Interacting future visions and decisions in World Heritage management and spatial planning by Roland Láposi

Interacting future visions and decisions in World Heritage management and spatial planning: a case study of the Antonine Wall World Heritage Roland Lรกposi Enrolment number: H00143350 Year of graduation: 2020 Supervisor: Professor Ullrich Kockel

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSc at Heriot-Watt University

Front cover: #antoninewall (2020) adapted from

Instagram

Abstract Through the case study of Antonine Wall, this Covid-19 adjusted exploratory research attempts to draw light upon how interacting future visions in world heritage management and local level spatial planning influence each other and the development decisions in planning and heritage. The main goal was to understand ‘how’ and ‘why’ interactions between different actors and stakeholders shape the scene. By using the perspectives of a heritage student, a community member and a planner, it went beyond the rhetoric of strategies, policies and guidelines. For politicians, World Heritage may mainly mean economic success, for planners it is about the act of balancing competing interests in the built and natural environment, while for the public it is about connecting to their heritage and gaining benefits for the society. For the coordinators of World Heritage sites, the main objective is the effective protection ‘for present and future generations’ (UNESCO, 2019b, paragraph 109.). Within World Heritage, there are large, complex serial transnational designations such as the Frontiers of the Roman Empire, which are representing unique cases as their elements stretch over long distances, cross over local administrative boundaries, touch many different landscapes and distinctive built up areas, belonging to multiple communities and operating within various legal frameworks. The research explored the stakeholder ecology of the Antonine Wall in Scotland, to understand the relationships and connections shaping the future visions. It found that trust and cooperation; meaning, awareness and engagement; OUV and place identity as well as benefits, drives and funding are the key themes influencing most the fate of the Antonine Wall WHS. Review of relevant literature showed how the process of giving meaning to a heritage place works through memory and heritage, identity construction, place and belonging and leads to ownership. It revealed that giving meaning lays foundation to narratives, that connects to people. The qualitative research included interviews with stakeholders about their experiences, motivations and considerations in heritage development decisions and a non-participant, ethnographic observation to capture what users experienced at the Antonine Wall posted on YouTube. The research outlines recommendations for nominated FRE sites and identifies potential areas of further research.

Acknowledgements Writing of this dissertation was a major endeavour for me. It helped me to gain insight in the complexity of the world heritage management as well as to understand better how people can perceive and value and relate to cultural heritage differently. I am especially grateful to my dissertation supervisor professor Ullrich Kockel, to get me through difficult choices and always being ‘online’ when needed. People working with world heritage sites in various locations across Europe: Patricia Weeks, Rebecca Jones and Barbara Cummins in Scotland, and Zsolt Visy, Árpád Kolozsváry-Kiss, Mátyás Hübner and Éva Szabó in Hungary have all been invaluable sources of knowledge. No question was wrong for them and they have shown an amazing kindness when lent their support and led me further in my research. I used all my knowledge gathered during the course of the MSc in Cultural Heritage Management with Tourism, for which Máiréad Nic Craith, Ian Baxter, Babak Taheri, Chiara Cocco and Marc Romano in particular are due to have my gratitude. We had an awesome creative and challenging environment, and the best classmates – Catriona, Emma, Hanna, Julia, Laura and Katerina - I ever had. I am grateful to my loving family for supporting my “Indiana Jones-ing” through the time of Covid-19 pandemic and arranged their life around my studies. Angela, Dorka, Anyu and Gyuri, Erzsike ‘nagyi’ turned around everything in order to help me. Without them, I never could have done it.

Abbreviations CVI: Climate Vulnerability Index FRE: Frontiers of the Roman Empire transnational World Heritage HES: Historic Environment Scotland LA: Local Authority LDP: Local Development Plan LG: Local Government LPP: Local Place Plan NPF: National Planning Framework (Scotland) OUV: Outstanding Universal Value SDG: Sustainable Development Goals SDP: Strategic Development Plan SPG: Supplementary Planning Guidance SPP: Scottish Planning Policy WHC: World Heritage Committee WH:UK: World Heritage United Kingdom WHS: World Heritage Site

Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 3 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 4 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 9 2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Setting the context ........................................................................................................ 13 2.2 World Heritage perspective .......................................................................................... 13 2.3 Community perspective ................................................................................................ 16 2.4 Planner’s perspective .................................................................................................... 20 2.5 Concluding thoughts...................................................................................................... 26 3. Research Methodology ....................................................................................................... 28 3.1 Research philosophy...................................................................................................... 28 3.2 Research Design – Data collection methods ................................................................. 29 3.3 Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 31 3.4 From field observations to netnography ....................................................................... 33 3.5 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 34 3.6 Ethical considerations.................................................................................................... 34 3.7 Reflexivity ...................................................................................................................... 35 4. Findings ................................................................................................................................ 36 4.1 Interview sampling and characteristics ......................................................................... 36 4.2 Stakeholder complexity of the Antonine Wall .............................................................. 36 4.3 World Heritage and communities ................................................................................. 39 4.4 Understanding World Heritage: OUV ............................................................................ 44 4.5 Planning the future ........................................................................................................ 46 4.6 Sustainable futures beyond World Heritage ................................................................. 49 4.7 Concluding thoughts...................................................................................................... 50 5. An unconventional field ethnography ............................................................................... 51 5.1 Purposes and uses: heritage and non-heritage interests .............................................. 51 5.2 Points of interests: experience binding us together ..................................................... 53 6. Discussions ........................................................................................................................... 55 6.1 Tying up the threads ...................................................................................................... 55 6.2 Sustainable Future for the Antonine Wall ..................................................................... 56 7 – Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 59 7.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 59

7.2 Practical recommendations ........................................................................................... 59 7.3 Limitations and future research .................................................................................... 60 References ............................................................................................................................... 61 Appendix 1: Interviews ............................................................................................................ 71 Appendix 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; YouTube vlogs.................................................................................................... 75

List of Figures Figure 1 Amendments of the draft decision of the FRE extension nomination. Source: (UNESCO, 2019a) .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2 Frontiers of the Roman Empire. Source: Adapted from Hingley (2018) .................................... 10 Figure 3 The hypothetical structure of World Heritage governance in the UK connecting the 'local' to the 'international'. Source:(World Heritage UK, 2019, p. 61) ................................................................. 11 Figure 4 Home and public identities. Source: (Kockel et al., 2019, p. 6 figure 1.1 ) ............................... 18 Figure 5 Capturing identity through a community map of places, stories and performed activities via social media. Source: The Antonine Wall (2020), Twitter ....................................................................... 19 Figure 6 Principles of sustainability as used in planning documents reviewed by Phillips. Source: (Phillips, 2019, p. 347, Figure 1) ............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 7 Scottish National Performance Framework and the SDGs. Source: (Scottish Government, 2020b)..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 8 - Governance Model for the Antonine Wall world heritage site. Source: (Historic Scotland, 2013)....................................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 9 The Antonine Wall in Scotland. Adapted from: (Historic Scotland, nd-a) ................................. 36 Figure 10 The buffer zone of the Antonine Wall and the council areas. The Wall crosses urban areas and countryside. Adapted from: (Historic Scotland, nd-a) ..................................................................... 37 Figure 11 Governance model for the Wall and the 5 delivery groups responsible for implementing the Management Plan. Adapted from: (Historic Scotland, 2013) ................................................................. 37 Figure 12 Interpretative panel at Bar Hill, all vlogs with heritage interests placed emphasis to show them, often in details by hovering the cameras over them. Older, 'Historic Scotland' plaques with dense texts and without visual imagery where barely recorded. Source: Appendix 2, no 3. .................. 52 Figure 13 Drone flying through hoop gate at the Antonine Wall. Source: Appendix 2, no 14. ............... 52 Figure 14 Streetscaping in Kirkintilloch; panoramic view from Bar Hill. Source: (Appendix 2, no 1. And 15) ........................................................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 15 Wetland scenery at Bonnybridge. Source: Appendix 2, no 16. ............................................... 53

List of Photos Photo: 1 Legio Amphitheatre of Aquincum in Budapest (Hungary). Belonging to the Roman city of Aquincum it is included into the nominated FRE extension. Loved by dog walkers, sun bathers, kids playing gladiators and recently by many during the coronavirus lockdown. Own photo. ..................... 13 Photo: 2 Children's design and a completed playpark at Callendar House Falkirk in 2019: Source: (Weeks, 2020, p. 459) ............................................................................................................................. 25 Photo: 3 Identity and heritage as expressed via pop-up art installations idea during a local community planning exercise. Mining heritage and the natural landscape were both important elements captured through the Fauldhouse Focus Charrette project. Source: (PAS, 2016, p. 100) ...................................... 27 Photo: 4 Sociotope mapping in an urban park in Gothenburg (Sweden). Source: Dempsey, Smith and Burton (2014, p. 108) .............................................................................................................................. 34 Photo: 5 #antoninewall examples from Instagram. See the comment on the right side: ‘Gentle reminder for us all as we come out of lockdown…’, a message left for other people visiting the Antonine Wall as refuge in times of Covid-19. Source:(#antoninewall, 2020) ....................................... 54

1. Introduction This dissertation was sparked by a local urban development decision (Government of Hungary, 2019) concerning a part of the nominated transnational extension of the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (WHC, 2019) and changing the nomination process from inscription to referral (Figure 1). It also raised the question of what a designation means for various actors of a local society, when they are thinking about its future use.

Figure 1 Amendments of the draft decision of the FRE extension nomination. Source: (UNESCO, 2019a)

World Heritage designation can be a ‘blessing or a burden’ (Caust and Vecco, 2017), but various actors are measuring it differently. For politicians, it may mean mainly economic success, for planners it is about the act of balancing competing interests in the built and natural environment, for the public is about connecting to their heritage and gaining benefits for the society. For the coordinators of World Heritage sites, the main objective is the effective protection ‘for present and future generations’ (UNESCO, 2019b, paragraph 109.). They care about the ‘physical fabric’ of the properties, deal with ‘boundaries’, ‘buffer zones’ and ‘settings’, engage through ‘preferable participatory means’ and contribute to the ‘environmental and cultural sustainability’ (ibid, paragraph 89,108,119).

To achieve it, management may incorporate and actively use formal and informal tools, such as ‘urban and regional planning instruments and other planning mechanisms’, while engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, local communities and indigenous people’ in the socio-ecological context (ibid.,paragraph 110-111.). It also means, that many communities, municipalities and local authorities are involved, whom may have different planning systems and decision-making processes. Within World Heritage, there are ‘large, complex serial transnational’ designations (WHC, 2017) such as the FRE, representing unique cases as their elements stretch over long distances, cross over local administrative boundaries, touch many different landscapes and distinctive built up areas, belonging to multiple communities and operating within various legal frameworks (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Frontiers of the Roman Empire. Source: Adapted from Hingley (2018)

The complexity is apparent, when looking at the case (Figure 3) of the United Kingdom (the State Party with UNESCO), that even though the Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall are in the same state, ‘local plans, prepared by local authorities, are in the national policy context set by central Government and the devolved nations’ (World Heritage UK, 2019, p. 65). 10

Figure 3 The hypothetical structure of World Heritage governance in the UK connecting the 'local' to the 'international'. Source:(World Heritage UK, 2019, p. 61)

Similar FRE related issues are represented in various documents, such as the Management-Plan 2019-2023 of the Upper German-Raetian Limes (Deutsche Limeskommission, 2019, pp. 34-46) or the Position Statement on Planning and World Heritage addressing many issues on all scale and level of the planning systems of the UK (World Heritage UK, 2018).

In addition, there are other considerations, other visions on the role of World Heritage designations going beyond the core remits of preservation. Sites can play part in delivering Sustainable Development Goals (UK National Commission for UNESCO, 2020, p. 168) as well as offering accessible open, large scale green spaces for the improvement of well-being and mental health of the public, which in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic became desperately needed. They can be seen by the currently nominating countries as part of the common European heritage along the Danube, connecting different nations across time and space. In a post-Brexit world, they may contribute significantly to wider UK agendas, such as the development of UK tourism or be exploited as major assets for the UKâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s soft power capacity as well as raising its international standing (World Heritage UK, 2019, p. 180). This dissertation explores issues, experiences and potential lessons between World Heritage and spatial planning, by using the case study of the Antonine Wall in Scotland. The literature review in chapter 2 engages with aspects and perspectives of World Heritage and FRE sites, to draw on the fieldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s knowledge and to identify key themes. Chapter 3 introduces the research methodology, aim and design. Chapter 4 summarise and analyses interviews, while Chapter 5 takes to an unconventional ethnographic journey. Chapter 6 discusses findings and Chapter 7 draws conclusions and outlines practical recommendations.

2. Literature Review â&#x20AC;&#x153;What have the Romans ever done for us?â&#x20AC;? (Monty Python: Life of Brian)

Photo: 1 Legio Amphitheatre of Aquincum in Budapest (Hungary). Belonging to the Roman city of Aquincum it is included into the nominated FRE extension. Loved by dog walkers, sun bathers, kids playing gladiators and recently by many during the coronavirus lockdown. Own photo.

2.1 Setting the context World Heritage does not exist in isolation, all WHS are a part of a wider set of national heritage, urban and rural planning, and development frameworks as well as community representation. Therefore, by connecting parallel and intertwined threads, the review is arranged around different perspectives of the heritage professionals, community members and planners on areas and debates around World Heritage and development. Each subsection is framed by a narrative, based own my personal experiences as cultural heritage student, a person belonging to local community of a world heritage site nomination (Photo 1) and a planner. The narrative helps focusing the review within the wide range of available interdisciplinary literature through the lens of FRE.

2.2 World Heritage perspective When walking along the remains of the Legio Amphitheatre in Budapest, a short distance from home, I think about history, conservation, meaning and interpretation. I see the pressure of urbanisation in form of encroaching buildings and the lack of effective interpretation through which someone could engage with the heritage. During 13

Covid-19, the use of the site changed rapidly, more people with more time to look for clues and information becoming interested in the place as heritage. Just as the issue of ‘what the Romans have done for us’ can be looked at and valued differently – they literally left the Antonine Wall, for example - it is possible to perceive, value and use heritage, including world heritage in many ways. The World Heritage program attracted the attention of many scholars, including ‘ethnographers archaeologists, economist, political scientist and legal scholars’ (Meskell and Brumann, 2015, p. 6) immersing themselves in many different aspects, such as governance, administration, community engagement and credibility, politics of culture and rights, cultural economics and tourism amongst others. World Heritage studies went a long way since the creation of UNESCO and the adoption of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972 (UNESCO, 2005b, p. 9). The Convention outlined what ‘cultural heritage’ is by listing monuments, groups of building and sites with ‘outstanding universal value’ (ibid., p. 10, Article 1). In Article 5 it also pointed out that each State Party should give a function of cultural and natural heritage in the life of the community and integrate protection into comprehensive planning programmes. In the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (ibid, , p. 32) the Committee reinforced the previous requirements and provided a more detailed definition of World Heritage and Outstanding Universal Value as well as a set of criteria for assessing of OUV. In the case of serial properties, such as the FRE world heritage sites, the Guidelines required ‘…a management system or mechanisms for ensuring the co-ordinated management of the separate components.’. As Meskell (2015) remarked, the field became so complex, politicised and indeed global, that heritage research has to consider collaborations and communities as well as dealing with the issue of development. Bureaucracy, lack of data and metrics, external economic forces as well as local politics and interests may often have an impact on how the presence of a WHS influences the everyday life and future of communities. (Labadi and Gould, 2015). Meskell’s (2015) interdisciplinary approach: ‘institutions, politics and economics’ set one way to gain understanding of the World Heritage research literature; however, as she notes, it could have been arranged around ‘…ethics, development, governmentality, internationalism, indigeneity, or communities.’.

