Heritage Planning in Migrant Societies:

A Case Study of Chinese Communities in Auckland, New Zealand

Dongxue Liu

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Planning, University of Auckland, 2023.
ABSTRACT

Heritage planning is often acknowledged as a subordinate field of heritage conservation and

urban planning. It rarely challenges the authorised heritage discourse underpinning the
exclusivity of heritage. This research focuses on the cultural heritage of the Chinese diaspora
and the New Zealand context and aims to broaden heritage planning to include migrant
minorities. Chinese heritage has been over-represented by the gold-mining heritage in the
Otago region while being less acknowledged in the North Island. Now Auckland has the most
significant proportion of the New Zealand Chinese population, with over 130 years of
Chinese history. This research investigates the Chinese cultural heritage of Auckland Chinese
communities and the official heritage discourse within the New Zealand heritage system and
Auckland heritage framework.

Literature research encompasses Chinese migration history and population composition,

Auckland Chinese history, the multiculturalism/biculturalism debate and planning responses,
and the New Zealand heritage system. Interviews were conducted with 48 Chinese
participants (including descendants of people who paid the Chinese-only poll tax
implemented in 1881 and migrants from mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan) and 22
heritage and planning professionals. Fieldwork was conducted in the most frequently
mentioned heritage places and activities in Auckland, Hamilton, and the South Island.

The current New Zealand heritage system remains unprepared for the de-facto demographic
diversity of New Zealand. Chinese cultural heritage is marginalised due to the mismatching
in the meaning of heritage, heritage manifestation, and the views of history. Migrant heritage
can be conceptualised by the spatial dimension of multiple place attachment (home,
homeland, other places), the emotional dimension of various emotions, and the temporal
dimension of the cultural process (creating, evolving, mixing). The community-based
heritage model is proposed as what - heritage themes, why – heritage significance and
uniqueness, and how – heritage representation. The heritage planning of New Zealand should
incorporate community partnership, strong collaboration, and cultural diversity awareness.

I
Overall, heritage planning should be upgraded by dimensions of heritage, planning, and
multiculturalism to ensure a diverse and just future.

Keywords: migrant heritage, heritage planning, New Zealand, Auckland, migrant society,
Chinese cultural heritage

II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When I began my PhD study, I wanted to make a difference in Planning. After more than
four years, it changed me. I have learnt so much, from people I consulted, from people I
interviewed, and from everyone I encountered. I feel grateful to have Dr. Elizabeth Aitken
Rose and Dr. Kai Gu as my supervisors. Without their support I wouldn’t have this
opportunity to pursue my long-term planning dream and finish my thesis.

I thank my kind and patient interviewees. It was enjoyable listening all their memories and
insights about heritage and Auckland. Without their contribution the question of ‘Chinese
cultural heritage’ won’t be answered. Great thanks to Hanford Cheung, Cecil Wong, Zhiming
Guo, Tony Lowe, Hongtao Shen, Kris, Grace, Lily Zhang, Jianshi Wang, Rick Gee, Shifeng
Liu, Kris Lian, Eric Zhu, Jinshui Lin, Sihai Zhang, Lingling Liang, Wenbin Hu, Nora Yao,
Shaoxu Wang, Zhengyang Wang, Manyu Zhu, Dajiang Tai, Meng Foon, Lincoln Dam, and
all anonymous participants. Also, it was my honour to have so many respectful and warm-
hearted professionals who supported my research. Great thanks to David Bade, Nicola Short,
Joanna Boileau, Myfanwy Eaves, Candace Bower, Bev Parslow, Rosemary Baird, Matthew
Schmidt, Brooke Jamieson, Vanessa Tanner, Susan Andrews, and all anonymous specialists
and professionals. Special thanks to Tanya Sorrell, formerly of the Auckland Council
Heritage Unit, who provided assistance and advice on my research proposal and many
questions prior to the interview phase. Also, I must thank the Libraries and Learning Services
of the University of Auckland and Stats NZ for the customised census table, and the
Auckland Council Heritage Unit for the heritage survey from the 2019 People’s Panel.

During my study in the University of Auckland, I met so many great friends. Milica
Mađanović, you are my life coach, sorry I’m bad at goodbyes but I look forward to seeing
you in Serbia as we promised. Special thanks to Xindong An, Shaoxu Wang, Junyang Liu,
Weian Chen for a great study group.

My deepest thanks to Jaime Zhou for being the most trustworthy friend, Ming Zhao for day-
by-day company and endless care and patience, Jisun Mo as my only support in my hardest

III
time, Nijie Cui for being my best friend all the time, Esther Sun for always being the right
one to talk to, Jiachen Huang for all our memories in Yakitori, and Wei Li for a great
boyfriend and husband always loving me.

In the end, I have to thank my parents for their endless love and financial support. Mom, you
are a great woman, a selfless wife, mother, and daughter, a successful and respected Chinese
teacher, and my best friend. Dad, you are the most hard-working and responsible man I have
ever seen. It is my greatest honour to be part of this family. I always do keep that root in my
deep mind. Grandpa, sorry I was not by your side. I wish you could read my thesis. Please
rest in peace.

I appreciate every encounter during this PhD journey. I sincerely love everyone who joined
my life. I wish my thesis could make a positive contribution to the real face of the Chinese
diaspora.

IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... I

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... III

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... V

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... VIII

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ IX

Abbreviation .......................................................................................................................... XI

Glossary ................................................................................................................................ XII

1 Chapter 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Research background ..................................................................................................... 1

1.2 The New Zealand context .............................................................................................. 4
1.3 Research significance..................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Research questions and objectives ................................................................................. 8
1.5 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 9
1.6 Key findings ................................................................................................................. 10
1.7 Thesis structure ............................................................................................................ 14

2 Chapter 2. Development of Planning and Heritage Theories in a Multicultural

Context .................................................................................................................................... 16

2.1 Development of planning theories ............................................................................... 16

2.2 Development of heritage studies .................................................................................. 25
2.3 The context of a multicultural society ......................................................................... 29
2.4 Politics of heritage ....................................................................................................... 33
2.5 Heritage planning in a migrant society ........................................................................ 38

3 Chapter 3. A Preliminary Conceptual Framework of Migrant Heritage and

Research Design of Auckland Case Study ........................................................................... 43

V
3.1 Evolution and expansion process of the definition and scope of heritage ................... 43
3.2 Dominant heritage approaches ..................................................................................... 48
3.3 Alternative heritage approaches in academia .............................................................. 51
3.4 Conceptualising migrant heritage ................................................................................ 56
3.5 Knowledge gaps and the required research design ...................................................... 65
3.6 Auckland case study .................................................................................................... 67

4 Chapter 4. The Hidden History of New Zealand Chinese People and Their
Heritage ................................................................................................................................... 81

4.1 New Zealand Chinese migration .................................................................................. 81

4.2 Cultural profiles of New Zealand Chinese communities ............................................. 86
4.3 Auckland Chinese scene .............................................................................................. 91
4.4 Officially listed/scheduled Chinese heritage in New Zealand and Auckland ............ 105
4.5 A hidden Chinese history ........................................................................................... 108

5 Chapter 5. Chinese Cultural Heritage by Auckland Chinese Communities ...... 109

5.1 The variation of Chinese heritage themes .................................................................. 110

5.2 The constant of Chinese heritage themes................................................................... 126
5.3 The dual lenses of time and space in viewing heritage .............................................. 131
5.4 Meaning of Chinese cultural heritage ........................................................................ 135
5.5 Conception of Chinese cultural heritage .................................................................... 141

6 Chapter 6. Official Heritage Discourse in New Zealand and Auckland ............. 146

6.1 The New Zealand context .......................................................................................... 148

6.2 The dual system of identification and protection ....................................................... 154
6.3 The New Zealand heritage framework ...................................................................... 157
6.4 The heritage profession .............................................................................................. 162
6.5 Auckland’s responses to its Chinese communities .................................................... 166
6.6 Resilience to the demographic diversity of New Zealand and Auckland .................. 172

7 Chapter 7. Mismatches between the Community Narrative by Auckland Chinese

Participants and the New Zealand Official Heritage Discourse ...................................... 178

7.1 Meaning-oriented understanding of heritage vs. Material-focusing .......................... 178

VI
7.2 Diverse manifestation of heritage vs. Festival celebration ........................................ 181
7.3 Cyclical view of history vs. Linear progression ........................................................ 182
7.4 Chinese heritage significance and values .................................................................. 184
7.5 The marginalised Chinese cultural heritage in New Zealand .................................... 189
7.6 Politics of heritage in New Zealand ........................................................................... 189

8 Chapter 8. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 194

8.1 From Chinese cultural heritage to a conception of migrant heritage ......................... 194
8.2 Community-based heritage model ............................................................................. 200
8.3 Heritage planning in New Zealand ............................................................................ 202
8.4 Research limitations ................................................................................................... 210
8.5 Future research ........................................................................................................... 215
8.6 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................... 216

Appendix 1: Chronological evolution of the expansion of the heritage concept following

International Charters, Recommendations and Conventions ......................................... 218

Appendix 2: Chinese historic places and areas on the New Zealand Heritage List ...... 222

Appendix 3: Interview documents...................................................................................... 225

Appendix 4: Interview participants ................................................................................... 253

Appendix 5: Traditional Chinese cultural values ............................................................. 260

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 263

Personal communications.................................................................................................... 314

VII
LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1. Chinese migration history in New Zealand. ........................................................... 86

Table 5-1. Divergences in understanding Chinese cultural heritage from the dual lenses of
time and space. .................................................................................................... 132

Table 7-1. Major mismatches between the community narrative and the official heritage
discourse in the Auckland case study. ................................................................ 178

VIII
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1. Map of research design. ........................................................................................ 67

Figure 3-2. Research procedure in the Auckland case study. .................................................. 71

Figure 4-1. The number of ethnic groups identified by Chinese NFD, Hong Kong Chinese,
and Taiwanese. ...................................................................................................... 90

Figure 4-2. Number of languages spoken by Chinese NFD, Hong Kong Chinese, and
Taiwanese.............................................................................................................. 90

Figure 4-3. Language spoken by Chinese NFD, Hong Kong Chinese, and Taiwanese. ......... 91

Figure 4-4. Model of Wah Lee's store at Auckland War Memorial Museum. ........................ 94

Figure 4-5. Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church, 105 Vincent Street in 2019. ................. 96

Figure 4-6. Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church, 105 Vincent Street in 2022. ................. 97

Figure 4-7. Choice Plaza. ....................................................................................................... 100

Figure 4-8. The concentration on Auckland city centre by the identified Auckland Chinese
scene. ................................................................................................................... 104

Figure 4-10. Arrowtown Chinese Settlement. ....................................................................... 106

Figure 4-11. Ah Lum’s Store. ................................................................................................ 106

Figure 4-12. Ng King Brothers Chinese Market Garden Settlement in Ashburton. .............. 107

Figure 4-13. Sew Hoy building in Dunedin. .......................................................................... 107

Figure 5-1. Birthplace/living place before moving to New Zealand (if applies). .................. 110

Figure 5-2. Length of residential time by participants in New Zealand. ............................... 110

Figure 5-3. 2021 Chinese New Year Festival & Market Day at ASB Showgrounds in
Auckland. ............................................................................................................ 112

Figure 5-4. Auckland Lantern Festival. ................................................................................. 113

Figure 5-5. Chinese New Year Celebration at Fo Guang Shan Buddhist Temple in Auckland.
............................................................................................................................. 119

Figure 5-6. Lan Yuan in Dunedin. ......................................................................................... 120

IX
Figure 6-1. Length of heritage work experience by professional participants. ..................... 147

Figure 6-2. The discipline of heritage professional participants' highest education

qualification. ....................................................................................................... 147

Figure 6-3. Employer of heritage professional participants................................................... 147

Figure 6-4. New Zealand heritage system. ............................................................................ 157

Figure 8-1. The meaning, conception, and societal effects of migrant heritage. ................... 199

X
ABBREVIATION

ACCC: Auckland Chinese Community Centre

AHD: Authorized Heritage Discourse

AUP: Auckland Unitary Plan

BIP: Business Investment Policy

DoC: Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai (NZ)

HNZPT Act: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

HNZPT: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (NZ)

ICOMOS: International Council on Monuments and Sites

MCH: Ministry for Culture and Heritage (NZ)

NPS: National Policy Statements

RMA: Resource Management Act 1991

RPS: Regional Policy Statements

TAs: Territorial Authorities

UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

XI
GLOSSARY

Auckland Chinese communities: Those who self-identify oneself as Chinese or partly

Chinese and are descendants of people who paid the Chinese-only poll tax implemented
in 1881, or migrants from mainland China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan.

Demographically diverse society: A society with a diverse population due to migration and
inflows of migrants.

Māori: The Polynesians who began arriving about 1,000 years ago, settled as the indigenous
people of mainland New Zealand and called here Aotearoa.

Marae: Courtyard – the open space in front of the wharenui, where formal greetings and
discussions take place. Often it also includes the complex of buildings around the marae.

Migrant: This research acknowledges the term ‘migrant’ by a broad sense that all people
apart from indigenous people are migrants regardless of ethnicity and length of
residence.

Multiculturalism: Multicultural citizenization – ‘not to suppress these differential claims but

to filter them through and frame them within the language of human rights, civil liberties,
and democratic accountability’ (Kymlicka, 2012, p. 39).

New Zealand heritage framework: A shared model of legislative framework (including

international, national and local levels), non-statutory strategies, non-governmental
organisations, community groups and workforce.

New Zealand heritage system: Comprising a dual system of heritage identification and
heritage protection, and functioning through New Zealand heritage framework.

XII
New Zealand official heritage discourse: The dominant discourse derived from the New
Zealand heritage system and New Zealand heritage framework.

New Zealand planning system: The New Zealand planning system is underpinned by the
Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), and
the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA). The RMA is primarily a regulatory
statute, while the LGA and LTMA govern budgeting, service and infrastructure
provision and planning.

Pākehā: A Māori term for Europeans, primarily British, who began settling about 190 years
ago, and colonized here as New Zealand.

Taonga: Treasure – encompassing anything that is regarded as valuable, including socially or

culturally valuable objects, resources, phenomenon, ideas and techniques.

XIII
1 Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Research background

The planning discipline endeavours to provide a better living environment for all. It was born
in the Enlightenment, where the positivistic paradigm dominated knowledge (Burayidi,
2000a). As it developed in the modern era, experts mainly focused on the rational model of
planning (Taylor, 1998). In the second half of the 20th century, globalisation, migration, and
transnationalism emerged worldwide. Defects within the Enlightenment doctrines were
pointed out and criticised by postmodern scholars, such as Habermas and Ben-Habib (1981),
Foucault (1984), Lyotard (1992), and Donald (1997). The validity of a universal planning
model has been challenged by social issues deriving from ethnicity, religion, age, gender,
sexual preference, and other factors. The positivistic paradigm is recognized as not capable of
dealing with multiple relationships in reality (Lincoln & Cuba, 1985). In the planning field,
though planners are sensitive to the different interests of clients concerning material
components, they make decisions more according to functional utilisation rather than
individual interest (Qadeer, 2009, p. 10). A function-centric planning approach dealing is
insufficient to deal with the pluralism of reality. It treats citizens rationally on average and
universally with no difference. Uitermark, Rossi, and van Houtum (2005) point out that if a
universal pattern treats all identities, the privileged side will gain at the expense of the
subaltern side, especially when policies are ambiguous.

By developing multiple planning approaches for diversity, scholars have identified defects in
planning practice from three aspects. Firstly, the culture of planning discipline is embedded
in Anglo-European cultural values that focus on achieving universal principles. Hence, the
legislative framework of planning policy is usually dominated by a singular choice of culture
(Burayidi, 2003; Qadeer, 1997, 2007; Qadeer & Agrawal, 2011). Secondly, due to the part
that modernist biases play in planning theory that emphasise a positivist paradigm, cultural
difference finds nowhere to be considered with a root in the alternative paradigm (Burayidi,
2000; Qadeer & Agrawal, 2011; Reeves, 2005). Thirdly, the cultural difference has been
more recognized than reflected in planning policies (Qadeer & Agrawal, 2011).

1
Though the demographic reality in each city and its pathway to cultural diversity are unique,
there are similar broad trends related to the histories of imperialism and colonization, and
migration policies (Fincher et al., 2014). For example, in settler societies, New York, Sydney,
and Toronto have large numbers of migrants who are recruited to build the nation and also
populations of temporary and undocumented migrants. In Western Europe, London and
Berlin are diversified by the return of colonizers and colonials to the metropolitan capitals of
previous empires and the unintended consequence of guest-worker policies and humanitarian
commitments to providing asylum (Fincher et al., 2014). As a multiracial-constituted nation,
Singapore recruits skilled and unskilled labour worldwide (Yeoh & Lin, 2012). The varying
and evolving reality of demographic diversity challenges the discourses and practices of
national and local urban planning.

Planning has intertwined with multiculturalism and multicultural policies in immigrant

countries. Multiculturalism has been critiqued as failure by simply celebrating cultural
differences and reinforcing society’s separateness. This research understands
multiculturalism as a way of multicultural citizenization – ‘not to suppress these differential
claims but to filter them through and frame them within the language of human rights, civil
liberties, and democratic accountability’ (Kymlicka, 2012, p. 39). The goal of planning is
expanded to the diversity of pluralistic modes and equity of equal treatment. Diversity refers
to ethnic-cultural diversity, including racial and cultural markers, and its presence in planning
policies and implementation. Equality means the equal right to access the public realm
regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, and other cultural differences (Qadeer & Agrawal, 2011).

As a subset of culture, cultural heritage contributes significantly to multiculturalism. Though

multicultural policies have recognised the pluralism of cultural heritage, it has been rarely
discussed and implemented in heritage planning. Also, there is a lack of a robust
methodology in one particular aspect of planning to provide support for the achievement of
multiculturalism rather than holding an advocacy tone.

Heritage planning has been interchangeably used in planning research referring to heritage
conservation or regeneration (Janssen et al., 2014; Kalman, 2014). However, it essentially

2
differs from the preservation and conservation discourses in terms of the conceptualization of
heritage (Timothy & Boyd, 2003; Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996). It moves from ‘historical
accuracy’ and ‘intrinsic authenticity’, to ‘the contemporary extrinsic narrative attached to it’1
(Patiwael et al., 2019, p. 336). It requires planners and heritage professionals to change from
experts to mediators and facilitators and create a supportive environment to involve the
public in heritage management. The scope of heritage planning should expand to a much
larger picture of the past, which means going beyond recognised heritage sites and material
remains and becoming sensitive to diverse interests in interpreting and representing cultural
heritage (Van Assche & Duineveld, 2013, p. 2).

As Swensen and Jerpåsen (2008) found, cultural heritage is seldom defined on its own terms
but to a large extent, is coordinated with other land-use attached questions. Instead, heritage
is a world-sharing concern among all human beings in various ways, particularly in
demographically diverse societies. Therefore, migrant heritage can be a proper research topic
to further the demographic heritage planning in terms of diversity and equity theoretically
and practically.

In immigration countries, cultural heritage is inextricable from contentions between authority

and community, mainstream and minority, and cultural differences. Over the last century,
owing to a flux of migration, heritage has mixed everywhere. With the infusion of distinct
culture, tradition, and philosophy, contentions in the heritage sector are intensified by
modernist planning principles and the preservation and conservation discourses serving a
mono-outcome. The demographic diversity needs to be acknowledged and reflected in a
prescriptive manner in heritage planning. This research locates a case study in the context of
Auckland and explores the concept of migrant heritage and how heritage planning can
become inclusive of migrants.

1
In contrast with the former focus on the object itself, the latter emphasizes the attached meaning and values at
present.

3
1.2 The New Zealand context

1.2.1 New Zealand heritage system

The New Zealand heritage system comprises a dual heritage identification and protection
system. It operates through the New Zealand heritage framework. The heritage framework is
a shared model involving central, regional and local government under the Resource
Management Act 1991, the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, and other
relevant legislation and policies, and non-governmental organisations and community groups.
The most protective mechanisms are undertaken by local authorities in district plans under
the RMA, while the maintenance of archaeological sites is regulated by Heritage New
Zealand Pouhere Taonga under the HNZPT Act. Heritage identification is conducted by both
local authorities and HNZPT.

Despite its inclusiveness, the New Zealand heritage framework is not without faults and
inherent biases, as noted by McEwan (2017), Schofield and Vossler (2017), and Warren-
Findley (2001). Deficiencies include bias from international organisation ICOMOS, lack of
national and regional attention about the significance of heritage, limited incentives,
framework fragment, ambiguous terms and definitions, inconsistent assessment criteria and
methodology across heritage authorities, and the lack of comprehensive monitoring to
examine protection implementation (see also McEwan, 2017; Schofield & Vossler, 2017).

New Zealand heritage framework has been established on the collaboration between multiple
governmental institutes, with each operating under separate Acts and the RMA. There are
considerable and sometimes mismatching overlaps among their legislative roles. It does not
necessarily contribute to the open debate and diversity of heritage views but reinforces each
of their particular positions. A number of government institutions are not always obliging to
different cultural aspects and how to respond to enable those who feel different to succeed
and engage. The institutionalisation within the New Zealand heritage framework leads a
relatively narrow conception of heritage. Therefore, the New Zealand heritage system results
in the over-reliance on grassroots of different heritage authorities and professionals.

4
The issues confronting and arising from the New Zealand heritage system arise from
deficiencies in the statutory framework and lie in the consensual knowledge of engaged
professions. The New Zealand heritage system is dominated mainly by professions of
archaeology and architecture while relying on the planning system to proceed heritage
protection, and identification in some cases. Now the discipline of heritage is still
characterized by a belief in the benign nature of its endeavours on behalf of the community it
serves. While paradoxically, its capacity to deal with diversity is stymied by acknowledging
multiculturalism in the salient way of celebrating the breadth rather than depth of cultures and
communities, profession-knowledge dominated assimilation, and paying lip service to
minority communities.

Now in the context of planning, the heritage profession remains subordinated to development
pressure. The New Zealand heritage system is dominated by expertise and appears
Eurocentric. Tangibility sits on the top concern of heritage. European settlement heritage has
attracted more attention than others, particularly Māori. However, the scientific way of
identification/protection mechanisms does not apply to Māori worldviews and their
perspectives toward landscape and remains. Similarly, it is hard to acknowledge the
significance of Chinese cultural heritage in the current system. Historically, the terminology
of heritage has had an association with upper-class European custom that celebrates Western
civilization. Moreover, a proper history that introduces the real face of New Zealanders
remains absent in the education field of New Zealand.

1.2.2 Chinese history in New Zealand

Since the 13th century, the Māori people have laid down roots in the country as an indigenous
community. In the 1830s, a formal British colonial government was established even though
the indigenous community existed, as was evident in the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o
Waitangi (1840). New Zealand has absorbed waves of settlement over centuries, importing
distinct cultures and ethnicities. Each has adapted and evolved in the multicultural context,
resulting in an evolving mix of Polynesian, European, and Asian ways of seeing and doing.
The common point is that they all left their mark across the spectrum of cultural heritage and
continue to do so.

5
The first arrival of Chinese people to New Zealand can be traced back to the 1850s, while the
first wave of Chinese settlement relates to the late period of the gold rush in the 1860s (Ip,
2015). In the next century, flows of Chinese people arrived from different countries. However,
their contribution has long been underestimated due partly to the sojournism2 of the old
Chinese immigrants and partly to the discrimination of Europeans (Ng, 2001). New Zealand
was a British colony. Its transition from colony to nation-state in the early 20th century was
ethnically framed. With the breakdown of imperial trade ties as the United Kingdom chose to
reorient itself toward the European Union, New Zealand was obliged to develop economic
relations with Asia. Compared to the primary population sources of the United Kingdom and
Europe, East Asia is relatively geographically close (Graham, Ashworth, & Tunbridge, 2000,
p. 108; Parliamentary Library, 2008). Partly influenced by this, New Zealand gave up racial
exclusivity and enacted the Immigration Act 1987 in favour of multiculturalism, following
Canada, Australia, and the United States. Since then, the non-white entry has been officially
permitted. Chinese communities have benefited from this and were recognized as the largest
Asian ethnic group in the 2013 Census.

Less acknowledgement of Chinese immigrants’ perceptions and interpretations of cultural

heritage is evident in research and policies, and plans to date by the New Zealand official
heritage framework. Most research concerning New Zealand Chinese heritage focuses on
mining heritage from heritage tourism perspectives (see also Huang, 2011; Reeves et al.,
2010; Zhu, 2006). By February 2022, 17 historic areas and places had been registered on the
New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero for their significance to Chinese communities
(see Appendix 2). All are located on the South Island. Most are associated with the 19th
century and the gold-mining history in the Otago region. The latest acknowledgement of Ng
King Brothers Chinese Market Garden Settlement marks an updated shift from the
overwhelming focus on the 19th-century goldmining to recognizing the 20th century when
Chinese communities spread into other occupations. In district plans, a handful of items
related to Chinese communities have been scheduled, such as the Thomas Doo Building by

2
Sojournism denotes being adventive and excluded from the mainstream.

6
Auckland Council (in Schedule 14.1 of the 2018 Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part);
the Wellington Chinese Masonic Society Inc. building (former) 1925 (front facade); and the
Chinese Mission Hall (former) 1905 (front facade) (in the Heritage List of the 2014
Wellington City District Plan). Chinese heritage footprints are, however, scattered around the
country. It is evident in studies about Chinese businesses, including laundries and market
gardening, Chinese-themed or influenced gardens, and Chinese architecture (see also Boileau,
2014; Francis, 2014; Ng, 2005; Zhang & Shelton, 2015). However, those Chinese-associated
research and documentary history of the Chinese population and migration seem to be
disconnected from the progress made by the official heritage framework. Chinese heritage
has been arguably under-represented in heritage planning in New Zealand. The absence of
theory-grounded debate about the meaning of cultural heritage in the heritage planning
discourse on the one hand, and the lack of pragmatic guidelines to involve a particular
community’s opinions in the implementation of heritage planning in demographically diverse
societies on the other, is the motivation of this research.

1.3 Research significance

The significance of this research is fourfold. Firstly, heritage planning research lags
compared to the development of planning theories and heritage studies. The preservation and
conservation discourses dominate the understanding and interpretation of heritage, where
heritage planning should have aimed at a just future with a broader definition of heritage.
Secondly, migrant heritage sits in the blind spot where heritage, planning, and
multiculturalism intersect. It is an underdeveloped space in academia. In the meantime, the
under-represented migrant heritage is often associated with the erasure of their history and
identity. Therefore, the recognition of migrant heritage has significant social impacts on their
diaspora profile.

Thirdly, Chinese people have been established in New Zealand for over 180 years and in
Auckland for over 130 years. Despite its complexities, the formation of Chinese communities
in New Zealand through multiple waves of migration has not garnered significant academic
attention beyond the historical and geographical perspectives of migration history, local
Chinese history, settlement phenomena, tourism, gardens and architecture (Beattie, 2007;

7
Boileau, 2014; Francis, 2014; Huang, 2011; Ip, 1995, 1996, 2001, 2003, 2006b; Ng, 2005;
Xue, Friesen & O’Sullivan, 2011; Zhang & Shelton, 2015). In particular, the New Zealand
heritage system remains comparatively silent about Chinese heritage and the complexity of
their migrant identity and is biased about the Chinese ethnicity and history in New Zealand.
Also, there is no comprehensive view of Auckland and New Zealand's heritage, looking at
what is underrepresented and missing, what contributes to the rich and meaningful heritage
sector, and where those gaps should be filled. Thus, this research focuses on the Chinese
cultural heritage in New Zealand. While this research is grounded in a strong will to
contribute to heritage planning, it also aims to incorporate the Chinese identity and history to
be an integral part of New Zealand.

1.4 Research questions and objectives

This research focuses on how heritage planning can respond to the heritage of a migrant
society. The research questions are as follows:

1. How is the dominant heritage discourse responding to the diversity of migrants?

2. What is the conception of migrant heritage?
3. How can heritage planning be inclusive of migrant communities?

This research aims to extend the scope of heritage planning to embrace alternative opinions
from migrant minorities in New Zealand. The research objectives are as follows:

1. To investigate how the New Zealand heritage system responds to cultural diversity and
Chinese heritage;
2. To characterise a concept of Chinese cultural heritage;
3. To promote a democratic heritage planning in New Zealand;
4. To enhance the understanding and incorporation of cultural diversity in the existing
heritage planning discourse.

8
1.5 Methodology

According to the literature review, the researcher has pictured a preliminary conceptual
framework of migrant heritage and the goal of heritage planning in a demographically diverse
society. This research seeks for community narrative in order to finalise the conception of
migrant heritage and official heritage discourse to investigate how heritage planning can be
developed to meet the goal of diversity and equity. This research chooses Auckland, the most
populous city with the most significant proportion (66%) of the Chinese population in New
Zealand, as the case study. Literature research, interviews, and fieldwork are employed as
significant research methods.

