| dc.description.abstract | The title of this monograph is in Norwegian: "Kulturminnevern, skjønn og forutsigbarhet". Translated into English it could be "Cultural heritage protection, valuation and predictability". Especially the notion "skjønn" could also be translated to English in different ways, for instance we can use the words appraisal and estimate dependent on the circumstances.
The goal of this work has been to establish better knowledge about the selection of valuable cultural heritage objects in planning processes.
Three cases were examined. The object of the investigations was to unveil how the selection of cultural heritage objects is done. Who is really doing the selection, and what are the premises for the selection? Three different area-planning processes in Mid-Norway were selected. The main reason why these specific processes were chosen is my knowledge of regional affairs from working as a cultural heritage officer in the regional governmental administration. This knowledge of local conditions, heritage and history in the region would enable me to discover and study the consequences for the heritage when premises are changing during the planning process. The general lack of funding and staffing resources for the cultural heritage management is not of concern in the present study, and it is only touched upon when it is obvious that this is has a significant impact on the findings.
The methodological basis for the research work is the phronetic model of social science (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Initially, the three planning stories are told from the perspective of the regional and local administration of cultural heritage.
Further, the following research questions were posed:
- How can the cultural heritage administration make their appraisal more predictable and transparent?
- How are the cultural heritage objects appraised and selected for protection during the planning process?
- What are the premises for the results? Are there any common denominators for selection and protection?
The approach to these questions hinges on the understanding of value and by process studies. The focus is on the selection of cultural heritage that is not automatically protected by the Act of Cultural heritage (post-Reformation heritage).
Definitions and discussions of the notions cultural heritage, redictability and valuation provide the general frame for this study. The definition of "cultural heritage" follows the one given in the Cultural Heritage Act (Kulturminneloven) while "predictability" is discussed in the frames of the Public Administration Act (Forvaltningsloven). The notion "appraisal" or "valuation" (No. skjønn), however, is also approached by more philosophical means; nevertheless, it is connected to the question raised by the criteria for selection of protectable heritage in the Cultural Heritage Act. The understanding of the planning processes is based on the definition of the phenomena, for example the people involved in the process; the physical structures in the area; and cultural structures, such as written regulations and traditions needed in the process. These phenomena are regarded as resources that at the same time offer possibilities and limitations in the process of analysis.
The method of phronetic social science is demanding, as we need to lay out all the details and nuances in order to uncover the power relations involved in the processes. However, the main issue here is not power in itself, it is the dynamics that control the selection of heritage objects that should have public interest and protection, and the premises for predictability.
The three cases studied are situated in Mid-Norway, two of them in the unicipality of Røros and one in the municipality of Hitra. Both municipalities are average in size with regard to population.
Among the premises for the selection of cases was the criterion that the case should involve planning processes that in some way or another had to consider cultural heritage sites. Either this would be the aim of the planning process, or it ought to be the aim of the process. In Hitra, the case was the general development plan (kommunedelplan) of Dolmsundet and development of the cultural heritage. The cases in Røros involved the general development plan for the municipality center and the landscape and a local development plan (reguleringsplan) in the town center. Røros mining town is a World Heritage Site, and therefore cultural heritage should be a concern in all planning processes.
The investigation asks the following questions:
- What was the purpose of the plan?
- Were there any known and defined cultural heritage objects before the planning processes started?
- Who took part in the planning processes? What were the relations between the participants / parties?
- Description of the processes. What was the relationship between the frames and conditions set by society and the different roles and power relations?
- Valuation of the cultural heritage in the process. Are there any relations between the known objects and the selected objects in the end of the process? Are there any relation between the cultural heritage objects and the rest of the plan? Are there any relations between the criteria and valuation of the cultural heritage notion used in the Cultural Heritage Act and the notions used in describing the selection during the planning process?
-What was the media coverage in the different media during and after the planning processes? To which degree did the aim of transparency and evaluation of the process succeed?
The investigation concludes that the valuation of cultural heritage does not necessarily give "wrong" results, but it is not possible achieve a proper evaluation of the results. It does seem that it is possible to reflect and give an analysis of the valuation afterwards, but this was not the case in any of the studied cases. This way of working does not give much influence for other actors during the process, but it may support the evaluation process and lead to a higher degree of transparency in the process. This practice may contribute to greater predictability in planning processes. In the studied cases, professional appraisal on site happened late in the process, and the cultural heritage professionals were only brought in because of conflict. Therefore, the valuation of special properties and qualities may seem to be limited to whatever is known beforehand and to what is found in local history material. In our cases, the cultural heritage was not selected by the cultural heritage management alone, a combination of different management and professional interests were involved in the process. Therefore, the selections were not based on professional criteria alone; choices were made in order to avoid conflict. In other words, the selection criteria used did not have a strictly professional basis, nor was the selection based on the professional appraisal. The cultural heritage administration constitutes a power in the planning processes, but it is not strong enough to control the definition of reality or to decide priorities, not even when cultural heritage is supposed to be the main focus of planning. Nevertheless, the cultural heritage administration defines the actual and relevant knowledge about cultural heritage. The Cultural Heritage Act is a power factor when it comes to disagreements concerning automatically protected heritage, but it has less influence on the destiny to the other heritage.
The legislation in the Planning and Building Act, supported by the Cultural Heritage Act, discriminates the cultural heritage after reformation in the sense that all formal timelimits are expecting that all heritage is known and valuated.
Conclusion
The cultural heritage administration has limited power related to other actors involved in planning. There is a need for rational arguments to back the conclusions of the appraisal work done by the cultural heritage administration. The actual appraisal process should be more transparent. This may lead to increased popular interest and understanding for the protection of cultural heritage objects. It is necessary to use terminology and language that are accessible to the general public. The appraisal should follow democratic principles, and decisions should be made based on a set of rational and well-defined rules. Transparency in planning can be achieved by ensuring broad participation in the planning process, involving many actors in the decision-making. The participants will then have a corrective function, and the appraisal process will then have a more democratic basis.
However, it is important to note that transparency does not necessarily lead to increased predictability. To establish a higher degree on predictability, it will be necessary to establish routines for defining criteria, reflection and arguments for the selection of cultural heritage for protection. The will to transparency also depends on the power relations in the planning processes. Private actors increasingly control the processes and public administration, bound by rules laid down in the legislation, has less influence on the choices made in the process. Ensuring transparency can be time and cost consuming, and private actors may find this goal an extravagance. Nevertheless, it should be a goal for democracy that decisions that influence on our environment are made in forums where the general public have some influence.
The cases discussed in the thesis are examples of typical Norwegian planning situations, which have a lot in common with the processes found in the other Scandinavian countries. Thus the case discussions will be of special relevance for the Scandinavian context, and as the thesis is written in Norwegian, it will be accessible to everyone with knowledge of one of the Scandinavian languages. | nb_NO |