2.2.1 World heritage and development The theme of development of World Heritages is multifaceted. On one hand it is governed by international and supranational organisations and management requirements as part of a wider development scene called heritage in development by Samuels and Lilley (2015, p. 218), while on the other hand it is increasingly seen as an asset to be developed for economic growth: heritage as development (ibid.). Salazar and Zhou (2015) showed that heritage resources are being turned into destinations and visitor attractions in order to place them onto the map of tourism economies, which generates many different imperatives, interests by a variety of stakeholders. For them it is especially important to explore the positive and negative impacts on the life of local communities because it can lead to appreciation or negligence. Mariotti asked if there was a universal factor that makes some WHS successful but not others, and looked into the communication strategies of bringing stakeholders together (Mariotti, 2011). Jimura (2019) investigated the operational aspects of WHS management including buffer zones and boundaries, the compliance to UNESCO guidelines in order to safeguard OUV and its relations to varying aspirations of national governments, local governments and people. He also commented on case of the lost designation of the Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany, because of urban developments. He noted that the development of urban areas and heritage places – including World Heritage sites are often entangled and could influence each other. 2.2.2 Communities, stakeholders and engagement Labadi and Gould (2015) provided an overview on how various themes evolved through world heritage considerations, such as the role of communities, the topic of sustainable development and the emergence of culture as a mode of sustainability. Sonkoly (2016, 2017) showed how concepts – relevant to the context of urban and rural planning - such as communities, setting, buffer zone and place evolved and came forward in world heritage documents. The World Heritage Committee in the Budapest Declaration in 2002 (UNESCO, 2005b, 3. c-f) made commitments to ensure ‘appropriate and equitable balance between conversation, sustainability and development’, while contributing to the ‘quality of life of our communities’ as well as actively involving local communities in the matters of World Heritage properties.

2.2.3 Giving meaning to heritage places The Xi’an Declaration (ICOMOS, 2005) highlighted that setting of a heritage structure goes beyond the physical and visual aspects and includes interaction with intangible cultural heritage aspects which created and formed the place. It also states that the site deriving their ‘significance and distinctive character’ from their perceived values, emphasising the importance of people and local communities, whose perceptions are shaping the heritage value for them. The declaration has consequences for urban and rural planning too, when drawing up scenarios of changes and devising planning instruments to be in place to manage them. The Québec Declaration (ICOMOS, 2008) went even further when embraced the connection between tangible (sites, landscapes etc.) and intangible (memories, narratives, rituals, colours, textures etc.) as elements of the ‘spirit of place’ giving ‘meaning, value, emotion and mystery’. Consequently it also introduced notion of place as opposed to the ‘property’ or ‘site’ and the multiple ways of being attached to a place through its spirit, which opened up a link towards the concepts of the ‘sense of place’ and ‘place identity’ (Uyang and Zakariya, 2015) as used in urban and rural planning.

2.3 Community perspective I grew up around Roman ruins, we played being gladiators and legionnaires on the arena of the Amphitheatre. I did not know about the Outstanding Universal Values, or anything about world heritage. I have not considered to get anything common with the Romans and never considered it to be part of my identity. Still, it has been often guided my thoughts towards thinking about people, who are not ‘us’ but connected to us through the place we both live. I have been for long engaged with the place but not with the heritage. Then I started seeing changes like green space refurbishments, a new bus stop or new community places, making the existence of the heritage site more relevant, more important for my local community. Recently, my understanding transformed to be a large, green, open outdoor place designed to accommodate thousands, a place where people of the local neighbourhoods could go out even in lockdown. 2.3.1 Memory and heritage For local communities finding the meaning of a ‘local’ World Heritage for themselves is always challenging. From the cultural anthropological point view, they are dealing with a multi-layered phenomenon leading from memories and cultural heritage to identity forming and ownership. As Smith (2006, p. 3) noted, ‘heritage is a multi16

layered performance’ including visiting, managing, interpretation as well as ‘constructing a sense of place, belonging and understanding in the present’. Heritage also a strong element of identity forming and a ‘differentiating machine’ (Witcomb, 2016, p. 461). In the case of the FRE World Heritages including the Antonine Wall, the state and international level of narratives and legal obligations on heritage are defining as local communities do not have clear narratives on their own. Jan Assmann, cited in Field (2010, p. 141), calls this phenomenon ‘cold’ memory as it is emerging through canonised texts, in this case historical or educational books, academic and professional literature on Roman heritage. For a community to form relationship with the World Heritage, it also should engage with another type of narrative, hidden in the form of social practices relying on professional discourses, expert and social values, and nation building. This discourse is termed ‘authorised heritage discourse’ by Smith (2006). Plets and Reeves (2016) argued that cultural heritage is both an ‘unconscious organically grown practice’ and an ‘intentional selective enterprise’, a perception by the surrounding communities and the framework of policies and agendas of the various stakeholders aiming to direct and manage the World Heritage sites. 2.3.2 Identity construction Heritage also plays integral part in forming belonging in form of feeling a group membership and ‘creating familiarity, enrichment, escape, and legitimacy of a community’s sociocultural interests in the present’ (Plets and Reeves, 2016, p. 207). In a setting, where the World Heritage preserved an imprint more closer to our timeline – for example walking in the Old Town of Edinburgh, or in a case where heritage holds common traits with more easily identifiable elements of ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson, 1983), such as national identity, one can recognise the connection and appreciate its relevance. Life may have changed and moved on, but it is still recognisable for the community as something of their own. It can be assessed how the meaning and cultural symbol a World Heritage carries, is related to the ‘home or public identities’ (Kockel, 2010, pp. 125-126) the individual assumes. The further developed model of the identity matrix (Kockel et al., 2019, p. 6) shows that unless a shift happens in Heritage public identity from the ‘XH=>They’ 17

(when local community thinks that Romans are ‘others’) to the ‘AH=>We’ (when Roman heritage is considered to part of the local heritage), the heritage element are not going to be included into one’s own heritage via the group identity (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Home and public identities. Source: (Kockel et al., 2019, p. 6 figure 1.1 )

To put it simply, if the Roman heritage is not included into the heritage context as an expression of the group identity ‘We’ of local communities of FRE World Heritage places – like in my case Aquincum, it may not inspire belonging. 2.3.3 Place and belonging Places are sites of memory, where collective memory and heritage intertwines. In words of Pierre Nora: the ‘milieux de mémoire’ wanes and the ‘lieux de mémoire’ rises (quoted in Rampley, 2012, pp. 7-9). The FRE consist of heritage places of an empire and a public identity long gone, and communities rarely consider themselves being directly linked to it as part of the national identity as ‘imagined community’. Jan Assmann (quoted in Field, 2010, pp. 141-145) distinguishes between the different level of engagement with heritage and memory and their importance: ‘communicative, bonding and cultural memory’. By using the classification of Assmann, FRE sites are

part of the cultural memory proper, they are no longer ‘bear strong relationships to the life of present communities’, they cannot be readily integrated into present identities. However, as Kockel reminds us, there is another way of assuming identity: the ‘performance aspect’ of public identity (Kockel, 2010, p. 125). Through performance, when it becomes a ‘repeated and socially sanctioned’ (Carlson, 2018) part of the everyday life and thinking ‘of, at and with’ heritage and heritage sites (Haldrup and Baerenholdt, 2015, pp. 52-68) it is also possible to get connected to and become a part of a communitas, a wider ‘existential community’ (Turner, 1969, p. 127) via shared experiences. When places become heritage places, they also combine a ,sense of occasion’ and ‘reality to the activities occurring at them’ (Smith, 2006, p. 83) as well as current experiences and present perceptions on their environment (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Capturing identity through a community map of places, stories and performed activities via social media. Source: The Antonine Wall (2020), Twitter

2.3.4 Ownership Ownership assumed through belonging and identity is important, because without the ‘sense of ownership’ (Logan, Nic Craith and Kockel, 2016, p. 14) it is hard to gain any community support. On the other hand, defining the boundaries of communities that ‘owns’ heritage, is also challenging. As Smith (2006, p. 72) argued, ‘local’ may not be

only defined by geographic proximity. Diasporas, displaced people, or communities with shared experiences may also form belonging and ownership regardless of geographical and administrative boundaries. Thomas (2011, p. 373) noted that while geographical locality and proximity is not necessarily a constraining factor when belonging to a community, for example Orcadians of Orkney Islands ‘embraces’ their prehistoric heritage and sites, while Shetlanders of the Shetland Islands ‘almost completely ignores’ in favour of their ‘better known Norse heritage’. The research of Hale et al. (2017) of counterarchaeologies at Dumby, Scotland showed how an interest-led community, climbers, can form their own narrative and takes ownership over the future of a heritage place in hope to ‘legitimise their heritage’, even by going against the ‘favoured authorised heritage discourse’.

2.4 Planner’s perspective I recall buffer zones, regulations, coloured lines on maps, consultations with heritage professionals and archaeologists, pressure from developers to get the archaeological excavations done as soon as possible. I experience the vulnerability of not being familiar enough with international conventions, criteria and processes and the jargons. I see communities being in the state of engagement fatigue, when they do not believe that what they say would be heard at all. I also aware of rising demands from communities for other uses, events and occasions on heritage sites, to make it more part of their life. The range of literature focusing on the triggers of urbanisation, climate change, urban and rural planning development decisions, and between heritage – or, more strictly: world heritage - sites is relatively limited (Taha, 2014, pp. 17-33). There are gaps in the issues covered in analysing the impact of heritage on development decisions, but by weaving in more global experience - for example Meskell’s (2018) comments on approaches of urban regeneration projects in the name of culture and historic preservation as branding and marketing exercises, while highlighting the importance of economic and political imperatives and drivers in developments - a general picture takes shape.

2.4.1 The value of heritage: economic and political considerations Relevant literature addressing the changes of national (UK) and local level of planning, heritage - including WHS - and arts are relatively new. Morel and Dawson (2019) provide a recent and exhausting overview on public policy agency, interpretation and implementation regarding the historic environment in the United Kingdom, which also emphasises the importance of integrating ’historic environment into the planning system’ and ‘planning for people by addressing the changing role of culture’. Patrick (2019) explored the issues around the role of heritage in development decisions, in particular on local level decision making. Holmes-Skelton (2019) and Patrick (2019) both analysed the impact of austerity on the human resources availability of heritage professionals in planning processes. Belford (2018) investigated the policy framework and urban development policy framework in particular in Wales to gain insight on the embedment of heritage in planning decisions. Berg (2017) looked into the reuse and regeneration of cultural heritage sites, finding that heritage appears to be considered as an irreplaceable external factor and the value of heritage ‘measured by job creation, real estate prices or amount of visitors’. Norman (2007), in her study of the participatory planning at the Hadrian’s Wall, noted that participation is not the same thing as empowerment. Fouseki and Nicolau (2018) investigated the Townscape Heritage Initiative in the UK, noting that the existing paradigms of heritage-led urban regeneration tend to neglect environmental issues as well as fail to fully integrate communities at the core of the process. Goatley and Pindham (2019) examined how ‘decision-making relating to heritage assets is likely to play in the real world’, noting ‘an excessive overemphasis of the importance to be attached not only to the preservation of heritage assets but also their settings’. Phillips (2019) emphasised the financial value and profit margins in determining viability of heritages. Labadi and Gould (2015) reminded us that the value of heritage is often determined in the ‘economic realm’, where heritage is just one of the competing interests of ‘other claimants of the public purse’ and private interests. 2.4.2 Engaging with World Heritage: participation and narratives Hewitson (2019) highlighted also a significant ‘disconnect’ in terminology. For example, in constant search of urban professionals for the ‘genius loci’ or the ‘sense of place’, the literature reviews in planning tend to be separated (Dempsey, Smith and Burton, 2014) from reviews using cultural anthropological approach. 21

When analysing two kind of participation processes – cultural and political - in the case of the Lake District world heritage bid, May (2019) noted the differences between heritage policy making intended to usher the public through the notion of ‘Heritage Cycle’ (Thurley, 2005), and the political participation, especially in planning to ‘improve public acceptance’ but leading to ‘consultation fatigue’. She also concluded that involvement in future oriented engagements and articulation of interests were significantly better represented by wealthier and more educated people. Findings regarding engagement fatigue, lack of participation and empowerment also mean that part of the interests of people living around the world heritage site have not been feed into the decision-making processes. As urban and rural planning aims to manage politics, conflicts, and disputes around land uses (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2006), in order to achieve sustainable development and ‘successful places’ (Adams and Tiesdell, 2013, p. 11), lack of engagement may lead to leaving out scenarios of future visions simply because they are not being heard. Planning at its heart deals with competing interests through decisions made on political and strategic value choices1. These value choices are based on narratives on how the future should take form in the natural and built realms. If part of the narratives is lost, the future vision becomes lacking. This is also true in wider European context (Haselsberger, 2014), where planning legislation and processes are different to the British planning systems (Reimer, Getimēs and Blotevogel, 2014). Planning and the management of the historic environment operates in a framework of national and local level public policies such as local or regulation plans, supplementary planning guidelines and other development planning documents administered by local authorities (Patrick, 2019). Within this framework, world heritage is mostly associated with the ‘income generating’ economic aspects of heritage tourism, when formulating future visions for places (Salazar and Zhu, 2015). Stoian (2015, pp. 3-15) in her research about World Heritage sites in Romania, Spain and Great Britain, argued that while World Heritage designations are raising heritage sites to the highest level of global awareness, also creating a further pressure on local policy makers – and planners - to include or exclude them from local development strategies and development decisions. Part of the problem is that, while cultural heritage 1

see Cullingworth and Nadin (2006), Adams and Tiesdell (2013) and Remier, Getimés and Blotevogel (2014) as starting point.

is increasingly accepted as a key element of sustainable development (Labadi and Gould, 2015) - a principle with which urban planning is also concerned – it ‘is not how planning operates’ (Patrick, 2019) on many occasions (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Principles of sustainability as used in planning documents reviewed by Phillips. Source: (Phillips, 2019, p. 347, Figure 1)

2.4.3 Place identity, and placemaking As Smith (2006, p. 76) pointed out, urban studies demonstrated that place, representing a ‘set of cultural characteristics and say about where you live, come from and who you are’, can also affects the meaning of place through its city- and landscapes. Place is the nexus of planning as it embodies the physical, tangible aspects of planning activities as well as gives a unique character to each geographical location. Identity expressed through place – place identity - has been attracting interests of practising planners and academics (Hague and Jenkins, 2005). Within planning practice, placemaking2 especially focuses on this relationship between people and environment, and on the different ways people use places and their ‘experiences’ (Dempsey, Burton and Smith, 2014) and actively seeks to influence it. In other words, while World Heritage aims to safeguard the OUV and through its tools such as ‘buffer zone’ preserve from change, planning tends to intervene, to alter realities of a place by managing change. 2.4.4 Sustainable futures and sustainable developments Most of the decisions in urban development planning are formulated through the economic, environmental, and social aspects of sustainability in the European school 2

Placemaking have a vast amount of literature in urban studies of which Adams and Tiesdell (2013) provides a review.

of planning thoughts (Skrede and Berg, 2018). Phillips (2019) revealed that in many UK planning documents, ‘sustainable development’ is still considered as the overlapping segment of the economy, society and environment. It also means that the fourth aspect, the culture – and cultural heritage – is often omitted (Blanca Del Espino, 2019), even though the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (UNESCO, 2005a) has already highlighted as an ‘essential requirement’ of sustainability, and the Hangzhou Declaration (UNESCO, 2013) included culture into the system of sustainable development and well-being on its own right as the fourth pillar, both as a ‘fundamental enabler of sustainability’ and a ‘resource’. In Scotland, the focus of the Scottish Government on economic growth has been shifted since the adoption of the Scottish National Performance Framework (Scottish Government, 2020b). which measures how the country fares against a set of indicators aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Scottish National Performance Framework and the SDGs. Source: (Scottish Government, 2020b)

2.4.5 The Scottish context of planning and heritage There is an existing literature on heritage and planning in Scotland, however there is only relatively few concerned with the connection of World Heritage sites with development planning. Robertson (2017) looked at what the planning reform3 and the

The article was written before the new Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 was adopted.

situation created by giving stronger dimension to place through the introduction of the Local Place Plans (PAS, 2020) means for heritage. Pelan (2017) talked about the need for ‘adequate skills in planning departments and committees’, as heritage management capacity in local authorities. Cummins (2017) summarised the outcomes of the What’s Your Heritage project, concluding that there is a lack of understanding of the roles in planning; consultations are seen as ticking exercises; linking up intangible heritage with buildings and places are very important. Robb (2018) explored the role of historic environment in tackling climate change, while West et al. (2019) focused on the engagement with young people in Kirkwall (Orkney) to understand which local places were important to them. In a case study of Orkney, West (2010) investigated whether it is possible to harmonise the aims of the Scottish planning system and the World Heritage Convention. Speirs (2017) discussed the multi-agency partnership involved in the Forth Bridge World Heritage and highlighted the importance of cross-boundary ‘landscape setting supplementary planning guidance’. Breeze (2011, p. 92) explained how the buffer zone of the Antonine Wall site was drafted in lights of human geography and compared to ‘existing landscape policies’. While Weeks (2020) noted, that the focus was on engagement with communities along in the Management Plan 2014-19. She cited the Rediscovering the Antonine Wall project targeting to some of the most deprived areas as a co-development and cocuration model to develop a sense of ownership, while supporting communities to develop and deliver their own projects (Photo 2).