As for the community narrative from Auckland Chinese communities, literature research has
three purposes: firstly, to review Chinese migration history in New Zealand in order to set up
the research background; secondly, to study the Chinese population composition to guide the
sampling size of Chinese participants in interviews, as well as roughly understand the general
characteristics of different Chinese communities; thirdly, to picture the Chinese scene of
prominent heritage representation in Auckland. Interviews have collected first-hand data
from 48 participants who self-identify as Chinese or partly Chinese and are descendants of
people who paid the Chinese-only poll tax implemented in 1881 or migrants from mainland
China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan. The primary purpose is to investigate the concept of Chinese
cultural heritage and those Chinese participants’ acknowledgement of the New Zealand
heritage system and the acknowledgement of demographical diversity in New Zealand.
Interview data are analysed by thematic analysis to generate the most prominent heritage
themes, features, criteria, and meaning of Chinese cultural heritage.

As for the official heritage discourse from the New Zealand heritage system, literature
research has two purposes: firstly, to review the national responses to the demographical
diversity and migrants and related planning strategies in New Zealand and Auckland; and
secondly, to review the New Zealand heritage system. Interviews have collected first-hand
data from 22 participants with more than one year of work experience with cultural heritage
or specifically migrant heritage or Chinese cultural heritage, within the New Zealand heritage
framework. The primary purpose is to complement the review of the New Zealand heritage

9
system and provide direct practical experience and comments related to cultural diversity,
particularly Chinese heritage. In order to demonstrate prominent heritage issues and biases in
practice, interview data are analysed by thematic analysis.

Lastly, fieldwork takes place in heritage places and events mostly mentioned in literature
research and interviews. The primary purpose is to observe the condition of those heritage
places and sites and experience what happens in these intangible heritage events. In addition,
the South Island, outside of Auckland, is added in order to visit the early listed Chinese
Arrowtown Settlement in 1985, the recently listed Ng King Brothers Chinese Market Garden
Settlement in Ashburton in 2020, and Sew Hoy building in Dunedin in 2021, and other most
frequently mentioned heritage places by Chinese participants.

1.6 Key findings

In New Zealand, Chinese cultural heritage has been overly represented by the gold mining
heritage in the South Island while remaining not much visible in the North Island and
Auckland. The mismatches between the community narrative by Auckland Chinese
communities and the dominant heritage discourse are identified in three aspects. Firstly,
Chinese cultural heritage is meaning-oriented, while the New Zealand heritage system
favours the materiality of heritage. Secondly, Chinese cultural heritage becomes inclusive
and multicultural through diverse manifestations in Auckland. However, the Auckland
heritage framework’s responses to Chinese heritage primarily focus on festival celebrations.
Thirdly, there is a cultural difference between the cyclical view of history of Chinese culture
and the linear progression of Western culture that dominates the New Zealand heritage
system. As a result, Chinese cultural heritage has been comparatively marginalised in the
dominant heritage discourse in New Zealand.

In the Auckland case study, Chinese cultural heritage was represented under a variety of
heritage themes. Participants’ heritage concerns are largely thought by lenses of time and
space, which lead to the divergence of interpretation in the homeland and home in the past
tense, us and them in the present tense, and authenticity and re-creation in the future tense.
Thus, Chinese cultural heritage primarily concerns multiple place attachment, nostalgia, and

10
the cultural process of heritage. According to the cyclical view of history, Chinese cultural
heritage evolves and becomes inclusive and multicultural while retaining the constant of
Chinese philosophy and cultural values.

1.6.1 Migrant heritage and community-based heritage model

According to the literature-based preliminary conceptual framework of migrant heritage and

the Chinese cultural heritage in the Auckland case study, migrant heritage can be explained
by its meaning, conception, and societal effects. The meaning of migrant heritage can be
explained by: the internal relation between the cultural identity of a homogenous community
and the external connections between migrants and indigenous people and the local
environment. The societal effects of migrant heritage include cultural exchange, a sense of
belonging by migrants, and community cohesion in a migrant society.

The conception of migrant heritage can be divided into the spatial, emotional, and temporal
dimensions. The spatial dimension indicates multiple place attachment to the home,
homeland, and other enlightening places where migrants used to live or visit. The emotional
dimension concerns various emotions such as loneliness, sorrow, feeling excluded, and
homesickness derived from migrants’ memories and their minority histories. The temporal
dimension reveals the cultural process of migrant heritage. It can evolve on its own sense,
mix with other migrant heritage, and be created in the local environment.

This research introduces a community-based heritage model as an alternative approach to

migrant heritage. The model can be divided into three parts:

1. What – heritage themes, such as event, activity, exhibition, architecture;

2. Why – heritage significance, such as cultural representation, and mutual acceptance,

heritage uniqueness of being different from other migrant heritage in the home
country and the traditional cultural heritage in the homeland;

3. How – heritage representation of diverse manifestations.

11
The first step concerns the most experienced heritage occasions by migrants. The second step
concerns the significance of migrant heritage and its uniqueness, as migrants’ understanding
and requirement of heritage can be different from each other and also indigenous people.
Also, migrants have a strong intention to distinguish their heritage from other migrant
heritage and the traditional version of their heritage in the homeland. The third step concerns
the manifestation of migrant heritage in the local environment, which does not always follow
the tangible/intangible dichotomy but is multicultural, interlinked and inseparable.

1.6.2 Heritage planning in New Zealand

The heritage planning of New Zealand can be broadened to include community partnership,
strong collaboration, and cultural diversity awareness. The community partnership
encompasses history education that embraces all New Zealanders and their ancestors in the
heritage world of New Zealand and community consultation that aims to engage tangata
whenua and migrant minorities with mutual respect and an understanding of potential cultural
differences.

Strong collaboration should be promoted between community and government, migration and
heritage studies, and heritage and planning. The collaboration between the community and
government requires the community to be aware of the current New Zealand heritage system
and their rights within that, and the New Zealand heritage system to explicitly acknowledge
the demographical diversity of New Zealand and corresponding responses by long-term
strategies. Heritage education is suggested to various heritage stakeholders for different
purposes.

The collaboration between migration and heritage studies enables each to add significant
research value to the other. Heritage studies should take the migrant-settlement research into
account, while migration studies could consider the heritage aspect to acknowledge migrants’
heritage rights. The primary purpose is to re-establish the common ground about the meaning
of heritage and fill in the gap between community narratives and dominant heritage discourse.
Migrant heritage and other heritage of local significance are expected to be better represented
in the New Zealand heritage system.

12
The collaboration between heritage and planning requires a broader vision of the future of
heritage beyond the expertise dominance of material and past obsession by heritage and the
place-focusing of built heritage by planning. Heritage planning needs to be clarified based on
the current New Zealand heritage system with less inconsistency and ambiguity about the
legal responsibilities of heritage institutions and stakeholders and their timeframes. The
importance of heritage advocacy should be added to social media, migrant museums,
travelling exhibitions of migrant heritage, and heritage interpretation for associated history.

The cultural diversity awareness should be promoted in a heritage profession that supports a
broader picture of the heritage of New Zealand, a stand-along heritage monitoring system,
and the adapted national multicultural policies based on the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o
Waitangi. The education of heritage profession should acknowledge the ongoing
multicultural reality of New Zealand in educational institutions, heritage institutes and
professional training. Also, heritage should be multi-disciplined more than archaeology and
architecture by involving oral history and history studies. The diversity of the heritage
workforce should align the demographic reality of New Zealand as a migrant society.

The recognition of migrant minorities in the national level requires a long-term plan of
multicultural policies based on the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi and an explicit
political will to promote these. In the New Zealand context, an acknowledgement of
democratic citizenship grounded in human-rights ideals while respecting indigenous Māori
and their land rights should be promoted. The primary purpose is to construct new civic and
political relations to combat the deeply entrenched inequalities that persist after the abolition
of regulatory discrimination.

This research has limitations primarily in interviews with participants from Auckland
Chinese communities, as neither identity nor heritage is easy to confirm and answer to
anyone. The process and research findings indicate two future research directions: firstly,
how to incorporate the community-based heritage model into the current New Zealand
heritage system, and secondly, the correlation between heritage mixing and the politics of
heritage in other migrant societies. Overall, heritage planning in a migrant society should be

13
inclusive of migrant heritage by introducing alternative heritage approaches and upgrading its
range by heritage, planning, and multiculturalism dimensions to ensure a diverse and just
future of heritage.

1.7 Thesis structure

Chapter 2 sets up the theoretical background based on the literature review. The development
of planning theories and heritage studies, the application of multicultural policies, and
multiculturalism helps establish the goal and approach of heritage planning in a migrant
society.

Chapter 3 reviews the evolution and expansion process of the definition and scope of heritage,
and dominant and alternative heritage approaches in academia. There is currently no heritage
approach nor methodology available to explain migrant heritage. Therefore, critical heritage
studies and prominent people-place theories in migration studies have been added and
reviewed. A preliminary conceptual framework of migrant heritage is provided.

The case study of Auckland aims to reveal the community narrative of Auckland Chinese
communities and the official heritage discourse from the New Zealand heritage system, and
responses from the Auckland heritage framework. A conception of Chinese cultural heritage
is expected as the database to finalise a conception of migrant heritage. Deficiencies within
the official heritage discourse of New Zealand and the mismatches between the New Zealand
heritage system and the Chinese communities in Auckland aim to establish the argument of
heritage planning in the demographically diverse society of New Zealand.

Chapter 4 uncovers the hidden history of Chinese people in New Zealand by their migration
history and cultural profiles. According to literature research and information from personal
communications, an Auckland Chinese scene is pictured. Chinese heritage has been over-
represented by the gold-mining heritage in the Otago region and now remains comparatively
absent in the North Island and Auckland within the New Zealand heritage system.

14
Chapter 5 summarises the variation and constant of heritage themes by participants from
Auckland Chinese communities. Their different views on heritage are divided into the dual
lenses of time and space. Chinese cultural heritage means ‘being Chinese’, ‘cultural
inheritance’, and ‘relationship with Māori communities’. The conception of Chinese cultural
heritage contains the spatial dimension of place attachment, emotional dimension of nostalgia,
and temporal dimension of cultural process.

Chapter 6 investigates the national climate in terms of non-Pākehā migrants, the deficiencies
within the New Zealand heritage system and its responses to cultural diversity, and
Auckland’s responses to the Chinese communities. There is a lack of resilience within the
official heritage discourse to the demographic diversity in using terms about ‘cultural
heritage’, and responses to Māori and Chinese people.

Chapter 7 uncovers the mismatches between Auckland Chinese communities and the New
Zealand heritage system by three dimensions of meaning-oriented understanding of heritage
vs. material-focusing in between the community narrative of Auckland Chinese participants
and the official heritage discourse within the New Zealand heritage system, the diverse
manifestation of heritage vs. festival celebration in between Chinese migrants and heritage
responses in Auckland, and cyclical view of history vs. linear progression in between Chinese
culture and Western culture. These gaps result in the intrinsic deficiencies in the New
Zealand heritage system, the undervalued stance of heritage in the planning context, and the
national identity without migrant minorities. Chinese cultural heritage is therefore being
excluded.

Chapter 8 concludes the conception of migrant heritage, the corresponding community-based

heritage model, and the scope of heritage planning to respond to migrant minorities in New
Zealand. Research limitations and future research directions are added in the end.

15
2 Chapter 2. Development of Planning and Heritage
Theories in a Multicultural Context

Chapter 2 reviews the development of planning theories and heritage studies, and the
application of multicultural policies and use of multiculturalism. The politics of heritage has
been uncovered by its exclusivity in a migrant society. In order to promote the heritage
democracy of diversity and equity, heritage planning should aim at pluralistic modes and
equal treatment at the same time.

2.1 Development of planning theories

Since the rise of postmodernism, the positivist worldview has been challenged by alternative
worldviews that accept multiple relationships and facts in reality. Emerging planning theories,
such as advocacy and pluralistic planning, and collaborative planning, have argued for a seat
in planning decisions for the public interest. In a multicultural context, planning for diversity
points to the dual outcomes of diversity and equity. It requires the corresponding support of a
culturally inclusive workforce and self-reflective planning systems, and more importantly, the
political will to recognise diversity and cultural differences in central government.

2.1.1 Stepping into postmodernism

Planning for the well-being of all has been widely accepted, especially among postmodernists
who have raised considerable criticism of the nature and value of modernized planning
(Taylor, 1998; Sandercock, 2003). They argue that the essence of planning as a profession is
underpinned by Enlightenment values that appreciate rationality, scientism, and universalism
(Allemendinger, 2009; Burayidi, 2000, 2003; Sandercock, 2003; Taylor, 1998). Essentially,
modernity drives planning practices and fosters an unquestioned belief that planning has the
power to shape the way people live by building cities (Allemendinger, 2009). However, with
globalization and migration flows, diversity is increasing both domestically and
internationally. It brings challenges related to discrimination, social exclusion, and

16
environmental injustice. The ‘one-size-fits-all’ rationalized planning regime has been
criticized for failing to combat de facto diversity.

The dominant modernist planning principles have been identified as disconnected from
heterogeneous realities and overwhelmed by elite knowledge with confidence in a universally
rational model (Sandercock, 2003; Taylor, 1998). This view is supported by Filion (1999)
who notes that prior to the 1960s, planning was mainly carried out by experts with little
public input. A common way of life was encouraged regardless of public opinion.
Sandercock (1998) describes this approach as anti-democratic with little regard for race or
gender in practice. As a result, social problems have not been effectively resolved, and have
even become more intensified.

The dissonance between public interests is the arena where planning plays a major role.
Modernist planning in favour of the rational model tends to exclude unwanted differences by
using the generic term ‘the public interest’ (Sandercock, 2003). ‘The public interest’ may not
be assumed equally throughout the planning process (see Milroy & Wallace, 2002). The
related reasons can be divided into two aspects. Firstly, legal frameworks have historically
reflected dominant social cultures (Burayidi, 2003; Milroy & Wallace, 2002; Qadeer, 2007;
Reeves, 2005; Sandercock, 2000a). Secondly, planners may object to practices that are
incompatible with their professional values. This reluctance may reinforce the effects of the
former cause (Sandercock, 2000a). Likewise, Fenster (1998) and Burayidi (2003) point out
that planners are accustomed to admitting the assumption of sameness.

In the second half of the 20th century, many disciplines considered the general feasibility of
modernism and took a postmodern turn (Rosenau, 1991). Geertz (as cited in Wells, 2015)
famously questioned the ability of modernist views to understand cultural phenomena. For
example, scholars argued that rational models did not take into account the social impact of
planning (see Davidoff, 1965; Jacobs, 1961). In the age of modernism, planning practice
often overlooked the complexities of human behaviour (Jacobs, 1961). At the turning point
between the late 1960s and early 1970s, postmodern planning principles began to flourish
(Allmendinger, 2017; Burayid, 2003). Pluralism has been recognized and embedded since the

17
rise of postmodernism. The new set of principles embraces diversity by promoting
‘participants to embody their national cultural traditions and values, even as they participate
in the public sphere as equal democratic citizens’ (Burayidi, 2003, p. 261). Unlike modernists,
who prefer simplicity, order, unity, and tidy, postmodernists celebrate complexity, variety,
difference, and pluralism (Taylor, 1998). Postmodern planning rejects a single concept of
environmental quality and instead allows disempowered groups to participate in the decision-
making process. This view is supported by Sandercock (2003, p. 34) that postmodern
planning can reduce the dominance of professional knowledge and increase people’s
awareness.

Several planning theories have been developed to advance postmodern planning. Davidoff
(1965) devised the theory of advocacy and pluralistic planning. It describes how planning is a
highly politicised process and should involve all citizens to address equality for all. In
Davidoff's (1965) view, advocacy and pluralistic planning specifically allow minority groups
to express their views because ‘planners should actually be open to the values that lead them
to choose particular options or make particular decisions’ (as cited in Allmendinger, 2017, p.
151). This planning method aims to achieve a more democratic process by absorbing a wide
range of opinions and viewpoints, but there are still some problems. Firstly, it requires a
degree of critical consciousness from the individuals involved. Secondly, the intention to
limit autonomy can lead to over-reliance on the capacity of advocacy agencies and planners
(O'Hare, 2010; Peterman, 2004). Thirdly, community interests may vary and conflict.
However, internal disputes between communities are not pre-assumed in advocacy planning
(Peattie, 1994).

Healey (1992) proposed an intercommunicative practice in collaborative planning theory. She

attributed this idea to Habermas and scholars who have contributed to the postmodern and
anti-rationalist debate, notably Foucault and Bourdieu. The intercommunicative process can
be divided into recognising, valuing, and listening. This planning approach aims to create a
supportive environment where conflicting interests can be identified and reconciled. However,
there are still some shortcomings. Firstly, stakeholders may not be equally empowered
(Fraser & Lepofsky, 2004). Secondly, a broad range of public interests may be under-

18
represented by a narrow spectrum of stakeholder groups. These two issues will reinforce the
unequal empowerment among all actors and influence the opinions expressed and the
reconciliation process. Thirdly, consensus rules may limit suboptimal solutions to final
decisions, or lead to a vague set of implementation guidelines. The supposed collaborative
agreements may be poorly implemented. Fourthly, the collaborative process consumes
substantial time, effort, and resources, which makes the alternative collaborative planning
method a reluctant choice. Overall, collaborative planning requires a high standard of
preconditions set-up, ensuring for example, inclusive representation, clear and comprehensive
rules throughout implementation, process accountability, realistic timelines, and applying
multiple-objective evaluation (Gunton & Day, 2003; Margerum, 1999). This approach is
over-dependant on stakeholder engagement, otherwise, the previous dynamics of power
relations would rule the situation (Peterman, 2004).

The ‘newly’ developed planning theories such as advocacy and collaborative planning have
identified the undemocratic deficiency of modernist planning, and found ways to empower
communities in planning. However, the complexity within the community has not received
the attention it deserves. In other words, the diversity of communities is primarily explained
and addressed from a socioeconomic perspective, rather than from a broader perspective.
Parekh and Bhabha (1989) have put forward the condition of planning that ‘communities feel
confident enough to engage in a dialogue and where there is enough public space for them to
interact with the dominant culture’ (p. 27). Therefore, the role of planning, referring to a
series of decisions in documentation and other actions, should be explained not only in the
planning system itself, but also in a broader sense, including socially-constructed racialised
boundaries (Gilroy, 1996).

2.1.2 Planning for diversity

Diversity has been discussed and researched differently by various professions. For example,
sociologists and economists explain it in terms of a person’s employment and educational
background, and refer these to a person’s socioeconomic status. Health and marketing experts
refer to the diversity of different roles in a person’s life and society. Generally, it refers to
gender and ethnicity.

19
To promote planning for diversity, Sandercock (2000) proposes a ‘dialogical approach (as
would occur in psychoanalysis) which brings antagonistic parties together to talk through
their concerns’ (p. 23). It differs from communicative planning by introducing public learning
throughout the process (Sandercock, 2003). However, the relation between ‘antagonistic
parties’ in an uneven case is not assumed and proactively acknowledged. As Malik (1996)
warns, ‘contemporary visions of cultural difference seek to learn about other cultural forms,
not to create a richer and more universal culture but to imprison us more effectively in a
human zoo of differences’ (p. 150). Rather than just focusing on exploring the broad range of
cultural differences, planning for diversity should also rest on the sensitiveness of possible
conflict and the subsequent resolution.

Planning should be developed to embrace equality and anti-discrimination, otherwise, value

judgements often stem from ignorance or stereotyping and reinforce the effects of bias,
prejudice, and discrimination (Milroy, 1999; Reeves, 2005). For example, Young (1990)
identifies two situations in which enriching inequality may conceal the reality of diversity.
Firstly, when certain interests are more easily recognised by the major decision-makers, the
resolution process may reproduce initial distributions or accelerate inequalities. Secondly, the
dominant social ideology can be prioritized, so social opportunities are unevenly distributed.
Fraser (1997) reveals that city issues stem from socioeconomic inequality and authoritative
constructions of norms that privilege dominant ethnic groups. Neither political-economic
redistribution nor cultural recognition alone will mitigate the oppression of marginalised
communities. According to Reeves (2005), diversity means ‘a state or quality of being
different or varied, a point of difference’ (p. 8). It does not presume any reference point as
taking any option as insider or outsider. Therefore, in order to achieve planning for diversity,
both diversity and equality should be recognized and supported simultaneously. Power
imbalance needs to be considered. The damaging stereotypes and misconceptions that can
reinforce power imbalance should be undone (Reeves, 2005).

ODPM (2005) integrates discussions of equality and related law (emphasizing diversity of
race and gender, disability, employment, and human rights) with planning system
considerations. ODPM (2005) describes four areas for promoting diversity and equality in

20
planning: effective community engagement, securing benefits through policies and
procedures, updating organizational culture across workforces and agencies, and monitoring
systems. The strategies above provide a very much structural picture of who and which
agencies are involved and to what direction they can promote equality and diversity in
planning. However, subtle risks arise during the ‘promoting diversity and equality’ phase, as
Chan (2007) observes that ‘how planners listen may be just as important as giving voice to
minorities’ (p. 82). Otherwise, the conclusion drawn will be a mediating result that absorbs
more of the cultural expectations and values of local planners.

It has been argued that new planner skills are needed to realize the diversity of human
possibilities, rather than managing differences as city issues (Rahder & Milgrom, 2004).
Thompson (2003) proposed four dimensions of culturally inclusive planner: the ‘reflective
practitioner’, ‘culturally aware practitioner’, ‘informed problem solver’, ‘campaigner for
social justice’. What Thompson believes to be necessary is the ‘enthusiasm, passion and
commitment’ of a planner. In particular, Burayidi (2003) suggests that planners should be
aware of ‘the “real” and the “symbolic” meaning attached by different groups to the
environment’ (p. 270). Both the psychological and objective ends of their decisions and plans
need to be considered.

Also, the profession education of planning needs to be culturally inclusive at the same time
(Goonewardena et al., 2004; Rahder and Milgrom, 2004; Thompson, 2003). For example,
Sinclair and Britton Wilson (1999) and Thompson and Kwitko (2001) propose inclusive
learning environments in course manuals and guidelines. Burayidi (2003) and Thompson
(2003) recommend cultural sensitivity training by professional associations and local
governments. Additionally, Berry (1997) suggests that teachers can draw on the disparate
experiences, knowledge, ethnic backgrounds, and worldviews of students.

However, a culturally inclusive workforce is not yet the end of multicultural planning. For
example, planning intervention is expected when planners identify a problem is of cultural
issue (Burayidi, 2003). The planning profession and its system should be held accountable for
the thorough resolution process. Buraydi (2003) identifies planning strategies in the literature

21
as ‘therapeutic techniques’ (Sandercock, 2000), ‘dispute resolution methods’ (Susskind, 1995;
Susskind & Cruickshank, 1987; Susskind & Field, 1996), and ‘dialogue approaches’ (Baum,
1999, 2000; Forester, 1999, 2000; Healey, 1996). However, while beneficial in practice, these
approaches are simply ad hoc responses to tensions and imagined or real threats, and thus
lack general applicability and prospective (Burayidi, 2003). Essentially, planning should be
‘forethought in action’ (Quinn, 2002). The operation of planning systems requires self-
reflection rather than over-reliance on the efforts of planners (Burayidi, 2003, p. 270).

Reeves (2005) proposes a mainstreaming approach to actively promote diversity based on

equality, firstly by incorporating fairness, equality, and diversity considerations into all
aspects of planning; and secondly by identifying groups of people who are experiencing bias
from prejudice and stereotypes underpinning a policy or plan. However, Reeves (2005)
argues that to date, much equality work in spatial planning has relied on policy
implementation at the local level. There is a lack of legislative support from central
government. While diversity recognises all types of differences in communities and resists
cultural homogenization, equity aims to ensure that people have equal access to all resources.
Therefore, a common ground needs to be established that equity and diversity aim to correct
inequitable outcomes across governance and planning systems (see also Fraser, 1997).

2.1.3 Planning in a multicultural context

To date, prominent problems in the planning of multicultural societies can be classified as the
economic disadvantage of minorities, residential segregation, and the lack of interaction
between minorities and the mainstream. These issues are inherently interrelated and mutually
reinforcing. Economic disadvantage leads to residential segregation, and physical segregation
exacerbates the lack of interaction minorities and the mainstream. Conversely, due to the lack
of interaction, ethnic groups are reluctant to integrate, thereby exacerbating residential
segregation and further increasing the economic disadvantage of ethnic minorities.

Multicultural planning and research discuss what planning can do for the diversity of gender,
race, age, disability, sexuality preference, faith and religion, and social class for citizens,
professionals, and politicians (Reeves, 2005). Qadeer (2015) proposes two principles for

22
multicultural planning: firstly, be sensitive to cultural and identity differences; secondly,
forge pluralistic modes that satisfy public needs. Multicultural planning advocates have
promoted cultural sensitivity and inclusivity in planning practice; they urge planning
practitioners to be more responsive to the needs of ethno-cultural communities, and adopt a
proactive role that can incorporate ethno-cultural issues in the planning process (Burayidi
2000, 2003; Milroy & Wallace, 2002; Pestieau & Wallace, 2003; Qadeer, 1997; Rahder &
Milgrom, 2004; Sandercock, 2000, 2003, 2004).

Currently, the multicultural planning approaches include formally celebrating diversity as an

economic advantage, promoting economic development policies that favour ethnic precincts,
balancing ‘economic efficiency’ and ‘distributive equity’ in housing policies, and introducing
inclusive public meetings procedures (Fincher et al., 2014; Galster, 2007). A number of
diversity-oriented planning methods are offered, such as collecting ethno-racial data,
engaging ethnic minorities in decision-making process with effective communications,
acknowledging cultural needs in planning policy development, recruiting and training
culturally sensitive and inclusive planners, and providing diversity education in planning
schools (Bollens, 2002; Burayidi, 2003; Edgington & Hutton, 2001; Harwood, 2005; Rahder
& Milgrom, 2004; Sandercock, 2003; Thompson 2003; Uyesugi & Shipley 2005; Vitiello,
2009).

There have been proactive planning practices in Australia, Canada, and the United States that
make specific reference to ethno-cultural diversity. These countries have established a series
of legislative policy frameworks. Meanwhile, city councils appoint monitoring organizations
to ensure compliance. In addition, dedicated multicultural staff are recruited to ensure
community service to diverse groups (Burayidi, 2003; Edgington & Hutton, 2001; Thompson,
2003; Uyesugi & Shipley, 2005). However, it has been observed globally that multicultural
planning policies may be inconsistent at the national and local governance levels (Fincher et
al., 2014). In addition, how to incorporate multicultural planning recommendations into day-
to-day planning practice remains an issue at the local level (Burayidi, 2003; Harwood, 2004;
Qadeer, 2000; Rahder & Milgrom, 2004).

23
Campbell and Fainstein (2003) point out the gap between planning vision and corresponding
responses: ‘despite the planning ideal of a holistic, proactive vision, planners are frequently
restricted to playing frustratingly reactive, regulatory roles’ (p. 8). Primarily out of good will
to celebrate the cultural diversity, most multicultural planning arguments have not yet yielded
research results with illustrative recommendations for planning practice (see also Ramadan,
2015). Over the past three decades, research has shown that planning legislation and policies
lack explicit guidelines on multicultural planning (Milroy & Wallace 2002; Qadeer &
Agrawal 2011; Pestieau & Wallace, 2003; RTPI, 1983; Wallace & Milroy, 1999; Zhuang,
2013). For example, Zhuang (2013) found that in Toronto, municipal public policies
regarding economic development, land use, and transportation planning have limitedly
addressed ethnic retail development. The reason behind this is the constraints of the planning
profession, such as planning legislative structures, and related policy support. Toronto’s
planning legislations do not differentiate people based on their ethno-cultural background,
nor do they explicitly support planning for multicultural communities. The planning
legislations lack compatibility with the multicultural reality.

Overall, planning practice that supports concrete solutions lags behind theoretical exploration
of multicultural planning. There are few comprehensive investigations on specific
multicultural requests and recommendations for day-to-day practice. For example, Qadeer
and Agrawal (2011) propose ‘reasonable accommodation’ as a practical strategy that
recognizes pluralistic interests as well as advances the overall planning goals of society as a
whole. However, the article does not provide solid examples of reasonable strategies. The
authors acknowledge that ‘much more work needs to be done to flesh out this strategy’ (p.
151). Milroy and Wallace (2002, p. 5) observe land-use conflicts between places of worship
and ethnic commercial centres and different forms of dwelling recurring across counties.

In light of the above, it is important to provide a more solid empirical basis that reveals the
complexities of planning practice amidst practice. One window of this investigation is
heritage planning, an area that intersects cultural heritage and planning for diversity is rarely
addressed in the current literature, despite many exploratory heritage studies. Therefore, the
following sections will review the development of heritage studies and the meaning of

24
multiculturalism in this research, and reveal the politics of heritage and its exclusivity in a
migrant society.

2.2 Development of heritage studies

According to the frames of theories in, of and for heritage, heritage is often explained by
professional knowledge in terms of monumental and aesthetic values. Smith (2006) famously
reveals that an authorised heritage discourse dominates the meaning and management of
heritage with less attention to alternative perspectives. It constrains heritage knowledge while
rejecting heritage as a cultural process involving multiple communities. Accordingly, either
focusing on the individual or the contextual sense of heritage, preservation and conservation
discourses favour expertise and the materiality of heritage. Therefore, heritage planning
needs to apply its planning strength to the heritage field and democratically and equally
acknowledge public interests in heritage discourse.

