Built heritage management systems: Australia and Germany compared (Phase 2)

This current study (Phase II with approved BUHREC Ethics Protocol # LA03356) builds on a recent preliminary stage of enquiry (Phase I) that was completed in 2019 and supported by 2019 FSD Research Funding Cat. 2. Phase I (comprehensive literature review) elicited four overarching principal themes listed below which international heritage practitioners, in Australia and Germany, identified as influencing well-informed decision-making and, ultimately, better conservation outcomes for BHM.

1. Regulatory and decision-making processes in BHM
2. ESG values in heritage assessment standards
3. Private property and heritage conservation incentives
4. Digitisation and built heritage conservation

This research is seeking empirical validation of those findings to support the process of refining and defining the analytical approach known as Cultural Heritage Discourse (CHD), developed by Amar & Armitage (2019).

Significance
Theory: Our empirical study is pioneer amongst emerging in-country comparative research which emphasises an understanding and comparison of diverse stakeholder perceptions, impacting sustainable BHM outcomes in Australia and Germany.
Policy: Heritage decision- and policy-makers endeavour to induce stakeholders – private, community and public sectors – to sustainably use built heritage and employ non-detrimental practices to ensure authenticity and integrity of heritage values.
Practice: As built heritage policymakers seek to align activities of various tiers of government, in-country comparison is increasingly seen as an opportunity to identify, empirically, successful systems adaptive to local needs - particularly in regarding the sustainable implementation of BHM plans for improved professional practice outcomes.
Community: To provide clarity for understanding cross-sector relationships underlining BHM theory, policy and practice, ensuring the authenticity and integrity of heritage values are safeguarded.