Photo: 2 Children's design and a completed playpark at Callendar House Falkirk in 2019: Source: (Weeks, 2020, p. 459)

2.4.6 World heritage in the Scottish planning In Scotland, the national level of planning framework direct and guide the local development planning activity of the local government. The National Planning Framework 3 of the Scottish Government (2014a) sets out a long-term vision for development and investment across Scotland over the next 20 to 30 years. It states that the historic environment is part of well-being and cultural identity. Apart from mentioning of Scotland having six WHS, the NPF3 only addresses them as ‘important assets’ for tourism, recreation and outdoor activities. The NPF3 is soon to be replaced by NPF4 (Scottish Government, 2020a) of which responds to the state of climate emergency and asks people to think on the unique character and heritage of places. The non-statutory Scottish Planning Policy (Scottish Government, 2014b) states how nationally important land use planning matters should be addressed across the country according to the Scottish Government economic aims at the time of its birth. It defines planning as an activity directing ‘the right development to the right place’. In relation to the wider context of heritage and world heritage, it states that planning system should promote and contribute to the sense of place and cultural identity, social well-being and lifelong learning, economic growth and civic participation as well as understand the importance of heritage assets and ensure their future use through local development plans and supplementary planning guidance documents. The SPP explicitly talks about world heritage sites in paragraph 147. introducing briefly the OUV. The use of physical aspects and the OUV in planning documents may at least be challenging, as Hewitson’s (2019) analysis showed on the interpretation of terminologies used in heritage, and especially in relation of what Meskell (2015, p. 8) termed as the ‘language of the UNESCO’ or ‘international English’ in popular culture. It raises the question whether parties involved are really understand each other.

2.5 Concluding thoughts Because of the wide range of strands of reviewed literature, it is necessary to summarise my take-on of the emerging topics to investigate in more detail at the case study. The literature painted a rich tapestry of themes, issues and consideration regarding World Heritage sites, and their integration into the life of local communities as well as into future-oriented planning.

The review focused on the connection between development planning and World Heritage management in the context of FRE sites; and looked at various approaches to governance, stakeholder and community engagement. It explored different principles, rationales and drivers in urban and rural planning and policy making in World Heritage context as well as the motivations and inspirations of expressed through identity, belonging and ownership (Photo 3). It considered the importance of place and setting to identity and heritage as well as the role of OUV to define the uniqueness of World Heritage site, while highlighted the issues arising from different understanding and interpretations of language used in texts of national and international policies. The review also showed a possible shift in the role and future use of World Heritage to deliver SDGs and in response to fundamental challenges such as climate change or well-being.

Photo: 3 Identity and heritage as expressed via pop-up art installations idea during a local community planning exercise. Mining heritage and the natural landscape were both important elements captured through the Fauldhouse Focus Charrette project. Source: (PAS, 2016, p. 100)

3. Research Methodology This chapter builds on the themes emerging through the literature review and explains my research position and methodology, the details of the research design and the chosen methods as well as the ethical considerations I had to make during the process. The main aim of my research is to draw light upon how interacting future visions in world heritage management and local level spatial planning influence each other and the development decisions in planning and heritage, by going ‘beyond the rhetoric’ (Kockel, 2013). Insight and deeper understanding of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ participants experience and act on the framework within which they interact, can help to know how the heritage sector, the planners and the local communities see the future for the world heritage. To achieve this research aim, the following research objectives have been identified: 1. Exploring the stakeholder ecology of the Antonine Wall in Scotland to understand the relationships and connections shaping the future visions. 2. Investigating strategies and policy frameworks relevant to development in and around the selected case study of the Antonine Wall World Heritage site. 3. Interviewing

stakeholders

about

their

experiences,

motivations

and

considerations in heritage development decisions – to gain insight into ‘their views on roles and understanding’ (Samuels and Lilley, 2015). 4. Making recommendations for other proposed FRE nominations along the Danube to use of cultural heritage as a key element for sustainable development.

3.1 Research philosophy The literature review revealed that different interpretations of heritage value and the use of heritage are highly dependent on how different actors define their own roles, perspectives and make decisions based on it. As personal experiences, beliefs and value judgements are interpreted, and influencing the ‘reality’ through perceptions and interactions of living subjects, this research is rooted into the subjective ontological worldview (O'Gorman and MacIntosh, 2016, p. 57). Even though the Scottish and the other FRE or cultural landscape WHS cases have similarity, they are also placed into different administrative, political, and professional contexts. Thus acknowledgement of that ‘facts are culturally and historically located

and therefore subject to the variable attitudes and behaviours – the subjectivity- of both the observer and the observed’ is crucial (O'Gorman and MacIntosh, 2016, p. 57). 3.1.1 Researcher’s position and research paradigm Before asserting the epistemology of the research, it is fundamental to reflect on my position as a researcher. My background is in urban design and planning, where one’s own subjective creativity, imagination and visioning are combined with the quantifiable worldview of architecture and the generalisation tendencies of policymaking. These attributes of looking at reality as stratified and uniquely structured interaction would invoke the critical realist standing which ‘derives from both objective and subjective ontologies’. (O'Gorman and MacIntosh, 2016, p. 61). As an individual person influenced by cultural anthropology I acquired strong affinity towards participative and experimental action research paradigms (Adelman, 1993). Guba and Lincoln (1994) posited that activity and advocacy are ‘key concepts’ for both critical realist and social constructivist traditions. Affinity with worldview of the participants - heritage professionals and planners allowed me to gain immersed and rich, ‘emic’ (ibid.) observations, as I can ‘speak the language’ of both heritage and planning, and understand their motivations, convictions and bias (Berger, 2013). My epistemological standing is within the realm of interpretivism, where one ‘normally adopts the position of’ either ‘Verstehen’ (understanding) or ‘Erklären’ (explanation) (Mantzavinos, 2020). The way I seek to obtain knowledge is based on ‘verstehen’ (Weber, 1964), the understanding of the underlying processes of a phenomenon (O'Gorman and MacIntosh, 2016, p. 78). Aligned with that, my rhetoric leans toward the first-person voice in places to capture the ‘evolving decision making’ (ibid) during my research, and to shape the narrative.

3.2 Research Design – Data collection methods Reflecting the complexity of the case and the multifaceted worldviews of participants, my chosen methodology is the exploratory, qualitative case study approach. In this approach ‘the phenomenon is not divorced from its context’, and its purpose is to ‘realise how behaviour and processes affect and are affected by context’ (O'Gorman and MacIntosh, 2016, p. 80). Case study approaches also offer flexibility (Hyett, Kenny and Dickson-Swift, 2014) and the combination of qualitative data collection methods, including interviews and examination of secondary data (Vohra, 2014). 29

3.2.1 Case study selection - The Antonine Wall World Heritage Yin asked that ‘how can you generalise form a single case?’ (Yin, 2009, p. 15). Single case studies by nature make harder to generalise; however, for a novice researcher they are easier to conduct. While multiple case studies offer parallel, comparative insights when ‘cases are chosen for their similarity’ (Stewart, 2012); however, this approach goes beyond the limitations of this dissertation. To solve this, I followed Yin’s advice on scoping case studies (cited in Yazan, 2015). Currently there are three parts of the transnational FRE inscribed: the Hadrian’s Wall, the Upper German-Raetian Limes, and the Antonine Wall. The chosen Antonine Wall WHS (Figure 8) includes the horizontal and vertical interaction of 5 local councils and the HES (previously Historic Scotland).

Figure 8 - Governance Model for the Antonine Wall world heritage site. Source: (Historic Scotland, 2013)

There are reasons I decided to focus on the Antonine Wall: firstly, my German skills are not advanced enough to conduct interviews and read German local government documents; secondly, I am less familiar with the devolved English and the German planning systems than their Scottish counterpart. The Antonine Wall also fulfils the criteria of being a large scale, predominantly open space world heritage sites with multilevel governance and wide geographic extent like all other proposed FRE sites. 30

3.2.2 Triangulation On methodology, Yazan quoted Yin’s argument that case study researchers are supposed to ‘maximize four conditions related to design quality: construct, internal and external validity, and reliability’ (2015). Yin emphasises the importance of guaranteeing validity through triangulation. Hyett, Kenny and Dickson-Swift (2014) also provide an adapted checklist for assessing the quality of a case study report built on previous works of Stake, Merriam and Creswell in their critical review. In order to investigate the case study from multiple perspectives and achieve a high level of reliability, I applied the verification methods of triangulation (Table 1) by O’Gorman and MacIntosh (2016, p. 89): Table 1 Triangulation methods applied in the research

Triangulation method

Research application

Triangulation of

interviews, journal articles, international, national and

resources

local level documents

Triangulation of

Selected interview participants from within and out with

sources

the Antonine Wall governance structure

Member checking

Participants may have commented on the research and were offered to review the transcriptions of interviews

Ensuring honesty

Participation in the research based on informed consent and guaranteed anonymity

Replication logic

The Antonine Wall meant six different actors operating within the world of World Heritage

Thick descriptions

The interviews allowed to gather rich and detailed, while individually different descriptions

Research journal

A personal research diary allowing to track and reflect on shifts in my research

3.3 Interviews The interview process was initially planned as a linear activity of semi-structured qualitative interviews. In the first stage I intended to interview participants with general oversight on heritage and planning issues, in the second the planners of the 5 councils, and in the third the representatives of the heritage sector liaising and interacting with the others. 31

However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic this has proven to be unrealistic, and I had to choose a different approach. I selected key areas based on relevant areas of expertise: FRE or Roman WHS; Cultural Landscape WHS; forward planning in world heritage settings and tailored the interviews to a narrower number of participants (Table 2). According to Adams (2010), semi-structured interviews are advantageous in cases where a wide range of topics are discussed with participants of various backgrounds. By using the semi-structured interview I was able retain the freedom of conversation, while not losing sight on the critical points (O'Gorman and MacIntosh, 2016, pp. 120124). I used the credibility evaluation criteria and strategies proposed by Noble and Smith (2015) to address potential – including my own – bias. As I wanted to learn about experiences of the participants, I had to be ‘staying alert and rigorously reflect on how my presence shapes’ the conversations (Berger, 2013). The interview design consisted of questions to build good rapport and establish a good ambience and conversational flow, and covered the themes emerging from the literature review, tailored to the individual interviewees. One interview was conducted in person (P4), another via mobile phone (P6), the rest through Microsoft Teams. The recorded interviews were anonymised, numbered (P1-P6) and quoted with time stamps. 3.3.1 Sampling I used the purposeful sampling technique and the organisational diagram of the Antonine Wall (Historic Scotland, 2013), and I involved participants from Hungary to get access to experience with world heritage sites with characteristics similar to FRE (Table 2). Table 2 Purposeful sampling of interview participants: Relevant experiences. Own illustration

Participant FRE

WHS

Development Relevance

coordination P1

FRE – Inter-Governmental

Committee; Hexham Group P2

Antonine Wall WHS, management and coordination, Hexham Group

Heritage management in Scotland; MRTPI 32

Cultural Landscape WHS (Tokaj); regional development

Hungarian FRE nomination, Bratislava Group; ICOMOS expert

Roman/Early Christian WHS (Pécs); architect, planner

3.3.2 Secondary Data To augment the gathered primary data in context and for triangulation, the research comprises secondary information coming through ‘grey literature’ (Baxter, 2014), including various governmental body documents, strategy and policy papers. Following the advice of Ardévol and Estalella (2012) on using the Internet as a research tool for collecting, analysing and presenting results, I included online sources such as social media sites or organisational websites.

3.4 From field observations to netnography Due to the Covid-19 pandemic constrains, I changed my plan to walk along the Antonine Wall. While keeping the focus, it has been replaced by ‘netnography’ (Kozinets, 2010), a non-participant observation based on posted YouTube vlogs were sentiments were captured in visual scripts, posted comments and verbal narratives of the videos. I wrote up notes on observations (Palmer, 2001) and prepared an autoethnographic description (Ellis, Adams and Bochner, 2011) on some issues I have seen, and contrasted this, with the findings of other sources. I have analysed 20 YouTube videos (numbered no 1-20) randomly selected by using the ‘Antonine Wall’ keyword. The length of videos is ranging between 1,5 – 33 minutes. Every one of them has an observation sheet (Appendix 2), which contains my notes, the referencing information as well as being linked to the individual YouTube URL. This approach provided a way to apply my own knowledge to understand how different locations of the Antonine Wall are used, by using the tool of ‘rec-mapping’ (Photo 4) providing a ‘snap-shot of experiences’ (Smith et al., 2014, pp. 159-161).

Photo: 4 Sociotope mapping in an urban park in Gothenburg (Sweden). Source: Dempsey, Smith and Burton (2014, p. 108)

3.5 Data Analysis I used thematic analysis to identify, analyse and report patterns and findings by using key steps of coding and theme mapping identified by Braun and Clarke as quoted in O’Gorman and MacIntosh (2016, pp. 144-146). The data analysis process happened on a reiterative/refocusing way. The first interviews with participants (P4 and P5), were informed by the literature review and findings shaped the set of questions for the other participants. I examined the themes arising through the primary sources in the light of the available secondary sources and the field observation.

3.6 Ethical considerations In qualitative research some of the emerging ethical questions can be anticipated, but many only appear during the research. As Wiles (2013) reminds us, one possible answer is to use ethical frameworks to form ethically sound decisions on issues. Following her suggestion, I developed my ethical framework based on the ‘ethics of care’ approach (ibid, p. 15). In this approach decisions are based on compassion, non-maleficence, honesty and fairness as well as on the desire to act for the benefit of the research participants, and made in relation to the particular cases, rather than applying universal rules. I devised a ‘double safety lock’ using the two levels of decision making described by Kitchener and Kitchener in Wiles (2013, p. 22), where the first draws on ‘procedural ethics’ (Guillemin and Gillam, 2016), including the Heriot-Watt University’s Research 34

Ethics Policy, while the second level involves a 7 step-process (Israel and Hay, 2006, p. 135) of making practical ethical decisions. For informed consent I sent a detailed, jargon-free information sheet explaining the aims and objectives of the research and a consent form to all participants. The right to withdraw and to refuse an answer were highlighted and uphold during the whole research. Data including transcripts and video recordings was stored on my university OneDrive. Information was anonymised, and privacy rights were respected. For transparency, the review of interview recordings was offered to everyone. After the interviews, a follow-up email was sent to thank their participation and to ensure if someone wanted to review the recordings.