2.2.1 Theories in, of, and for heritage

By categorizing theories in heritage studies into three frames, Waterton and Watson (2013)
identify the terminology fragment of heritage in academia. These three frames are theories in,
of and for heritage.

Theories in heritage focuse on ‘good practice’ in heritage management. Researchers have

taken the mainstream conceptualisation of heritage from architecture, fine arts, and other
related disciplines, and applied this understanding to the instrumentality use of heritage in
different studies (see also Mason, 2002, p. 5). This frame does not address the meaning of
heritage. Emphasis is on authenticity (Larsen, 1995; Ruskin, 1885), identity,
commodification (Graham, Ashworth, & Tunbridge, 2000) and community heritage between
the 1980s and 1990s (Waterton & Watson, 2013, p. 549), for example, maintaining historic
sites and objects as to what it looked like before (Jokilehto, 1999; Salvador Muñoz Viñas,
2005), making economic gains from heritage properties (Kalman, 2014, p. 20; Licciardi &
Amirtahmasebi, 2012; Van Oers, 2016) and creating national identity (Delafons, 1997, p. 4;
Hewison, 1987; Kalman, 2014, p. 20; Lowenthal, 1985). These theories undoubtedly add

25
various values to the heritage field in academia. However, the lack of consideration of the
meaning of heritage means theories in heritage may develop at the expense of
interdisciplinary uncertainty (van Assche & Duineveld, 2013).

Theories of heritage shift attention from substance operationalization to the interpretation of

the social and cultural processes regarding heritage. Interpretation of the context informs the
ideological underpinning of heritage. This frame focuses on the representation of meaning,
especially hegemonic meanings (Waterton & Watson, 2013, p. 550). Representational theory
and a discursive approach are often employed to decode the meaning of heritage and examine
its encoding process. A prominent finding is the existence of AHD through critical discourse
analysis (Smith, 2006; Waterton, 2007; Waterton, Smith, & Campbell, 2006), although the
method is vulnerable to the critiques of not being objective enough (see Poole, 2010).
Theories of heritage are quite popular among critical heritage theorists in history and
sociology, geography, anthropology, and political science, but have limitedly been
acknowledged in archaeology, museology, and even less in architecture and urban planning
(Ashworth, Graham, and Tunbridge, 2007; Ashworth, Larkham, 2013; Dellios & Henrich,
2020; Waterton, 2007).

Theories for heritage aim to open our eyes to responses from daily experience and practice by
human beings. This frame focuses on the role of the personal, the ordinary and the everyday
in the heritage field. It emphasizes ‘what it circulates’ and ‘what it produces’ during human
activities (Waterton & Watson, 2013, pp. 551-552). Theories for heritage involve three
physical, discursive, and affective dimensions. Theories for heritage are mostly prevalent in
cultural and language studies.

The major objects of these three frames are materiality, social relations, and subjective
reflection, while at the same time increasingly abstract. Theories in heritage emphasize
practical approaches to heritage maintenance and management, as is widely recognized in
architectural conservation and heritage tourism (see Mason, 2008; Ruskin, 1885). Theories of
heritage focus on uncovering social problems underneath the conception of heritage through
discursive approach, such as the gap between rhetoric and reality (see Smith & Waterton,

26
2012; Waterton, 2007; Waterton & Smith, 2010). Theories for heritage provide means of
delineating an appropriate understanding of heritage through direct representation (see
Hooper-Greenhill, 2000; Kenderdine, 2010; Watson & Waterton, 2010). Waterton and
Watson (2013) reveal that although some interdisciplinary research has been carried out, they
rarely borrow ideas from theories of and for heritage. The term heritage is taken up by experts’
knowledge and constrained in the set-up conceptualisation as theories in. Few ponder the
meaning and nature of heritage.

2.2.2 Authorized heritage discourse

In recent decades, emerging voices have sought to uncover a distorted understanding of

heritage. The most prominent theory is Smith’s (2006) authorized heritage discourse (AHD).
AHD reveals a dominant Western discourse that naturalises and reinforces a range of
assumptions about heritage. With the major emphasis on tangibility, heritage is assumed to be
well defined by the concepts of monumentality and aesthetics (pp. 4-5). Although much of
Smith’s investigation is about heritage management, the existence of AHD is seemingly
similar to the Ruskinian tradition in the fields of architecture and planning dealing with the
built environment. AHD’s preference for monumentality and aesthetics that focuses on
intrinsic value echoes the Ruskinian ethos of ‘conserve as found’.

Smith explains the dominance of AHD by its reliance on ‘the power/knowledge claims of
technical and aesthetic experts’, and its function within ‘state cultural agencies and amenity
societies’ (2006, p. 11). AHD not only exists at the conceptual level around competing terms
and interpretations, but also dominates and regulates the operation of heritage practice.
According to Smith, it privileges expertise while undermining alternative interpretations and
understanding (pp. 4-5, 11). This emphasis ultimately leads to ‘an explicit and sometimes
self-conscious way of negotiating social and cultural identity, value and meaning’ (p. 5).

In the face of globalization, migration, and transnationalism, as Smith (2006) suggests,

‘consensual heritage narratives about the nation and national identity were challenged by the
diversity of community experience and identity claims’ (p. 5). Alternative views of heritage
find nowhere to settle in the dominant discourse. This discourse highlights the preservationist

27
desire to conserve heritage as it looked at the past and techniques around material authenticity.
Smith claims that AHD constructs a sense of heritage, which is another term far from what
heritage is made of (p. 6). She contends that ‘heritage is a multi-layered performance … that
embodies acts of remembrance and commemoration while … constructing a sense of place,
belonging and understanding in the present’ (p. 3). Such performance is not the knowledge
that an expert can acquire through professional training.

2.2.3 Preservation, conservation, and heritage planning

Ashworth (1994a, 1994b, 2011) proposes a triadic classification of heritage paradigms that
have emerged over time: ‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, and ‘heritage planning’. He argues
that the main difference lies in the different understandings of the nature of heritage and its
value. These different interpretations of heritage lead to different approaches to the objects of
each paradigm’s concern, different criteria for determining heritage, and different actors
leading the heritage decisions and goals (Ashworth, 1994a). Patiwael, Groote and Vanclay
(2019) explain Ashworth’s argument that the interplay between preservation, conservation,
and heritage planning is due firstly to an incomplete shift between paradigms, and secondly
to the inherently interdisciplinary nature of heritage management. As a result, a number of
misunderstandings and even contradictions have arisen and affected the use of the past in the
present (Ashworth, 2011, p. 1).

Ashworth’s (1994a, 1994b, 2011) three heritage paradigms can be adapted into preservation,
conservation, and planning discourses. In the preservation discourse, heritage refers to
individual monuments of intrinsic, universal, and immutable values that need to be protected
in special development (Ashworth, 2011). This understanding is close to the ‘conservative
sense’ by Hardy (1988, p. 333) and the orthodox paradigm by Lixinski (2015). This work is
predominantly driven by experts and professional knowledge. The lead scholars are
colleagues in the Ruskinian tradition (Ashworth, 2011). The material integrity of a heritage
site is more important than its cultural significance in the social context. According to
Ashworth (2011), ‘as far as planning or development is concerned, the preserved relict
historical [artefacts] and sites are at best irrelevant and at worst an obstacle’ (p. 8).

28
In conservation discourse, Ashworth (2013) typically distinguishes ‘conservation’ from
‘preservation’. Patiwael, Groote and Vanclay (2019) identify two main ways in which
conservation discourse differs from preservation discourse. Firstly, conservation discourse
focuses beyond single monuments and buildings to ‘ensembles’ (Ashworth, 2011, p. 9).
Secondly, heritage management aims more at ‘preserving purposefully’ rather than ‘as found’
without change. Burke (1976) explains ‘preserving purposefully’ as ‘not merely continued
existence but continued useful existence, which often implies retaining or restoring the
traditional appearance of buildings … but adapting the interior to modern uses’ (p. 117).
Essentially, the conservation discourse allows heritage to adapt to the new environment.

In planning discourse, the planning goals of urban regeneration or redevelopment raise

flexible conservation requirements and bring planners to collaborate with heritage experts
from preservation and conservation discourses in heritage management decisions. Kalman
(2014) explains heritage planning as ‘a professional, collaborative process that strives to
channel advocates’ enthusiasm into rational dialogue among various community interests’ (p.
4). The main difference between the heritage planning discourse and the other two is the
conceptualization of heritage in the present tense (Timothy & Boyd, 2003; Tunbridge &
Ashworth, 1996). It shifts from ‘historical accuracy’ and ‘intrinsic authenticity’, to ‘the
contemporary extrinsic narrative attached to it’ (Patiwael et al., 2019, p. 336). According to
Patiwael et al. (2019), this shift leads firstly to the subjective, dynamic, and polysemic
meaning of heritage, and secondly, to an intangible nature of heritage (Ashworth, 2011;
Smith, 2006; Timothy & Boyd, 2003). It requires planners and heritage professionals to
transform from experts to mediators and facilitators, and to create a supportive environment
that engages the public in heritage management. Van Assche and Duineveld (2013) argue that
heritage planning should look beyond recognised sites and place, and include ‘a much larger
subset of traces of the past in its deliberations’ and ‘be sensitive to heritage as defined by
different communities’ (p. 2).

2.3 The context of a multicultural society

Since the 1970s, multicultural policies have been adopted by many countries worldwide to
respond to the increasing cultural diversity. The application of multicultural policies varies

29
from country to country in terms of the specific approaches, measures, and relevant
institutions. Since 2000, multicultural policies have been criticized as a failure. This has led
to a long and hot debate over the concept of multiculturalism. People argue that
multiculturalism fosters separateness while refusing common values, or denies the emerging
social problems derived from cultural differences, or supports reprehensible practices, or is
just the book cover while subtly promoting assimilation (Fincher et al., 2014; Vertovec &
Wessendorf, 2010). The primary conflict lies in the different interpretations and
understandings of ‘multiculturalism’. Therefore, this section will explain the understanding of
multiculturalism from a human rights perspective.

2.3.1 Multicultural policies

Officially or not, since the 1970s, multicultural policies have been conceived to eliminate
cultural biases and protect all kinds of ethnic minorities, and to undo those policies that
crowd out ethnic minorities’ interests and their full participation equally as others as
promised by Western societies since the Age of Enlightenment (Collins & Friesen, 2011).
Relevant policies have increasingly been adopted and operationalized in multicultural
societies in nations and states, such as Australia, Canada, the United States, Great Britain,
Sweden, and the Netherlands. These countries have not undertaken the same approach,
introduced the same measures, nor established the same institutions. Even within a single
country, the relevant policies of local governments have not taken the same perspectives,
goals, and development processes (Bennett, 1998; Martiniello, 1998; Rogers and Tillie, 2001;
Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010).

In the United Kingdom, during a period of Conservative dominance in the central

government, some ‘left-wing’ councils implemented multiculturalism (Collins & Friesen,
2011). In Canada, local governments have adopted policies and initiatives to accommodate
nationally promoted multiculturalism, such as promoting plural spatial forms and functions,
and increasing the employment of minorities in planning offices (Qadeer, 1997). In Australia,
local governments’ responses have contributed to migrants’ access to services, community
relations and citizenship, and symbolic representation (Dunn et al., 2001). In New Zealand,
the local governments’ responses were less obvious. In 2006, Auckland City Council

30
published the Intercultural City Project. ‘Multicultural communities’ became part of their
promotion of ‘community well-being’ (Collins & Friesen, 2011). Multiculturalism has been
explicitly and implicitly the goal of Auckland City and the adjacent Manukau City3 (Friesen,
2006).

As Hall (2001) observes, ‘Over the years the term “multiculturalism” has come to reference a
diffuse, indeed maddeningly spongy and imprecise, discursive field: a train of false trails and
misleading universals. Its references are a wild variety of political strategies’ (p. 3). Freeman
(2004) reveals that all governments in practice deal with immigrant and ethnic minority
incorporation through a rather disordered closet full of measures. ‘No state possesses a truly
coherent incorporation regime’ (p. 946). Few governments address ethnic diversity in a
consistent manner. In most cases, immigrant issues are confronted and managed via
institutions ‘created for other purposes’ (Freeman, 2004, p. 948).

2.3.2 Criticisms against multiculturalism

In the beginning, around the turn of the millennium, controversies have seemingly resulted in
the consensual attitude towards accepting multiculturalism. Since 2000, one occurrence or
prominent public statement after another has sparked multiple debates on multiculturalism in
government assemblies, newspapers and journals, and other media means (Vertovec &
Wessendorf, 2010). As nation-states of late modernity try to include ethnic minorities,
‘multiculturalism’ is often aligned with the ‘strict monocultural controls’ that maintain the
Western nation-state and its official policies. The belief in cultural diversity is often dissolved
within the centrality of the nation-state and through multicultural heritage policies and praxes
(Harrison, 2013, p. 144; Rossipal, 2020).

Debates about multiculturalism as a political philosophy influence the strategies and policies
proposed to address issues related to ethnically and racially diverse societies (Hall, 2000, p.

3 Auckland City Council and Manukau City Council merged into the Auckland Council in a 2010 local government reform.

31
210). Proponents argue that a nation can be ethnically and racially heterogeneous while
ensuring all individual rights (Hall, 2000; Vertovec & Wassendorf, 2010). However, its
feasibility has been questioned by critics, as individual rights in a heterogenous society will
be guaranteed on multiple bases. Multiculturalism has two possible outcomes. Firstly, by
maintaining their own cultural identities and practices, ethnic and racialized minorities can
separate themselves from the mainstream and reinforce their subordination. Secondly,
multicultural policies may undercut the universalism and neutrality of a nation (Fincher et al.,
2014; Koopmans, 2010).

2.3.3 The meaning of multiculturalism

It would be unfair to judge multiculturalism without clarifying one’s interpretation. As

multicultural policies are arguably failing in different countries, these experiences enrich a
deeper understanding of multiculturalism. With the development of postmodernism, ethnic
studies have proposed a ‘new’ multiculturalism (Qadeer, 1997). Qadeer (1997) identified an
ideological change in cultural expression and distinguished between ‘old’ and ‘new’
multiculturalism. ‘Old’ was usually confined to the working-class, immigrant districts, and
Bargess assumed pattern of ‘the zone of transition’ populated by lower income classes in
urban centres, while ‘new’ stemmed from subsequent changes in Western society after WW2,
which, according to Vertovec and Wessendorf (2010), can be seen as a ‘human rights
revolution’ (p. 35). Likewise, Kymlicka (2012) contends that multiculturalism should move
forward from celebrating cultural differences and simple ad hoc responses to tensions and
imagined or real threats, to persuading multicultural citizenization – ‘not to suppress these
differential claims but to filter them through and frame them within the language of human
rights, civil liberties, and democratic accountability’ (p. 39).

Multiculturalism does not mean to creating a stage where all people celebrate their
differences, because, firstly, some cultural differences are controversial; and secondly, any
safely inoffensive practice such as cuisine or music that can be enjoyably consumed by all,
could take the risk of the trivialization or Disney-fication of cultural differences (Kymlicka,
2012; Bissoondath, 1994). Multiculturalism should prioritize economic and political issues

32
such as un- and under-employment, poor social resources, residential segregation, poor
English language skills, and political marginalization (Kymlicka, 2012).

2.4 Politics of heritage

With the development of heritage studies, heritage has been expanded from a domain of
knowledge dominated by expertise to a field where different public interests should be
recognized democratically and equally. The concept of heritage moves from monumental and
aesthetic preferences to a complexity of physical, discursive, and affective dimensions. In the
context of a migrant society, the dissonance of heritage is reinforced due to its association
with national identity. Essentially, heritage plays a political role. It excludes those unwanted
‘others’. Migrant heritage is erased at where heritage, planning, and multiculturalism intersect.

2.4.1 Heritage, a dissonant package

As an old word inherited from the past, heritage has ambitiously begun to include everything
and about what is chosen as a ‘valid heritage’. The term is used to describe a broad spectrum
of objects by a growing group of stakeholders. In New Zealand, the concept of ‘heritage’
encompasses a wide array of fields and items, including but not limited to, plant, festival,
food, architecture, place, Waahi tapu, culture, language, engineering, and many others. This
definition is maintained by a diverse group of stakeholders, including government
organizations such as the Department of Conservation, Department of Internal Affair,
Ministry for the Environment, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, and non-government
organisations across various fields, as well as local authorities such as regional and district
councils and unitary authorities (Ministry for Environment, 2021). In the context of the New
Zealand heritage framework, the term ‘heritage’ often refers specifically to heritage places
and sites. From a multicultural perspective, the framework incorporates physical, natural, and
intangible heritage that holds significance for Māori, such as architecture, landscapes, rituals
and knowledge, as well as cultural events and activities of interest to migrant groups, such as
cultural performances, food celebrations, and festivals.

33
Hardy (1988) differentiates heritage into conservative and radical concepts. In a conservative
sense, heritage refers to cultural traditions and artefacts from the past. It is acknowledged as
either tangible or intangible objects worthy of inscription. In a radical sense, heritage is a

value-loaded concept, embracing (and often obscuring) differences of

interpretation that are dependent on key variables, such as class, gender
and locality; and with the concept itself locked into wider frameworks of
dominant and subversive ideologies (where the idea of heritage can be
seen either to reinforce or to challenge existing patterns of power) (p.
333).

The question of what heritage is is related to contextual information, including the

identification of stakeholders, and the power relations embedded in heritage management
framework. Therefore, heritage should not be considered alone, but as a package
encompassing what could make it heterogeneous.

Essentially, heritage is more subjective rather than objective and scientific. It is used and
talked about by specialists, architects, archaeologists, governors, teachers, grandparents, and
many people who vary considerably by ethnicity and race, religious affiliation, socio-
economic status, nations and states, and education background. Also, it is operated and
preserved by institutions and bodies based on the professional knowledge determined by
profession traditions. While official listing and conservation techniques dominate, alternative
voices have also emerged. For example, there are numerous examples of conflicts between
UNESCO and local communities at world heritage sites (Di Giovine, 2008; Evans, 2002;
Frey & Steiner, 2011; Jokilehto, 2006; Labadi, 2007; MacRae, 2017; Nicholas al et., 2009;
Rasoolimanesh al et., 2017), the lack of recognition of subaltern heritage (Escobar, 2001;
Pendlebury, 2015; Wedgwood, 2009), and a few remnants by ethnic minorities in immigrant
countries (Gard’ner, 2004; Lynch, 2017). Without considering involved communities and the
discourse underneath heritage management frameworks, heritage can only be recognised as
an item-specific concept. Sooner or later, such ignorance of contextual information can lead
to conflicts among these stakeholders over monetary incentives, cultural tradition, conflicts of
faith, and under-representation of specific communities.

34
2.4.2 The political role of heritage

Historically, heritage and nationalism were intertwined from the 18th to the early 20th
centuries. Nation-states seek to establish a set of social, religious and political rules to control
their citizens through heritage. Since the second half of the 20th century, the diaspora, along
with movements such as globalization, migration, and transnationalism, have challenged the
‘authorised national heritage’ (Ang, 2011, p. 87). Heritage has begun to play a role in the
power erosion of nation-states in the diaspora era (Harrison & Hitchcock, 2010).

Ashworth, Graham and Tunbridge (2007) reveal that multicultural societies have different
heritage strategies by adopting specific policy models. Their perceptions of heritage and its
uses show exactly the role of heritage in each case. For example, heritage can play an
instrumental role in assimilatory models, assimilating outside additions into the core and
further strengthening such procedures, or mildly as an education instrument for new national
identity among immigrants, such as in the United States, Canada, and Australia. The
reluctance of immigrants is treated by ignorance, marginalization, and engagement in cultural
hyphenation. Or, heritage can play multiple roles by taking care of the mainstream and add-
ons simultaneously while preventing the essential character of the core from dilution.
Essentially, the roles of heritage detailed above celebrate the mainstream culture while
leaving little room for others (see also Lowenthal, 1998).

Dellios and Henrich (2020) explicitly claim that heritage plays a political role in relation to
migration, citizenship, belonging, and human rights. While the human rights of immigrants
are globally recognized, there are obstacles from right-wing nationalists and cultural racism
in legislation by popularist marginal political parties, where nativism prevails. In such context,
heritage becomes the arena of migrants’ shifting identities and the host nations and states’
legacies of race and racism (Dellios & Henrich, 2020; Harrison & Hitchcock, 2010).

2.4.3 The exclusivity of heritage in a migrant society

In the face of globalization, migration, and transnationalism, as Smith (2006) demonstrates,

‘consensual heritage narratives about the nation and national identity were challenged by the

35
diversity of community experience and identity claims’ (p. 5). Despite the fact that
multicultural policies have been widely accepted by official discourses within liberal
democracies since the 1970s (Ang, 2005), governments still find their ways to exclude
alternative heritage. Migrant heritage sits in the blind spot where heritage, planning, and
multiculturalism intersect.

De Bock (2020) revealed two opposite opinions among heritage practitioners about either
putting migrant heritage in the spotlight or mainstreaming it. The former approach often
operates through temporary projects such as festival celebrations and events, while the latter
attitude would require a ground-breaking revolution of the whole heritage sector (p. 199).
Incorporating migrant heritage into the dominance of authorised heritage discourse has been
challenging. As Winter (2014) argued, heritage is largely conceptually framed by a
Eurocentric discourse. Firstly, Europe and the USA remain the primary regions of theory
generation, with the hegemony of the English language heavily shaping knowledge
dissemination. Secondly, after the Enlightenment, Europe’s belief in the universalism of its
knowledge dominated the analytic tradition and the formation of ideas and theories. Thirdly,
Western scholars’ non-Western history most often sits within a body of scholarship that has
been generated under conditions of exploration and colonialism with their attendant
assumptions and ideologies about non-Western societies and cultures. The result is a typical
heritage bias that suggests ‘only the West had an historical awareness of both its own cultural
past and that of others’ (Winter, 2014, p. 561).

For instance, in the British case, Hall (1999) discovered the assimilating objective of heritage,
claiming that heritage is for ‘those who “belong”’ to the ‘culturally homogeneous and unified’
society (p. 6). Waterton (2007) and Callaghan (2015) identified the exclusive nature of
heritage policies regarding the policy agenda of Britain’s New Labour governments (1997-
2010) and authorised heritage discourse. Likewise, by comparing ‘inside looking out’, ‘inside
looking in’, and ‘outside looking in’ perspectives, Naidoo (2016, p. 511) concluded that the
‘heritage of outsiders remains outside’ (p. 511) in the United Kingdom. In the German case,
Förster et al. (2016) found that alternative perspectives struggle in divergent interpretations of
public heritage. In the Canadian case, Kalman (1982) observed that Liberal landmarks had

36
more chances to survive than other heritage. As Calligaro (2014) reveals, ‘diversity indicates
that this heritage cannot be equated with a dominant culture, … The remaining questions the
actual weight given to each of these dimensions’ (p. 77).

2.4.4 Heritage democracy

Heritage has been absent from debates related to democracy, even though, as a matter of fact,
heritage has the potential to challenge how particular communities and groups are perceived
and classified by others (Greenwood, 2020; Smith, 2006). Recently, it has emerged that
heritage and the concepts of human rights are deeply entwined (Hodder, 2010; Logan, 2008;
Logan et al. 2010; Meskel, 2010; Rossipal, 2020; Silverman and Ruggles, 2007). A radical
and unconditional heritage concept is required, while rejecting an inclusive exclusion or
sacrifice over anyone’s loss (Rossipal, 2020). Over the past few decades, scholars have
started to focus on heritage and race (Hall, 1999; Littler & Naidoo, 2004, 2005), multiple
British heritages (Fryer, 1984; Gard’ner, 2004; Ramdin, 1999), democratization issues of
heritage (Samuel, 1994), community archives (Flinn, 2011), and heritage from below
(Hareven & Langenbach, 1981; Robertson, 2013). These debates have helped to diversify the
concept of heritage beyond the biased parameters by institutional policies premised on
authorised heritage discourse (Smith, 2006) and inform a wider struggle for racial and social
justice aiming at enriching culturally diverse heritage and increasing public access to the
heritage industry (Hopkins, 2008; Terracciano, 2018, 2020).

In the meantime, the dominant unified idea of a national heritage representing the
homogeneous nation-state for posterity has been criticized by emerging philosophical
theories such as ‘nomadic citizenship’ (Braidotti, 2011), new epistemologies of time (Backe,
2016; Berardi, 2017) and rhizomatic heritage (Hillier, 2013; Russell, 2010). This
philosophical pondering, together with the latest progress in virtual and creative interactions
with heritage (Bekele et al., 2019; Ioannides et al., 2017; Tan & Rahaman, 2009) has
contributed to opening up the new epistemologies of ‘becoming’ (Harrison, 2018) over the
dominant ontologies of the past (Terracciano, 2020).

37
2.5 Heritage planning in a migrant society

2.5.1 Rethinking ‘heritage planning’

Although nations and states touch upon heritage in public policies and national strategies,
such as in the planning framework in England (Cossons, 2000), tourism policy and regional
development in France (Poirrier, 2003), and a broader range of stakeholders in Germany
(Holtorf, 2007), the integration of heritage and planning remains poor (Janssen, Luiten, et al.,
2014). Heritage is often reduced to issues in spatial planning rather than social-economic and
demographic development, and property development (Janssen, Luiten, et al., 2014, p. 2).

While heritage scholars are keen to break down the dominant criteria of ‘historical accuracy’
and ‘intrinsic authenticity’, these remain indestructible in planning. Advances in the concept
of heritage and its management in planning are incomparable to neither the development of
heritage studies, nor the long-debated planning profession. Freestone et al. (2008) comment
that ‘the contribution of urban planning is less well or explicitly represented in everyday
heritage thinking’ (p. 172). Ludwig (2016, p. 823) points out that currently, there is no
structural tools or legal apparatus available for planners to accommodate heritage diversity.
The fundamental reasons include the widely shared challenges of deep-set ideologies of
orthodox understanding of heritage, conservative norms and working practices, and the
systematic bias aiming for ‘a rational planning environment’ (Ludwig & Ludwig, as cited in
Ludwig, 2016, p. 823).

Kalman (2014) explicitly explains heritage planning as a subordinate field to urban planning
and heritage conservation. Likewise, Ashworth and Larkham (2013) explain the
operationalization of current heritage planning as a process of refining the object and subject
of heritage and the linkage between them, then fitting these elements into the context of the
planning profession. Inherent separateness between heritage and planning has constrained the
promotion of heritage planning on its own merit and its strength in a migrant society.

Also, the planning system unreflectively expresses the norms of the culturally dominant
majority. It is essentially driven by the homogeneous ideal, more or less. Consequently, the

38
planning system can be reluctant to acknowledge alternatives, such as migrant heritage. After
all, dominant cultural norms and values are shared through their legal framework to the
environmental courts (Sandercock, 2000).

In addition, planners are inextricable from planning professional and institutional biases.
Their attitudes, behaviours, and decisions most often reinforce the loneliness of heritage
planning. Smith (2006) has often criticized traditional research by reducing heritage conflicts
to ‘case-specific issues’ rather than ‘cultural process of identity formation’ (p. 4). Since most
planning education conveys theories in heritage regarding heritage conflicts, planners may
gravitate towards the simplest approach, but bypass the requirement to think deeply about
heritage in practice. Furthermore, planners are more inclined to object to cultural practices
that are incompatible with their own values (Sandercock, 2000). Consequently, there is little
opportunity to identify alternative understandings of heritage in a narrowly acknowledged
lane of heritage planning.

As revealed by Waterton and Watson (2013) in theories for heritage, heritage should
essentially be a human-being defined concept rather than an expert-dominated field of
knowledge. Smith (2006) proposes that heritage is represented through its physicality and
intangible acts of practicing or performing, and also the process of values and meanings
negotiation. It is a cultural process ‘of meaning and memory making and remaking rather
than a thing’ (pp. 74-75). Ultimately, heritage should be ‘about the mediation of cultural
change’ (Smith, 2010, p. 64; see also Rishbeth & Powell, 2013). Therefore, heritage planning
should acknowledge the evolving nature of heritage.

Neither diversity nor equity alone will accelerate the ideal of multiculturalism (see also
ODPM, 2005; Reeves, 2005). Therefore, heritage planning in a demographically diverse
society should aim at ‘pluralistic modes’ (Qadeer, 2015) that enhance intercultural awareness
and understanding, and civility in urban residents from diverse ethnic backgrounds; and
‘equitable treatment’ (Fincher et al., 2014) that respects cultural differences of all residents.

39
2.5.2 Heritage planning for diversity

Hareven and Langenbach (1981) argued that conservation requires consideration of both
architectural analysis and social history, acknowledging the meaning that architecture can
bring to local rehabilitation in light of subaltern experience. It has been observed that the
acknowledgment and identification of historical consciousness is uneven. While local
residents are able to imagine a wider range of possibilities, politicians and heritage managers
have a limited view of heritage. The New Zealand heritage framework defines heritage in two
primary ways, ‘historic heritage’ - ‘those natural and physical resources that contribute to an
understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures’ under the RMA and
‘historical and cultural heritage’ of ‘historic place’ and ‘historic area’ (that of ‘the historical
and cultural heritage of New Zealand’), and ‘wāhi tūpuna’ and ‘wāhi tapu’ under the HNZPT.
However, both interpretations lack clarity in terms of the explanation of ‘New Zealand’s
history and cultures’ and ‘the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand’. As a result,
heritage protection authorities often decide what constitutes heritage and how it should be
preserved, leading to an over-concentration of power in the hands of these heritage authorities.

