Participation as shared responsibility in industrial heritage management

Abstract Participation (from citizens, stakeholders, etc.) is often necessary when managing industrial heritage. In this conceptual paper, we will argue that, in this context, participation should generally be understood as shared responsibility. We will present our argument in three stages. Firstly, we will introduce the concept of shared responsibility in planning. To illustrate how this works in practice, we will use the Australian National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (NSDR) as a paradigm. Building on this, we will introduce the idea of shared responsibility in more detail. Secondly, we will analyse how participation is understood in key approaches to heritage management and planning (Critical heritage perspective of the authorised heritage discourse; Collaborative planning; Sustainable development; Governing the commons). Thirdly and finally, we will demonstrate that, while these approaches are compatible with a shared-responsibility model, they are less suitable when the specific characteristics of industrial heritage management are taken into account (such as multi-level governance structures). In conclusion, qualified (‘inclusive’) participation can be understood as the differentiated, multi-level, task-oriented sharing of responsibility (whether paid or voluntary) between, on the one hand, professional or ‘authorised’ actors, and, on the other hand, local ‘system’ experts and/or representatives (who may be elected or self-organised).