3.7 Reflexivity In one case I had to apply my ethical framework, as one participant explicitly noted that some of the questions regarding world heritage nominations cannot be commented on (by belonging to the UNESCOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s international political sphere). The resulting shift in the focus of the interviews led to a different angle, which widened the applicability of the recommendations to include other existing and upcoming world heritage sites with qualifiable characteristics. The sampling and the interview design had to be altered as home office arrangements, furloughed working and home schooling in many cases prevented participants and myself to communicate smoothly and arrange meetings. Therefore, the range of my interviewees and the original research timeline had to be reviewed and constantly adapted to take Covid-19 measures, the personal circumstances of participants and my own, and limited accessibility to interviewees, into account.

4. Findings 4.1 Interview sampling and characteristics Between 01 June and 31 July 2020, I conducted six interviews. The interviews were running between 20-58 minutes. Quotes used as primary qualitative data were referenced with time stamps, my additions were bracketed. One participant (P5) sent a pre-recorded interview which covered most of the interview questions. I considered it as an unstructured interview and used it to shape the subsequent conversations. To ensure a high level of reliability and validity I applied the triangulation methods (Table 1) and the purposeful sampling method, based on characteristics of relevant expertise (Table 2).

4.2 Stakeholder complexity of the Antonine Wall As an FRE site, the Antonine Wall showcases unique features4 high level of complexity. It is around 60 km long (Historic Scotland, nd-b) and runs across areas of the Central Belt of Scotland(Figure 9). â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;It is a complicated site, it runs through five local authorities, it has the international dimensionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (P1:00:23)

Figure 9 The Antonine Wall in Scotland. Adapted from: (Historic Scotland, nd-a)

The site has a wide corridor which includes the rampart; ditch and upcast mound; the military way as well as forts and fortlets, expansions and small enclosures and civilian

The key data of the Antonine Wall World Heritage site in this chapter is based on Table 2 (p. 42-47) and various chapters of the World Heritage UK (2019).

settlements. The buffer zone (Figure 10) was defined to protect the amenities and setting of elements of the Wall (Historic Scotland, 2013). ‘They see a ditch, and where it is a wall, it’s turf… the Antonine Ditch, would be a better description… because it is the main surviving feature. It’s a challenge of perception’ (P1:08:35).

Figure 10 The buffer zone of the Antonine Wall and the council areas. The Wall crosses urban areas and countryside. Adapted from: (Historic Scotland, nd-a)

4.2.1 World Heritage coordination The Steering Group responsible for the management of the World Heritage includes (Figure 11) the HES along with the five councils of East Dunbartonshire, Falkirk, Glasgow City, North Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire (Historic Scotland, 2013)

Figure 11 Governance model for the Wall and the 5 delivery groups responsible for implementing the Management Plan. Adapted from: (Historic Scotland, 2013)

The role of the Group and the coordinator is coordinating and communicating with local authorities is ‘making sure that everyone is happy with the direction and relevant people involved through departments, museum staff, planning officers and community development staff or perhaps art officers. (P2.03:00). For the 5 councils that singed up at the nomination, working within the Steering Group have different implications: ‘heritage teams… do museum displays, looking for opportunities to engage with local heritage societies… run exhibition, for planning departments how they manage the protection of the site and they look at the SPG… so for all councils hopefully [my italics] the Wall is layered through their strategic thinking’ (P2.15:33) Another participant described the relationship within the partnership as ‘we cultivate a really good relationship with the five LAs through the Steering Group… and when they are making LDPs, planning decisions they are taking reconnaissance from the Wall’, and remarked that the WHS management in particular, is about ‘keeping it in the forefront of their minds’ (P1:31:00). 4.2.2 Preparing the Management Plan for the Antonine Wall ‘The job of coordinating the Wall involves ‘bringing together museums, planning issues and managing a property and looking at them how we can derive community benefit of that’ (P2.02:07) The management plan constitutes a statement of OUV, describe attributes of OUV, and outlines a vision for the Wall supported by a set of aims and objectives. ‘The first plan was very academic; it didn’t really think about the relevance of the Wall to anyone else (P2.07:42) The WHS management plan is made for a 5 years long period. The site is in its second management plan period - the Antonine Wall Management Plan 2014-2019 (Historic Scotland, 2013) - and a new one is being currently developed. In the UK, it falls to the site coordinator to prepare, review and to deliver its aims and objectives. It is based on

the evaluation of the pervious plan period (if there was any) and on what studies such as economic, visitor etc. are being available to draw on. ‘Every 5 years I need to sit down an look at what we have done, and look at where we are going in the next 5… and that involves a lot of consultation, with partners, departments of councils, wider stakeholders, other agencies like the Forestry Commission… community groups…We talk to community councils, businesses, heritage groups to find out what they want’ (P2.03:58)

4.3 World Heritage and communities There is a perception amongst interviewees, that one of the most important tasks for them is to make World Heritage relevant for people, and the way to is by giving meaning to it. How meaning transfers is the challenge to be solved through engagement and outreach activities. 4.3.1 Finding a meaning through time, across geography and people There are different layers of capturing meaning and significance of the Antonine Wall, and it starts on national level, it can be part of a ‘pro-Scottish narrative, not just as part of the UK… six WHS is a real boon for it’ (P1:m3:58). Locally, the Wall has different meanings to different people, or none at all. It became apparent when ‘started talking… on a very basic ‘let’s just go around and speak with people’… we discovered…it means a lot of things to different people…the heritage value, study of the Romans, visit the site’ (P2.08:55). Not just geographical locations, but time itself can separate us from the World heritage, and this is embodied in comments regarding making the Roman heritage of the Antonine Wall relevant. For the question of that being a Roman heritage makes different for local people to connect to the Wall, a respondent said that ‘we asked people… unsurprisingly there is a bias towards 20th century contemporary heritage, stuff that people see day-to-day’ (P1:07:40). As the findings suggest the challenge lays in: ‘how to make 2000 years old… relevant to contemporary society… finding a narrative that connects… like how many football pitches fit into the Wall... You could fit 60 pitches in.’ (P1:01:39).

One way to overcome this is that the ‘intangible qualities should be taken over’ (P5:43:01). The 2000 years context seemed to provide a narrative to connect: ‘we had a variety of people living along the Wall 2000 years ago [same as diverse population today] (P1:01:39). Stakeholder organisations, such as the heritage institutions started interpreting Roman heritage and engage with audience, showed that the intangible cultural heritage, stories make things alive for people: ‘the Hunterian… did it with the EMOTIVE [an EU funded Horizon 2020 project] and I was delighted that they picked the Antonine Wall’. (P1:12:28). It is not just the heritage value and the World Heritage status what captures people. For local people living along the Wall are ‘not seeing as a heritage attraction but a place [to live] (P2:20:00). Projects run by the WHS revealed that heritage, in forms to which people can relate, have important role: ‘statues [replica slabs] marking important places for them’ (P2.13:45). Other people saw it as a green space that runs through a very industrial landscape to ‘walk a dog, get mental health space amongst trees…tourism perspectives, …in terms of financial gain or business opportunity… teachers from educational perspective’ (P2.09:29). In other sites the meaning of the World Heritage status is less relevant and more obscure to people: ‘for the majority [WHS] doesn’t mean anything, and even who knows about it [the status], they don’t know what does it mean. For people having direct economic interest it’s different, but sometimes they also see it as a barrier, which limits their lifestyle choices, enterprise options and so on’ (P4:12:58). 4.3.2 Hand in hand: engagement and awareness Findings show that even informal debate on what the World Heritage designation and outstanding universal values could be the basic steppingstone to get local communities involved. But without engagement there is no awareness, no participation and no flow of information from the local community towards the decision -makers, world heritage managers and planners.

‘That is something we want to resolve through a current project [Rediscovering the Antonine Wall]. The new plan [2014-19] had to be about people, it couldn’t be just about monument… because people would build over it, damage it…’ (P2.08:27). The more people engage, the more informed the system becomes, and this gives the local community more control about the promotion of functions, funds and investments and identify new uses which are potentially benefiting them. Until recently the Wall was for a very small demographic ‘well-to-do people… mostly middle aged and older…higher income bracket’ (P2.17:39), and it is not going to change by itself. The Antonine Wall WHS has been having challenges to engage with special or vulnerable groups in society and be relevant for others: ‘you weren’t seen people in deprived communities and out-of-work or refugee communities’ (P2.18:05) and ‘where there is a lots of poverty, problems of accessing social interactions, heritage and that.’(P2:18:30). Conversations revealed that apart from being disconnected, to target less affluent people some changes have to be done in the aims of the Wall too: ‘one reason is that no one asked them, no one approached them before or because dealing with other issues, it [the Wall] is not a priority for them… you know Maslow’s hierarchy’ (P2:19:07). But it cannot be forced, on ‘community level… we try work with them, if they are interested, it they are not, we don’t force them (P2.16:20). That is how the Bridgeness Slab, a community council project in Falkirk came alive. But it is not so obvious that every community council is waiting to work together with the WHS. Beside more academic considerations the WHS should be a source of fun: ‘making it relevant and fun! It was just 50 people there from the local running club [5k Fun Run event], but it was the way to engage them.’ (P1::06:40). Other sources highlighted what happens when they cannot reach out to people, they become directly involved for example through having a house or a property with restricted development options: ‘So, it was mostly when people encountered with the regulative, prohibiting aspects’ (P6:Appendix 1).

4.3.3 Who benefits? In 2019, the World Heritage Site made a successful bid targeted to raise awareness primarily amongst local communities. The Rediscovering the Antonine Wall (RE-AW) project received £2.1 million funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund, LEADER and a range of other funders allowing to 4 other staff members to be appointed (Weeks, 2020, p. 459). It is funding ‘for other heritage attractions [too], but we fund it through the Wall – and it has a bigger community benefit’ (P2.17:00). This project runs for 3 years and aims to deliver capital projects to regenerate areas in deprived communities, while offering opportunities for volunteering, skills training and wider project involvement: ‘has a capital strand: play parks, …5 replica slabs as tourist attractions… improving 10 areas’ (P2.12:50) , and a ‘community strand asking the community for projects… support, funding, help to deliver… it’s kind of community owned and curated’ (P2.13:22). Prior to the RE-AW, it was not always like that as ‘communities want local projects, they want things improved’ (P2:26:29), which may have been unrelated directly to the WHS. The recognition that the WHS can play a significant role came after: ‘Started looking into funding to know whether we can run projects they [community] asked for… like better interpretation, pathways and signage, and running little community projects with schools’ (P2.11:43). And then a few years later: ‘we finally had enough information…to put in a big funding bid [RE-AW]’ (P2.12:21). The project was also designed to ‘deliberately target more deprived communities, going into areas like Maryhill and Drumchapel in Glasgow (P2:18:20). The significance of this is that it has been integrating the WHS with not just with fulfilling ‘basic needs’, but ‘hope to have a strand [of projects] with refugees, talking about integration and using the Wall to meet some of the basic needs’ (P2:19:28). In another WHS with similar rural features, the issue for P4 of making the WHS relevant to people was, that they didn’t really know how to get intangible elements (stories, craftmanship, tools etc) of the cultural heritage closer to local communities, when the communities of the area are in poverty:

‘we said that we need to place the region [the place where people live] into the focus instead solely focusing on OUV preservation and provide benefits for a wider community ‘ (P432:06). 4.3.4 Finding money - Funding the future Financial constraints and their consequences for the work of the partnership and the WHS, were in the forefront of the participants with knowledge of the Antonine Wall. The budget of the Antonine Wall is around £120K per annum. ‘It is paid for the website… studies [economic, visitor], small projects but wasn’t enough to cover big things’ (P2:21:10). On the other hand interviewees also adopted a narrative when engaging with partners at local councils: ‘on the grand scale of things it is not a massive amount of money going into… planners in one LA can turn to decision-makers on the budget and say: “every else is putting money in, we don’t want out, we can’t do this, we can’t let our partners down”’. (P1:38:14) There are aspects, such as the digital presence of the Wall through the ALapp, the online game of Go Roman and the efforts made to bring heritage alive in the virtual space – which proven to be absolutely justified as during the time of pandemic – but ‘trouble is where to get funding. The app [ALapp] was created through Creative Europe funding, but the big problem is BREXIT… [funding] can no longer work’ (P2:27:10). The Rediscovering the Antonine Wall project ends in 2021 and ‘we don’t know what the funding will be after’’ (P2:2022), but there is a hope to extend it to 2022. It is not going to threat the core conservation work, maintained and paid for by HES and locations such as Rough Castle, Bar Hill or Croy Hill, but ‘that is a different approach to coordination of the Wall’ (P2:23:19). WHS team are not concerned by the conservation side of things, however there is a worry about ‘how to make it relevant… [we] need to look for funding and the international dimension’ (P2:23:40). The role of WHSs changed significantly though in other FRE countries, where funding was channelled through the WHS and ‘the management plan objectives were the basis of the regional development plan’ (P4:12:40). Here the chosen approach was the application of slow tourism and they developed the amenities accordingly, however it led to the situation where management objectives started catering only for visitors and lost their focus on delivering for the local community: 43

‘at the end they [local non-tourism businesses] didn’t get interested, because of the lack of regeneration projects, up-skilling or trainings, their attention turned to the offerings and opportunities of bigger towns and cities’ (P4:41:20) In the case of the Wall, there is an ambiguous feeling towards approaching and involving the private sector, and large corporate companies in particular to raise funds for the Wall, even though other initiatives involved with private sponsorships such as the Dig It! Discover Scotland’s Stories or the ‘the Glenmorangie project that the National Museum runs in Edinburgh… funding a postdoctoral research… events… in return for significant publicity… in commercial terms, but for heritage it’s huge amount’ (P1:41:07). are known. There were considerations given to connect to the local economy as an Antonine Wall brand, especially through food & beverage type of merchandise, however they feel that ‘all this thong takes a while… when local businesses se value in touching in what they do to the Wall and they will see the opportunities around that’ (P1:50:39). When prompted about the possibility of drawing up a ‘visitor’s journey map’ including the services and experiences provided by local actors and businesses, none of the participants revealed any information about any current objectives to capture ‘events, activities and series of touchpoints’ (Villaespesa and Álvarez, 2020) related to the Wall from the perspective of visitor experience creation.

4.4 Understanding World Heritage: OUV There is a shared general sentiment that the application of UNESCO ‘stuff’ is very challenging, especially the notion of OUV, because people do not have an ‘academic [interest], it’s so far removed from’ (P2:20:25). UNESCO language in particular is a major barrier as ‘it’s dense, it’s international English, and to saying to someone: “it needs to have OUV…” What does that even mean by that?’ (P1:15:54). Findings agree on that there are issues with UOV: ‘they are fossilised from the time they were created… like Edinburgh’s one, it is 25 years old now… things like stone and roofing… making Edinburgh what it is, are not in the Statement of OUV’ (P1: 16:26).