In fact, heritage has been frequently used in subaltern narratives, though not by the term
‘heritage’, for the most (Rogerio-Candelera et al., 2013, p. 390). Hareven and Langenbach
(1981) identified two directions to introduce emerging historical consciousness and diversify
the concept of heritage. Firstly, among groups previously neglected or misunderstood, such
as industrial workers, village labourers, slaves, refugees, and migrants. Secondly, among
social experiences and practices that were not previously recognized and identified as
legitimate aspects of historical scholarship, such as work and leisure, childhood, old age, and
family life. Both strands have led not only from elites to common people, but from official,
unified history to a history of the subaltern, private lives and experiences - from ‘formal and
institutional’ to ‘a more existential history’ (Hareven & Langenbach, 1981). Heritage derives
its significance not only from established aesthetics and stylistic values, or from the creation
in a particular period, but also from the social context in which structures were built, the
functions they fulfilled, and the historical experiences associated with them. For example, a
building could become a heritage for its association with private work or family lives of a

40
large number of common people in the past, or its representation of the experiences of people
alive today or their parent and grandparents (Hareven & Langenbach, 1981).

2.5.3 Heritage planning for equity

In the contemporary ‘age of migration’ (Castles & Miller, 2009), the question of whether
some inhabitants’ ethnic and racialized identities, and cultural tastes are stigmatized,
trivialized, valued, or recognized by the public is an essential element of social justice in the
city (see for example Fainstein, 2010; Fincher & Iveson, 2008; Sandercock, 1998, 2003).
Young (1990) gives two situations in which equality should be prioritised: first, when some
interests are more easily commensurable to decision-makers; second, when dominant social
ideologies have been prioritized. The core of the New Zealand national identity has been, and
to a certain extent continues to be, intertwined with ethnic identity. Despite granting equal
legal status to all citizens, instances of discrimination against non-white New Zealanders still
exist (Murphy, 2003). The lack of an explicit national policy on multiculturalism has resulted
in the heritage system not fully embracing and recognizing the diversity of people in the
country. This has led to a dominant Western perspective in heritage planning and
management, and an authorised heritage discourse in favouring of historic and aesthetic
values. The associated endeavours often fall short in, or are antithetical to, the state-led
institutions and bodies (Rossipal, 2020). Consequently, there should be a methodology to
secure equitable treatment over a ‘radical or unconditional heritage sanctuary’ (Hou, 2004;
Rossipal, 2020, p. 47).

According to Fincher et al. (2014), the market-oriented solutions employed by neoliberal

governance seemingly prefer the homogenization of planning discourses and practices and
promote social cohesion. Therefore, the central government needs to acknowledge
‘multicultural citizenization’ in the first place. Secondly, as local governments tend more to
reduce tension and increase cohesion when cultural diversity is associated with disadvantage,
planners need to be culturally inclusive and free from cultural and professional biases.
Thirdly, due to that planners are also influenced by where they belong in the planning system,
the various powers and degrees of autonomy of different institutions and agencies should be
considered as well (see also Fincher et al., 2014).

41
This chapter reviewed the development of planning theories, heritage studies, and
multicultural policies worldwide and then settled down the meaning of multiculturalism in
this research. The politics of heritage were articulated by the dissonance of heritage, the
political role of heritage in a multicultural context and its exclusivity to minorities in a
migrant society. The heritage planning field needs to stay updated with the development of
heritage studies and planning theories in terms of the heritage concept, while aiming at the
goal of diversity and equity. The next chapter will review previous conceptions of cultural
heritage and corresponding approaches. Critical heritage studies and migration studies are
added to provide pioneer heritage perspectives and contribute to a preliminary conceptual
framework of migrant heritage. A research design that responds to the required data based on
research questions and literature review will be demonstrated and followed by research
details of the Auckland case study.

42
3 Chapter 3. A Preliminary Conceptual Framework of
Migrant Heritage and Research Design of Auckland Case
Study

Chapter 3 reviews the evolution and expansion process of the definition and scope of heritage,
and dominant and alternative heritage approaches in academia. In order to conceptualise a
preliminary framework of migrant heritage, critical heritage studies and prominent people-
place theories in migration studies have been added and reviewed. The case study of
Auckland aims to conceptualise Chinese cultural heritage in order to finalise a conception of
migrant heritage while also revealing the official heritage discourse within the New Zealand
heritage system and Auckland heritage framework, and find the mismatches between the
New Zealand heritage system and the Chinese communities in Auckland to establish the
argument of heritage planning for diversity and equity in a migrant society.

3.1 Evolution and expansion process of the definition and scope of heritage

The current dominant definition and understanding of heritage is largely affected by the
history of heritage. From national heritage to family inheritance and the Grand Tour, heritage
has never accepted perspectives and interpretations from the minority. Although international
organisations UNESCO and ICOMOS have established the concept of cultural heritage, the
related consensual knowledge is dominated by expertise.

3.1.1 National heritage

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, when new nation-states fought for legitimacy, the term
‘national heritage’ was created to underpin the sense of pride and legitimacy of new regimes
(Davison & McConville, 1991). Due to the capacity of being inoffensive and infinitely
flexible, heritage became the instrumental tool of cultural agency by authorities. The primary
producers of the materialization of history comprise the great families, the church, and the
state (Nora, 1989). Heritage collections decorated the position of people with power and

43
reputation, and facilitated their influence (see also Fitch, 1990; Hall, 1999; Poulios, 2010).
Lowenthal (1998) typically distinguishes heritage and history, claiming that ‘history is for all.
Heritage is for us alone’ (p. 128). An intentionally constructed idea of heritage was equated
to the embodiment of history. Concern for historical and artistic heritage was an affair
foremost related to nation-building, rather than to the livelihoods and well-being of local
communities (Muñoz Viñas, 2005; Van Oers, 2016).

The idea of national heritage was reinforced again after the World Wars. The founders of the
post-war preservation movement saw historic buildings and sites as the vehicles of a national
or spiritual heritage rather than being understood unto themselves. In 1948 America, the
National Trust for Historic Preservation referred to historic sites and structures as ‘tangible
remnants of the past and monuments to the national democratic heritage’ (Offen, 2016, p. 13).
Heritage was constructed as a materiality-centring notion that serves the need of nationalism.

3.1.2 Family inheritance/upper-class customs

Heritage is an old word that comes from the vocabulary of old societies. In its original sense,
heritage was the property or intellectual legacy handed on from previous generations
(Davison & McConville, 1991). The core values of heritage are drawn from ancestral
relationships. Most frequently, heritage is recognized for its rarity and linkage with the past,
either family heirlooms or rituals. In the late 17th and 18th centuries, the ‘Grand Tour’ custom
was quite popular among upper-class young European men. It was a traditional trip of Europe
in search of art, culture, and the roots of Western civilization (Gross, 2008). The Grand Tour
was valued mostly for its exposure to the cultural legacy and the aristocratic polite society of
the European continent. This custom, which may be explained as a heritage trek, did to some
extent awaken an acknowledgement that historic buildings and artefacts contribute to the
creation of the sense of place and history (Offen, 2016). However, the range of stakeholders
remained homogeneous. Taste by the upper-class determined what heritage refers to.

44
3.1.3 Cultural heritage

Public interest in heritage has increased worldwide ever since the establishment of ICOMOS
and UNESCO. The creation of UNESCO in 1945 and ICOMOS in 1965 witnessed the
resurgence of heritage conservation movements.4 Due to the fluidity and a certain
‘detachment’ from local political and philosophical traditions, international conventions and
principles are well suited to picture the evolution and expansion process of the definition and
scope of heritage (see also Lixinski, 2015, p. 204). Initially, ICOMOS defined heritage as
‘monuments and sites’, while UNESCO defined heritage as ‘cultural property’ (Ahmad, 2006,
p. 295). Those dissonant terminologies were not reconciled till 1972 at the World Heritage
Convention. The term ‘cultural heritage’ was first defined in the following way:

Article 1:1

monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and

painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions,
cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding
universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;

groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which,

because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the
landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of
history, art or science;

sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and of man, and
areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal
value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points
of view.

Following this definition, the scope of heritage was broadened to include historic gardens,
landscape and environment, and even more in particular countries. In 1987, the Washington

4
Cultural heritage was first addressed in international law by the 1907 Hague Regulations concerning the Law
and Customs of War on Land with the aim of protecting ‘historic monuments’ from sieges and bombardments
(Blake, 2000, p. 61).

45
Charter5 stated the need to protect historic cities, including natural and man-made
environments and embedded functions. It moves further by recognizing both tangible and
intangible values other than traditional materiality (Vecco, 2010, p. 323). A notable document,
the Burra Charter,6 by Australia ICOMOS, has contributed directly to concerns about cultural
significance in the heritage field since it was drafted and adopted in 1979. Based on the
Amsterdam Declaration7 in 1975, the Burra Charter introduced three new terms: place,
cultural significance, and fabric. Since then, the heritage concept has shifted from the
tangible to intangible dimension. By the end of the 20th century, UNESCO clarified the scope
of cultural heritage to cover cultural properties including monuments, groups of buildings and
sites (Article 23:5), natural properties including geographical environments (Article 43:10),
and ‘intangible cultural heritage’,8 which was adopted from the UNESCO Convention 2003.9

The evolution and expansion process of the scope of heritage (see Appendix 1) indicates that
most often, heritage is defined by categorisation. It explicitly and directly points out what
accounts for heritage and what does not. It contains a list of heritage types, tangible or
intangible, cultural or natural. However, explicitly though, the categorisation approach is
fixed and conservative by itself. For example, the dualism of natural/cultural and
tangible/intangible has been criticized as artificial and untenable (Bergdahl, 2012; Borrelli &
Davis, 2012; Brown, 2010; Burke, 2010; Fredheim & Khalaf, 2016; Harrison, 2015).
Heritage is widely accepted as a dissonant package that can encompass any concept or item

5
ICOMOS, Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas, 1987.

6
ICOMOS Australia, the Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of Cultural Significance, known as ‘the Burra
Charter’, 1979.

7
Council of Europe, European Charter for the Architectural Heritage, 1975.

8
‘Intangible Cultural Heritage’ is defined as ‘the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills-as
well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith-that communities, groups and,
in some cases, individuals recognise as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage,
transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to
their environments, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and
continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.’ (Article 2:2)

9
UNESCO, Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2003.

46
derived from the context. As Blake (2000) observes, the spectrum of cultural heritage ‘is not
an absolute but is […] an act of deliberate selection’ (p. 74). The categorization-based
definition leaves little space for alternatives and potential types or forms that have not been
identified and acknowledged. Essentially, defining heritage through a list of categories risks
excluding other types and forms of heritage, and is overly reliant on expert knowledge. What
is needed is a radical, inclusive and flexible methodology to define cultural heritage.

Additionally, these principles and guidelines drafted and promulgated as charters,

recommendations, resolutions, declarations or statements by international organizations, such
as UNESCO and ICOMOS, have been charged with lacking certainty about the nature of
subject matter and are not coherent all the time (Blake, 2000). Some are expert-signed
conventions, and hence are not legally enforceable (Lixinski, 2015). These weaknesses leave
heritage decisions to planning and policy frameworks in nations and states case by case.
What accounts for heritage and the corresponding preservation rely on experts, mostly
heritage professionals (see also de la Torre & Mason, 2002, p. 3).

Moreover, it is observed that the history of heritage conservation is longer than the
explanation of the heritage concept in international principles. Much earlier, before the first
manifesto announced by the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in 1877, Ruskin
and Morris had advocated the conservation movement for years. The Ruskinian methodology
has been accepted as the modern approach and has dominated the conservation field for over
130 years (Jokilehto, 1999; Wells, 2007). However, neither the Manifesto nor the Ruskinian
approach has investigated the alternatives to the way of conservation (Clark, 2017). The
scope of conservation objectives was largely limited to buildings (Morris, 1877). Though
ICOMOS has adopted the Athens Charter10 and the Venice Charter11 since the early 1930s,
emerging charters cannot escape from the positivism paradigm.

10
ICOMOS, The International Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments, known as ‘the Athens
Charter’, 1931.

47
3.2 Dominant heritage approaches

Planning often deals with heritage by scheduling and listing, and preservation and
conservation (Chung, 2005b; Janssen et al., 2014), which is dominated by the values-based
approach and the Ruskinian tradition separately.

3.2.1 Values-based approach

The Burra Charter is credited for the notion of cultural significance, referring to the attributed
and plural nature of heritage (Worthing & Bond, 2007). Cultural significance has been
equated to heritage values by scholars to indicate what deserves to be considered heritage
(see also Mason, 2002). To manage the dissonant and conflicting package of heritage values,
the values-based approach was introduced to deliberately, systematically, and transparently
analyse and assess all those values since the 1980s (Mason, 2002, p. 5). First coined by Riegl
(1996), a system of values was described as ‘the first coherent basis for modern conservation
theory’ (Jokilehto 1999, p. 215). Fredheim and Khalaf (2016) define this approach as ‘one
that seeks to identify, sustain and enhance significance, where significance is understood as
the overall value of heritage, or the sum of its constituent “heritage values”’ (p. 466). It is
employed to manage a particular place or structure (McClelland et al., 2013). This approach
has been mostly developed and advocated by a series of publications by the Getty
Conservation Institute (Poulios, 2010, p. 172). Many conservation authorities prefer this
approach, ranging from nation-states such as the United States, Canada, Australia and the
United Kingdom, and international organizations such as the UNESCO World Heritage
Centre, to major research and educational institutions such as the Getty Conservation Institute
(Poulios, 2010, p. 170). It has been adopted in many migrant countries due to its democratic
decision-making process and the absorption of a broader range of stakeholders (Gibson &
Pendlebury, 2009; Jameson, 2008; Mason, 2008; Worthing & Bond, 2007).

11
ICOMOS, The International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, known as
‘the Venice Charter’, 1964.

48
Though not all conservation practice bases itself on a value system, the values-based
approach remains the dominant and ‘authorised’ theoretical model. The Getty Conservation
Institute, in particular, regards it as axiomatic (Walter, 2014). Given the logic of a values-
based approach and heritage value typology, Fredheim and Khalaf (2016) criticize that it has
always ended in either redundant lists of values or merely examples of values without making
an effort to present a complete typology (see also Avrami et al., 2000; McClelland et al.,
2013). More importantly, the Getty Conservation Institute publications collect and include
disparate classes of values into one single system without exploring the philosophical
background while introducing different ideas of values into art history, conservation practice
and theory. The omission of a values background poses challenges to practitioners who carry
out the approach (Walter, 2014). During practice, as the terms of values make up the heritage
value typology to assess whether one should be scheduled as heritage or not, these values
could act as ‘a barricade even’, ‘erect[ing] whatever arguments are necessary to resist that
change [required by reality]’ (Walter, 2014, p. 635). Similar to the categorised heritage
definition, the essential process of heritage value typology is exclusive to alternatives that
cannot be understood or represented by values in a system. Besides, as the values-based
approach attempts to embrace all stakeholders’ benefits, promoting the equity of all
stakeholder groups and values is theoretically debased and impractical. The final decisions
inevitably favour certain stakeholder groups and values at the expense of those disempowered
and marginalised (Ababneh, 2016; de la Torre, 2005; Poulios, 2010). Though the values-
based approach encourages community involvement, it lacks certain channels or lanes to
support and secure the involvement in practice (Poulios, 2010). Moreover, the assessment is
usually conducted by professionals. The assessing work might exclude cultural beliefs, values,
and worldviews that are incommensurable to the experts (see also Poulios, 2010).

3.2.2 Ruskinian tradition

According to UNESCO recommendations, all governments have departments, ministries,

bureaus, or offices responsible for heritage conservation at the national level. Decision-
making is proceeded by three models: centralised, shared, and local (Thurley & Coxen, 2005,
p. 17). Considering various understandings and priorities, the heritage sector has been placed
in different ministries, such as in relation to planning in British Columbia, Canada, culture in
49
England, the environment in Australia, parks in the United States, and development in Hong
Kong (Kalman, 2014, p. 29). Conservation strategies determine how heritage should be
maintained, and in some cases, to what extent it can be physically adapted. Janssen et al.
(2014, p. 2) identify that heritage is mostly understood from the perspective of spatial
planning, rather than as a part of social-economic and demographic development, and
property development. Seemingly, the conservation approach is mostly criticized for the
physicality understanding of heritage, or in an extreme way, being a ‘material fetish’ (Harvey,
2001; Wells, 2007).

The history of heritage conservation is longer than the explanation of heritage concerns. The
19th century was a battleground for restoration and conservation movements vying for
dominance. This hot debate finally ended in the winner of the Ruskinian method by
conservation. The popularity of writings such as The Seven Lamps of Architecture (1877) by
John Ruskin and the establishment of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings
drew attention to protecting historic sites on the one hand, and started the dominant periods of
the Ruskinian tradition. This method has been accepted as the modern approach and has
dominated the conservation field for over 130 years (Jokilehto, 1999; Wells, 2007). Most
heritage scholars are architects. Discussions about the preservation approach are thus around
technical issues (Hou, 2004). Though the spectrum of heritage has grown larger than that
preferred by the elite, it did not manage to break out its materiality-centred cage. Seemingly,
the AHD’s preference for monumentality and aesthetics focusing on inherent values parallels
the Ruskinian ethos of ‘conserve as found’.

A chronological review of the history of ‘heritage’ reveals the predominance of heritage

studies in the heritage sector. In heritage studies, experts and those with professional
knowledge have the privilege of defining and using heritage. Their preference for
conservation overshadows other possibilities that can better take care of particular forms of
heritage. It is hard to deny the relationship between the dominance of the conservation
approach and the physicality-led interpretation and principles regarding heritage - the sole
assessment by a values-based approach and the over-reliance on expert knowledge. Both
scheduling and conservation principles tend to be a game between players who have gained

50
associated knowledge. People talk about heritage using different terms and care about these
terms from different stances and situations. It is worth thinking about what could be ‘beyond’
heritage. How do people talk about heritage? What could heritage mean? How could heritage
be understood from a subaltern position? How do people vision a future for heritage beyond
conservation?

3.3 Alternative heritage approaches in academia

Within the field of heritage academia, various alternative approaches have been put forward
to improve the interpretation and explanation of heritage. These approaches are mainly in the
forms of heritage assessment, maintenance, and definition. This section will provide a
comprehensive overview of all available approaches, and summarise their theoretical
contribution to this migrant heritage research.

3.3.1 Freestone et al.’s (2008) assessment model

To recognise the distinctiveness of a specific type of environment, Freestone et al. (2008)

propose an analytical model to assess the significance of the heritage of planned urban
environments. Though it is based on Australia’s specific cultural and institutional setting, the
model provides precious experience in hierarchically structuring the environment’s heritage
significance. The key heads of consideration in assessment steps are:

1. analysis by national criteria, indicators and historical themes;

2. comparative basis of assessment;
3. analysis by threshold (Freestone et al., 2008, p. 170).

The assessing approach is constructed mainly around heads of ‘the identification of historic
themes (for the categorisation and benchmarking of places based on historical research)’,
‘indicators (pertaining to the nature of significance in planning terms)’ (Freestone et al., 2008,
p. 156), and thresholds (‘the level of significance or the strength of a value that must be
attained to enable a place to gain a particular level of heritage recognition’) (p. 170). The way
Freestone et al. (2008) interpret heritage is close to the conservation discourse by Ashworth
as ‘ensembles’. However, there are few indications about the involvement of local

51
communities throughout the assessment steps. Nevertheless, it clarifies a trinity analytical
model containing ‘themes’, ‘indicators’, ‘threshold’.

3.3.2 Fredheim and Khalaf’s (2016) typological framework

Based on a holistic view of the values-based approach, Fredheim and Khalaf (2016, p. 472)
present a three-stage framework of heritage significance to define heritage.

1. Stage 1. Features of significance – What is heritage?

2. Stage 2. Aspects of value – Why is heritage valuable?
3. Stage 3. Qualifiers of value – How valuable is the aspect?

Fredheim and Khalaf (2016) start with deconstructing heritage into features of the physical
condition, community practices, and their inter-relationships, then insert aspects and
qualifiers of value subsequently. This model breaks down the preservation and conservation
discourses by considering community practices and their inter-relationships with the physical
environment. By involving community practices, this model absorbs local communities’
opinions at the beginning.

The studies by Freestone et al. (2008) and Fredheim and Khalaf (2016) both utilize tripartite
models in their approach to heritage analysis. Freestone et al. (2008) employ the themes-
indicators-threshold model, while Fredheim and Khalaf (2016) utilize the what-why-how
framework. Both tend to first recognize the typological constitution of heritage, then consider
what makes it significant and the scope of each. In contrast to Freestone et al. (2008, p. 159),
who address the ‘community in general’, Fredheim and Khalaf (2016) incorporate the role of
community practices and their interactions with the physical environment. However, the
framework by Fredheim and Khalaf (2016) could be better supported by detailed
implementation demonstrations similar to those presented by Freestone et al. (2008) in their
case study.

52
3.3.3 Pocock et al.’s (2015) story-based approach

The traditional values-based approach firstly identifies a physical site, then associated values
that comprise its significance. Pocock et al. (2015) argue that a reversal of such a process
would provide effective means to identify and manage heritage. They suggest the
identification of stories as a form of intangible heritage, and it might inspire an alternative
mechanism for tangible heritage identification. The story-based approach is described as:

1. Stories: ‘a suite of narratives that illustrated the theme’ based on the

first reading of the literature (p. 969);
2. *Community engagement (where there is no existing body of oral
history): eliciting personal stories (p. 976);
3. Significance: identifying core narratives as a structured framework that
make up the given theme based on stories reading (p. 970);
4. Places: ‘identifying locations where the stories were centred’ (p. 975).

Though not detailed and well-structured enough, this approach is advanced for its
involvement of Aboriginal people’s narratives related to times and spaces that were absent in
the known heritage sites and listing. Also, it helps those invisible heritage to be visible. For
example, sites and places with no physical trace or appear to be a general building but with
significant meaning or cultural implications could be marked by commemorative plaques and
linked by interpretive heritage trails. Compared to other approaches, the story-based approach
well suits the situation of representing marginalised or underrepresented groups by
monumental heritage (see also Morris, 1997, 1999). It particularly inspires a mechanism
through which intangible heritage can be delivered without reference to official listings
(Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 2004). Moreover, focusing first on stories let considering emotion
and meaning possible in the arena of heritage where materiality predominates (Pocock et al.,
2015, p. 977). However, its implementation in practice remains challenging in the face of
existing bureaucratic procedures which, according to Pocock et al. (2015, p. 975) require
‘simple unemotional descriptions of the importance of a place’, and the political pressure and
power relations.

53
3.3.4 Poulios’ (2010) living heritage approach

Poulios (2010) introduces a living heritage approach, particularly to maintain living heritage
sites. ‘Living heritage sites’ are defined according to the criteria of ‘continuity’, ‘change’, and
‘core community’. The criterion of continuity comprises:

⚫ Continuity of the function of a site;

⚫ Continuity of the process of maintenance and further definition and
arrangement of the (social as well as physical) space of a site, in
accordance with the continuity of the function of a site;
⚫ Continuity of the physical presence of a site’s community in a site,
linked to the continuity of the function and of the space of a site (p.
175).

The continuity could be concluded as three correlated continuities attached to the building.
The first and core is the functional continuity of the site; the second is the continuity of
associated activities and interpretations based on the functional continuity; the third is the
continuity of a living community based on previous continuities. Correspondingly, changes
are necessary to present in ‘the function’, ‘the space’, ‘the community’s presence’ (p. 175) in
accordance with the changing circumstances in a society. The core community is supposed to
have the primary role in maintaining the site, and consider that as its inherent obligation, and
should define itself as an inseparable part of the site. In the context of a living heritage site,
the living heritage approach focuses on ‘continuity’. It eliminates the boundaries between the
past, the present, and the future, and also between communities and the materiality of the site.
Poulios (2010) argues that rather than preserve heritage sites as authentic as they were built,
conservation should embrace the associations between communities and sites and the
ongoing creation along with such associations. In short, maintaining a living heritage site
should firstly consider the core community and their role, and sustain the continuity on the
basis of ongoing creation. Poulios’ approach differs from the values-based approach by
acknowledging heritage as a process. However, the living heritage approach only applies to
the living heritage sites. The given examples of practice are more like revised conservation
norms instead of being based on the criteria of ‘continuity’ and ‘change’. The practical cases
are not strong enough to support the proposed approach.

54
3.3.5 Chung’s (2005b) definition of cultural heritage

Initially, aiming to combine cultural and natural heritage into a definition of heritage without
bias toward either of them, Chung (2005b, p. 98) defines cultural heritage as:

1. a powerful underlying commitment and unifying set of attitudes to

protect and conserve for posterity the objects, sites, flora and fauna,
structures and other material evidence of a community’s past and
present;
2. a shared perception of the intrinsic and cultural value of heritage and
the wish to use it to communicate and interpret the past to present and
future generations.

The heritage definition by Chung (2005b) moves beyond the physicality focusing to a
perception-sensitive understanding. Rather than predefining categories of heritage items,
Chung (2005b) advocates for a subjectivity-driven approach to determine the dimension and
scope of cultural heritage. Firstly, to describe cultural heritage as a social practice, the
definition emphasizes ‘commitment and … attitudes’ and ‘perception… and the wish’.
Secondly, the definition also allows for greater flexibility in demonstrating the cultural
significance of various types of heritage. Thirdly, the two proposed principles address
temporal concerns by clearly distinguishing between the past, present, and future. Although
Chung's (2005b) main concern was the interdependence between cultural and natural heritage
and the promotion of their intercommunication, this comprehensive view supports a broad
and inclusive understanding of heritage.

This section provides a review of various alternative heritage approaches. Freestone et al.
(2008) and Fredheim and Khalaf (2016) both examine models and frameworks for heritage
analysis and its significance. Pocock et al. (2015) aim to create a methodology that captures
the community's narrative on tangible places. Poulios (2010) explores the idea of continuity
in heritage site preservation, and Chung (2005b) advocates for sustainable heritage planning
that recognizes the interdependence between cultural and natural heritage. Despite the
different approaches, most share a commonality of incorporating community narratives. In
light of this, this study focuses on migrant heritage and the corresponding planning responses,
and thus, requires a theoretical basis that acknowledges migrant experience (or under other

55
terms of ‘diaspora’, ‘immigrants’, and ‘sojourner’), as a foundation for a preliminary
conceptualization of migrant heritage.

3.4 Conceptualising migrant heritage

Commencing by the second half of the 20th century, globalisation, migration, and
transnational travel have emerged worldwide. As migrants settle down and establish their
heritage across different countries, migrant heritage remains under-researched in academia.
Dellios and Henrich (2020) argue that migrant heritage sits in between human mobility and
the tangible and intangible manifestations of the present. It involves not only heritage studies,
but also migration studies and memory studies. Therefore, this section will review critical
heritage studies, relevant theories from migration studies, and the heterodox views on
heritage definitions, to develop a preliminary conceptual framework of migrant heritage as a
foundation for the case study analysis.

3.4.1 Critical heritage studies

Since the early 2000s, critical heritage studies emerged to challenge and critique heritage
practices dominated by a Western paradigm and the power dynamics determining heritage
representation (Harrison, 2012; Harvey, 2001; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998; Macdonald, 2013;
Smith, 2006; Urry, 1995). The earlier pioneers Hall (1999) and Samuel (1994) have pointed
out the dominance of professional knowledge and its exclusiveness to alternatives derived
from cultural diversity; Lowenthal (1998) and Hewison (1987, 2007) have questioned the
‘bogus history’ created by the national heritage industry.

In light of these approaches, scholars have published a series of works that challenge the
over-reliance on expert authority and the exclusive logic behind the intragovernmental bodies
that codify and preserve valued practices and sites worthy of acknowledgement. Dellios and
Henrich (2020) propose a typical example of the UNESCO conception of heritage and a set
of professionally-devised definitions by which heritage could be categorized and officially
registered. Most frequently, values of monumental and a Eurocentric aesthetic are privileged.
Consequently, heritage studies scholars propose a dynamic consideration of heritage. The

56
definition, representation, and preservation should reject seeing heritage as static, unmediated,
fabric-bounded, and all inherited from the past (Dellios & Henrich, 2020; Smith, 2006; Urry,
1995). Instead, heritage should be positioned as a relational and meaning-making process
(Ashley, 2016) and studied as cultural practice (Harvey, 2001). Otherwise, knowing heritage
would become a designation of significance over preserved objects or resources (Ashley,
2016).

