netherlands).

Syse, K. V. L. (2010) Expert systems, local knowledge and power in Argyll, Scotland, Landscape Research,

35(4), pp. 469–485.

Tveit, M., Ode, A. & Fry, G. (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character,

Landscape Research, 31, pp. 229–256.

Tveit, M. S. & Jerpasen, G. (2009) Visual and archaeological landscape analysis in the urban fringe, in: A.

Ghersi & F. Mazzino (Eds) Landscape and Ruins. Planning and Design for the Degeneration of Derelict

Places. Proceedings from ECLAS Conference 2009 (Genoa: University of Genoa, Faculty of

Architecture).

UNESCO (2003) The Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, available at:

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/convention/ (accessed 3 September 2011).

Waskul, D. D., Vannini, P. & Wilson, J. (2009) The aroma of recollection: Olfaction, nostalgia, and the

shaping of the sensuous self, The Senses and Society, 4(1), pp. 5–22.

capturing the intangible and tangible aspects of heritage: personal versus official perspectives in...

Documents

tangible heritage

reading the intangible heritage in tangible akanart

mapping of the tangible and intangible heritage of tabaco

intangible heritage and its management. intangible heritage...

relink tangible and intangible - syracuse university

prosiding seminar heritage tangible intangible

forthcoming in museum frictions: public cultures/global...

bridging intangible and tangible heritage through music at

visualising intangible cultural heritage · protecting it...

patrimonio natural,cultural,tangible+e+intangible..ppt

heritage & cultural impact...

from intangible to tangible

menghitung tangible dan intangible

tangible and intangible heritage of cities - problems and...

on intangible and tangible heritage: human beings, objects,...

cultural routes based on intangible heritage · council of...

the role of intangible cultural heritage in ... · the...

intangible heritage

patrimonio cultural tangible e intangible [gusman, jorge]

digitizing cultural heritage -...