The reason behind is that work on attributes has been developing and as people’s understanding and perceptions are changing of what is important, so would change a statement: ‘if we wrote that statement [now], they would be in’ (P1:17:09) From the perspective of planners, the way OUV works often even less appreciated as it fails to capture the sense of place: ‘it’s not about what makes the WHS special, it is about what makes… the place tick. And it should be at heart of everything people do, but you don’t really think about interconnectivities… that is all part [the living fabric, the people, trades they do, etc.] of the OUV as well as being a physically nice place… and planning does not address that well.’ (P3:01:50) In the case of the Antonine Wall, the fact that it is an international WHS it makes the situation even more complicated, as the OUV statement includes the Hadrian’s Wall and the Upper-Raetian Limes, therefore it is ‘diluted down to cover others’ (P1:18:00). There is a shift in the paradigm recently ‘we moved from compiling an OUV, ’to cover all FRE site, to the ‘statement of the property… important from the local perspective’ (P1:18:00). There were attempts to explore how to update or ‘modernise’ OUV statements, but as the preliminary inquiry revealed’ basically it is almost like doing a new inscription, we are stuck with it’ (P1:19:11) P6 also experienced something similar: ‘they looked for different “combinations of words” to check against, and in many cases, it was either misunderstood…. The challenge for us was to “translate” the technical language and jargon… and make it understandable’ (Appendix 1). P6 also revealed an aspect of OUV issues – language: ‘The whole concept… when it was [communicated], the meaning of the whole OUV, the monument protection context went sideways. Interestingly, we have our differences too in interpreting of our own development plans at the end.’ (Appendix1 )

4.5 Planning the future ‘Every time they write a new forward plan, a new strategic document they include the Wall’ (P2.16:04). ‘Have various levels of issues around planning and development… permitted development schemes… people erecting sheds not just in the buffer zone but on the top of the Wall’ (P2:38:43). In the case of the Antonine Wall, an SPG guides decisions makers and developers. The role of the SPG amongst others, is to make OUV of the Antonine Wall understandable by offering guidance on dealing with changes to attributes. But the use of the SPG also requires a level of knowledge and skills: ‘we have to train planning officers how to use them’ (P2:40:45), because every local authority, or even planner applies it a bit differently. Respondent with WH background felt that training could help by ‘ensuring everyone applies it consistently…what they see as threats to buffer zone is consistent across all planners’ (P2:41:08). A different sentiment is emerging from the comments from the planning’s side, possibly implying an explanation for inconsistencies. 4.5.1 In the name of public interests Respondents highlighted that when thinking about the future of communities and the WHS along the Wall, they are facing with a ‘lack of consistency [to what is important for whom], as the Wall runs through… the bottom of the 5% of the index in multiple deprivation of Scotland, then just a miles away you’ve got houses, a million pound each sitting on the Wall’ (P1:21:00). The major challenge is that engaging with a wider set of community, with so different characteristics would ultimately require a more local, more place-based approach. As participants with planning backgrounds highlighted ‘there are certain priorities established [in planning] and World Heritage is never a priority, it’s never going to be a priority…’ (P3:01:30)

While at first reading it might be shocking, it is becoming more understandable if we consider the following: ‘it is not in their focus, because the most important thing in that area [for planning] is the fact that they may have got children in poverty, or people in fuel poverty… and the planning system operates in the public interest.’ (P3:11:31). Interestingly there are parallel motivations for both the WHS management and planners, as P3 (12:32) summed it up: ‘we don’t want people… to see it [the Antonine Wall] as… bad thing’. She cited the example of a golf course or a housing development when planners ‘want to encourage development within their area and there is a ‘presumption that you try to make things happen. So is the Wall helping to happen or is it a barrier?’ (P3:14:02). As planning tries to ‘balancing the whole, so in doing that you are making winners and losers’ (P3: 01:00), it might lead to inconsistency: ‘even in the same LA, never mind across 5’ (P3:10:42). What is happening here, is that planners try to negotiate and mitigate competing interests including WHS considerations, but this often leads to compromises, inconsistencies of decisions even with their selves. The interviewees’ agreed on the that the only way it could be solved, is through partnership working and effective transfer of knowledge and expertise. 4.5.2 Politics and drivers Of course planning is as much about politics and competing interests as being a principle driven profession. In general WHS terms interviewees experienced that local governments ‘are playing with the World Heritage status’(P3:04:55). It is being felt that they ‘want attention… tourism income, but actually the kind of income coming in… may not be contributing that much to the [local] economy… a bit like Venice (P3:04:05).

Or, ‘on local and county level the politics is very much in flavour point out the World Heritage Status, but it is mostly just communication (P4: 17:11). In the experience of P6, ‘it was a no-brainer. They saw it as a major asset to increase the tourism, and the World Heritage was a means to the end. As there was an EU bid they wanted to win, it was even more attractive’ (Appendix 1) However commitment to World Heritage may change over time, as P6 said: ‘the city also has seen a European Capital of Culture project in 2010 and this has surpassed the World Heritage completely. I mean, that it was handled, as one of the many heritage sites and museum in the city, but not as something “worldwide”’ (Appendix 1) Participants were aware that since the inscription of the Antonine Wall there was a decade of austerity, economic crisis and recently the pandemic. In this context they felt that one way to emphasise the importance of the WHs for decision-makers of funding bodies, is using its marketing and branding potential: ‘you don’t have to explain [WHS], because we already done that, it’s been recognised globally’ (P1:36:45) Securing funds for developments ‘based on how you align place… planning decisions with the idea of engaging communities and giving them strong, sustainable places (P2:25:56). The case of the proposed visitor centre reveals something about the politics, power relations and drivers of the different actors within the stakeholders. ‘one LA was very keen on tourism, others on regeneration and community benefit… said NO as we wanted parity’ (P2:29:40) ‘if we build 5 centres it becomes very expensive and means that there are in competition with one another’ (P2:30:52). That led to the promotion of existing visitor attractions, museum that are on the Wall and have facilities, exhibitions, events and outreach work:

‘We encourage investments… and try to keep existing businesses [and museums] running and not promote 1 big centre’, which might would collapse the whole’ (P231:38). The WHS also has to make symbolic gestures, like rotating the community council between the councils, ‘each get a year of it’ (P231:38). To deal with competing interests of the partners, the Wall applied a very clear standing based on parity and equality between partners: ‘it is a bit like managing children. They all equal, all get the same things, investments. And that’s worked.’ (P2:30:25). To get politicians and decision-makers on board and to get a buy-in across all councils and local councillors, participants felt that projects like the RE-AW are necessary. Because they can show that ‘you have been investing £20K/year and as a direct result of that, of you investing that money, we are running a 2 million project along the Wall (P1:31:25)

4.6 Sustainable futures beyond World Heritage 4.6.1 Climate change While climate change has been flagged up by others (P4:42:05) as having serious implications in transforming the natural ecology and the landscape, it is not so articulated in the case of the Antonine Wall. The WHS management plans to take up the CVI [Climate Vulnerability Index] approach and apply it to the Antonine Wall. There are known issues such as water flooding and land management of forested areas, but at the moment it is seen being far: ‘to be honest it is not really a big problem’ (P2: 37:37), however another, indirect aspect of climate change is already making its impact felt as indicated through agriculture: ‘farming… it is more locally driven by farming practices’ (P2:37:59). 4.6.2 Delivering SDG Including the WHS in the delivery of SDGs is becoming increasingly important. In the case of the Wall, the consideration is that the most relevant SDGs and targets will be chosen:

‘we can’t feed children for example, it is too far removed from where heritage can take us.’ (P2:32:47). When asked about that how they are going to deliver SDGs, the answer was that via small interventions like ‘natural reserve,… not well used amazing space… want to open up… collaborate with council putting walking paths to that nature reserve up to the Wall’ and through ‘things like that feed into the new management plan and SDGs around green space, healthy living’ (P2:34:47). 4.6.3 Well-being and Mental Health Participants felt that there is a lot of focus on economic recovery, but ‘what about the mental health, well-being type of things?’ (P1:56:46). Especially during the times of lockdown due the Covid-19, has it come into forefront as while ‘you say [government] – you need to get out & about to exercise, and even though sites [heritage] are closed, nothing stops people for walking on the open access sites, in particular locally and bits of the Antonine Wall are heavily used. (P1:56:46) They expressed it that there is an opportunity to consider how WHS can help with the well-being agenda. That the Antonine Wall should be ‘exist as a multiple layer of things, not just a heritage site or a virtual space. All those things will be tied together.’ (P2:28:29).

4.7 Concluding thoughts A participant with FRE links, remarked that World Heritages, both existing and upcoming nominations, have to work in a context, where there is an inevitability of politics and bureaucracy being always stronger and stronger (P5:38:02) as well in the corridors of UNESCO as on the ground, at World Heritage sites. Politics, future visions and especially constrains on budgets and spending place any WHS into a precarious position and sometimes in conflict of interests. However, I found that trust and cooperation; meaning, awareness and engagement; OUV and place identity as well as benefits, drives and funding are the key themes influencing most the future of the Antonine Wall WHS in a positive way.

5. An unconventional field ethnography YouTube videos (Appendix 2) allowed me to use their perspectives, capturing the ‘visitor’s gaze’ (Larsen and Urry, 2011, pp. 1112-1116), while recording the locations of the Antonine Wall and commenting on it. I observed visually their ways of encounter with different aspects of the Antonine Wall and its surroundings and ‘doing - something accomplished through performance’ (ibid.). In these videos one can see movements through landscapes, people viewing, touching, walking or climbing as well as interacting with the environment and with others. As every user is the director of its own shooting, they are also curating a story, a narrative ‘cueing the visitor’ (Yellis, 2010, p. 97) about their experience they want to share with others. When users were shooting the films, they recorded others appearing in different locations and using the parts of the heritage places in distinctive ways, creating distinctive ‘sociotopes’ and mapping ‘recreational experiences’ (Smith et al., 2014, pp. 159-161) on various locations along the Wall. Other aspects such as housing, industrial and agricultural land uses, paths, ‘boundaries’ and ‘barriers’ (Lynch, 1960) of access were also implicitly captured. I watched and analysed 20 different YouTube videos with length between 1.5 minutes to half an hour, made between 2014-2020 with views ranging from 28 to 21307. I observed various aspects of footages: the location, the season, weather and time of the day, the main aim of the shooting, whether other people appear, what the camera holder shows to us, any verbal, written or visual narratives as well as cues beyond the main of the recording.

5.1 Purposes and uses: heritage and non-heritage interests The analysis shows two, mainly distinctive purposes for visits and main aims which the videos seek to achieve. People making YouTube videos are either chosen the Antonine Wall because of its heritage aspects (being there) or they had non-heritage interests (being there). Mock documentaries, tour vlogs (video blogs), recounts of visit of the World Heritage site are keenly aware of the heritage value and actively sought ways to put it on display. Long moments of shooting times focusing on interpretative materials, signs and panels –helping to imagine the site as it was– were particularly favoured (Figure 12). Ditches, ramparts, layouts of former buildings on camps and fort are also constant parts of the narrative. 51

Figure 12 Interpretative panel at Bar Hill, all vlogs with heritage interests placed emphasis to show them, often in details by hovering the cameras over them. Older, 'Historic Scotland' plaques with dense texts and without visual imagery where barely recorded. Source: Appendix 2, no 3.

Other filmmakers were not interested in it as a heritage place, but have chosen it as unique location with special landscape and natural environment features. Especially drone racers flying along the ramparts, practicing turns and making hoop gate passes did exploit these. Groups of young people from Glasgow to Falkirk â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;using various locations for this purpose (Figure 13). For them, the Wall is a place to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;meet with the lads from Falkirk Drone clubâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Appendix 2, no 12), and a stage to perform other activities.

Figure 13 Drone flying through hoop gate at the Antonine Wall. Source: Appendix 2, no 14.

The videos captured other uses and purposes of visits such as dog walkers, hikers, mountain bikers doing downhill races on tracks, families having day out, kids playing and running. One aspect emerging through the videos is that people are interacting not just with the place, but with each other as well.

5.2 Points of interests: experience binding us together ‘Push and pull factors’ (Baloglu and Uysal, 1996) are long known in tourism studies, when assessing what motivates people to travel to places. Through the eyes of filmmakers, it is possible to identify unique or characteristic elements - distinctive point of interest offering experiences - to which people directed their gaze. 5.2.1 Panoramic views of and beyond sites Open and closed vistas, faraway hillsides, skylines. People standing in the World Heritage site and looking into the distance. 5.2.2 Iconic scenery V-shaped ditches and ramparts, defensive pits, camp and fort sites as well as woodlands or streetscaping in Kirkintilloch are shown (Figure 14). Barr Hill and Castle Hill, Croy Hill and Rough Castle came through as popular places to makes videos at. There is a focus on well preserved, easy-to-interpret elements.

Figure 14 Streetscaping in Kirkintilloch; panoramic view from Bar Hill. Source: (Appendix 2, no 1. And 15)

5.2.3 Natural landscape features Green spaces, forests, woodlands, ancient trees, rock formations, slopes and elevation, meandering wee burns and wetlands as well as wild and domestic animals such as ‘cows grazing sometimes in arm’s length’ (Appendix 2, no 8.) are attracting attention.

Figure 15 Wetland scenery at Bonnybridge. Source: Appendix 2, no 16.

5.2.4 Practical information Narrative of the videos often start with road signs, access points or paths leading to the Wall, commenting on distances, difficulty of terrain and car parking possibilities. 5.2.5 Ambience Key part of every videos are sounds, , colours of flowers and meadows, tinted skies at sunset or sunrise, fog and mist, sunshine or frost and contrasts. It is also true in the case of as Instagram, where the ‘hashtag’ #antoninewall produced an even more stunning selection of visual material (#antoninewall, 2020).

Photo: 5 #antoninewall examples from Instagram. See the comment on the right side: ‘Gentle reminder for us all as we come out of lockdown…’, a message left for other people visiting the Antonine Wall as refuge in times of Covid-19. Source:(#antoninewall, 2020)

6. Discussions The research aim of my dissertation was to explore interacting future visions in world heritage management and local level urban and rural planning influence each other and the development decisions in planning and heritage.

6.1 Tying up the threads 6.1.1 Trust and cooperation One key theme emerging through interviews was ‘trust’. Trust is not easy. According to Gidden’s structure-agent theory on the ‘duality of structure results’ (cited in Tucker, 1999) even though the structure is acknowledged by agents, it is also subject to the ‘consequences of the conducts of actors’. On one side, the efforts of the WHS are aiming to prove the capability of achieving positive impacts for the current and potential partners and stakeholders, by spreading benefits and generating funds, through focusing on local communities in deprived areas and working in partnership with local councils. On the other hand, the high complexity of the stakeholder ecology requires for WHS management to trust in the conducts of those partners. Because by working together and trusting each other, it becomes possible to include cultural heritage into people’s life, to make it relevant to contemporary society, even for those whose priorities lying elsewhere. 6.1.2 Meaning, awareness and engagement World Heritage designation can direct the attention to local issues and their interdependence with heritage affairs. To engage with future of heritage, people first need to understand the meaning of heritage, because without understanding there is a lack of appreciation and commitment to align their personal choices and intentions (Salazar and Zhu, 2015). For people to engage with the world heritage and participate in policymaking, they need to know about how it is connected to their own heritage. There has to be relevance of the Antonine Wall for them. In order to know that, they have to be aware of the heritage values and need to know where they can get information about what is happening, and who is in charge of the heritage. On the other hand professionals have to understand that the immediate priorities and needs of people living along the WHS may be

elsewhere. Without addressing this gap between the objectives of WHS management and the benefits for the local communities, there is no basis on which OUV can be made relevant. 6.1.3 From OUV to place identity The understanding of OUV, happens through its attributes and depends on the way they are being made relevant. To ensure that LDPs, strategies and policies are aligned with the preservation of the OUV, an SPG (Historic Scotland, nd-b) was produced, but it is in itself not enough. The interviews show that on one side, planners have difficulties to interpret it, on the other WH professionals are struggling to up-date it. For communities, to understand OUV the inclusion of intangible cultural heritage may offer a way forward, as it is more capable to connect and shape identity, and through identity, the belonging to place (Smith, 2006, p. 76). 6.1.4 Benefits, drivers and funding On national level the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland supports decisionmaking to the historic environment (HES, 2019). Findings reveal that developments surrounding the Antonine Wall are as much ‘heritage as development’ as ‘heritage in development’ (Samuels and Lilley, 2015). Planners are acting in the public interest, which is very much place dependent, while decision-makers are often only responding to different drivers. They appreciate additional funding and spreading of benefits to local communities. There is an increasing acceptance, that partners have to invest in order to gain return. It also may place additional burdens on WHS management.