Dellios and Henrich (2020) claim that critical heritage studies partly belong to the
multidisciplinary field of memory studies, but intersect with historical archaeology, cultural
anthropology, and landscape geography. This field of study closely and in detail investigates
place and space, with the requirement of community engagements normally with the past,
identity formation, and the relationship between identity and the landscape. More recently,
there has been a research branch on affect and emotion (Smith, Wetherell, & Campbell,
2018). Emotions are considered to play a role in heritage-making practices in museums and
commemorations, political discourse, and debates of social memory (Dellios & Henrich,
2020).

By introducing the consideration of emotion, scholars move heritage studies beyond the
Eurocentric and materialist, and the technical tangible/intangible divide, towards ‘a socially
mediated and historicised understanding of personal and collective engagements with and
manifestations of heritage processes’ (Dellios & Henrich, 2020, p. 9). Stakeholders from
different backgrounds attach different values to the significance of heritage (Clark, 2014).
Heritage can be examined as ‘traditions, expressions, identities and cultural practices linked
to the past’ (Ashley, 2020, p. 3).

3.4.2 Place attachment, sense of place, and place identity in migration studies

The experience of migration and transnational travel from one country and culture to another
can affect individuals differently (Rishbeth & Finney, 2006). Research has been conducted on
the role of the physical environment in culture shock (Churchman & Mitrani, 1997), the
adjustment of leisure experiences and patterns (Stodolska, 1998; Tirone & Shaw, 1997), and
the role of objects and homebuilding in adjusting to a new culture (Bir 1992; Boym, 2001).

57
The most often discussed theories regarding the migrant-place relationship in environmental
psychology and cultural studies are the sense of place, place attachment, and place identity
(Najafi & Shariff, 2011; Nardi, 2017; Shamai, 1991).

Cultural geographers have for decades realized these terms’ similarities and association with
landscape in cultural landscape studies (Taylor, 2016). Heritage scholars have acknowledged
the major significance of intangible cultural heritage practice in forming one’s self-identity
(Su, 2018). However, these are hitherto absent in the migrant heritage debates.

On occasions, these terms are used as a generic concept that encompasses others, such as
Lalli (1992) asserting that place attachment belongs to place identity, Pretty et al. (2003)
subordinating place identity and place attachment to the sense of place; on other occasions,
some use place attachment and place identity without distinction and as synonyms, such as
Brown and Werner’s (1985) using of attachment and identity interchangeably. As Hidalgo
and Hernandez (2011) point out, terminological and conceptual confusion blocks research
advances (see also Giuliani & Feldman, 1993; Lalli, 1992; Unger & Wandersman, 1985).
This research distinguishes ‘place attachment’, ‘sense of place’, and ‘place identity’ in
respective sections. The interrelationship and integration between these three terms will not
be the focus of this research.

Place attachment

From the 1970s, phenomenological studies introduced place attachment (Najafi & Shariff,
2011). Till the publishing of Place Attachment (Altman & Low, 1992), studies about place
attachment became matured (Najafi & Shariff, 2011). Altman and Low (1992) define place
attachment as an emotional association between people and their surroundings. Of the three
components of place attachment: affective, cognitive, and behavioural (Jorgensen & Stedman,
2001; Kyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004; Low & Altman, 1992), the most frequently measured
is the emotional component.

Prominent predictors of place attachment can be categorized into the temporal dimension,
social dimension, physical dimension, and personal characteristics. Place attachment grows

58
stronger as one lives longer in a place (Riger & Lavrakas, 1981; Taylor, Gottfredson, &
Brower, 1984). Urban sociologists and community scientists have located place attachment
research at the level of home, neighbourhood, and city (e.g., Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001;
Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974). Hidalgo and Hernandez (2001) found that social attachment is
stronger and wider than physical attachment. People generally prefer historical places to
modern architecture due to its continuity with the past and embodiment of group traditions
(Devine-Wright & Lyons, 1997; Hay, 1998; Hayden, 1997; Nasar, 1998). Moreover, the
attachment could be mediated by other predictors such as the number of relationships within
a community, home ownership, gender and age (Brown et al., 2003; Giuliani, 1991; Hidalgo
& Hernandez, 2001); for example, the young tend to be more attached with their intimate
environment such as a house, while the old are evenly attached to all spatial ranges (Hidalgo
& Hernandez, 2001).

In the immigration and refugee literature, the emphasis on place attachment is mostly on
displacement (Scannell & Gifford, 2010). Such attachment is defined by one’s intensity of
longing for places that are lost or not around (Deutsch, 2005). The majority of authors agree
that some form of attachment lasts for a lifetime regardless of how mobile one can be (Cuba
& Hummon, 1993; Gustafson, 2001a; Williams & McIntyre, 2001). For example, an
attachment formed initially with a particular building could be transferred to similar types in
a different place (Hareven & Langenbach, 1981). Moreover, the value of the continuity
symbolized by the physical setting becomes greater in a mobile society (Hareven &
Langenbach, 1981). Studies show that place attachment functions differently for natives and
non-natives (Hay, 1998; Hernández et al., 2007; Ruiz et al., 2011).

Sense of place

Studies of the ‘sense of place’ in the 20th century are mainly located in humanistic studies.
Initially, sense of place was linked to places rich in the history of human contact (Sauer, 1925)
and atavistic experiences (Appleton, 1975) in cultural geography; then, it related to how
elements of place can be explicated in architectural history (Norberg-Schulz, 1980). More
recently, the sense of place has been associated with meanings embedded in place in cultural
studies (Carter, 1992; Cosgrove & Daniels, 1988). Now the sense of place is mostly used in

59
studying human-place bonding (Najafi & Shariff, 2011). Datel and Dingemans (1984)
describe the sense of place as ‘the complex bundle of meanings, symbols, and qualities that a
person or group associates (consciously and unconsciously) with a particular locality or
region’ (p. 135).

Sense of place is ‘too frequently seen as a free-floating phenomenon’ (Pred, 1983, p, 50) in
philosophically orientated discussions. There are few agreements about the definition of the
sense of place. The relevant employed terms such as awareness of place, identity, and
personality of place do not serve to clarify the concept (Shamai, 1991). Lewis (1979, p. 28)
claimed that it would be easier to focus on its results in human behaviour than defining it
precisely.

Previous studies show that physical attributes, activities, and the meanings perceived by
people in the place contribute to the sense of place. The key influencing factors include the
legibility of the place and people’s satisfaction with the environmental characteristics
regarding their differences in terms of experiences, motivations, and backgrounds (Najafi &
Shariff, 2011). In addition, symbols, traditions, myths, and rituals contribute to reinforcing a
sense of place (Peterson & Saarinen, 1986; Relph, 1976). Sense of place can be used to
reinforce people’s attachment to a place (Steele, 1981), but also to distinguish insider and
outsider by excluding people who do not feel a sense of belonging (Rose, 1995; Shamai &
Ilatov, 2005).

Place identity

Place identity was firstly coined by Proshansky (1978) and mostly refers to the latter
conception of the self-becoming established on the basis of a place to which it belongs and
incorporates elements associated with the public image of the place (Hay, 1998; Manzo &
Perkins, 2006; Ruiz et al., 2011; Uzzell, Pol, & Badenas, 2002). Place identity is developed
according to the features of a place and the nature of interactions that occur (Bernardo &
Palma, 2005; Stedman, 2002; Wester-Herber, 2004;). While place attachment requires a
strong behavioural component and indicates a clear wish to stay in the place, place identity
has indicators that distinguish the bond with a place in terms of feelings of belonging and as a

60
substructure of personal identity describing oneself (Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001; Proshansky
et al., 1983). Scholars interpret and use ‘place identity’ by way of two separate meanings ‘a
set of place features that guarantee the place’s distinctiveness and continuity in time’, and ‘a
feature of a person’ (Lewicka, 2008, p. 211).

Hernandez et al. (2007), Knez (2005), and Moore (2000) assert that migrants develop place
identity after place attachment. Changing residence has significant immediate effects on place
attachment but would not alter the identity with the previous residence. Only after a long
period of time, the new place could gradually become incorporated into one’s own identity
(Twigger-Ross, Bonaiuto & Breakwell, 2003; Wester-Herber, 2004). Moreover, a strong
sense of place attachment will strengthen ethnic bias when it is associated with strong
national identity, but not with local identity (Lewicka, 2008). Thus, the prejudiced parties
should engage and conduct detective investigations in situ rather than force people to
confront the incompatible ethnic or national versions of place memories (Brewer, 1988;
Brewer & Feinstein, 1999; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Lewicka, 2008; Pettigrew, 1998).

Theories of place attachment, sense of place, and place identity have been frequently
discussed in migrant-place relationship studies. These theories are deemed important in the
creation of a migrant heritage preliminary conceptual framework due to the following reasons.
Firstly, the place attachment theory acknowledges the experience of displacement among
migrants, and highlights how their attachment to place may differ from that of indigenous
people, regardless of length of residence or authentic tangibility. Secondly, the sense of place
theory recognizes the significance of intangible meanings and activities in creating a sense of
place, and its role in defining who is an ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’. Thirdly, the place identity
theory highlights the potential for discrimination to arise when place attachment is closely
tied to national identity.

3.4.3 Heterodox views on the definition of heritage

Heritage is rarely defined on its own terms, but to a large extent, is coordinated with other
land-use attached questions (Swensen & Jerpåsen, 2008). The hotly debated ‘heritage
definition’ concerns what essentially makes heritage ‘heritage’. Smith (2006) suggests that

61
heritage should be ‘a multi-layered performance … that embodies acts of remembrance and
commemoration while … constructing a sense of place, belonging and understanding in the
present’ (p. 3). Heritage is not the knowledge that experts can capture with the arm of
professional training. This opinion is supported by other scholars (Byrne, 2008; Hardy, 1988;
Harvey, 2001). Hardy (1988) polarises two senses of heritage as conservative and radical. In
a conservative sense, its definition is circumscribed by making ideas and artefacts heritage
while crowding out others. The conservative definition treats heritage as a ‘universal concept’
and essentially celebrates ‘cultural hegemony, nationalism and patriotism’ (p. 334). However,
in a radical sense, as Heinich (1988, as cited in Hardy, 1988) concludes, new opportunities
would be equally introduced and accepted into the prescriptive manifestation of heritage
issues. Accordingly, Hardy (1988) proposes that:

… at another level, heritage is a value-loaded concept, embracing (and

often obscuring) differences of interpretation that are dependent on key
variables, such as class, gender and locality; and with the concept itself
locked into wider frameworks of dominant and subversive ideologies …
(p. 333).

Similar to Smith’s ‘multi-layered’ and Hardy’s ‘value-loaded’ understanding of heritage,

Harvey (2001) explains heritage as a process and one related to the contemporary societal
context. He challenges the conventional understanding of heritage as a ‘physical artefact or
record’ and advocates that it should be treated as a cultural process. More importantly, the
transition of heritage across temporal periods contributes to the heritage significance. It is
supported by Harrison (2013), arguing that ‘heritage is not a “thing” or a historical or
political movement but refers to a set of attitudes to, and relationships with, the past’ (p. 14).
In addition, Byrne (2008) asserts that heritage is the product of social action.

Heritage is supposed to serve the mutual self-respect needs from collective international
identities (Blake, 2000, p. 85). Accordingly, heritage significance should derive from the
identities of who engages and the capacity of how it interacts with memory (Vecco, 2010).
Instead of staying fixed, it constantly emerges and disappears, evolves and changes across
different environments and periods. Consequently, heritage’s definition should be approached
by introducing stakeholders’ identities and the interaction or relationship between and across

62
time. According to Smith (2006), what makes heritage valuable and meaningful is ‘the
present-day cultural processes that are undertaken at and around them, and of which they
become a part’ (p. 3). Heritage is a fluid and continuously changing consequence of cultural
practice in societies. Accordingly, heritage concerns, beyond the substance of monuments
and buildings, are devoted to attitudes and relationships with the past, and towards the future.
The assessment of intrinsic qualities is no longer sufficient for knowing heritage (Vecco,
2010).

Heritage plays a decisive role in locating a social group in a certain historical, social, and
cultural environment. The uniqueness of heritage fosters a sense of self-identity, while
diversity encourages respect for others and tolerance. The work of heritage protection
eventually affects the social cohesion among local communities (Furlan & Faggion, 2015;
Nour, 2015). Unlike the mainstream, migrant heritage touches in a broader sense of cultural
and social experiences and constantly evolves over time. It is hard to understand those
alternatives by assuming one no different from what AHD favours. Furlan and Faggion (2015)
acknowledge cultural heritage as ‘the sources and evidence of human history and culture
regardless of origin, development and level of preservation’ and ‘the cultural assets
associated with this’ (p. 69). The heritage of a community is constantly reconceptualized in
accordance with needs (Bounia et al., 2020). Migrant heritage grows, enriches, and evolves
along with migration experiences and settlement histories. Thus, migrant heritage requires a
more refreshing and evolving attitude.

3.4.4 A preliminary conceptual framework of migrant heritage

Migrant heritage is new to academia and is frequently debated now. Researchers talk about
migrant heritage from perspectives of architecture, urban planning, and arts, while rarely
mentioning the concept itself and how it should be well acknowledged. This section will
introduce a preliminary conceptual framework of migrant heritage. This preliminary
framework will be finalised to be a migrant heritage conception based on the community
narrative of Chinese people in the Auckland case study.

63
Firstly, Critical heritage studies challenge and critique the orthodox heritage paradigm and
expand heritage as a relational and meaning-making process. Heritage should be interpreted
as ‘a socially mediated and historicised understanding of personal and collective
engagements with and manifestations of heritage processes’ (Dellios & Henrich, 2020, p. 9),
rather than from Eurocentric and materialistic perspectives. Therefore, an emotional
dimension should be added to understand individual and collective participation and
representation in the heritage process. Similarly, theories of place attachment, sense of place,
and place identity introduce the emotional dimension and add an emotional consideration into
the migrant-settlement research (see also Wang, 2016).

Secondly, place attachment helps to link migrants to their surroundings in terms of temporal,
social, and physical connections. These experiences and perspectives of attachment will make
up a large portion of the community narrative and migrant heritage. Thirdly, sense of place is
associated with a sense of belonging, as Smith (2006, p.3) has noted the interconnection
between heritage and sense of place and belonging. Heritage also has the role of exclusivity
in a migrant community, and sense of place can be used to differentiate between ‘insider’ and
‘outsider’ (Rose, 1995; Shamai & Ilatov, 2005). As such, sense of place plays a role in
shaping the conception of migrant heritage to address this sense of exclusivity.

Fourthly, place identity makes up a key component of personal identity, including physical
and social interactions (Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001; Proshansky et al., 1983). According to
critical heritage studies, heritage should be viewed as a relational and meaning-making
process (Ashley, 2016) and studied as a cultural practice (Harvey, 2001). It should be
recognized as ‘a socially mediated and historicised understanding of personal and collective
engagements with and manifestations of heritage processes’ (Dellios & Henrich, 2020, p. 9).
Thus, identity concerns play a significant role, particularly in the formation of migrant
heritage. The precise meaning and conception of migrant heritage will be further investigated
and examined in the Auckland case study.

64
3.5 Knowledge gaps and the required research design

This section will remark on the knowledge gap within the scope of this research from
theoretical and practical perspectives. The required research design will be illustrated
accordingly.

3.5.1 Knowledge gaps

The theoretical knowledge gaps of this research can be divided into aspects of heritage
planning, heritage, and planning. First of all, the integration between heritage and planning
remains poor. While heritage studies acknowledge the distinctiveness of heritage planning in
community engagement, such strength has rarely been recognised in heritage planning and
related practice. Heritage planning is often understood as a combination of urban planning
and heritage conservation, which looks after conservation issues in spatial planning. While
different voices accuse planning of failing to consider heritage in a broader sense, or of
heritage not working well with planning, both lead to the blind spot of lack of current
expertise.

Secondly, according to the history of heritage (see 3.1 Evolution and expansion process of the
definition and scope of heritage), heritage has intertwined with nationalism and upper-class
customs. Moreover, orthodox heritage knowledge favours historical accuracy and intrinsic
authenticity with a strong belief in expertise. Those deep-set ideologies of heritage have
narrowed down the research lane towards alternative understanding and manifestations of
heritage.

Thirdly and similarly, planning used to be dominated by positivism that only acknowledges
one single truth in reality. That truth was often believed to be expertise-led. Therefore,
planning was reduced to spatial planning, where the rationality of professional knowledge is
prioritised. Due to the rise of globalisation and migration, planning research turned to
responding to the multicultural reality. The most concerning questions include the economic
disadvantage of minorities, residential segregation, and the lack of interaction between
minorities and the mainstream. However, few empirical research reveals how planning

65
recommendations can be applied in practice. In addition, the pre-dominating modernism still
dominates the operationalisation of planning in governmental institutes and bodies. Therefore,
a planning system can often be conservative and less responsive to incommensurable values
and perspectives.

In a migrant society, the gap between heritage and planning becomes more evident, while
both heritage and planning face challenges intensely from different voices. Although multiple
countries have promoted multicultural policies, responses remain diffused and primarily for
purposes other than migrants’ needs. Also, multiculturalism is reduced to cultural difference
celebrations. In the blind spot where heritage, planning, and multiculturalism intersect,
migrant heritage is ignored.

Migrant heritage has not been defined in academia yet. Due to the theoretical and practical
constraints, heritage planning has not responded to migrant heritage. While heritage studies
have recognised migrant heritage and its significance, there is little empirical research
supporting the further argument or details. In the meantime, planning responses often concern
ethnic neighbourhoods, and ethnic business enclaves such as Chinatown (Qadeer, 1997).
However, these are spatial planning constrained and tangibility-oriented. Thus, this research
aims to finalise a conception of migrant heritage and investigate the heritage planning
responses.

3.5.2 Research design

Migrant heritage sits in the interplay between heritage studies, memory studies, and migration
studies (Dellios & Henrich, 2020). The positivistic paradigm alone, as the traditional values-
based approach, cannot fully acknowledge the meaning and conception of migrant heritage.
Also, the demographic diversity enables heritage to represent more than the dominant culture
and thrive in alternative forms and types (Calligaro, 2014). The expert-led identification and
assessment approaches can hardly capture the pluralistic modes of migrant heritage nor the
goal of equitable treatment. Therefore, the design of this research will take the community
narrative into account. Moreover, as Van Assche and Duineveld (2013) argue, ‘neither expert
consultation nor direct citizen participation represents desirable models for heritage planning’

66
(p. 1). Either way might polarise the meaning of cultural heritage and its interpretation in
planning. Therefore, this research will have two lanes of community narrative and official
discourse by heritage authorities.

Dellios and Henrich (2021) delimit migrant heritage as heritage that is ‘made with, by, for, or
in reaction to community groups and individuals who have, or whose ancestors have, moved
across borders and/or cultures’ (p. 4). It ranges from tangible to intangible and refers to the
temporal and spatial dimensions of mobility and its emotional, familial, and community
aftermath. The broader context is the political, cultural, and social processes where migratory
experiences are and could be represented and preserved. Thus, this research requires a
context-based study design while opening to multiple data sources and research methods.

Figure 3-1. Map of research design.

Source: Author

3.6 Auckland case study

Reflecting on the research questions and objectives, this research aims to firstly investigate an
alternative understanding of cultural heritage in a deductive way in a single case, and
secondly review the discourses within the heritage planning context that involves the
planning realm and heritage system and its resilience to the demographic diversity.

67
Qualitative data serves the investigative nature of this study and can establish the base for
further in-depth arguments in the conception of migrant planning and democratic heritage
planning. Thus, the complexity of study subjects and diverse data sources are expected.

This research uses the case study as the study design for three reasons. Firstly, the case study
is context-based and so is heritage. Secondly, the case study is flexible in data sources and
research methods. Thirdly, the case study has the in-depth strength by which both community
narrative and official heritage discourse can be investigated deeply (Leedy & Ormrod, 2015,
p. 84). The sampling of case study design is often dependent on the nature and focus of the
topic. This research requires rich and embedded data. Thus, a highly representative case that
can provide a vast and deep pool of information is selected.

Auckland is chosen on a geographical basis for three reasons. Firstly, according to the 2015
World Migration Report, Auckland has the fourth largest foreign-born population and is
revealed to be one of the world’s most culturally diverse cities. Given the research focus on a
demographically diverse society, Auckland is the most appropriate city for its significant
diverse composition of the demographic population in New Zealand. In addition, Auckland
Council has demonstrated an interest to progress to multiculturalism and celebrate the city’s
diverse cultural heritage to support an intercultural society (Belonging and Participation
Evidence Report, 2018). Being simultaneously committed to multiculturalism and diverse
cultural heritage makes Auckland the choice of case study in this research. Secondly, pre-
Chinese gold miners dispersed in and around urban areas nationwide including Auckland, as
is evident in the history of market gardening (Don, 1905; Ng, 2001). Also, in the past decades,
Auckland has been one of the most preferred cities in New Zealand by Chinese migrants. As
a result, Auckland is the most populous city in New Zealand, with the most substantial
proportion of its Chinese population. Thirdly, Auckland also possesses remarkable sites and
events typically in relation to Chinese culture, for example, the Choice Plaza in the city
centre and the Lantern Festival every year. Therefore, this research focuses on the community
narrative of Auckland Chinese communities, and the official heritage discourse from the New
Zealand heritage system and Auckland’s responses to the demographic diversity and Chinese
people.

68
To enhance the credibility and quality of study results, data sources are triangulated into
secondary sources of written material and primary sources of governmental policies/original
sources of participants’ opinions, and the ongoing situation on site. To elicit information from
respondents, interview method is selected due to the yield of a rich body of information.
Thematic analysis is employed for interview data analysis. To enquire into the ongoing
situation involving all stakeholders, fieldwork is selected in occasions where most frequently
mentioned heritage places and activities happen.

3.6.1 Research procedure

This research starts with the Chinese communities’ narratives (see Figure 3-2). Firstly,
secondary data was collected from literature and archives. The first purpose is to review
Chinese migration history in New Zealand to set up the research background. The second
purpose is to study the Chinese population composition for instructing the sampling size of
Chinese participants in interviews, and the general characteristics of Chinese communities.
The third purpose is to picture the Chinese scene of prominent heritage representation in
Auckland.

Secondly, first-hand data was collected from Auckland Chinese communities’ participants
(who self-identify as Chinese or partly Chinese and are descendants of people who paid the
Chinese-only poll tax implemented in 1881 or migrants from mainland China, Hong Kong, or
Taiwan). The primary purpose is to investigate the concept of Chinese cultural heritage in
New Zealand and their acknowledgement of the New Zealand heritage system and its
responses to the demographical diversity of New Zealand and migrants.

Thirdly, heritage places and events that were mostly mentioned in first-hand and secondary
data were visited and attended. It is added to observe the condition of those heritage places
and sites and experience what happens during these intangible heritage events.

Then research moves forward to New Zealand’s official heritage discourse. Firstly, secondary
data was collected from literature and first-hand data on governmental policies. The first
purpose is to review the national responses to the demographical diversity of New Zealand

69
and planning responses to migrants in New Zealand and Auckland. The second purpose is to
critique the official heritage discourse within the New Zealand heritage system.

Secondly, first-hand data was collected from professional participants, such as archaeologists,
heritage specialists, planners, historians, and independent heritage researchers in Auckland.
Three exceptional interviews were conducted in Hamilton, Christchurch, and Dunedin due to
the closeness that professionals have involved in Chinese heritage research in New Zealand.
The primary purpose is to complement the review of the New Zealand heritage system and
provide direct practical experience and comments related to cultural diversity, or particularly
Chinese heritage.

Thirdly, in accordance with first-hand data from Chinese and professional participants, the
South Island outside of Auckland is added to visit these most frequently mentioned heritage
places by Chinese participants, and the early listed and lately listed Chinese heritage sites by
professional participants. These procedures were not necessarily conducted in chronological
order during data collection, but always happened back and forth. The three different sources
of data – literature, interviews, and fieldwork experience, should be compared and reflected
on each to shed light on both the Chinese communities’ narrative and New Zealand’s official
heritage discourse.

Literature Community: NZ Community: NZ

research Chinese Chinese
migration history migration
history

Community:
Chinese
population and
cultural profiles

Community:
Auckland
Chinese scene

Authority: New
Zealand heritage
framework

Authority: The New

Zealand context

70
 Authorities:
New Zealand
heritage system

Interview 39 interviews with

Auckland Chinese
communities’
participants (see
Appendix 4)

9 interviews with Data analysis

Auckland Chinese
communities’
participants (see
Appendix 4)

22 interviews with Data analysis

professionals’
participants (see
Appendix 4)

Fieldwork Lantern Festival, Auckland Chinese Community Centre, Chinese New Year Festival & Market Day, Fo
Heritage Festival, Guang Shan, Seoung Yuen and Wah Lee’s, Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church,
Dominion Road Choice Plaza, Auckland War Memorial Museum, Hamilton Gardens, the South Island.

Timeline 2018.03-2019.10 2020.01-2020.05 2020.06- 2021.04-2021.07 2021.07-

2021.03 2022.02

Figure 3-2. Research procedure in the Auckland case study.

Source: Author

3.6.2 Literature research

In order to provide the New Zealand Chinese setting, the review was conducted on the
Chinese migration history and identified key sub-groups within Chinese communities and the
waves of Chinese settlement according to secondary data from migration studies, ethnic
business and settlement research, historical research, Chinese association conferences,
Chinese researchers’ publications. Based on such background, the researcher identified the
general population composition according to 2018 Census raw data, and their characteristics
by secondary data from historical research and Chinese researchers’ publications mostly.
Then based on wide reading about Auckland’s Chinese history in historical research,
architectural research, archaeological research, consultation reports, Chinese associations
newsletters, archives, physical and Internet publications, the researcher summarised the
Auckland Chinese scene and the most widely identified heritage representation. In the case of
the language characteristic of archives, both Chinese and English were consulted. English

71
versions were preferred for publications in both, due to time consumption and accuracy of
translation unless apparent discrepancies were noted between Chinese and English versions.

In order to provide the New Zealand official heritage discourse setting, the
multiculturalism/biculturalism dilemma was studied based on the secondary data from
literature in political studies and migration studies, and first-hand data from governmental
policies. In addition, the New Zealand heritage system was reviewed according to secondary
data from publications and documents, brochures and magazines, popular reviews, and first-
hand data from mainstream strategies and ordinances, and popular publications. Lastly, the
Auckland heritage framework and its responses to demographic diversity and Chinese
heritage were reviewed according to first-hand data from governmental publications in
planning and other long-term heritage plan or strategies, and raw data from heritage survey in
the 2019 People’s Panel.

3.6.3 Semi-structured interview

The interview method is more appropriate for comprehensive data from complex situations.
The significant difference between a survey and an interview is that surveys discourage
digressions, which can occur in an interview. Thus, participants usually learn to limit their
responses using the categories provided in the survey (Mishler, 1986). Unlike surveys,
interviewing practice need not reduce participants and their thoughts into passive containers
of information. In addition, interviews provide an opportunity to explain details to
respondents instantly, and include more information that needs to be supplemented
(Riessman, 2012). This method can be widely applied in terms of the study population.
However, the data quality depends on the interviewer’s skills, in terms of the quality of the
interaction and the introduction of personal bias. Once multiple interviewers are involved, the
quality of the data might not be comparable. In addition, interviews are more time-consuming
and expensive than surveys (Kumar, 2011, p. 138).

According to Kumar (2011, p. 143), the choice between an interview and a questionnaire is
dependent on the nature of the research, and the socioeconomic demographic characteristics
of the study population. This research privileges the investigation of the concept of Chinese

72
cultural heritage from Auckland Chinese communities, and its acknowledgement by New
Zealand’s official heritage discourse. Neither of the two can be fully pictured by a series of
fixed questions to collect data from the sample. In addition, the characteristics of migrant
communities can be highly diverse in terms of age, gender, educational background, and
socioeconomic status. The questionnaire method could exclude those who may be illiterate or
have limited reading/language comprehension, are very young or old, or are disabled. Thus,
interviews are employed to collect data from the study population in this research.

Usually, there are structured and unstructured interviews according to the extent of the
predetermination of the interview schedule. Though unstructured interviews can provide
more rich and varied data, Leedy and Ormrod (2015, p. 264) point out the significant
disadvantage is that the researcher might ask different questions to different respondents. It
thus may not be able to make cross-respondent comparisons. Different from that, structured
interviews can provide uniform information, ensuring the comparability of data (Kumar,
2011, p. 138), but similar to a questionnaire, a standardized interview schedule might shut
down alternative varied concerns or perspectives instantly popping up from respondents
(Hutchinson & Wilson, p. 1992).

To balance the advantages and disadvantages of structured and unstructured interviews, the
third strand of semi-structured interviews allows for more conversational openness and
detailed responses (Gaber & Gaber, 2007, p. 26), while being organised around a series of
predetermined questions (Whiting, 2008). According to Hutchinson and Wilson (1992), semi-
structured interviews are well suited to explore perceptions and opinions from interviewees
about complex concepts. By using semi-structured interviews, the researcher can change the
wording but not the meaning of questions. This is because different respondents could use
different vocabulary to refer to the same topic or concept. Essentially, the equivalence of
meaning within the questions contributes to the validity and reliability of a semi-structured
interview (Denzin, 1989). It is worth noting that two Chinese participants were required to
write interview answers on their own rather than take interviews. In these two cases,
interviews were conducted seemingly in a structured way.

