Built heritage management systems: Australia and Germany compared

Johari, H.N. Amar*, Lynne Armitage, Daniel O'Hare, Matthew Moorhead

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review


A recent, unreported, focus group of international heritage practitioners from
academia, urban planning, land use management and urban design, found
interesting similarities and differences between Australian and German cultural
built heritage (CBH) management systems. For validation, a literature review
provided a methodological framework and is reported in this paper. Its objective
is to confirm the principal themes elicited by the initial work, being: assessment
standards, transferable development rights, heritage conservation incentives
and private property rights’ management thereby contributing enhanced clarity
to the broader relationship between built heritage and stakeholder roles in
heritage conservation. This paper is a precursor of more detailed planned
empirical, in-country study seeking further insights into stakeholder interests
and value systems based on a recent developed analytical approach known as
Cultural Heritage Discourse (CHD). It is recognised that this empirical component
is a limiting feature of the current research but anticipated as inevitable due to
the preliminary stage of enquiry
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-25
JournalAthens Journal of Tourism
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 16 May 2023


Dive into the research topics of 'Built heritage management systems: Australia and Germany compared'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this