6.2 Sustainable Future for the Antonine Wall 6.2.1 SDGs, Climate Change A recent report on the National Value of UNESCO designations to the United Kingdom (UK National Commission for UNESCO, 2020) draws up a detailed picture on how the

sites see their performance in delivering the 17 SDGs. Although SDG targets and indicators are not all country specific (such as SDG1 No Poverty – target 1.2), it is still deserving attention. (Figure 16). While Climate Action, Education Partnership scored higher, the SDGs targeting inequality (SDG1) and renewable energies (SDG7) are surprisingly felt to be the least aligned. This is daunting, since the detrimental impact of Covid-19 on poverty and employment - hitting hard the tourism and all management partnerships of all WHS - is being already highlighted by the online, real time status report of SDGs (UN, 2020). Flooding and change of land uses have been causing Figure 16 UNESCO designation delivering SDGs. Source: (UK National Commission for UNESCO, 2020, p. 199)

difficulties for other heritage sites as well (Howard et al., 2017), but the relevance to SDG 15 Life on

Land was not pointed out explicitly during the interviews. This has relevance for planning as well as for sustainability causes, because the report states that planning and management is one of the five broad activity areas designated sites have in delivering objectives. 6.2.2 Well-being, meeting place Key finding is that for people, regardless of the different motivations or ‘existence values’ (Ståhle, 2006) , the Antonine Wall is also a meeting place, a ‘place of encounter’ (Adams and Tiesdell, 2013) with others, with nature, with the landscape and with the world heritage too. As the report of the Scottish Natural Heritage (2018) informed us, by visiting outdoor places people derive benefits as it helps relaxing, improves physical health, energise and revitalise, brings closer to nature and holds a ‘good social experience’. A recent report (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2020) not only supported the increasing importance of spending times outdoor and in the nature but showed that

during the first stage of the lockdown5 ‘levels of participation … increased significantly… even among those who rarely or never left home’. Mental health was a particularly important reason to get out. Women, younger people and families were most likely to spend more times outdoor. As the lockdown measures restricted to go over 5 miles from home, access and proximity became a major factor for people. Communities along the Antonine Wall are especially fortunate situation in that sense. Surveys in other parts of the UK revealed that people are actively looking for large, open air, public green spaces, where social distancing – one of the main worries (Natural England, 2020, Figure 7) – might be easier. The fact that people became more aware of their natural environment and wildlife, may present a unique opportunity to the Antonine Wall to provide for mental and physical health as well as the social life of local communities, by building on the increased demand for ‘getting out’ and the newly found interest in local places. What could happen here, is that two different classes of ‘existence value’ – ecological and cultural – are getting synchronised by necessity and becoming a single ‘experience value’ (Ståhle, 2006, p. 68) associated with the Antonine Wall. Recently there is an impetus gained in urban studies towards the notion ‘placekeeping’(Dempsey and Burton, 2012), the long-term maintenance and identification of other public uses of open, public spaces as opposed to placemaking (Dempsey, Smith and Burton, 2014). As the FRE sites – including the Antonine Wall – fall into this category, their future use and sustainability may be influenced by fundamental challenges such as climate change, and by the recent shift in perception of communities and national or local governments in appreciating the locally accessible outdoor places and their role in wellbeing.

The initial stage of the Lockdown in Scotland lasted between 23rd March to 28th May 2020

7 – Conclusions and Recommendations 7.1 Conclusions In my research I attempted to explore how development decisions in World Heritage management and spatial planning are influencing each other. My main goal was to understand ‘how’ and ‘why’ interactions between different actors and stakeholders shape the scene. By using the perspectives of a heritage student, a community member and a planner, I attempted to go beyond the rhetoric of strategies, policies and guidelines. I explored the fields where planning encounters with World Heritage: place identity, placemaking, sustainable futures and sustainable developments. Through qualitative methods, I asked participants about their experience of working with communities, planners and heritage professionals as well as used non-participative observation and netnography to capture user experiences at the Antonine Wall posted on YouTube. The research journey took me over the stages of the cultural anthropological process of giving meaning to a heritage place, from memory and heritage, through identity construction, place and belonging to ownership. It also revealed that how meaning lays foundation to a narrative that connects with people. I found that trust and cooperation; meaning, awareness and engagement; OUV and place identity as well as spreading benefits, balancing drives and funding are the key themes influencing most the future of the Antonine Wall WHS. There are lessons to be learnt from the case of the Antonine Wall. Nominated FRE sites along the Danube, in various countries, under different legislative systems and approaches to local governance, may cover huge areas and connect many communities in a ‘stripe of 10 kilometres’ (P5:23:00). For them, implications should be clearly an important consideration.

7.2 Practical recommendations BUILD

TRUST :

The complexity of stakeholder ecology and any effective partnership

on this scale requires close cooperation, formalised collaboration and most of all trust between partners. The hardest to gain, easiest to lose is the trust of communities, as they often have very different priorities and needs to World Heritage management.

FOCUS

PLACE : The concept of place is easily accessible for both heritage and

planning, while for communities it is part of the identity. Communities are different, their population may significantly be diverse. To address their needs while connecting them to World Heritage requires a strategic, but place-based approach. NO MEANING â&#x20AC;&#x201C; NO OUV: Through memories and identity comes meaning, which connects only if it was relevant to people. Through belonging and place comes ownership, without which there is no buy-in. For local communities to relate to any FRE World Heritage Site, the role of intangible cultural heritage is invaluable in making Roman heritage relevant. GO BEYOND HERITAGE : A World Heritage can be much more than a site and monument, it can be a place of encounter and meeting, a carrier of different experience values, including mental and well-being, recreation and fun. It can contribute to deliver SDGs and to act on climate crisis. Most of all, it can spread benefits through society by including and using cultural heritage as a key element for sustainable development.

7.3 Limitations and future research My research had multiple limitations. First of all, the complexity of the chosen topic and the constrains of the dissertation prevented to delve into and explore more deeply the fabric of World Heritage management and its relationship to politics, communities, planning and sustainability. It was not only cross-sectoral, but used different WHS contexts across Europe. While it allowed me to use different methods, approaches and tools from cultural anthropology to tourism studies, it also meant that I only applied a fraction of their rich lore and knowledge. The interviews provided an instant feedback and participants were keen to offer new directions, directing my attention to new studies and areas to explore. The theme of sustainability in relation to World Heritage sites, successes and failures of engaging with communities, politics of local government organisations and balancing drivers and competing interests, the meaning and significance of cultural heritage, the role of intangible cultural heritage in in designing visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s journey for sites and managing World Heritage, economic and environmental impacts, the connection between OUV and planning - all could be a subject of research furthering our understanding and significance of World Heritage for contemporary society and leading to better, more adequate practical solutions. 60

References #antoninewall (2020) '#antoninewall - hashtags on Instagram' 15:15. 26/07/2020. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/antoninewall/ (Accessed: 26/07/2020). Adams, C.A. (2010) 'Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews', in Wholey, J. S., Hatry, P. H. and Newcomer, K. E. (eds.) Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. 3rd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 365-377. Adams, D. and Tiesdell, S. (2013) Shaping places : urban planning, design and development. London: Routledge. Adelman, C. (1993) 'Kurt Lewin and the Origins of Action Research', Educational Action Research, 1(1), pp. 7-24. Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. Ardévol, E. and Estalella, A. (2012) 'Use of the Internet in European Ethnographic Research', in Kockel, U., Nic Craith, M. and Frykman, J. (eds.) A companion to the anthropology of Europe Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 480-493. Baloglu, S. and Uysal, M. (1996) 'Market segments of push and pull motivations: a canonical correlation approach', International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(3), pp. 32-38. Baxter, I. (2014) 'Building Value through Data', Heritage Management, 3(1), pp. 33-50. Belford, P. (2018) 'Politics and Heritage: Developments in Historic Environment Policy and Practice in Wales', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 9(2), pp. 102-127. Berg, S.K. (2017) 'Cultural heritage as a resource for property development', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 8(4), pp. 304-322. Berger, R. (2013) 'Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research', Qualitative Research, 15(2), pp. 219-234. Blanca Del Espino, H. (2019) 'Assessing sustainability within territorial and urban heritage', Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 9(1), pp. 121-132. Breeze, D.J. (2011) 'The Antonine Wall – The Making of a World Heritage Site', Scottish Geographical Journal, 127(2), pp. 87-93. Carlson, M. (2018) Performance: a critical introduction London: Routledge. 61

Caust, J. and Vecco, M. (2017) 'Is UNESCO World Heritage recognition a blessing or burden? Evidence from developing Asian countries', Journal of Cultural Heritage, 27(22), pp. 1-9. Cullingworth, B. and Nadin, V. (2006) Town and Country Planning in the UK 14th ed. edn. Abingdon: Routledge. Cummins, B. (2017) 'What’s Your Heritage?', Scottish Planner - The Journal of RTPI Scotland, 170, pp. 10-11. Dempsey, N. and Burton, M. (2012) 'Defining place-keeping: The long-term management of public spaces', Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(1), pp. 11-20. Dempsey, N., Burton, M. and Smith, H. (2014) 'From space to place - The importance of place-keeping', in Dempsey, N., Burton, M. and Smith, H. (eds.) Place-keeping : open space management in practice. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1-12. 1. Dempsey, N., Smith, H. and Burton, M. (eds.) (2014) Place-keeping : open space management in practice. New York: Routledge. Deutsche Limeskommission (2019) Management-Plan 2019-2023 of the UNESCO-World Heritage Site “Frontiers of the Roman Empire: Upper German-Raetian Limes”. Hamburg. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/178674 (Accessed: 20/07/2020). Ellis, C., Adams, T.E. and Bochner, A.P. (2011) 'Autoethnography: An Overview', Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 36(4), pp. 273-290. Field, J. (2010) 'Review Essay: The Changing Vessel of Memory - Identity and Text in Religion and Cultural Memory by Jan Assmann', Critical Horizons, 11(1), pp. 133-147. Fouseki, K. and Nicolau, M. (2018) 'Urban Heritage Dynamics in ‘Heritage-Led Regeneration’: Towards a Sustainable Lifestyles Approach', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 9(34), pp. 229-248. Goatley, P. and Pindham, N. (2019) 'Heritage Assets: Decision Making in the Real World', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 10(3-4), pp. 308-327. Government of Hungary (2019) 1288/2019. (V. 17.) Korm. határozat „A Római Birodalom határai – A dunai limes magyarországi szakasza” világörökségi várományos helyszín Világörökség Jegyzékbe jelölésével kapcsolatos intézkedésekről. Magyar Kozlony: Government of Hungary. [Online]. Available at: https://magyarkozlony.hu/dokumentumok/d24350dc01688b5ac3be078f516b86837eae7de 2/megtekintes (Accessed: 24/06/2020).

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) 'Competing paradigms in qualitative research', in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousan Oaks: Sage, pp. 105-117. Guillemin, M. and Gillam, L. (2016) 'Ethics, Reflexivity, and â&#x20AC;&#x153;Ethically Important Momentsâ&#x20AC;? in Research', Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), pp. 261-280. Hague, C. and Jenkins, P. (eds.) (2005) Place Identity, Participation and Planning. London: Taylor & Francis Routledge. Haldrup, M. and Baerenholdt, J. (2015) 'Heritage as Performance', in Waterton, E. and Watson, S. (eds.) The Palgrave handbook of contemporary heritage research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 52-68. Hale, A., Fisher, A., Hutchinson, J., Jeffrey, S., Jones, S., Maxwell, M. and Stewart Watson, J. (2017) 'Disrupting the heritage of place: practising counter-archaeologies at Dumby, Scotland', World archaeology, 49(3), pp. 372-387. Haselsberger, B. (2014) 'The Evolution of Planning Thought: The making of a field uncovered by its collective memory', disP - The Planning Review, 50(3), pp. 121-124. HES (2019) Historic Environment Policy for Scotland. Edinburgh: Historic Environment Scotland. Hewitson, N. (2019) 'The Disconnect between Heritage Law and Policy: How Did We Get Here and Where are We Going?', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 10(3-4), pp. 300-307. Hingley, R. (2018) 'Frontiers and Mobilities: The Frontiers of the Roman Empire and Europe', European Journal of Archaeology, 21(1), pp. 78-95. Historic Scotland (2013) 'THE ANTONINE WALL Management Plan 2014-2019' FRE - Frontiers of the Roman empire World Heritage Site. Available at: https://www.antoninewall.org/world-heritage/managing-antonine-wall (Accessed: 24/06/2020). Historic Scotland (nd-a) The Antonine Wall Volume II - Maps. Available at: https://www.antoninewall.org/world-heritage/documents (Accessed: 31/07/2020). Historic Scotland (nd-b) Supplementary Planning Guidance - Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site. Historic Scotland. Available at: https://www.antoninewall.org/sites/default/files/Antonine%20Wall%20SPGr2c-Finalcombined%202.pdf (Accessed: 01/06/2020).

Holmes-Skelton, G. (2019) 'For Everyone?: Finding a Clearer Role for Heritage in Public Policy-making', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 10(3-4), pp. 363-379. Howard, A.J., Hancox, E., Hanson, J. and Jackson, R. (2017) 'Protecting the Historic Environment from Inland Flooding in the UK: Some Thoughts on Current Approaches to Asset Management in the Light of Planning Policy, Changing Catchment Hydrology and Climate Change', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 8(2), pp. 125-142. Hyett, N., Kenny, A. and Dickson-Swift, V. (2014) 'Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports', Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 9, p. 23606. ICOMOS (2005) 'Xi'an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas'. 22.10.2005. Xi’an, China: ICOMOS, pp. 1-4. Available at: https://www.icomos.org/xian2005/xian-declaration.pdf (Accessed: 09/07/2020). ICOMOS (2008) 'Québec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place'. Canada, Québec: ICOMOS, pp. 1-4. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-646-2.pdf (Accessed: 09/07/2020). Israel, M. and Hay, I. (2006) Research Ethics for Social Scientists. London: Sage. Jimura, T. (2019) World Heritage sites : tourism, local communities and conservation activities / Takamitsu Jimura. Wallingford: Wallingford : CABI. Kockel, U. (2010) 'Re-Visioning Europe Frontiers, Place Identities and Journeys in Debatable Lands' 1st. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://www-dawsoneracom.ezproxy1.hw.ac.uk/readonline/9780230282988/startPage/8/1 (Accessed: 06/21/2020). Kockel, U. (2013) 'Borders, European Integration and UNESCO World Heritage: A Case Study of the Curonian Spit', in Bendix, R. F., Eggert, A. and Peselmann, A. (eds.) Heritage Regimes and the State (6). Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen, pp. 227-246. Kockel, U., Clopot, C., Tjarve, B. and Nic Craith, M. (eds.) (2019) Heritage and Festivals in Europe: Performing Identities. 1 edn. Milton: Routledge. Kozinets, R.V. (2010) Netnography - doing ethnographic research online. London: Sage. Labadi, S. and Gould, P.G. (2015) 'Sustainable Development Heritage Community Economics', in Meskell, L. (ed.) Global heritage : a reader / edited by Lynn Meskell. London: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 196-216. 9.