73
Participants

According to the 2018 Census data, the New Zealand Chinese population is represented
under the ethnic categories of ‘Chinese no further defined’ (Chinese NFD), ‘Hong Kong
Chinese’, and ‘Taiwanese’. According to the raw data, most Hong Kong Chinese and
Taiwanese identify themselves as mono-ethnic, while other Chinese migrants might find
themselves belonging to two or three ethnicities. Their ages are mostly 20-40 and 60-70. The
most popular religious affiliations are Christian and Buddhism. Most of them hold a
bachelor’s degree or overseas secondary school qualification. Almost all Chinese people are
bilingual in English and Cantonese or Mandarin. In addition, Hong Kong Chinese and
Taiwanese are generally gender-balanced, while females exceed males in the category of
Chinese NFD. Most Hong Kong Chinese and Taiwanese have been in New Zealand for more
than 20 years, while the in-country duration of Chinese NFD varies, mostly from 10-19 years,
to more than 20 years and 5-9 years. In the Auckland case study, Chinese participants refer to
those who self-identify themselves as Chinese or partly Chinese with a Chinese cultural
background, while they or their ancestors are from mainland China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan.
Most Chinese participants are descendants of people who paid the Chinese-only poll tax
implemented in 1881 or recent migrants after the 1980s. Heritage professionals refer to those
with more than one year of work experience with cultural heritage or specifically migrant
heritage or Chinese cultural heritage within the New Zealand heritage framework.

Sampling frame

In explaining the sample size in qualitative research, Leedy and Ormrod (2015, p. 262) have
introduced key thoughts in making decisions: first, the sample should include both seemingly
typical and non-typical units; second, hierarchical layers in the study population that might
evenly affect the study result should be all considered in selecting respondents; third, the
researcher should purposely look for alternative cases that could possible discredit the
emerging theories; and fourth, the researcher should include units from diverse situations if
needed. Rather than a numerical concern of sample size, these are more around the suggested
components of the sample, which is the name of this subsection – the sampling frame. In this
research, the sampling frame addressed Leedy and Ormrod’s second, third, and fourth

74
concerns. Various Chinese participants were considered by different socioeconomic
characteristics, such as different origins, languages, cultural backgrounds. Professional
participants encompass the workforce from different layers of governance institutions, from
central to local levels, such as the Ministry for the Environment, Ministry for Culture and
Heritage, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Auckland Office), the Department of
Conservation (Auckland Office), Auckland Council, and prominent heritage and historical
researchers in Chinese heritage studies in Auckland and New Zealand (including Heritage
New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Christchurch Office), the Department of Conservation
(Dunedin Office), and Hamilton).

Sampling strategies

According to Kumar (2011, p. 193), the primary aim of qualitative research is to explore the
diversity of the study population. Sample size and sampling strategy are not significant as
they are in quantitative research due to the lack of statistical tests. The sample size can be
determined along with data collection once the saturation point is reached; the sample can be
chosen according to the researcher’s judgements about who can provide the most appropriate
information (see also Beitin, 2012). Qualitative researchers purposely select ‘information-rich’
respondents. Thus, only the non-probability sampling strategy can be used (Kumar, 2011, pp.
175-176). Therefore, the case study had two interview phases, the first phase from January to
May 2020 for Chinese interviews, and the second phase from April to July 2021 for both
professional and Chinese interviews. At the end of data collection, this case study had 48
Chinese (including Kiwi-Chinese) participants, and 22 professional participants. Some
identified themselves as both, so 64 participants in total. Chinese participants were invited
from the biggest Chinese association, the Auckland Chinese Community Centre (also known
as ACCC, 屋仑华侨会所), Daren Life Society Incorporated (also known as 大仁生活会),
and personal networking and the snowballing strategy. Professional participants were invited
through personal networking and the snowballing strategy.

75
Suitable location

Participants were provided with a choice of venue (Clarke, 2006). The final decision
depended on the comfortability of the interaction between interviewees and the interviewer,
and the convenience of recording. Most of our interviews with Chinese participants were
carried out in their community centres or libraries, homes, café, and the researcher’s school
office. Those with professional participants were conducted mainly in their offices and the
researcher’s school office. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, 25 interviews with Chinese
participants were undertaken over the phone; two interviews with professionals were
undertaken by way of Zoom video conferencing.

Interview questions

The researcher designed one Chinese interview schedule in both English and simplified
Chinese versions (see Appendix 3). Questions were mainly about their perceptions of
Chinese cultural heritage and how they acknowledge one in Auckland, and their knowledge
and feedback about heritage planning and the national multiculturalism/biculturalism context
of New Zealand. During interviews, many Chinese participants were unfamiliar with the
concept of heritage and the inclusive nature of this term in our research. To fully explore their
understanding and experiences, the researcher asked questions in different ways, such as what
they maintain and pass on in their family, what they share or change throughout generations,
etc. When talking with those local-born, the researcher spent more time listening to their
family history and memories. Therefore, the time duration varied from 30 minutes to 150
minutes. Most Chinese participants were very passionate about talking about their heritage
experiences and stories. Their input and efforts have extensively met or even exceeded our
expectations.

Initially, a professional interview schedule of questions was designed. After the first phase of
interviews with Chinese participants and a couple of interviews with heritage specialists and
researchers in the second phase, the second version of the professional interview schedule
was upgraded (see Appendix 3). Questions were mainly about their understanding of cultural
heritage and any possible difference between personal perception and professional

76
understanding being part of the heritage framework, and their acknowledgement of migrant
heritage. Professional interviews usually lasted for 60 minutes.

Interview recording

This research mainly adopted audio recording and note-taking during interviews. Two
Chinese participants chose to write down their answers on their own. Four Chinese
participants preferred to write down their answers first, then have their interviews and further
their opinions. Due to travel restrictions due to Covid-19, two professional interviews were
conducted through Zoom. Video recordings were automatically documented.

Due to the small number of people with expertise working on this topic in New Zealand,
participants might be identifiable to each other. However, if participants preferred to be
identified and acknowledged as contributing to this research topic, the researcher provided
such an option to them, and to also explicitly acknowledge their contribution to the research
outputs.

Thematic analysis

According to Bryman (2016), the analysis of interview data is a process of data reduction. It
refers to reducing the large body collected from respondents into prominent themes.
Thematic analysis is a method for systematically identifying, organizing, and offering insight
into patterns of themes across a data set. Focusing on the prospective themes, thematic
analysis allows the researcher to review and make sense of collective or shared meanings and
experiences. Thematic analysis has the strength of flexibility across research questions,
sample size and constitution, data collection method. It does not mean to identify unique and
idiosyncratic themes or experiences in each single data item. The primary purpose is to
identify what is common to the way a topic is talked or written about, and make sense of
those commonalities (Braun & Clarke, 2012; Clarke & Braun, 2017).

The data analysis of this research is meant to deconstruct the meaning of Chinese cultural
heritage based on interview data with Auckland Chinese communities, and reveal the most

77
shared critiques toward the New Zealand heritage system. Therefore, thematic analysis was
used in analysing interview data. Through interviewing, recording transcribing, and
transcripts reading, the researcher has reviewed data more than three times. Moreover,
archival research and thematic analysis were conducted back and forth in the meantime, as
each added insight to the other.

3.6.4 Fieldwork

The fieldwork provides on-site observation and experience in Chinese and professional
participants’ most frequently mentioned heritage places and activities. It encompasses the
researcher’s visits to Auckland Lantern Festival in 2018, Auckland Heritage Festival in 2019,
Chinese New Year Festival & Market Day in 2020 and 2021, Fo Guang Shan in 2021,
Auckland Chinese Community Centre Mangere Hall in 2020, Seoung Yuen and Wah Lee’s
store at Hobson Street in the city centre in 2021, Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church at
105 Vincent Street in the city centre in 2021 and 2022, Choice Plaza at 10 Wellesley Street in
the city centre in 2021, Auckland War Memorial Museum in 2022, Dominion Road and other
Chinese ethnic precincts for many times, the South Island in May 2021, and Hamilton
Gardens in June 2021. Historically, New Zealand Chinese history started in the Otago region
in the gold rush era. So, although the case study is Auckland, the researcher added the South
Island fieldwork, and visited Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Christchurch Office),
the Department of Conservation (Dunedin Office), and two Chinese heritage sites on the New
Zealand Heritage List, including the newly registered Ng King Brothers Chinese Market
Garden Settlement in Ashburton, Sew Hoy building in Dunedin, and the long registered
Arrowtown Chinese Settlement.

During fieldwork, the researcher experienced how Chinese communities celebrate Chinese
New Year in Chinese New Year Festival & Market Day and Fo Guang Shan, visited Mangere
Hall several times and consulted people about what they usually do in the community centre,
and joined the 70th China National Day celebration. Also, the researcher attended two lecture
sessions, particularly about Chinese history, during the 2019 Auckland Heritage Festival.
Moreover, the researcher visited other interviewee-mentioned places such as Dominion Road,
China Town, Choice Plaza, Lan Yuan in Dunedin, the Chinese scholar garden in Hamilton,

78
etc. In the case of Lan Yuan, the researcher consulted the garden staff and Chinese
researchers about the prototype of the garden. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of
attendees was restricted in public gatherings in New Zealand between 2020 and 2022.
Therefore, the fieldwork method is limitedly applied during data collection.

3.6.5 Validity and reliability

Concerns of validity and reliability are reflected in three aspects in this research. Firstly,
researcher biases need to be diminished in sampling strategies and execution of methods for
data collection. Secondly, a broader conclusion is supposed to be approached based on case
study and related progress in international academia. Thirdly, the research process and
methods are demonstrated in details (Gaber & Gaber, 2007; Kumar, 2011).

In data collection, Leedy and Ormrod (2015, p. 261) have generally provided five strategies
to enhance the validity and reliability: triangulation of data sources, separate observation
results from the memos, thinking about exceptions and disconfirming evidence, considerable
time on site, and reflexivity throughout the process concerning any researcher bias. The data
sources of this research are divided into secondary data from literature research, first-hand
data from interviews and on-site fieldwork. Sixty-four participants are invited to interviews.
Each interview duration ranges from 30 to 150 minutes. Fieldwork to multiple places and
events take place in Auckland, Hamilton, Christchurch, Dunedin, and Queenstown from 2018
to 2022.

In literature research, the researcher is required to clearly define the focus and contextual
setting of research, though such demonstration might slightly change along with the
collection and analysis of texts; read between texts in a back-and-forth way to avoid random
subjective interpretation, and revise the coding scheme along with data analysis, and; revise
study results and compare those to others that are widely accepted if applicable and noticed
the difference in terms of the analysis process. In interviews, the researcher is required to
provide a supportive environment with less external influence; invite respondents from
diverse backgrounds in different ways; re-read interview data more than three times, and;
spend extra time building trust with respondents. For example, participants from Auckland

79
Chinese communities are from more than 25 cities, speaking more than ten languages and
dialects, aging from 10s to 90s, in over 20 types of occupations. Additionally, the researcher
uses the on-site experience as the complement source to interview data, and keep objective as
much as possible throughout fieldwork and data output. During interviews and fieldwork,
note-taking and photo shooting are considered to reflect researcher’s concerns and additional
observations instantly.

The literature review, research design and methods have been introduced by the end of
chapter 3. The following three chapters will present the research data from the case study of
Auckland. Chapter 4 reveals the hidden history of New Zealand Chinese people and their
heritage. Chapter 5 summarised Auckland Chinese communities’ perspectives on Chinese
cultural heritage in New Zealand. Chapter 6 articulates the official heritage discourse within
the New Zealand heritage system and Auckland heritage framework, and its resilience to the
demographic diversity of New Zealand and Auckland.

80
4 Chapter 4. The Hidden History of New Zealand Chinese
People and Their Heritage

The Chinese have been present in New Zealand for 180 years. They have contributed to the
country in many ways but remain largely invisible from the dominant heritage discourse.
Chapter 4 aims to uncover the hidden history of New Zealand Chinese through migration
history and their cultural profiles, and the hidden history of the Auckland Chinese scene, and
reveal the absence of Chinese heritage in the New Zealand heritage system.

4.1 New Zealand Chinese migration

Chinese migration to New Zealand started in 1842 when Huang Xueting (Wong Hok-ting in
Cantonese) arrived in Nelson (Stade, 2010). He was hired by the surgeon Thomas Renwick
and then established a carting business (Li & Turner, 2017). In 1865 after the mining fields in
Central Otago were mined out, most European miners flocked westward to Hokitika and
northward to Nelson. The Otago Chamber of Commerce was alarmed that Otago’s economy
could collapse, so they hired an agent to recruit Chinese miners from Australia and convinced
the Otago Provincial Council to guarantee their safety in New Zealand. Therefore, the first
dozen Chinese miners arrived in Otago in 1865. The number of Chinese gold minders peaked
at 4,700 in 1872, with nearly a half being Cantonese men from Panyu, Dongguan, Zengcheng,
and Taishan Counties in China (Willmott, 2009).

At that time, the New Zealand government restricted the number of wives and children, so
most Chinese gold miners were men (Beatson & Dianne, 1990). They worked diligently and
lived a simple and lonely life with the only wish of returning home with money saved to buy
a small farmstead (Andrews, 2017; Li, 2018; Li & Turner, 2017). However, the Chinese
communities were seen as an economic and social threat to European society. Such focus of

81
antagonism towards Chinese immigrants shifted12 in 1881 due to the Long Depression (1879-
1896) and the anti-Chinese agitation in North America and Australia. Organisations emerged
to oppose Chinese migration, such as the Anti-Chinese Association, the Anti-Chinese League,
the Anti-Asiatic League, and the White New Zealand League13 (MCH, 2017). The worst of
the anti-Chinese legislations were introduced in the next 40 years.

In 1881, the Chinese Immigrants Act restricted one Chinese passenger to every ten tonnes of
ship cargo, with a £10 poll tax. The limit of ship cargo was raised to 100t in 1888, then 200t
in 1896. The amount of poll tax was raised to £100 in 1896. In 1892, the naturalisation fees
were abolished for all but except Chinese people. In 1898, the Old-age Pensions Act was
enacted but specifically excluding Chinese people. In 1901, the Opium Prohibition Act
empowered police to enter Chinese homes without a search warrant. In 1908, the
naturalisation for Chinese people was completely ceased. After WW1, in 1920, following the
model of the White Australia policy (formally Immigration Restriction Act of 1901), New
Zealand amended its Immigration Restriction Act to allow free entry to only persons of
British and Irish descent (Lu, 2000b).

In the meantime, after the Chinese gold rush ended in 1900, the ex-gold miners14 and their
descendants spread out nationwide. Influenced mainly by the traditional self-sufficient
peasant economy in their homeland of China, they set up businesses in market gardens, fruit
shops cum stores, and laundries (Don, 1905; Ng, 2001). In 1936, there were 125 families
among the 3,000 Chinese in New Zealand (Ng, 2007, p. 2).

12See for example, ‘the Chinkey Invasion’ in 1984’s October 1 Fair Play, 1, (26), 18; ‘The Chow Curse’ in New
Zealand Truth, 106, from June 29, 1907; ‘The Yellow Yahoo’ in New Zealand Truth, 80, from December 29,
1906.

13The objectives of the White New Zealand League included: 1. the exclusion of Asians from New Zealand; 2.
to secure, protect and preserve our heritage of a White New Zealand for our children, and our children’s
children; 3. to maintain the purity of the Māori and the White Race and to preserve them from Asiatic
contamination.

14
The early Chinese migrants also took up other occupations in the goldfields, encompassing agricultural
pursuits and railroad and road building (Ng, 2001).

82
At the beginning of WW2, Japanese armies occupied Beijing, Shanghai, and a large part of
northern China by 1937 and continued to invade to the south of China, where many Chinese
New Zealanders’ wives and children lived. The New Zealand Chinese Association and the
Chinese Consulate appealed to the New Zealand government to allow the dependents of
Chinese already in New Zealand to be evacuated from war-devastated China (Brawley, 1993;
“To Grow Roots Where They Land,” 2022). The refugee entry was on a temporary permit for
two years, and the strict provision that those refugee wives and children, including those born
in New Zealand during their stay, must return to China at the end of the two years. In addition,
Chinese New Zealanders need to pay a £500 bond to ensure that those wives and children
return to China and £200 for the family cost and possible repatriation after the war (“To
Grow Roots Where They Land,” 2022).

As WW2 lasted longer than the legislated two years of refugee allowance, and the Chinese
communists came to power in 1949, the New Zealand Chinese Association and a
Presbyterian Church leader, Reverend George McNeur, successfully lobbied Prime Minister
Peter Fraser to allow Chinese families to stay in New Zealand. This request granted 1323
Chinese permanent residents.

In 1944, the poll tax and tonnage restrictions were officially abolished. After the war in July
1947, the Labour government granted permanent residence to all the refugee families (Fong,
1959, p. 33). In 1952, the Chinese were again allowed to apply for naturalisation, a privilege
that had been denied to them since 1908 (McKinnon, 1996, pp. 19, 41). After 110 years, all
‘official’ discriminations against New Zealand Chinese were finally removed (Beatson &
Dianne, 1990).

Commencing by the 1970s, the neoliberal inclinations of post-1986 immigration policies

have hugely affected the composition of immigration flows. The Citizenship Act 1977
signalled the official abandonment of an Anglo-New Zealand identity for a more
comprehensive identity that embraces all citizens, including Māori people and those from
other countries. The 1986 White Paper expressed a new philosophy for the New Zealand
Immigration Department more clearly. The purpose of immigration was demonstrated as

83
 ‘To enrich the multicultural social fabric of New Zealand society through
the selection of new settlers principally on the strength of their potential
personal contribution to the future well-being of New Zealand ... without
discrimination on grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, sex or
marital status, religion or ethical belief’ (McKinnon, 1996, pp. 45-46).

The 1987 Immigration Policy abandoned preference for the countries of origin and ethnicities
of migrants and became highly selective about migrants’ skills levels and finance capital
(Burke, 1986; Friesen, 2015; Ip & Friesen, 2001; Ng, 2001). The Business Investment Policy
(BIP) was introduced to attract migrants with capital investment. It successfully attracted
migration flows from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Malaysia. However, due to BIP’s
management flaws, part of the import capital was recycled into other applications. Also, due
to the absence of settlement support for new migrants, social issues such as astronauting
behaviour15, language barriers, and strained schools resources have led to public accusations
of Chinese migrants (Henderson, 2003).

In order to reverse the ‘brain drain’ issue in New Zealand and stimulate economic growth, the
amendments in 1991 were published to attract quality migrants (Henderson, 2003). A new
General Category assesses both the import of capital and the migrants’ youth and educational
or skill level (Ip & Friesen, 2001). A point system modelled on Canada’s replaced the quota
system (Willmott, 2009). The point system was designed to comprehensively assess the
quality of migrants, such as their ages, qualifications, work experience, sponsorship by family
members or community groups, job offers, and investment funds. Since the broader factors
undercut the strict requirements from BIP, the General Category facilitated the entry of
migrants (Henderson, 2003). It quickly became the main route through which Asian
applicants gained residency. Due to the fear and feelings of uncertainty about the political
environment, the number of migrants significantly increased from Hong Kong during 1987-
1994, and from Taiwan during 1994-1997.

15It means those astronaut families where members reside in different countries. Astronauting behaviour represents the
growing transnationalism of people’s identities after increasing globalization.

84
However, the intense increase in Asian migrants (including Hong Kong, Taiwanese, Korean,
and Indian migrants) overshadowed those from Britain and other traditional ‘white’ sources
(Henderson, 2003). The sustained influx of migrants raised public concerns about their
integration with the host society and triggered an ‘Asian invasion’ backlash in the mid-1990s
(Henderson, 2003; Ip & Friesen, 2001). Thus, the goal of ‘social cohesion’ was considered
and added to the October 1995 policy (NZIS, 1995). All migrants aged 16 years and over
from non-English speaking backgrounds (except those who came under humanitarian and
refugee categories) had to deposit NZ$20,000 unless they passed an English test. In addition,
employment status and qualifications were also considered in points assessment. Pre-
arranged employment would increase certain points, while only New Zealand professional
bodies recognized qualifications could gain points (Ip & Friesen, 2001). Moreover, financial
and human capital were more separate under the General Category. Stricter taxation
provisions were also imposed (Henderson, 2003).

As a result, Taiwanese migration sharply declined after 1995, and so did Hong Kong
migration. With another two more strikes from negative publicity about anti-immigration in
the 1996 New Zealand election, the Asian fiscal crisis in 1997, and the downturn in the New
Zealand economy, both Hong Kong and Taiwan migration declined to low rates in 1997 (Ip
& Friesen, 2001; Xue, Friesen, & O’Sullivan, 2012). Meanwhile, the impact on mainland
Chinese migration was comparatively less and temporary, due to that mainland Chinese
migrants relied more on points for human rather than financial capital, and were more likely
to meet the English requirement (Henderson, 2003). Therefore, mainland China became the
primary source after 1997, though it conspicuously fluctuated in the early 2000s. After 2000,
the significant inflows of mainland Chinese migrants have reasonably enhanced the cultural
diversity of New Zealand Chinese (Henderson, 2003; Ip, 2006b). From 1986 to 2018, the
New Zealand Chinese population rose from 26,541 to 247,770, an increase of 834%. The new
migrants vastly outnumbered the long-established local-born Chinese (see also Willmott,
2009).

85
Overall, the New Zealand Chinese migration history can be divided into four key milestones
(see Table 4-1). Within each, different origins of Chinese communities dominate the primary
source of the New Zealand Chinese population.

Table 4-1. Chinese migration history in New Zealand.

Key Milestones in New Zealand Time Chinese Communities

Chinese Migration History

Invitation to work as gold miners from 1860s- Early sojourners

the Otago government 1900s

Refugee allowance during WW2 though 1900s- Descendants of people who paid the Chinese-only poll tax/
constrained by a poll tax 1952 the long-established Chinese community

Granting of full citizenship rights in 1952 1952-

1987

The 1987 Immigration Act and its 1987- Hong Kong migrants
modifications 1994

1994- Taiwanese migrants

1997

1997- Mainland Chinese migrants

present

Source: Author

4.2 Cultural profiles of New Zealand Chinese communities

Different Chinese communities have represented New Zealand Chinese population

throughout different periods of Chinese migration history (see Table 4-1). During the 1860s
and the 1900s, the early sojourners were Cantonese male gold miners. From the 1900s to
1952, wives and children of Chinese New Zealanders were allowed to arrive in New Zealand
under strict provisions. In 1952, Chinese people were finally granted full citizenship rights. In
the next few decades, the Chinese people in New Zealand have gradually grown in numbers
through natural increase and immigration. The Chinese population remained a relatively
homogeneous community of Cantonese families, mostly descendants of early sojourners. By
1986, most New Zealand Chinese were local-born (McKinnon, 1996, p. 50). After 1987,
migrants from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland Chinese have taken the lead one after
another. According to the 2018 Census, now overseas-born Chinese outnumber the local-born

86
descendants of early Chinese communities. Overall, there are roughly three main Chinese
communities: early sojourners, the long-established Chinese community, and the recent
migrants from Hongkong, Taiwan, and mainland China.

4.2.1 Early sojourners

‘Gold and China’ was the highest goal of all Cantonese miners at the time. They endeavoured
to work and save every penny from mining, looking forward to returning to China and
contributing to their homeland (Ng, 2003). These early sojourners had a high cultural and
moral sense. They were portrayed as ‘a frugal, adaptive people who retained their customs as
much as possible’, as is supported in detail by archaeological investigations (Ritchie, 2003, p.
46). Their cultural heritage is mostly reflected in the food, customs, and recreation. They kept
on observing home customs such as Chinese New Year, Ching Ming day, and funeral rites
(Ng, 2003; see also Piper, 1988). Additionally, like other sojourner groups, Chinese miners
were in a weak position in the face of the antagonism (Bonacich, 1973). They relied on ethnic
social groupings. By doing so, they were more likely to affirm their pride in homeland’s
culture and innate greatness (Ng, 2003).

Chinese heritage sites and associated structures remain widespread on the goldfields of
southern New Zealand. Most Chinese sites appear in the form of dwellings, rock shelters,
water races, dams and workings. By 2003, about 60 Chinese archaeological sites had been
investigated, with 20 under complete excavation. There are two of the largest Chinese
settlements: Lawrence and Round Hill. Ritchie (2003) further identified the best-preserved
Chinese miners’ camp in Otago - Cromwell’s ‘Chinatown’16.

4.2.2 Descendants of people who paid the Chinese-only poll tax

Before 1952, Chinese people were not allowed to vote and did not have the right to
participate in the judicial system, become involved in local bodies, and work in the public

16
Remains were destroyed to make way for Lake Dunstan behind the Clyde Dam.

87
service. They did not have a voice in determining what governed their lives and thus were
psychologically isolated (Wong, 2002). During the 1940s-1980s, Willmott (2009) observes
that continuing to face both private and public discrimination, local-born Chinese were
somewhat separate from the majority Anglo-New Zealand population. They preferred the
company of other Chinese and urged the younger generation to socialise with their own
community. ‘Keep your head down’ has been the most complied-with advice given by the
older generation. Although Wong (2002) gave a few examples of Chinese participation in the
New Zealand’s democratic process, most were miserable and unsuccessful.

A large part of the local-born Chinese community’s identity has been constructed on a
‘history of discrimination’. The most secure way is to harmoniously blend into mainstream
society and be ‘invisible’, such as, using English names, wearing only Western clothes, not
speaking their mother language in public17, and even not reacting to racism but ‘walk away’.
In cities, they are more reluctant to see a permanent settlement such as a Chinatown being
built (Wong, 2002).

In addition, being ‘model minority’ has become the central tenet of the local-born Chinese
community’s identity. Wong (2003) explains ‘model minority’ that ‘They [Chinese New
Zealanders] enjoyed enumerating virtues such as being family-minded, enjoying the best of
both worlds, not making trouble, and being hard-working and law-abiding’ (see also Yee,
2003).

During the 1950s-1970s, Chinese New Zealanders were encouraged to not only just integrate
but also to assimilate or to be ‘as much like white New Zealanders as possible’ without
challenging any of the existing norms of the dominant culture and host country18 (Wong,

17
In 1920, the government stopped granting visas to Chinese teachers; as a result, there were few opportunities
for local-born Chinese communities to preserve their mother tongue (Wong, 2002).
18
In 1949, when explaining about the amendments to immigration policies, a member of Parliament stated that
‘[t]his Bill is the result of a deep-seated nostalgia on the part of the huge majority of the people in this country
that this Dominion shall be what is called a White NZ.’ Then later in 1951, to prove the success of assimilation,

88
2003; Beattie, 2007). Many third- and fourth-generation lost their mother tongue and have
suffered from cultural discomfort, or even worse, and feel lost in figuring out their cultural
identities and what a Chinese identity is. These issues became more intensified after the new
migrants came, who were less likely to hide their identities (Wong, 2002).

4.2.3 Recent migrants

The sources of recent Chinese migrants have been diversified for different motives for
migrating to New Zealand after 1987 (Ip, 2003, 2006b; Boyer, 1995, 1996). Yuan (2001)
pointed out that the time and space of entry into a new country determine one’s destiny.
There has been a great variety of Chinese cultural profiles. The primary sources of recent
Chinese migrants are Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China. Overall, Chinese migrants
from these three regions share similarities in high qualifications but low employment rate,
and transnationalism (Ip, 2006b; Henderson, 2003; Ho et al., 2001; Boyer, 1996; Ip & Friesen,
2001). Moreover, New Zealand Chinese identity has been transforming due to the flows of
diverse recent Chinese migrants (Pang, 2003). Post-1987 Chinese migrants are more likely to
hold multiple identities in the same location than sojourners descendants. For example,
according to the raw data of the 2018 Census, most Hong Kong Chinese and Taiwanese
identified themselves as mono-ethnic, while other Chinese migrants might find themselves
belonging to two or three ethnicities (see Figure 4-1). Almost all Chinese migrants are
bilingual in English and Cantonese/Mandarin (see Figures 4-2, 4-3). Ip (2006b) describes
mainland Chinese migrants by ‘hybrid identity’ as both New Zealander and Chinese.

Auckland has been one of the most preferred cities by recent Chinese migrants in New
Zealand after 1987. Now it is the most populous New Zealand city with the most substantial
proportion of the Chinese population. According to the 2015 World Migration Report,
Auckland has the fourth largest foreign-born population and is revealed to be one of the

one needed to meet four criteria: primary loyalty to New Zealand, complying with normal requirements of
assimilation, abandoning Chinese nationality, and having a New Zealand lifestyle rather than a Chinese way of
life (Wong, 2002).

89
world’s most culturally diverse cities. The next section will provide the hidden history of the
Auckland Chinese scene and the markable heritage from literature research.

