Multi-sectoral partnerships in urban heritage management: comparative insights and policy lessons from public-private and third sector collaboration

Purpose This study critically examines the evolving roles of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and third-sector actors in urban heritage management. It compares multi-sectoral partnership models across Europe, Australia, Latin America and India, identifying the governance conditions, financing mechanisms and third-sector configurations that determine whether partnerships produce durable conservation outcomes and equitable distributional benefits. In doing so, it engages directly with debates on power asymmetry, commercialisation risk and community legitimacy that prior comparative scholarship has underaddressed. Design/methodology/approach A comprehensive narrative review and comparative analysis of international case studies is conducted. Literature was identified through systematic searches of Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Emerald Insight, with sources selected against explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria covering geographic scope, analytical depth, and contemporary relevance. Thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke (2006) was applied to synthesise findings across a Comparative Governance Framework of eight analytical dimensions: partnership structure and modality, legal and institutional basis, financing mechanisms, third-sector role, accountability arrangements, heritage outcomes, equity outcomes and commercialisation risks. Institutional theory, value-led governance frameworks and adaptive governance approaches provide the theoretical foundation. Findings Five recurring patterns are observed across the reviewed evidence for the four regional cases; these are interpretive syntheses of a secondary literature base rather than definitive empirical findings, and are reported with corresponding caution. Multi-sectoral collaboration appears to be structurally necessary, with no single actor commanding the combination of resources, authority, and legitimacy that heritage conservation requires. Institutional strength emerges as the strongest apparent predictor of partnership form and effectiveness. The heritage deficit, the structural gap between conservation costs and recoverable returns, appears universal but managed through markedly different financing mechanisms across regions. Third-sector legitimacy appears to function as a structural requirement of sustainable partnerships, with the distinction between genuine power-sharing and tokenistic participation emerging as among the most consequential governance variables. Equity outcomes appear to require explicit design and enforced contractual obligations and do not emerge automatically from partnership formation. Practical implications Evidence-based recommendations are provided for policymakers and practitioners on five governance priorities: establishing legal frameworks that embed conservation conditions before private partners commit capital, addressing the heritage deficit through diversified financing instruments including CSR mandates and social impact bonds, giving third-sector actors formal governance standing with genuine decision-making authority rather than consultative roles, embedding equity as a co-equal design criterion through community benefit agreements and social impact assessments and institutionalising transparency through mandatory independent monitoring and public reporting. Recommendations are grounded in specific mechanisms demonstrated across the regional cases, including the Australian statutory master plan model, India's CSR financing instrument, and the Nizamuddin Basti integrated equity design approach. Originality/value This study develops and applies a Comparative Governance Framework for Multi-Sectoral Heritage Partnerships, an eight-dimension analytical instrument enabling structured cross-regional comparison of partnership design, performance, and sustainability. The framework advances existing scholarship by operationalising institutional theory and value-led governance into a practically applicable evaluative tool, integrating equity and distributional outcomes as first-order evaluative dimensions alongside technical and financial criteria, and providing a structured basis for cross-regional comparison that accommodates significant institutional diversity without collapsing it into a single undifferentiated model.