Larsen, J. and Urry, J. (2011) 'Gazing and Performing', Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(6), pp. 1110-1125. Logan, W., Nic Craith, M. and Kockel, U. (2016) 'The New Heritage Studies: Origins and Evolution, Problems and Prospects', in Logan, W., Nic Craith, M. and Kockel, U. (eds.) A Companion to Heritage Studies. 1 edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Lynch, K. (1960) The image of the city / Kevin Lynch. Reprint edn. London: MIT Press. Mantzavinos, C. (2020) 'Hermeneutics', in Zalta, N. E. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Spring 2020 edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Mariotti, A. (2011) 'World Heritage and Tourism, managing the local and the global: the first international congress of the UNESCO/UNITWIN Network â&#x20AC;&#x153;Culture, Tourism, Developmentâ&#x20AC;?', Almatourism, 1(2), pp. 61-62. May, S. (2019) 'Heritage, endangerment and participation: alternative futures in the Lake District', International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26(1), pp. 71-86. Meskell, L. (2015) 'Introduction Globalizing_Heritage', in Meskell, L. (ed.) Global heritage : a reader. London: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 1-21. 1. Meskell, L. (2018) 'Heritage, gentrification, participation: Remaking urban landscapes in the name of culture and historic preservation', International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25(9), pp. 996-998. Meskell, L. and Brumann, C. (2015) 'UNESCO and New World Orders', in Meskell, L. (ed.) Global heritage : a reader. London: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 22-42. 1. Morel, H. and Dawson, M. (2019) 'Engaging with Policy in England - Agency, Interpretation and Implementation', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 10(3-4), pp. 245-254. Natural England (2020) The People and Nature Survey for England: Monthly interim indicators for May 2020 (Experimental Statistics). Natural England. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-people-and-nature-survey-for-englandmonthly-interim-indicators-for-may-2020-experimental-statistics/the-people-and-naturesurvey-for-england-monthly-interim-indicators-for-may-2020-experimentalstatistics#section-3 (Accessed: 28/07/2020). Noble, H. and Smith, J. (2015) 'Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research', Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(2), pp. 34-35.

Norman, K. (2007) 'The Hadrian’s Wall Major Study: a test for participatory planning in the management of a World Heritage Site', Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 9(3), pp. 140-173. O'Gorman, K. and MacIntosh, R. (2016) Research methods for business & management : a guide to writing your dissertation. 2nd ed. edn. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Ltd. Palmer, C. (2001) 'Ethnography: a research method in practice', International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(4), pp. 301-312. PAS (2016) Fauldhouse Focus - Report of village Charretteplus®. Edinburgh: Planning Aid Scotland. Available at: https://www.pas.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FauldhouseFocus-Charrette-report.pdf (Accessed: 01/08/2020). PAS (2020) Local Place Plans. Available at: https://www.pas.org.uk/localplaceplans/ (Accessed: 01/08/2020 2020). Patrick, C. (2019) 'Historic Environment Policy: The View from a Planning Department', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 10(3-4), pp. 395-407. Pelan, J. (2017) 'Fifty Years of Conservation Areas', Scottish Planner - The Journal of RTPI Scotland, (170), p. 13. Phillips, D. (2019) 'Archeology, Conservation and Enhancement: The Role of Viability in the UK Planning System', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 10(3-4), pp. 345-362. Plets, G. and Reeves, K. (2016) Cultural Heritage as a Strategy for Social Needs and Community Identity. Edited by Logan, W., Nic Craith, M. and Kockel, U. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Rampley, M. (ed.) (2012) Heritage, ideology, and identity in Central and Eastern Europe : contested pasts, contested presents. Newcastle: Boydell P. Reimer, M., Getimēs, P.t.s. and Blotevogel, H.H. (2014) Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe : a comparative perspective on continuity and changes. New York, N.Y.: New York, N.Y.: Routledge. Robb, S. (2018) 'The role of the historic environment in tackling climate change', Scottish Planner - The Journal of RTPI Scotland, (173), p. 16. Robertson, J. (2017) 'Heritage and planning reform', Scottish Planner - The Journal of RTPI Scotland, (170), p. 18.

Salazar, N.B. and Zhu, Y. (2015) 'Heritage and Tourism', in Meskell, L. (ed.) Global heritage : a reader / edited by Lynn Meskell. London: 9781118768938, pp. 240-258. 11. Samuels, K.L. and Lilley, I. (2015) 'Transnationalism and Heritage Development', in Meskell, L. (ed.) Global heritage : a reader / edited by Lynn Meskell. London: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 217239. 10. Scottish Government (2014a) Ambition l Opportunity l Place - Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework. Edinburgh: Scottish Governemnt. Scottish Government (2014b) Scottish Planning Policy. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy/ (Accessed: 15/05/2020). Scottish Government (2020a) 'Have your say on a new National Planning Framework for Scotland - NPF4 Early engagement'. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: https://www.transformingplanning.scot/media/1146/npf4-early-engagement-have-yoursay-leaflet.pdf (Accessed: 10/07/2020). Scottish Government (2020b) National Performance Framework. Available at: https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/. Scottish Natural Heritage (2018) Scotland's People and Nature Survey - Participation in outdoor recreation. Inverness: Placemaking for People and Nature Unit, Scottish Natural Heritage. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2018-12/SPANS%20%202017-18%20Participation%20in%20outdoor%20recreation.pdf (Accessed: 28/07/2020). Scottish Natural Heritage (2020) 'Enjoying the outdoors: Outdoor visit behaviour and engagement with nature in Scotland during the Coronavirus lockdown' Scottish Forestry, Cairngorms National Park Authority and Paths for All. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2020-07/Enjoying%20the%20outdoors%20%20Survey%20of%20outdoor%20visit%20behaviour%20in%20Scotland%20during%20lockdo wn_0.pdf (Accessed: 28/07/2020). Skrede, J. and Berg, S.K. (2018) 'Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development: The Case of Urban Densification', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 10(1), pp. 83-102. Smith, H., Pereira, M., Roe, J., Sosenko, F., Lindholst, A.C. and Mathers, A. (2014) 'The evaluation of place-keeping', in Dempsey, N., Smith, H. and Burton, M. (eds.) Place-keeping: Open Space Management in Practice. Abingdon: Routledge. Smith, L. (2006) Uses of heritage. London: Routledge. Sonkoly, G. (2016) Bolyhos tájaink: A kulturális örökség történeti értelmezései [Fuzzy Landscapes: Historical Interpretations of Cultural Heritage]. Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó 67

Speirs, D. (2017) 'Partnership and the Forth Bridge World Heritage Project', Scottish Planner The Journal of RTPI Scotland, (170), pp. 16-17. Ståhle, A. (2006) 'Sociotope mapping', Nordic Journal of Architectural research, 19(4), pp. 5971. Stewart, J. (2012) 'Multiple-case Study Methods in Governance-related Research', Public Management Review, 14(1), pp. 67-82. Stoian, C.E. (2015) The discourse of tourism and national heritage : a contrastive study from a cultural perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Taha, S. (2014) 'Still a Place to Call Home? Development and the Changing Character of Place', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 5(1), pp. 17-35. The Antonine Wall (2020) '#Homeschooling This map was made by people living along the Wall today. They drew the things that they liked best, like fishing in the canal or going for a walk. ' 11:09. 29/06/2020. Twitter. Available at: https://twitter.com/AntonineWall/status/1277529679629627392. Thomas, S. (2011) 'Heritage and Community Engagement: Collaboration or Contestation?', Curator: The Museum Journal, 54(3), pp. 371-374. Thurley, S. (2005) 'Into the Future. Our Strategy for 2005–2010', Conservation Bulletin, 49(26–27). Tucker, K.H.J. (1999) Anthony Giddens and Modern Social Theory. Turner, V. (1969) The Ritual Process New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction. UK National Commission for UNESCO (2020) 'The National Value of UNESCO Designations to the United Kingdom'. London: UK National Commission for UNESCO. UN (2020) SDG1 - End poverty in all its forms everywhere. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/sdg1.png (Accessed: 10/07/2020 2020). UNESCO (2005a) 'The 2005 Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions'. Paris: UNESCO. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/creativity/convention/texts (Accessed: 15/07/2020).

UNESCO (2005b) Basic Texts of the 1972 World Heritage Convention. 2005 edn. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2013) 'The Hangzhou Declaration: Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies'. 17 May. Hangzhou: UNESCO. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/images/FinalHangzhouDeclar ation20130517.pdf (Accessed: 08/07/2020). UNESCO (2019a) '43rd World Heritage Committee 6 July 2019 PM,'. 07/07/2019. YouTube. Available at: https://youtu.be/NAbfa2h5UKo?t=3680 (Accessed: 06/05/2020). UNESCO (2019b) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines (Accessed: 22/07/2020). Uyang, N. and Zakariya, K. (2015) 'The Notion of Place, Place Meaning and Identity in Urban Regeneration', Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 170, pp. 709 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 717. Villaespesa, E. and Ă lvarez, A. (2020) 'Visitor journey mapping at the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza: bringing cross-departmental collaboration to build a holistic and integrated visitor experience', Museum Management and Curatorship, 35(2), pp. 125-142. Vohra, V. (2014) 'Using the Multiple Case Study Design to Decipher Contextual Leadership Behaviors in Indian Organizations', The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 12(1), pp. 54-65. Weber, M. (1964) The theory of social and economic organisation. New York: Free Press. Weeks, P. (2020) 'The Antonine Wall as a World Heritage Site: People, priorities and playparks', in Breeze, D. J. and Hanson, W. S. (eds.) The Antonine Wall - Papers in honour of Professor Lawrence Keppie. Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing Ltd. West, S. (2010) 'Is Scotland Planning to preserve the world's heritage? A case-study in the heart of neolithic Orkney' MSc Thesis. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh. West, S., Porter, C., Ferguson, D. and Lynch, M. (2019) 'Our Kirkwall, Our Heritage', Scottish Planner - The Journal of RTPI Scotland, (177), pp. 14-15. WHC (2017) Decision 41 COM 8B.50 - Large Complex Serial Transnational Nominations and the Need for Nomination Strategies. Paris: UNESCO. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6922 (Accessed: 21/07/2020). WHC (2019) Decisions adopted during the 43rd session of the World Heritage Committee. Baku, Azerbaijan: UNESCO. 69

Wiles, R. (2013) What are qualitative research ethics? London: Bloomsbury Academic. Witcomb, A. (2016) 'Cross‐Cultural Encounters and “Difficult Heritage” on the Thai–Burma Railway: An Ethics of Cosmopolitanism rather than Practices of Exclusion', in Logan, W., Nic Craith, M. and Kockel, U. (eds.) A Companion to Heritage Studies. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 462-478. World Heritage UK (2018) PLANNING AND WORLD HERITAGE POSITION STATEMENT. WH:UK. Available at: https://worldheritageuk.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/planning-positionstatement-final-screen-version-oct-18.pdf (Accessed: 23/07/2020). World Heritage UK (2019) UK WORLD HERITAGE - ASSET FOR THE FUTURE: A Review of the State of UK World Heritage Sites, Technical Report. WH:UK. Available at: https://worldheritageuk.org/about/resources/whuk-downloads/ (Accessed: 25/06/2020). Yazan, B. (2015) 'Three Approaches to Case Study Methods in Education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake', The Qualitative Report, 20(2), pp. 134-152. Yellis, K. (2010) 'Cueing the Visitor: The Museum Theater and the Visitor Performance: CUEING THE VISITOR', Curator (New York, N.Y.), 53(1), pp. 87-103. Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London Sage.

Appendix 1: Interviews The list of participants and the interview questions were agreed by my dissertation supervisor. Align with the applied ethical considerations, the research ethical approval of the Heriot-Watt University and the informed consent briefing sent to individuals, the interviews were anonymised. List of interviews •

P1 conducted via Microsoft Teams on 25th June 2020;

•

P2 conducted via Microsoft Teams on 23rd June 2020;

•

P3 conducted via Microsoft Teams on 25th June 2020;

•

P4 conducted in person on 23rd June 2020;

•

P5 recorded interview covering the interview questions 01 June 2020;

•

P6 conducted via mobile on 3rd July and on 30 July 2020;

For more information please contact my dissertation supervisor professor Ullrich Kockel. Transcription of the interview with P6 as translated from Hungarian I: Could you tell me about your role in the World Heritage coordination? P6: I was involved as the coordinator of the World Heritage management organisation, responsible for the designing, planning and implementation aspects of the Early Christian Necropolis of Pécs (Sopianae) World Heritage through a successful EU bid project (European Union). This organisation was a partnership between the County of Baranya, the City of Pécs and the Government of Hungary as a State Party. My job was to prepare a plan to take the site from being an archaeological excavation site at various locations in the city to be a comprehensive World Heritage part, and to work with the architects, planners and heritage professionals as well as the local community in the process. I: Was it hard to gain support from the local community? Did it matter that what sort of – Early Christian, Late Roman – heritage was inscribed? P6: For the city (local municipality) it was a no-brainer. They saw it as a major asset to increase the tourism, and the World Heritage was a means to the end. As there was an EU bid they wanted to win, it was even more attractive. For the people, I mean the local people of Pécs, it was known but not widely, and not well known. The site was 71

researched since the 1970s so there were over 20 years (inscribed in 2000) to hear about it. But the Roman and pre-Christian heritage was not something the people cared about locally in general. The professionals (architects and planners, archaeologist and other heritage experts) have been known about it, may not have known about all the elements, but we did know what we are dealing with. Not in the sense of OUVs though. However, it changed at the inscription, when a much wider audience became aware of its existence. I: What did it mean for the experts? P6: First of all, through the project for establishing an accessible, interpretable World Heritage site with all amenities provided it meant the need for cooperate and of course many conflicts. Especially between architects and archaeologists, who are thinking on different timescales. Just to make you understand there was 1,5 year to research archaeological findings and develop a program, on which the whole investment program, the architectural and urban planning plans and designs were based. For archaeologist it was really hard to think it through – things like -what should be visible, and what should not, which technological solutions threatens the heritage value less, meanwhile allows audience actually to connect to the heritage and so on… I: What impact has it on the future plans of the city? Did it become part of the future vision? P6: Of course, when it comes to the management plan, all partners have to play their role and they did. The World Heritage was a highlighted project within the city and therefore got the attentions and commitments from the local politician, the mayor at the time in particular. But it is also an interesting question, because the city also has seen a European Capital of Culture project in 2010 and this has surpassed the World Heritage completely. I mean, that it was handled, as one of the many heritage sites and museum in the city, but not as something “worldwide”. We have this feeling of lacking attention as if it was not part of the cultural heritage. I: How did the development of the World Heritage site influence decisions or choices in developing the city?

P6: Mostly through planning and architecture processes. There were many issues we have to consider and solve with various levels of success, but this was influenced by the amount of funding we won. The plan of the site included the wider setting, therefore we had to consider locations which were surrounded by private properties too. Especially access to the elements and linking them up was challenging. One reason for that was the 1,5 years’ timeframe. There was just not enough time to buy out land from landowners. Apart from this a wide range of stuff was included: public spaces, alleys, local community centre – well the Visitor Centre was this in disguise – parking and access, and most of all the on-site interpretation. We had to work with the city and the various statutory bodies to get them done. I: During the project, how did the cooperation work out? P6: There was a lot of debate and quarrel about the future use in the buffer zone and the setting of the World Heritage site, as the city, and sometimes the local businesses wanted to use it differently. Even though it is Roman heritage, it is also integrated into the fabric of the city so deeply, that every decision could alter the way a public place is used. For example, we wanted to restrict the use of a local street adjoining the Visitor Centre in the buffer zone for other purposes such as local festivals, and street markets and create a designed landscape with references to the roman heritage, but it wasn’t well received. We did test it though and for a year, the markets and the events were replaced to another part of the World Heritage site, but and stalls, street vendors slowly went back to desire lines occurring naturally, so we adapted to it at the end. I: How did you engage and reach out to the local community, businesses and others? P6: the EU funding itself provided a very detailed list of engagement methods, but it was not really working. We had press conferences, community meeting organised frequently, wrote and published newspaper articles in print and online, but there was a sort of ignorance, an apathy in the people… Some people were interested in the World Heritage and with them we could engage meaningfully relatively easily, but not with the others, even though decisions made then did influence their daily life actually. The only difference was, when someone has become directly involved for example through having a house or a property with restricted development options. So, it was mostly when people encountered with the regulative, prohibiting aspects.