Six
Number of ethnicities

Five
Four
Three
Two
One

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

Number of population

42116 Taiwanese 42111 Hong Kong Chinese 42100 Chinese nfd

Figure 4-1. The number of ethnic groups identified by Chinese NFD, Hong Kong
Chinese, and Taiwanese.
Source: Raw data from the 2018 Census

Six languages
Five languages
Four languages
Three languages
Two languages
One language
None
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
Number of population

42116 Taiwanese 42111 Hong Kong Chinese 42100 Chinese nfd

Figure 4-2. Number of languages spoken by Chinese NFD, Hong Kong Chinese,
and Taiwanese.
Source: Raw data from the 2018 Census

90
 Not elsewhere included
None (eg too young to talk)
Other
New Zealand Sign Language
Panjabi
Tongan
Afrikaans
Spanish
German
Tagalog
Sinitic not further defined
Yue
French
Hindi
Northern Chinese
Samoan
Māori
English
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000200,000
Number of population

42116 Taiwanese 42111 Hong Kong Chinese 42100 Chinese nfd

Figure 4-3. Language spoken by Chinese NFD, Hong Kong Chinese, and Taiwanese.
Source: Raw data from the 2018 Census

4.3 Auckland Chinese scene

After the end of the gold rush in the Otago region, early Chinese sojourners spread out
nationwide. At the end of the 19th century, the worldwide anti-Chinese publicity led to the
establishment of Chinatowns in host countries. The ‘Chinatown’ of Grey’s Avenue marked
the beginning of the Auckland Chinese scene in 1890. In Auckland, Chinese communities
entered into occupations of market gardeners, fruit and vegetable hawkers, cooks, and other
workers in domestic service. The number of Chinese people in the Auckland region doubled
from 155 at the beginning of the 20th century to 415 in 1919. At the time the number of
market gardens reached a peak in 1920. However, due to that urban Auckland expanded and
early market garden land was transformed for housing purposes, the number of market
gardens decreased. Then Chinese laundries had their heyday between the 1920s and 1930s;
Chinese greengrocery shops thrived between the 1940s and 1950s (Ng, 2005).

Due to urban development in the city centre and the demolishment of streets, Grey’s Avenue
eventually disappeared by 1964. Chinese communities entered into new occupations, such as

91
takeaways and restaurants, and moved to suburban areas. The number of Chinese population
reached 1200 in 1945. After 1987, the intense inflows of recent migrants accelerated the
formation of ethnic precincts and residential ethnoburbs (Xue, Friesen, & O’Sullivan, 2012)
and the diversity of ethnic business and the media, arts, and religions in the Auckland region.
In order to provide the contextual background of Auckland, this section will introduce the
past and present of Grey’s Avenue, one of the early market gardens Kong Foong Yuen in
Carlaw Park, one of the notable Chinese inspired buildings Choice Plaza, the recently
controversial ‘Chinatown’ Dominion Road, and ethnic business in supermarkets and
restaurants in Auckland. The location of their physical concentration in Auckland will be
presented at the end of this section.

4.3.1 Grey’s Avenue

Grey’s Avenue (or Grey Street as it was then called) was the once-existing Chinatown among
Auckland Chinese since the early 20th century. Ng (2005) proposed that lower Grey Street
could be a proper location where Auckland’s ‘Chinatown’ began due to its lower rentals and
closer to the city markets. It then expanded to an area between Grey Street, Victoria Street,
and Hobson Street.

Past: from the 1890s to the 1960s

The first Chinese entry was recorded in the Auckland Directory 1895th edition (Ng, 2005).
Early Chinese businesses on Grey’s Avenue included Thomas Humlog’s laundry business at
the intersection of Grey Street and Shoe Lane since 1899, Wah Lee’s store since 1904, the
Chinese Masonic Lodge (the ‘Chee Kung Tong’) in the rooms above the store next to the
Wah Lee’s since 1917. Soon afterward, there were more Chinese boarding houses, opium
dens, fan tan, pakapoo and gambling houses. During and after WW2, the Chinese refugees of
wives and children enlarged the Auckland Chinese population. Grey’s Avenue became a busy
area with Chinese people operating laundries, hotels, and other businesses.

In 1927, Auckland City Council changed the name of Grey Street to Grey’s Avenue,
intending to raise its status. In 1947, the upper part of Grey’s Avenue was demolished and

92
replaced with multi-story state flats. In 1959, the Auckland City Council started purchasing
and removing the buildings in lower Grey’s Avenue to build the new Civic Administration
Building19. According to Francis (2014), municipal administration serves a key role ‘in the
double erasure of this [Chinese] community’ (p. 83). By 1964, there were no more Chinese-
occupied buildings on Grey’s Avenue. Now the area is contained within the Aotea (Civic)
Square precinct and is occupied by the 19-storey Civic Administration building.

According to Ng (2005), the demolishment of Grey’s Avenue was the end of Auckland’s first
authentic Chinatown, which was never rebuilt. In 1966, Auckland Star published an article in
which the author mourned that ‘Chinatown has gone – and with it one of the more colourful
links with Auckland’s past’ (cited in Lu, 2020c). No. 4 participant (2020) sadly recalled that
‘I would like to see Greys Avenue in city, we call it Chinese street. We had strong Chinese
business here, Chinese restaurant. But that’s gone now.’

Present

Lucky enough, Wah Lee’s store and the grocery merchants and importers Seoung Yuen still
remain on Hobson Street. Wah Lee’s is one of the earliest Chinese-operated shops on Grey’s
Avenue (see Figure 4-4). It used to operate as retailing for Chinese food, a bank for Chinese
customers, a depot for letters from China, and a social centre where gossip and news were
shared. At the time, new arrivals to Auckland could stay in the rooms above Wah Lee’s until
they found proper lodging and work (Ng, 2005). Now Wah Lee’s is distinctive for its endless
Chinese products such as paper umbrellas, ceramic Guanyin statues, black cloth shoes,
bamboo hats, and many more Chinese goods that are rare even in contemporary China.

19
Francis (2014) reveals that the Auckland City Council Valuation Department Land Purchase Files describe
that at that time, a continuous strip of buildings on the western sides of the Avenue, southwards from the Market
Hotel on the corner of Grey’s Avenue and Cook Street were owned by Chinese families: 45-49 CM Dick, GM
Yew (aka G Wah Lee) and RJ Yen, 51-53 WW and TW Doo, 55-63 Fonf Chee, 65 J Young Yut and S Chew,
67-69 Fong Chee, and on the eastern side of the Avenue: 26-28 DLW, ECW and VHW Doo and, at 30, Mrs A
Chong.

93
Wah Lee’s has played a significant role in Aucklanders’ downtown memory and their
perceptions of Chinese culture. Liang (2020) recalled the memory of massive storage at Wah
Lee’s. ‘There are lots of things you can’t think of. It’s not like Chinese supermarkets, totally
different. It’s very famous to European. Whenever they need something Chinese, they will go
there. […] I asked why you insisted so much that no one is coming, he told me that it was
passed down from generation to generation by his ancestors.’ Dam (2021) highlighted the
significance of Grey’ s Avenue, Wah Lee’s, and Seoung Yuen. ‘They are a reflection of who
we are, our culture, places where our culture is normal, places where our culture can be
celebrated, where people who are not Chinese can also come and experience Chinese culture
and Chinese ingredients.’

Figure 4-4. Model of Wah Lee's store at Auckland War Memorial Museum.
Source: Author’s photograph, 2022

Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church

The Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church, located at 105 Vincent Street, replaced the
function of an earlier Chinese Mission Hall at 43 Cook Street. This 1957 church was

94
designed by architects J. O. Owen, McKenzie and Foote. According to Francis (2014), it
remains the only vestige of early Chinese life on the Grey’s Avenue.

Christianity began to spread among New Zealand Chinese when the first flow of Chinese
gold miners arrived in Otago in the 1860s. The Presbyterian Church of New Zealand
recognised that thousands of miners suffered from racial discrimination, difficult living
conditions, homesickness, and separation from families. In 1892, the Presbyterian Church of
New Zealand decided that the Chinese community was significant and should be served by
the Church. In 1897, the Dunedin Chinese Presbyterian Church was established by Pastor
Alexander Don, who had been trained in Guangdong Province, China. After the gold mining
era, miners spread throughout the country, and Chinese churches were needed in other cities.

Consequently, in 1904, the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand established the Auckland
Chinese Presbyterian Church. The old Chinese Mission Hall was located at 43 Cook Street.
Then after 1923, Pastor William Mawson decided to expand the church. Thus, the Auckland
Chinese Mission and the Presbyterian Church raised funds during 1924-1925 and purchased
the building at 105 Vincent Street. The building was initially used as accommodation for
pastors. In 1957, it was renovated to seat the increasing number of people, so the Auckland
Chinese Presbyterian Church was built (歷史發展, n.d.; Francis, 2014).

The Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church is hard to be visually attached to Chinese

characteristics (see Figures 4-5, 4-6). Francis (2014) discovered that there were few hints in
the form or the material of the building façade that one can relate the Church to Chinese. Also,
the atmosphere of Chineseness is largely absent in the interior architectural elements. The
most obvious Chinese characteristics are the traditional Chinese characters above the
entrance with English translation underneath and the overlaid pattern in steel rod representing
the Chinese character for happiness on the clear-glazed entry doors to the ground floor chapel
(see Figure 5-5). Besides, the entry and circulation system implicitly reflect the traditional
Chinese domestic courtyard patterns. Overall, the so-called ‘Chinese characteristics’ are
mostly absent but humbly exist in the building.

95
However, reflecting on what Presbyterian Churches of New Zealand has contributed, the
Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church surely marks the close association between it and the
Chinese community. The Presbyterian Research Centre (the Archive and Library for the
Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand) has typically created a ‘New Zealand
Chinese Collection’ that is also listed on the UNESCO New Zealand Memory of the World
Register. It contains images and descriptions, stories, and publications by newspapers and
research papers about early Chinese life in New Zealand. Within another data collection,
‘Canton Villages Mission’, vivid and detailed information about early Cantonese village life
is also documented. At 105 Vincent Street, the Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church
celebrated its 125th anniversary in 2017. By June 2021, it still works as a key association and
community centre where people meet and have events and functions.

Figure 4-5. Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church, 105 Vincent Street in 2019.
Source: OneRoof Commercial (2021)

96
 Figure 4-6. Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church, 105 Vincent Street in 2022.
Source: Author’s photograph, 2022

4.3.2 44 Wakefield Street

At around the same period between the late 19th century and early 20th century, a number of
Chinese had moved into Wakefield Street. An archaeological site of a 19th-century brick-
lined well (at 44 Wakefield Street) and rubbish pit remnant (south of the well) was excavated
during the development of Auckland University of Technology’s Faculty of Business on the
corner of Wakefield Street and Mayoral Drive in early 2004. This site serves as the only
archaeological find proving the Chinese presence in Wakefield and Lorne Street. The precise
number of these Chinese and their occupations are not clear from historical records so far
(Turner, Hill, & Clough, 2005).

4.3.3 Kong Foong Yuen 江风园: 1870s-1900s

Market gardening was one of the primary occupations of New Zealand Chinese communities.
There were early Chinese market gardens in Auckland near the Carlaw Park area and the
Khyber Pass/ Carlton Gore Road area since the 1870s, at the corner of what is now Pilkington
and Point England Roads in 1901, and other sites in Mt Eden, Glen Innes, Onehunga,
Avondale, Mt Wellington, Western Springs, Māngere, and the area that was known as
Chinaman’s Hill (Ng, 2005; Shum, 2003).

97
Kong Foong Yuen, also known as the ‘Garden of Prosperity’ (New Zealand Herald,
September 18, 2009), was the first market garden in Auckland, owned by the Ah Chee family
from its start in the 1870s. Now it remains one of the largest archaeological assemblages of
Chinese material culture in New Zealand (Parslow, 2021). It lay beneath Carlaw Park on
Gillingham Street, Parnell (now Carlaw Park Avenue), and was excavated in 2007 before the
site redevelopment. It started with a single house and was eventually developed to be a
substantial precinct sitting in between the central city and surrounding residential suburbs
(Adamson & Bader, 2013). Carlaw Park can be linked unequivocally to early Chinese
enterprise in Auckland.20 The assemblage identified from the contexts that could be
associated with the early Chinese occupation indicates both the traditional Chinese ways of
life such as an ethic of frugality, Chinese diet, preference on dispensed medicines and
traditional Chinese medicines, and the traditional labour-intensive farming method, and the
upwards social mobility of Chan Dah Chee and his family and workers (Bader & Adamson,
2011). The success of the market garden business led Chan Dah Chee to other business
enterprises, such as the exportation of wood ear fungus to China, banana and ginger
plantations in Fiji, dining rooms in the city from the late 1880s, and leases on market gardens
in other parts of Auckland. Despite prevalent anti-Chinese nostalgia, Chan Dah Chee
managed a network of business contacts in both intra- and inter-communities, such as kinship
relations among the early Chinese community. He became a prominent figure within
Auckland social circles (Adamson & Bader, 2013). The history of Kong Foong Yuen has
now been memorialised by a number of small brick walls in the Dah Chee family
descendants’ backyards.

4.3.4 Choice Plaza

With the intention to assert the family’s ethnicity and Chineseness, the Chinese property
developers Colin and Frances Chan commissioned Ron Sang and his company Sang

20
The Carlaw Park excavations also revealed other phases of occupation and domestic and industrial areas. This
research focuses on its connection with the early Chinese communities of Auckland.

98
Architects to build ‘build a modern office and retail building that harked back to the family’s
Chinese heritage’ (Francis, 2014; Sang Architects, 2021). To the Chan family, the building
was to be ‘not just any old glass-fronted tower block. … No, your building will reflect your
origins, your traditions and beliefs in the most emphatic way; a slice of your own culture in a
foreign land’ (Park, 1991, p. 114). Consequently, they requested the ‘flavour of a pagoda’ of
the building while being complied with directives of Feng Shui (Francis, 2014, p. 84).

According to Chinese architect scholar and author Dr Evelyn Lip (1995), the characteristics
of traditional Chinese architecture should be able to be examined by categories such as built
environment, planning, construction, bracketing system, roof form, roof section, roof
decorations, colour scheme, walls, columns, tiles, windows, doors and openings, podiums and
balustrades (Lip, 1995; Francis, 2014). According to Lip’s (1995) schema, Choice Plaza has
its Chineseness and connection to Chinese heritage mainly in four aspects (see Figure 4-7).
First, the octagonal plan is traditionally used for Chinese pagodas. The floor plate of Choice
Plaza is an irregular octagon. Second, the pagoda sits on a two-level podium that covers the
whole site and is utilized for retail and restaurant functions. Such tower-and-podium typology
also forms a part of traditional Chinese architecture. Third, the building is cleverly undercut
at two points in its vertical travel - one above the two-level podium and the other at the top, in
order to emphasise the discrete pagoda form. At Level 2, the weathering layer moves back
from street line to column line, while also being able to provide an outdoor balcony for Level
3 around the tower building. At Level 10, the weather skin moves from being outside the
columns to the centre of the column line, while being also able to provide another outdoor
balcony for the top floor. The undercut at Level 2 indicates the discrete nature of the pagoda
by drawing attention to its connection with the podium at the base; the other undercut at
Level 10 draws attention again from the pagoda to the dramatic upturned forms that strongly
signal the Chineseness of the building. Last and more visually, the building is in red colour,
which according to Lip (1995, p. 29) is ‘a bright, auspicious colour associated with warmth
and the Fire Element, represents good fortune and happiness’.

99
 Figure 4-7. Choice Plaza.
Source: Author’s photograph, 2021

Moreover, the architects adjusted the structural system by using reinforced concrete rather
than the traditional material of timber. It gave some space of modernist flavour – the ‘strip
window’ bent octagonally around the tower building. Also, they managed to imitate the shape
of traditional Chinese tiled roofs by using aluminium panels, which serves as spandrels in
practice (Francis, 2014).

Now the Choice Plaza is occupied by much different Asian food businesses. The retail space
on the corner of the building between Wellesley and Lorne Streets, once occupied by a
Japanese sushi bar, then a Korean supermarket, will now be leased from June 2021. Along
with Lorne Street, two food stores occupy the loading dock selling pancake and dumplings.
Inside the building, Chinese and Korean restaurants further diversify the variety of Asian
businesses. Overall, these formal and ad hoc occupation of Choice Plaza adds an Asian
atmosphere to the building and its surroundings (Francis, 2014). Concerning the professional
achievement of architecture itself, Choice Plaza is undoubtedly distinctive for its respect for
traditional Chinese architecture. The architects compromised with the Chan family’s pursuit
of Chinese heritage and the context limitation, as the form of pagoda could be against the
local criteria. First, its clear verticality proved to be different from the trend toward

100
maximising site coverage. Second, the building height exceeds the normal economic
imperatives of commercial construction requirement, with a smaller floor area than the
average (Parker, 1991). The irregular octagonal shape of the floor, tower-podium typology,
façade undercut design, red colour aligning with Feng Shui principal, and the adjusted roof
design all together provide visual enjoyment of Chinese heritage. In the meantime, the variety
of Asian business in and out add more multi-ethnic value to the building and site.

Choice Plaza has been mentioned by a few Auckland Chinese participants during interviews.
Some highlighted its architectural value as a real example of a cultural building in terms of
physical manifestations. Some pointed out its cultural value in showing Chinese presence.
For example, No. 4 participant (2020) commented that ‘I'm glad that it's there. Students are
coming in New Zealand. They go to [the Choice Plaza and] some say there's something
Chinese here, we have a presence.’

4.3.5 Dominion Road

The neo-liberal inclinations of the post-1986 immigration policy and the composition of
immigration flow in terms of skills and source origins, and their strength of the relational
embeddedness, led to the construction of business precincts (see Lewis et al., 2009). Asian
ethnic precincts have thrived in Auckland since the mid-1990s (Spoonley et al., 2014).
After the late 1990s, co-location in ethnic precincts has become a more obvious spatial
expression of immigrants’ embeddedness in social networks and has resulted in the
conversion of established suburban retail centres to ethnic precincts, such as the purpose-
built Meadowlands Shopping Plaza/Somerville, in East Auckland, the organically
developed Northcote shopping centre on Auckland’s North Shore, and the strip retail
development of Dominion Road in central Auckland (Cain & Spoonley, 2013; Spoonley et al.,
2014), and the once-existing ‘Chinatown’ of Oriental Market along Britomart Place and Quay
Street between 1989 and 1998 (Cheung, 2020; Lu, 2020c; Wong, 1989). Dominion Road is
the most iconic being famous for Chinese businesses in Auckland.

Dominion Road represents a spatially elongated example of a Chinese ethnic precinct in

Auckland. Most business owners are Chinese. They operate restaurants and cafés, real estate

101
agencies, hair salons, and financial institutions (Friesen, 2015). During the 2013 Auckland
Arts Festival, popular mini field trips around this area reflected its appeal as an ‘elongated
Chinatown’ (Friesen, 2015, p. 35). Spoonley et al. (2014) find that Dominion Road has
closely intertwined practices such as working and eating in daily life. As eating offers an
opportunity for family and friends to get together, it allows Chinese immigrants to continue
their everyday social practices in their familiar cultural and linguistic environment. These
phenomena also appear in other ethnic precincts dominated by one ethnic or immigrant group
around the world. Apart from eating, shopping for goods is another prime activity conducted
not only by Chinese immigrants but other communities (though for reasons of good prices or
quality of product). Spoonley et al. (2014) claim that in this sense, Dominion Road has
become a site of ‘commonplace diversity and encounter’ (p. 21). Dominion Road differs from
other Chinatowns or ethnic precincts worldwide due to how recent it is. It has taken 20 years
to become such an iconic Chinese ethnic precinct in Auckland. Those most involved in the
area are recent Chinese immigrants who arrived in 2000 and after. Moreover, what has
happened in the Chinatowns in other countries, particularly a degree of ethnic theming such
as dragon statues, lantern symbolism, gates, architecture, has not yet occurred on Dominion
Road (Spoonley et al., 2014).

4.3.6 Business

Supermarkets

After the gold rush, the local-born Chinese families took over occupations such as market
gardening, fruit shops, and laundries and grew their businesses nationwide. The Ah Chee
family, being one of Auckland’s Chinese pioneer entrepreneurs, started from market gardens,
fruit shops, and dining rooms. Tom Ah Chee helped his father’s food retailing business
upgrade to another level of wholesaling. He introduced the self-service model of
supermarkets into New Zealand and launched the first Foodtown with his business partners in
Ōtāhuhu in 1958. Later on, he co-founded Progressive Enterprises in 1961, and spread
Foodtown branches across Auckland and established the Foodtown supermarket empire. By
2011, all Foodtown supermarkets had been rebranded as Countdowns. Additionally, Tom Ah

102
Chee launched the Georgie Pie fast food restaurant chain in 1977, which featured the first
drive-through service in the country (Lee & Lam, 2009; Wong, 2020).

The significant and continuous flows of Chinese migrants after 1987 brought more
opportunities to ethnic businesses, especially supermarkets. Taiping is one of the most
popular Asian supermarkets. It started as a market in 1892 in Manning Street, the ‘Chinatown’
of Wellington. In the 1980s, Peter Chan inherited the family business and established the first
Taiping trading company. With the deregulation of import licenses and the emergence of new
waves of immigration, Taiping has quickly grown to become one of the primary
Asian/Chinese supermarket brands with branches across Auckland and the country, and even
overseas (Taiping, 2021). Now there are many more notable supermarkets such as Dahua,
Jadan, Lim Chhour, Mount Roskill Fresh Supermarket (also known as 万家福), and produce
markets, greengrocers, and wholesale food stores in Auckland. The Chinese communities
have upgraded the market gardening and fruit shop businesses to the next level of
supermarkets, and brought great convenience to Auckland households.

Restaurants

Chinese ethnic business around food and retailing has been thriving in the form of restaurants
and cafés, food courts in suburban shopping malls and independent food courts in the city
centre, day markets, night markets,21 and supermarkets and smaller shops in areas with larger
Asian populations (Friesen, 2015). After 1987, a significant feature that differentiates
Chinese (and other Asian countries) from others is that there are national, even sub-national
cuisines, and cross-national Asian cuisines. According to Friesen (2015), some cuisine
categories could have a great deal of regional diversification. For example, under the
category of ‘Chinese’, there could be cuisines from North China, Xi’an, Sichuan, Hunan,
Shanghai, Canton, and Taiwan. There is more than one single type and instead several

21
The first night market was established by a Chinese business woman in Pakuranga in 2010, and has now
expanded to Glenfield, Papatoetoe, Onehunga, Whangaparaoa, and Waitākere. Each night market operates one
night a week in a shopping mall parking lot.

103
regional specialisations. Chinese cuisines mix with other cuisine cultures in cafés under
hyphenated identities. This massive success of the ethnic cuisine business quickly diversified
the Chinese cuisine culture in Auckland and allowed Aucklanders to experience this part of
Chinese culture.

The history of Auckland Chinese scene is intertwined with the gradual spread of Chinese
communities across the city. According to Xue, Friesen & O’Sullivan (2011), there are five
Chinese ethnoburbs22 in Auckland: North (the North Shore), CBD, Central East, Central
West, and East (Manukau City). Besides the widespread Chinese ethnic businesses, such as
supermarkets and restaurants, the other heritage sites identified in this section are primarily
concentrated in the Auckland city centre (see Figure 4-8).

North Choice Plaza

44 Wakefield Street CBD

Grey’s Avenue Kong Foong Yuen

Dominion Road

Central West
East

Central East

Figure 4-8. The concentration on Auckland city centre by the identified Auckland
Chinese scene.

22According to Xue, Friesen & O’Sullivan (2011), ethnoburb is a mix of residential, economic, and cultural phenomenon. It
contains multiple ethnic communities, with one ethnic group showing significant concentration but not necessarily
occupying the majority. For example, the identified Chinese ethnoburbs contain 50% or more Chinese population above the
overall region-wide level while not constituting the predominant group (p. 580, 584, 586-587).

By ‘Chinese’, Xue, Friesen & O’Sullivan (2011) mean those who self-identify themselves as ethnic Chinese in 2006 New
Zealand census.

104
 Source: Author

4.4 Officially listed/scheduled Chinese heritage in New Zealand and Auckland

The only statutory national list - the New Zealand Heritage List maintained by HNZPT
identifies the most extensive number of Chinese heritage in the New Zealand heritage system.
Now according to the keyword ‘Chinese’ and the criterion of the significance of the Chinese
community to the place or area, there are 17 registered Chinese historic places and areas by
February 2022 (see Appendix 2). All registered Chinese heritage are located in the South
Island. Most are associated with the time of the 19th century and the Otago Region, and the
gold-mining history where Chinese communities thrived. Early in the 1980s, the Arrowtown
settlement (see Figure 4-9) and the Ah Lum’s Store (see Figure 4-8) were registered. In 2001,
the Chinese Sites Registration Project added five historic areas to the List. In 2003, eight sites
were added to make up for the shortcoming in the number of publicly recognized Chinese
places. The newly entered Ng King Brothers Chinese Market Garden Settlement (see Figure
4-10) is the only national registered heritage site of significance for Chinese heritage and
market gardening businesses in the South Island, while Sew Hoy building (see Figure 4-11) is
‘the last survivor … of a series of Chines stores and merchants that made it possible for
Chinese gold-seekers to maintain a substantially Chinese lifestyle in the remote southern
goldfields’ (Brosnahan, as cited in Baird, 2021b, p. 7). Contributions of early Chinese
communities have been almost exclusively focused on the goldfields, especially the Otago
goldfields in the South Island (see also Bader & Adamson, 2011).

105
Figure 4-9. Arrowtown Chinese Settlement.
Source: Author’s photograph, 2021

Figure 4-10. Ah Lum’s Store.

Source: Author’s photograph, 2021

106
 Figure 4-11. Ng King Brothers Chinese Market Garden Settlement in Ashburton.
Source: Author’s photograph, 2021

Figure 4-12. Sew Hoy building in Dunedin.

Source: Author’s photograph, 2021

There are few other scheduled Chinese heritage in district plans, including Auckland. At the
time of the research proposal, by March 2019, there was one Chinese associated heritage
building under the protection of heritage order in Schedule 14.1 of the 2018 Auckland

107
Unitary Plan Operative in part (AUP). It was once occupied by a Chinese merchant on Grey’s
Avenue, and was scheduled as category B and was listed in the heritage order No.7 subject to
notice of requirement. However, now it has been removed from heritage order in AUP. One
can only find it in the schedule of historic heritage, being significant as an 1885 commercial
building, without any identified information indicating its past with Thomas Doo & Co and
the Chinese fireworks business, and its importance in the once-existing Chinatown in the city
centre.

4.5 A hidden Chinese history

Chinese participation within New Zealand society has been hampered by prejudice, poll taxes,
immigration restrictions and other regulatory discrimination since 1860. It resulted in the
attitude of cautious engagement and keeping a low profile. Such cautiousness and quietness
are evident in the architecture and the use of architecture on Grey’s Avenue. After they took
over buildings that were designed and built to align with the dominant culture, they coded the
Chinese presence on the street in a ‘thin and quiet’ manner. Francis (2014, p. 83) states

The memory of Chinatown at the foot of Grey’s Avenue is a memory of

programme (eating, cooking, retailing) and the ephemeral effects of
programme (oriental aroma, the sizzling of the wok) but not of any
material, formal or spatial conditions of architecture that might be
considered Chinese.

Archaeologist Dr. Hans-Dieter Bader claims that the early Chinese migrants’ contribution to
New Zealand has been examined almost exclusively through the lens of the goldfields,
especially the Otago goldfields. The early Chinese migrants are a ‘silent minority’ in
Auckland. There are few historic sources that connect these marvellous hard-working
community members with the city (Bader & Adamson, 2011). Also, the recent Chinese
migrants have been mostly studied as ‘immigrants’ with their requirement being ‘immigrant
issues’, rather than as ‘Aucklanders’ and ‘Auckland issues’. Chinese communities have
contributed to New Zealand in many ways, and achieved so much in Auckland. However,
their heritage is strikingly underrepresented in the New Zealand heritage list and the
Auckland Unitary Plan.

108
5 Chapter 5. Chinese Cultural Heritage by Auckland
Chinese Communities

Chapter 5 is based on first-hand interview data from 2020 to 2021 with 48 participants (see
Appendix 4) who self-identified themselves as Chinese or partly Chinese, and were
descendants of people who paid the Chinese-only poll tax implemented in 1881 or migrants
who came from mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The diversity of participants is
shown in their basic information in terms of birthplace or significant living places before
moving to New Zealand (see Figure 5-1) and the length of residential time in New Zealand
(see Figure 5-2). Some were New Zealand-born in families that have been established for
generations, and very talkative about their culture shock towards recent Chinese migrants
after the 1980s. Some moved here with their parents and experienced strong cultural identity
conflict in their teenage years. Some came to Auckland as international students and have
now settled down. None of them was the same as another, but they all shared the Chinese
culture and heritage and incorporated that into their lives in Auckland and New Zealand.

Interview data with Auckland Chinese participants will be analysed in three aspects: firstly,
the variation and constant of heritage themes; secondly, the primary lenses by which
participants thought about Chinese cultural heritage; and thirdly, the meaning of Chinese
cultural heritage. At the end of the Chapter, a conception of Chinese cultural heritage will be
illustrated and discussed. As this research has a relatively small sample of participants from
Auckland Chinese communities, the research findings can only be interpreted as indicative
rather than representative.

