Conclusion
The cases discussed indicate that several partly conflicting motives
for preservation seem to operate at the same time or at least
overlap over time in the same location. Economic arguments, such
as those related to the cultural economy and commodification of
heritage, have typically been added at a later phase, after, for instance,
a period of activity in terms of the preservation movement
and public intervention through a conservation plan. There are also
contingencies involved, for instance particular events at a particular
place, and involvement of both national actors and national discourses
with ‘trickle-down’ effects to the local community.
Strong civil societies supported by professionals have been
powerful actors in the development and institutionalisation of
the management regimes. Voluntary and civil actors in governance
arrangements seem to play a distinctive role, partly as a ‘watchdog’
and partly as a ‘local expert’, as many of the participants were quite
competent in terms of heritage issues. Given that a formally approved
preservation policy exists through a preservation plan,
these groups play important roles in implementing the regulations.
Without these groups, rules and regulations would have been more
difficult to translate and understand by those affected. Their
importance can be extended even beyond these practices. Any governance
arrangement has to be legitimised. By making rules and
regulations acceptable through their presence, counselling, and debate,
they contributed strongly to legitimising the regulations for
the inhabitants. The success of these collaborative arrangements
fits in with and supports the conservation strategy ‘conservation
through use’ which was broadly promoted in the 1970s.
The rise of the cultural economy provides a partial explanation
of the new interest in these heritage districts today, but it cannot
explain either how the initiative to preserve the areas came about
or how the models of governance were developed over many years
to support and maintain the area. As illustrated in this paper, we
need to pay attention to local actors and actions in order to complement
our knowledge of cultural economy and its role in heritage
preservation.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the editor and two anonymous referees
for detailed and in-depth comments and suggestions for improving
the paper. We also thank Arvid Viken for useful comments on a
previous version of the paper.