There was a mutual understanding between us though, that the funding was so detailed and limited in terms of what can you spend on, while being the only significant source, that we couldn’t deal with the time and HR capacity needs to come over this (the apathy). Possible, part of the problem was that this was a bid for establishing a World Heritage site instead of emphasising the cultural heritage part as well as that it could actually change the life of the community as well, for example, through street improvements and regeneration elements. I have got this feeling that people generally did not ‘get it’. I: You mean, they did not understand what potentials has the World Heritage development offered to them? P6: The whole concept of being a World Heritage was just not communicated to them meaningfully. And when it was, the meaning of the whole OUV, monument protection context went sideways. Interestingly, we have our differences to in interpreting of our own development plans at the end. Because there was a national body, monitoring and evaluating the bid, very adept and skilled in economic and bureaucratic terms, but lacking the experience with archaeology and architecture or planning. (urban planning) When they were reading our documents, they looked for different “combinations of words” to check against checklist, and in many cases, it was either misunderstood or completely objected. The challenge for us was to “translate” the technical language and jargon of designers and make it understandable for others. But you cannot do that all the time, the other part also has to have some sort of basic understanding.

Appendix 2 – YouTube vlogs Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

1 MrFord4210 The Antonine Wall, Scotland. Full tour of the Roman Wall 15/12/2019 Mock documentary of the world heritage Spring – autumn + rainy, foggy, sunny + daytime - Hunterian Museum - National Museum of Scotland, Kirkintilloch Museum, - sites: Bar Hill, Rough Castle, Polmont Wood, Croy Hill wilderness, Bo'ness and Bridgeness slabs What they see? Nature, forest, ancient trees, ditches and remains, green fields, meadows, flowers, urban ambience, streams and rivers, outdoor sounds, lights and contrasts, intimate and exposed spaces, open and closed vistas Narratives & - intended as documentary; comments - showing places - ambience - "stuff" - interpretative signs & boards; using subtitles and dramatic music; displaying Legion re-enactment (Ermin Street Guard); - practical information about access, car parking, points of interest as well as describes 'scenic' - ‘not well cared for' - 'little gem' Appearance of few 30s others How people use it? hiking, walking, running, kids playing What I see? - urban and built up areas taking turns with rural settings; - Kirkintilloch streetscaping, street furniture and steps featuring AW symbolic; many different landscapes (hills, valleys, woods); - housing and industrial buildings in close proximity; - busy roads at places; grazing fields with (possibly) electric fences; people walking on walk paths or desire-lines; - movement where grass being cut or following others they can see in the area URL https://youtu.be/z3gTfmUtHuk

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

2 macbud Antonine Wall 11/11/2015 aerial video Spring OR autumn + cloudy, dry + daytime - west of Bonnybridge - Seabegs Woods

What they see? - signs and displays; - landscape: canal, burn, woods and meadows; - distances from houses, industrial buildings and cows; - ramparts and the ditch Narratives & - Show interpretation signs and display board; comments - drone flying along the ditch; - chill-out music suggesting calmness and serenity; - vistas 'looking back' to houses from the air; - comment suggesting that is it very easy to get there 'this part of the wall is just west of Bonnybridge'. Appearance of couples, kids, dogs others How people use it? walking, strolling, dog walking, kids running What I see? - road acting as a boundary and barrier to pedestrian access along canal; - industrial buildings are close by and built up area in closer proximity; - agricultural use: grazing fields and cows; wetland along the burn URL

https://youtu.be/OS-8NnrVWis

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

3 McDAGOS THE ANTONINE WALL, BARR HILL FORT, SCOTLAND 07/06/2019 tour vlog; trying to imagine Summer + sunny, warm +daytime - Track to get there; - Barr Hill Fort - Castle Hill - Bath House What they see? - panoramic views: hills in distance, communities below, canal scenic view, grazing cows; - what is to know/how did the site look like; - wall remains and 'stuff', - contrasts: hills vs sky, overgrown bushes vs cut grass, fort location vs wilderness Narratives & - Road signs; showing they way to site; comments - scenic 360-degree camera views; - showing display boards in detail and for long; - birdsongs + forest +nature ambience; - very clear and detailed YouTube description; - practical notes on Parking 'not straightforward', Access and Hiking difficulty scale Appearance of groups of people others How people use it? hiking; visitors engaging with interpretation; people cheering, waving; interacting with each other What I see? - houses, fences and back gardens with sheds directly around; - landscaping to direct access, mosaic/patches of different land uses all around; - smaller and larger communities and built environments; - desire-lines where there is not clear path or track; - some significant elevation; -worn old display signs like ' Regimental House' - meeting point of people with same interests: heritage + nature URL https://youtu.be/ykkgBs0MHl0

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

4 mrtimelliott The Antonine Wall 15/10/2014 imaginary documentary about the Antonine Wall. n/a - generic, different parts shown - focus on visible ditch and rampart What they see?

- landscape elements - built elements and remains, -stuff – slabs, milestones, artifacts in museum exhibitions Narratives & comments

Appearance of others How people use it?

- full documentary with narration interpreting the AW - raising awareness to AW as ‘forgotten’ wall of Romans - using movies, other videos, enactments, maps, animations, and documentaries to set context - 3 D visualisation of Roman forts - dramatic music n/a n/a

What I see? - focuses on the general aspects of the Wall - shows as heritage in isolation – not acknowledging the context within it does exist. URL https://youtu.be/cM2YUL7_e1U

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

5 McDAGOS THE ANTONINE WALL, ROUGH CASTLE, SCOTLAND 10/06/2019 tour vlog Summer + sunny, windy + daytime - Rough Castle fort site

What they see? - landscape elements: ditch, rampart, defensive pits - natural features: wee burn, wetland, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;waterfallsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; - interpretation in detail Narratives & - signs and interpretative material shown comments - focuses in detailed information - using scenery to set stage for the site Appearance of one others How people use it? hiking What I see? - electric infrastructure crossing the AW (pylons, cables) - fences - wee burn and bridge on walking path URL https://youtu.be/zpKGCV6KfOk

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

6 Tony F Sloppy Joe FPV Drone Racer at the Antonine Wall 18/09/2017 Drone racing / non heritage related interest â&#x20AC;&#x201C; wellbeing and fun Early autumn â&#x20AC;&#x201C; sunny - daytime Recorded on a longer, open part of the AW, with strong emphasis on elements providing obstacles for drome pilots

What they see? - landscape features: ditch, rampart, trees, - open and closed vistas Narratives & - showing the area comments -showing parts of the AW with challenging features Appearance of At least a group of 8 young people practicing drone flying (possible others under 20) How people use it? What I see? - a meeting place for people seeking large, open landscaped areas with undisturbed spaces - sitting on the top of the ramparts, leaving their thing on the grass as there isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t any place to sit down and rest - a non-heritage, recreational use for fun, - using every bits and crannies of the place URL https://youtu.be/Y4uwM-0j6Es

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

7 Roger Griffith Roughcastle Fort and the Antonine Wall, Falkirk 08/10/2016 vlog Spring-autumn +bright and dry + daytime Rough castle

What they see? - hardship of terrain, forest, ditch, - landscape elements, Narratives & - voice narration explaining what can be seen in situ comments - 360-degree scenic views - mentioning that ‘not far from Falkirk’ Appearance of n/a others How people use it? n/a What I see? - the site taken care of - allows wandering - interacting people on YouTube: other users shooting similar vlogs for example about Hadrian’s Wall commenting to each other URL https://youtu.be/rxrnMzzq0lU

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

8 McDAGOS THE ANTONINE WALL, CROY HILL 10/06/2019 Tour vlog Summer + sunny, windy + daytime (afternoon) Croy Hill

What they see? - the way in and up hill - talking to other people going this way - ambience; flowers, vistas, rock formations and tranquillity - rough terrain - flora and fauna - grazing cows at arm’s length Narratives & - showing the access point – Croy Hill gate comments - displaying interpretative signs in detail - emphasis in visual illustrations to help imagining what was there Appearance of Young woman, dogs, others How people use it? Visiting, dog walking What I see? - houses next to trail, - grazing cows directly on site and walking path - comment on YouTube: ‘One of my favourite places. Lovely walk up and very peaceful ...great way to spend a summers afternoon.’ URL https://youtu.be/Jmrn_eO-cec

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

9 ExploreFPV Practice at the Antonine Wall, Falkirk - 13/07/2019 14/07/2019 Drone flying Summer – sunny - daytime AW ditch and rampart next to Falkirk

What they see? - trees and landscape features of the ditch and rampart - flying over and around trees using them as obstacles Narratives & comments Appearance of others How people use it?

- showing a place where drone pilots can have fun together The ‘Glasgow FPV gang’ Drone racing

What I see? - a meeting point for people with non-heritage related interests, who are using the place as a recreation, well-being, fun-making place - where do they leave food wrappings, drinking bottles etc? Toilettes? - they have lots of equipment to carry – possible parking with multiple cars somewhere close? URL https://youtu.be/vXztq4jcfWw

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

10 g4shf Rough Castle, Antonine Wall, Scotland 02/07/2015 Tour vlog Summer + cloudy + daytime Rough Castle – ruin, along ramparts, between trees

What they see? - landscape: ditch, rampart, trees, meandering walking paths - natural features and scenery Narratives & - showing interpretative material comments - showing the entrance Appearance of - talking in background implies more than one people others How people use it? Visiting the site What I see? - ‘difficult to find structure’ URL

https://youtu.be/PaiUznyIFKk

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

11 wanchooco Antonine Wall - Trip 2 - 13 Aug 07/09/2017 Drone racing Summer + sunny + daytime Next to ramparts, flying all around the place

What they see? - trees, green space, the Wall as a challenging drone racing feature - a place where they can hone their drone flying skills Narratives & - heritage place used as a challenging backstage for drone racing comments Appearance of Group of young drone racers others How people use it? Drone racing, having fun What I see? - waste disposal issues - meeting point for having fun URL https://youtu.be/0hzQL-cKLfg

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

12 Tyron Moore Frosty Fly @ Antonine wall 10/12/2017 Drone racing Winter + clear and frosty + daytime Next to ramparts, flying all around the place

What they see?

Narratives & comments

- heritage place used as a challenging backstage for drone racing in wintertime

Appearance of others How people use it?

Around 8 ‘lads from Falkirk Drone club’ Drome racing

What I see? - comment: ‘Great chance meet with some the lads from Falkirk Drone club’ - a meeting point for having fun URL https://youtu.be/xin9Qd_c8gc

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

13 Sarah Rose the Explorer The Antonine wall Scotland 15/06/2020 Vlog Late spring – early autumn + cloudy + daytime Rough Castle fort

What they see? - interpretative sign and displays, but only the new ones with illustrative visual material to imagine ‘what it looked like’ - ambience again trees, vistas, nature Narratives & - ‘this is what it looked like’ Sara Rose engaging with audience and comments all interpretative material - using all unique natural features as a setting for the video Appearance of others How people use it?

There is the camera holder but no one else n/a

What I see? - electric infrastructure pylons cables - avoiding old Historic Scotland signs and like new ones with illustrative visual material to imagine ‘what it looked like’ URL https://youtu.be/ZKYrGIbGI08

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

14 fraser oneil Antonine wall hoop gates hd 18/09/2017 Drone hoop gate flying Late summer â&#x20AC;&#x201C; early autumn + sunny + daytime Usual drone flying spots

What they see? - pop-up hoop gates along trees and ramparts - flying all around the location Narratives & n/a comments Appearance of Few other drone racers others How people use it? Drone flying What I see? - Non-heritage use - meeting point for drone racers URL https://youtu.be/jbyHQkVj76A

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

15 Frog Water MTB EP4 - Antonine Wall - Bar Hill Scotland MTB 19/09/2019 Cycling Autumn + cloudy + daytime Along foot paths, dirt tacks to Bar Hill and back to Falkirk

What they see? - ‘smells brilliant’ - ‘nice and wide foot path’ - animals and nature long the way - acknowledging Antonine Wall - ‘houses over there’ - ‘fucking hard to walk down let alone with a bike’ Narratives & - GoPro style camera perspective comments - road signs and access points Appearance of PuddleJumperMTB mountain cycling group others How people use it? Off-road, downhill mountain biking, hiking What I see? - recreational use - difficult terrain, possible after rain as there are puddles on the path - riding on the Bar Hill wall signifying pebbles as it is easier than the wet grass, while talking about the Romans and the displays URL https://youtu.be/UMyVLqvGBtM

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

16 Paul Kerr Antonine Wall Bonnybridge Feb 19 17/02/2019 Family day out Winter + cloudy, cold + daytime Bonnyside East and West

What they see? - ditch, ramparts and aerial views of camp - unique scenery: bottom of ditch, over the burn, Narratives & - by vistas and landscapes comments - showing a family playing and running around Appearance of others How people use it?

Kids, adults Running and playing and exploring Dog walking What I see?

- carparking - electric infrastructure URL https://youtu.be/HkfQBp5biqc

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

17 Colin Duncan Antonine Wall At Bar Hill Fort 03/09/2018 visitor Autumn + windy, cloudy + daytime Bar Hill, Castle Hill

What they see? - ‘Wonder how many years after the Romans Left did this Fort be used’ - landscape and remains - interesting points bottom – top of ditch/ramparts etc - 360-degree views - houses and industrial buildings Narratives & - access and road signs comments - settings and scenery - viewpoints to panoramic view to surroundings Appearance of Family with small kids others How people use it? Outdoor walking with kids playing What I see? - the well preserved, easy to understand new interpretative material is with which people engage, because it lets them to imagine via visual illustrations – old style historic Scotland stuff is not so interesting - patches of urban and rural landuse fabric all around URL https://youtu.be/D6bj9EqtTvI

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

18 Syd Hutchinson Kelpies, Falkirk Wheel & Antonine Wall 26/02/2016 Tour vlog Rough Castle

What they see? - ‘certainly, an interesting place’ - contrasts and skylines - unique landscape features of ditch and ramparts - defensive pits Narratives & - dramatic places and ‘stuff’ comments - nature and birdsongs, trees and green colour Appearance of n/a others How people use it? n/a What I see? - favouring long distance scenic views alongside the ditch leading to horizon URL

https://youtu.be/J34GnH17e2o

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

19 MTBLeague Antonine Wall & Roughmute Roman Fort Falkirk 13/11/2018 ‘Drone flight along and above’ Winter + sunny + sunset Rough Castle (?) – along ditch and ramparts

What they see? - distance to Falkirk Wheels - shadows cast by ramparts at sunset - ambience: forest, woods, stream and wetlands - brown colour - aerial view of campsite and defensive pits Narratives & - Google Earth clip to show location comments - areal panoramic views sweeping around in 360-degree Appearance of German Shepard (with a handler I guess somewhere) others How people use it? Dog walking What I see? - wetlands, erosion? flooding? URL

https://youtu.be/oHa979F4iI8

Number User Title Date Doing When Where - places with more time spent

20 RampantScotland Roman Antonine Wall Across Scotland No date Tourist guide n/a ‘Bar Hill, Kinneil Fort & Bearsden Bath House’

What they see? - Showing sites, illustrations - ‘now a World Heritage Site’ - ditch and ramparts, - visible remains of buildings - Historic Scotland signs Narratives & - subtitles comments - Slideshow Appearance of n/a others How people use it? n/a What I see? - Bearsden – built-up area right next to it URL

https://youtu.be/ez2PzGlWef0

Interacting future visions and decisions in World Heritage management and spatial planning

Articles inside

Interacting future visions and decisions in World Heritage management and spatial planning