109
 New Zealand Hong Kong
Taiwan Shanghai
Tianjin Henan province
Shandong province Sichuan province
Hubei province Guangdong province
Jiangsu province Hainan province
Beijing Yunnan province
Shanxi province Fujian province
Liaoning province Heilongjiang province
N/A

Figure 5-1. Birthplace/living place before moving to New Zealand (if applies).
Source: Interview data
Length of residence in New

N/A
40+ years
30-40 years
Zealand

20-30 years
10-20 years
5-10 years
3-5 years
0-3 years
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Number of participants

Figure 5-2. Length of residential time by participants in New Zealand.

Source: Interview data

5.1 The variation of Chinese heritage themes

There have been a great variety of heritage themes during interviews by Auckland Chinese
participants. Primary Chinese heritage themes can be divided into community events,
community lives, cultural places, artworks, and traditional Chinese cultural heritage. Among
those heritage themes, there were multiple topics. In each topic, different participants hold
different opinions regarding where they have lived or visited, the length of residential time in
New Zealand, and their personal interests.

110
5.1.1 Community events

The most frequently mentioned community events were the Chinese New Year and Lantern
Festival. However, participants from different regions held different opinions about how
these should be celebrated. Overall, most participants agreed on the significance of Chinese
festivals and the corresponding rituals.

Chinese New Year

Chinese New Year has been the most frequently mentioned event for its significance in
Chinese culture, popularity, and acceptance among Kiwis (see Figure 5-3). Almost all of the
interviewees had been to the Chinese New Year Festival & Market Day (年宵会，花市) held
by the ACCC. The Chinese New Year Festival & Market Day has a long history in Auckland.
Liang (2020) recalled her experience in the first session of Market Day. ‘The scale was very
small, but I was very delighted at that time. I took my child, my whole family there. When we
went there, all we saw were local Chinese, […] you see some ways they were celebrating
Chinese New Year, the decorations, lanterns, etc. It was not as varied as it is now, very
limited, but you feel it is the way of Kiwi Chinese in the early days.’ Now the Market Day
has been increasingly diversified. On the 2021 Market Day, there were a variety of food stalls,
Chinese groceries for the new year, different cultural clubs and associations, and singing and
dancing performances, etc. There are also other Chinese New Year events in Auckland. Kris
(2020) and Liang (2020) mentioned the celebration in Northcote Centre and the Trust Arena,
hosted by Best News Entertainment Ltd. (also known as the largest Chinese-language media
group in New Zealand) in Henderson.

In the meantime, almost all of the participants celebrate Chinese New Year at home by
mostly having family dinner. Liu (2020) added his memory of the 2020 Chinese New Year:

‘In the New Year’s Eve, I bought red paper (红纸) and Chinese writing
brush (毛笔) and wrote Chinese couplets (对联), and a few of Fu (福)
and Chun (春) and posted them at home, and then gave a couple of them
to my friends. We celebrated New Year’s Eve at my friend’s home. We
made dumplings, and a hearty meal, with some Chinese alcohol. That’s it,

111
 a little bit taste of Chinese New Year.’

Figure 5-3. 2021 Chinese New Year Festival & Market Day at ASB Showgrounds in
Auckland.
Source: Author’s photograph, 2021

Lantern Festival

The Lantern Festival is one of the most popular events among all people and cultures in
Auckland every year. Almost all interviewees mentioned it being an Auckland brand and a
remarkable annual event celebrating Chinese culture. Most interviewees have been to the
Lantern Festival with their families and found it a great family event (see Figure 5-4). Shen
(2020) has been going to the Lantern Festival since the first session in Albert Park in 2000.
There was no one watching the music performance and nothing special, because at that time,
Chinese culture and people were not so common. However, now in Domain Park, people can
barely walk. ‘So many people, so many cultural elements. I think there have been many
changes in the past 20 years.’ Zhu (2020) noted that the Auckland Lantern Festival is rare
globally because it has lasted for such a long time and due to the significant number of
attendees, around 100,000 people each year. Yao (2020) also thought that the Lantern
Festival is a most impressive and probably the biggest Chinese cultural event in the Southern
Hemisphere. No. 24 participant (2020) demonstrated the Lantern Festival experience by four
elements. First, food stores and community stores, and game stalls where people guess the
112
idiom (猜成语). Second, different clubs such as calligraphy, watercolour painting, etc. Third,
the performances with different cultural groups such as dancing and singing. Fourth,
fireworks that probably is the biggest fireworks display in Auckland. Zhu (2020) further
added the traditional Chinese shadow play, acrobatics, and Chinese folk music.

Most interviewees expressed that they were satisfied with their Lantern Festival experiences.
However, some were concerned that it was being constrained by perpetuating stereotypes. No.
10 participant (2020) commented that the Lantern Festival only did a general and superficial
introduction to Chinese culture and heritage. Similarly, a few expressed their expectation of a
deeper understanding of Chinese culture, rather than the oriental symbols of red, and
dumplings. Some activities such as calligraphy could be more engaging and modernized.

Figure 5-4. Auckland Lantern Festival.

Source: Author’s photograph, 2018

Festivals and rituals

Many interviewees mentioned the significance of traditional festivals. For example, Shen
(2020) believed that traditional Chinese festivals should be preserved, as well as their
historical significance and why people repeat certain rituals. The most frequently mentioned

113
festivals are Ching Ming day (also known as ‘All Souls Festival’) (Piper, 1988), Chong Yang
Festival (Double Ninth Festival), Mid-Autumn Festival (‘Moon Festival’), and Duan Wu
Festival (Dragon Boat Festival). As a fourth generation of early sojourners, Lowe (2020) and
his family go to the cemetery for Ching Ming and Chong Yang. ‘The whole family goes
twice a year to the cemetery, and we bring all the food, […] and the money and all sort of
things. […] 纸钱 money for dead people’. Lowe (2020) also mentioned the once-existing
dragon boat racing during Duan Wu Festival in Auckland. However, it has disappeared from
Auckland, as no one has tried to organise it. ‘Probably you need somebody to at least drive it,
and it will be time-consuming, with little reward basically,’ Lowe (2020) explained.
Furthermore, No. 21 participant (2020) noted costumes and rituals and the particular place
design in the authentic celebration of some traditional Chinese festivals. Similar to food
culture, festivals are another part of cultural heritage that many interviewees communicate to
people from other cultural backgrounds. Kris (2020) thought that Chinese festivals could
show the profound nature of Chinese heritage and let people know why the Chinese eat
certain food and do certain things in particular festivals.

5.1.2 Community lives

The theme of community lives encompasses food culture, including cuisines, food menu,
restaurants’ design and atmosphere, and Chinese associations. Due to that, the long-
established Chinese communities are mainly the descendants of early sojourners from Canton;
now Cantonese food, especially Yum Cha remains the most popular and established New
Zealand Chinese food. In the early days, the Chinese New Zealanders relied much on ethnic
grouping. Thus, the history of Chinese associations is as long as the history of Chinese people
in New Zealand. After 1987, the food culture and the number and variety of Chinese
associations have been greatly diversified by the significant inflows of recent migrants from
Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China.

Cuisines

Almost all interviewees talked about their cultural food as part of their Chinese cultural
heritage. They also believed it should be the easiest way to communicate their heritage with

114
people from other cultural backgrounds. Before the 1980s, almost all Kiwi Chinese were
originally from Canton. Yum Cha is the most common cuisine. Their fantastic home cooking
is evident in the book Por Pors cookbook by Carolyn King and massive dim sums served
during the formal occasions at Mangere Hall. Since the 1980s, the quantity and diversity of
Chinese restaurants increased rapidly. However, the food culture has always been one of
Chinese families’ most practised and accepted traditions. The food culture and heritage play a
daily role in almost all interviewees’ lives, no matter how long they have been settled and
whomever they live with.

Although most interviewees agreed on the popularity of Chinese food in Auckland, some
pointed out that biases toward Chinese food and that Chinese food culture should be better
presented to the public. For example, Chinese food at Lantern Festival should be better
represented instead of just fast food. Yao (2020) said that ‘it’s okay you can eat it, but if you
say this is a particular culture that was wrong, right?’

Food menu

A Chinese menu is derived from traditional food’s culture and is another significant
component of Chinese heritage. Although the recipes have changed, the names of the dishes
have remained. A Chinese menu bears not only food culture but literature art that poetically
describes a meal or dish. There is a variety of menus and names across different food origins.
The menu is associated with sub-Chinese culture and diet traditions. It particularly enables
the distinctiveness and diversity of Chinese food culture.

Restaurants

A few interviewees have particularly mentioned Chinese restaurants’ atmosphere and interior
design. No. 42 participant (2021) identified features that evoke memories of restaurants in
their homeland, such as the smells, paintwork and colours, Chinese signage, and even the
tactile sensation of sticky floors. Zhu (2021) particularly thought of the Britomart area in
Auckland. There are Xuxu dumpling bar, Ghost Street, etc., whose interior designs are much
Chinese culture-inspired. These Chinese-inspired restaurants are significant for their

115
aesthetics, inspired by elements of Chinese arts and cultural language but were made
contemporary. Tai (2021), who designed the interior building of Xuxu dumpling bar and
Ghost Street, explained that his idea was an accumulation of memories. ‘I think this might be
the closest to the most authentic Chinese restaurant to me. As long as it is part of your
memory, you can present it.’

Chinese associations

Cheung (2020) explicitly confirmed the significance of Chinese associations and thought of
them as intangible supports Chinese cultural heritage. Similarly, No. 24 participant (2020)
said that the best thing they have was the variety of Chinese and Asian societies. Chinese
associations have existed in New Zealand for over 100 years. The first Chinese association
was established in 1909 to help the Chinese community organise its affairs and the training
courses in Chinese and English. Later in 1934, many Chinese organisations formed based on
members’ ancestral areas of origin in China at the time united and established the New
Zealand Chinese Association (NZCA). As Luen (2007) observes, most Chinese families
participated in regional associations of NZCA, such as the Auckland Chinese Association and
the Gisborne Chinese Association. These Chinese associations act as ‘a forum’ where ‘the
regional Chinese community could meet and exchange news, address issues, work together to
solve issues, and provide a sense of belonging’ (p. 9). However, some wished to join but had
no chance in their local area. They were then left on their own, which led to further erosion of
their Chinese identity. Now the Auckland Chinese Community Centre (ACCC) is one of the
longest and remains the most popular Chinese association among the established Chinese
community. In the meantime, due to the constant flows of migrants after the 1980s, there
have been many more Chinese associations established. Liang (2020) recalled that there were
around 200 associations when she was in BNE. Two years later, by 2020, there were
probably nearly 300.

The ACCC started from the State Theatre Building in Symonds Street in the mid-fifties
(Boileau, 2021). As Wong (2020) recalled, young Chinese dance and played basketball there.
During other times, the building was rented out for movies to collect money. Lowe (2020)
added that the theatre also provided Cantonese language lessons. Later on, the ACCC sold the

116
building and successfully raised funds to build the Mangere Hall at 99 Taylor Road in 1975.
According to Wong (2020), the Mangere Hall was built to keep young local-born Chinese
together. Now the ACCC holds basketball tournaments, Chinese National Day, Children’s &
Cultural Day, etc., every year, and holds other social events every week, such as playing
Mahjong and Tai Chi, eating Yum Cha, etc. Also, the ACCC has Mandarin classes for
children and adults, and their own library of Chinese and English books, and they are
involved in setting up the Lantern Festival. Lowe (2020) appreciated the significance of the
ACCC, saying that ‘I think the ACCC is trying hard to, to preserve some of those histories.’

Migrants after the 1980s tended to form organisations and associations for many more
different purposes and reasons such as kinship, business, culture, religion etc. For example,
the researcher reached out to the Epsom Chinese Association (ECA), the Daren Life Society
Inc. (大仁生活会), the NZ Sinology Poetry Art Association (NZ 国学诗词艺术协会). A few
interviewees agreed that the Chinese communities have become diversified and more
complicated. They cannot be forced into one single united association, because they are
different. Among the variety of Chinese associations, Cheung (2020) observed that fellow-
provincials’ reunions last longer, as ‘It is rare to see fellow-provincials reunions split’, and
there are always more and frequent attendances coming.

Chinese associations have played a significant role in migrant history. Such a network
supports migrants’ lives through the discrimination history, the more recent feeling of being
excluded from the community, the helplessness of being new in Auckland, etc. However,
many Chinese associations are maintained in poor conditions regarding funding and the
number of attendees, particularly those long-established associations. Cheung (2020) said
‘They still need to exist, but how they survive is also a problem. Because the younger
generation will not go, […] and it is expensive to maintain a place. The conditions of all
Chinese associations are not good.’

5.1.3 Cultural places

The theme of cultural places includes the Fo Guang Shan Buddhist Temple in Auckland, and
Chinese gardens in other cities of New Zealand. These became Chinese cultural heritage not

117
only for the architectural merits within the building, but also for the meaning attached to the
place and the events and activities Chinese communities held over there.

Fo Guang Shan Buddhist Temple

Being the largest Buddhist temple in New Zealand, Fo Guang Shan Buddhist Temple is
located in Auckland’s suburb East Tamaki/Flat Bush. Opened in late 2007, the mission of the
temple is to promote Humanistic Buddhism to both Buddhists and non-Buddhists. The
building was designed in the architectural style of the Tang Dynasty. Now, it has been active
as both a temple and a community centre (see Figure 5-5).

Fo Guang Shan temple was widely considered the most tangible form of Chinese heritage
during interviews. Some appreciated its architectural design. For example, Chen (2020) said,
‘It is the most landmark building, there is no more landmark than it.’ No. 24 participant (2020)
agreed, ‘That’s probably the best example in Auckland, it’s the most significant, it's the most
beautiful place.’ The majority mentioned its cultural significance for welcoming all people.
Every year, Fo Guang Shan provides many activities, such as the youth program teaching
Chinese culture, Chinese New Year events, lion dancing, exhibitions, a vegetarian festival,
performances, Chinese language classes etc. No. 24 participant (2020) highlighted that ‘it’s
about building bridges and building connections based on trust and love and compassion and
understanding.’ Moreover, it is a cultural place not based on economics.

118
 Figure 5-5. Chinese New Year Celebration at Fo Guang Shan Buddhist Temple in
Auckland.
Source: Author’s photograph, 2021

Chinese garden

Chinese gardens have been a particular cultural symbol worldwide. Many interviewees
shared their experience in Chinese gardens, such as Lan Yuan in Dunedin (see Figure 5-6),
the Scholar Garden in Hamilton, etc. Some talked about the proposals for a Chinese garden in
Auckland and their expectation, while a few doubted if it is necessary as ‘You can’t build a
heritage’ (Lian, 2020). Also, some complained that all Chinese gardens are symbolized by
red columns, a stream, and a bridge. Similarly, during Lan Yuan visit, the researcher was
confused about how a garden looking like the Master of Nets Garden (Wangshi Yuan 网师园)

in Suzhou, Jiangsu province, could meet the intention of creating ‘a fitting, permanent,
recognition of the Chinese people who first came to Otago during the 1860s gold rush and
stayed to establish some of the city’s businesses’ from Guangdong Province of southern
China. Generally, there are three major schools of Chinese garden: The school of Royal
Garden (Huangjia Yuanlin) in northern China, the school of Suzhou Classical Garden in
eastern China, and the school of Lingnan Garden in southern China. Guangzhou province is
prominently famous for Lingnan Gardens. However, the Master of Nets Garden was chosen

119
as the prototype, and it is now the most popular Chinese garden and tangible heritage among
many participants during our interviews.

According to Wang (2020), although architectures in Chinese garden deliver a direct feeling
of beauty, the garden is meant to pursue a deeper spiritual improvement, which can break the
superficial beauty of all these appearances. ‘It’s like I don’t need those [architectures and
structures], I’m spiritually lifted straight up. Then you will have eyes being good at
discovering beauty, you can see beauty everywhere. [..]Chinese garden is in pursuit of this
spiritual sublimation.’ Basically, there are two types of beauty. One is the beauty of the
architecture and the garden itself. Chung (2005a) explains that Chinese architecture is replete
with metaphysical meanings and ruled by these in the changing spaces of a series of grouped
buildings centred on courtyards, and the organic relationship between architecture and its
surrounding nature. The other beauty by Wang (2020) is the tourist’s spirit, knowing how to
appreciate the architecture and garden. When one gains a spiritual boost, the garden fulfils its
purpose. Therefore, although many Chinese gardens are famous for their architectural and
spatial design, they should be culturally significant too. Without a profound intention or
purpose, a Chinese garden could be considered no different from a tourist attraction.

Figure 5-6. Lan Yuan in Dunedin.

Source: Author’s photograph, 2021

120
5.1.4 Artworks

The theme of artworks encompasses cultural activities in which participants perceived the
sense of Chinese cultural heritage or reflected on their cultural identity, and achievements
through which Chinese New Zealanders present their understanding of Chinese culture and
heritage. There are exhibitions about Chinese culture and heritage, films about New Zealand
Chinese people, the sculpture Millennium Tree by Guy Ngan, and the architecture Brake
house by Ron Sang (also the designer of Choice Plaza).

Exhibitions

Some interviewees have mentioned a few cultural and migration exhibitions. No. 24
participant (2020) shared the best example of Chinese culture - the photographic exhibition
‘being Chinese in Aotearoa’ at the Auckland War Memorial Museum between 2017 and 2018.
The exhibition celebrated 175 years of Chinese life in New Zealand. The exhibition showed
all the people in New Zealand since the very beginning and the role they have played. ‘It
wasn’t just a celebration of just early immigrants, but the diversity of our people who've
contributed, sport stars, comedians, riders, news reporters, all the people, all the Chinese
people that called New Zealand their homes and have contributed to this place.’ Similarly,
Zhu (2021) recalled her experience of the terracotta warrior exhibition from Xi’an at
Auckland Art Gallery in 2003. It was the first time that Chinese culture and heritage have
been dedicated part of the gallery space in her memory. Boileau (2021) mentioned the display
of a small reproduction of Wah Lee’s store at the Tāmaki Herenga Waka: Stories of
Auckland exhibition in the Auckland War Memorial Museum in 2021. Moreover, having
conducted massive Chinese migrant research in Australia and New Zealand, Boileau (2021)
and Parslow (2021) who recalled the excavation of Carlaw Park and engagement with the
associated Chinese descendants and families, both expressed the strong expectation of
travelling exhibitions of Chinese artefacts in the country, which is currently absent.

Films

During the interview with Zhu (2021), the researcher found a great variety of Chinese
heritage re-creation in the art world, such as films, dramas, sculptures, architecture, etc.
121
Though these are not necessarily as authentic as those in Asia, they represent what
generations of Chinese communities have contributed to New Zealand and Auckland. There
is one section in the New Zealand Film Commission, particularly on Chinese content. There
are various short films about New Zealand Chinese’s lives and identity struggling. In the NZ
On Screen, there is one collection encompassing TV shows, films, music videos, and
interviews of Chinese communities in New Zealand at different times.

The Millennium Tree by Guy Ngan

The Millennium Tree is a modernized sculpture constructed of stainless steel. This artwork is
inspired by the golden cudgel of the Monkey King in The Journey to the West, one of the
Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese literature. It was first proposed in 1999 as a gift from
Chinese New Zealanders to Auckland and eventually sits next to the Winter Gardens in the
Domain Park in 2005. This piece of public art was meant to celebrate the contributions the
Chinese communities have made to New Zealand since the 1860s (Orsman & Kiong, 2005).

Brake house by Ron Sang

Zhu (2021) introduced Ron Sang as one of the most well-known and respected Chinese
architects in Auckland, and in New Zealand. Brake house, one of the most famous residential
architecture by Ron Sang in 1976, means Chinese heritage to Zhu (2021). ‘Because it’s a
Chinese architect who is inspired by Asian culture, designing and making
monumental/historically important artworks.’ Now the previous owners have listed the mid-
century Brake House on the Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage in Auckland
Unitary Plan, under Category A* for historical, social, physical attributes, and context values.

5.1.5 Traditional Chinese cultural heritage

Many participants also mentioned the traditional Chinese cultural heritage they would like to
pass on to future generations. They were concerned that their cultural heritage is being
diluted in the younger generation. For example, No. 4 participant (2020) commented that ‘we
need something here for the young Chinese people to identify with, so they can say this is
part of my background that I can be proud of. And you can't say because of yellow.’ There is

122
a strong necessity to inherit traditional Chinese cultural heritage in New Zealand Chinese
communities. Participants have identified three primary aspects: language, Chinese literature,
and Chinese arts.

Language

Language has been the most practised and passed-on cultural heritage, no matter among the
local-born or first generations. They believed language should be the key that leads their
children or grandchildren to be interested in Chinese cultural heritage on their own. Some
locally-born interviewees sent their grandchildren to Mandarin classes or watched Chinese
TV shows with them at home. Most first-generation interviewees persisted in speaking
Mandarin, Cantonese, or their dialects at home. Most of them did not want to force the next
generation to be either more Chinese or more Kiwi but felt obliged to provide a multi-
language environment at home. No. 10 participant (2020) explained that ‘Only when they
know the language, then you can provide with the opportunity to let them experience the
authentic [Chinese culture]. […] When you learn a language, you learn their way of thinking.
[…] Language is incomparable.’ No. 42 participant (2021) pointed out that language has the
strength to unlock lots of cultural heritage. If Chinese New Zealanders do not have the
Chinese language anymore, they will lose a huge part of their cultural heritage.

Cantonese and Mandarin are the most common languages among Chinese families, while
some speak other dialects. Despite the efforts of parents, these languages are mostly
becoming lost through generations. English has become the dominant and most shared
language among the younger generation. No. 3 participant (2020) sadly said

‘Subsequently and unfortunately, in the following generations, many

could not speak the Chinese (Cantonese) language. Many of the Chinese
communities in Auckland wanted to preserve the Chinese language in the
next younger generation by organising Chinese language classes for
children and also adult classes.’

Learning Chinese languages is hard and challenging for English speakers. It demands lengthy
and intensive memorisation because there is no phonetic correspondence between the
monosyllabic sound and the ideogramic character. Thus, learning oral Chinese and written

123
Chinese means learning at least two languages (Yuan, 2001). Many interviewees only
required their children or grandchildren to understand oral Chinese, as Chinese languages are
completely foreign to locally-born Kiwi Chinese.

Language also plays a significant role for first-generation Chinese citizens. For example,
Chen (2020) talked about her reversal of culture shock, ‘You can never get rid of the
influence of the mother tongue, no matter how many years you let it sleep, like [my Chinese
language] has been asleep for 10 or 20 years. At a certain moment, it just jumps out of my
mind.’ Many interviewees still use Chinese to read classics and literature and write poetry as
their interest. For example, Gee (2020) established the NZ Sinology Poetry Art Association
(NZ 国学诗词艺术协会), with hundreds of members posting their Chinese poetries every
day. Gee (2020) has been promoting Chinese poetry and the traditional singing and reading
of poetry in Auckland for years. Chen (2020) joined the New Zealand Chinese Writers
Association. She collected and read Chinese Buddhist texts, and wrote many Chinese poems
on social media. Some interviewees have particularly highlighted the significance of Chinese
characters. Zhang (2020b) pointed out that ‘Chinese characters are the only remaining ancient
writing system. They are not only the main characters in the development of oriental cultures
but also the characters with the longest history, the most scientific information, and is the
most widely used.’ Similarly, Liu (2020) believed that Chinese characters have been inherited
for centuries and thus should be helpful to uncover Chinese history.

Chinese literature

Many interviewees have considered a range of Chinese literature to pass on. Most have
suggested the Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese literature (including The Romance of
the Three Kingdoms 三国演义, Water Margin 水浒传, The Journey to the West 西游记, A
Dream of Red Mansions 红楼梦), Chinese classical mythology, idioms and allusions
(Chengyu 成语), the Four Books (the Great Learning 大学, the Doctrine of the Mean 中庸,
the Analects of Confucius 论语, Mencius 孟子) and the Five Classics (the Book of Songs 诗
经, the Book of History 书经, the Book of Changes 易经, the Book of Rites 礼经, the Spring
and Autumn Annals 春秋), Tang poetry and Song poetry, and other classics. They believed

124
this literature tells the most precious wisdom from the basis of 5,000 years of Chinese history.
Shen (2020) pointed out the importance of Chinese classical mythology and idioms and
allusions (Chengyu 成语).

‘Because China has a long history. Many things have happened. So many
literatures have described what have happened at different times. I can
compare those with what is happening now. How did we deal with this
kind of thing happened in China at that time, and how are we doing now?’

Similarly, Chen (2020) explained the significance of universal value embedded in classical
literature. ‘After thousands of years of evolution, our culture has grown like a tree, and we
have been far away from the roots. Now we need to go back to our root of traditional culture.’

Chinese arts

Many interviewees have mentioned a variety of traditional Chinese arts, such as Chinese
watercolour painting, calligraphy, instruments such as Erhu, Guqin, traditional Chinese
medicine and its philosophy. In traditional Chinese culture, art does not aim at the realistic
expression of an object, but instead the presence of the spiritual message behind the
materiality (Chung, 2005a). For example, the outstanding Chinese painter Ku K’ai-Chih (AD
344-406) declared that the purpose of painting was ‘to portray the spirit through the form’.
This opinion was supported by Guo (2020) and Lin (2020).

Most Chinese participants thought the best way to sustain this heritage is to let people
experience and practice. For example, Wang (2020) highlighted that ‘I think you have to
experience […] You have to eat, and whether it’s Guqin, Chinese chess, calligraphy, Chinese
watercolour painting, or Teaism, incense ritual, or Kung fu, we have to experience it, then we
could understand more.’ Likewise, Liang (2020) shared that when she appreciated traditional
Chinese watercolour paintings, she felt connected. ‘It seems like a link to me. I don’t need to
travel but I’m already there, connecting with my heritage.’ Such a connection between arts
and cultural heritage is supported by the report Asian Aucklanders and the arts: Attitudes,
attendance and participation in 2014, ‘for Asian people living in Auckland there is a strong
relationship between the arts, and culture and heritage’ (p. 12). The relationship manifests

125
itself in maintaining a connection with their distinctive culture and heritage, sharing culture
and heritage with Kiwis and learning about other cultures, and passing on cultural heritage
and values to the next generation.

5.2 The constant of Chinese heritage themes

Although there is a wide variation of heritage themes in terms of community events,

community lives, cultural places, artworks, and traditional Chinese cultural heritage, the
constant of Chinese cultural heritage has also been identified in the themes of philosophy and
cultural values.

5.2.1 Philosophy

Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism

Many interviewees emphasised that Chinese cultural heritage is much more than food and
events. No. 24 participant (2020) said that ‘food is a great medium to bring people together.
But I think we can do more to celebrate […] our cultures. Chinese people are not just Chinese
food.’ Similarly, Yao (2020) argued that Chinese culture is not what it seems in the Lantern
Festival or temples, not just dumplings or Spring couplets. It is a culture of philosophy that
unites all different Chinese. ‘It’s already in the blood of the Chinese people. […] It is the
power which brings Chinese together. This is THE Chinese culture. […] It’s hard to talk but
it has been preserved in every Chinese family.’ Cheung (2020) noted that

‘Our cultural heritage is a combination of Confucianism, Buddhism and

Taoism. These philosophies shaped our past. When our traditional
philosophies made contact with western values, religions, and
philosophies, there were conflicts. Those conflicts are now being
resolved and morphed into values that can be applied in our present lives.
In the future, I believe Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism will still
play significant roles in the Chinese community’.

Chen (2020) supported that the spirit of Chinese culture is inseparable from Confucianism,
Buddhism, and Taoism (儒释道). ‘The inheritance of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism

126
throughout New Zealand is flourishing. Taiwanese people have done a lot. For example,
Yiguandao (also known as I-Kuan Tao) is everywhere, and there is Fo Guang Shan.’

Yi Ching

Many interviewees mentioned Yi Ching as the core of their Chinese heritage. According to
Zhang (2020b), Yi Ching is the first of all Chinese classics. It covers the laws of change at
various levels, such as natural science, humanistic thought, social economy, and even politics
and military affairs. It is also the earliest book in China that is systematic and can explain the
interaction between humans and nature. Zhang (2020b) believes Yi Ching is the
crystallisation of the wisdom of 5,000 years of ancient Chinese people. It is the fundamental
ideological source of all Chinese people.

Yi means change. There is another saying that Yi means tolerance of heaven, earth, and
everything. The starting image of Yi is the tai chi symbol. In the tai chi symbol, Qian (乾)
represents Yang; Kun (坤) represents Yin. Two dots in opposite colours exist in each current,
which means yin and yang are not complete without the other. Once Qian and Kun start to
rotate, it runs from unbalanced to balanced, from mutual growth and declines to
neutralisation, in the process of continuous circulation and continuous reconstruction. When
yin and yang are combined, oneness is achieved, which is Tao – ‘a harmonious mode of
existence as well as the ultimate truth’ (Hwangbo, 2002, p. 114; Needham, 1956, p. 174). The
theory of yin/yang states that all phenomena in the universe result from endless interaction
between yin and yang, the two opposing cosmic currents. Literally, ‘yin’ means shade and
‘yang’ means light. Yin tends to symbolize earth, woman, dark, passive, while yang tends to
symbolize heaven, man, bright, active. Different from the simple idea of dualism, the yin-
yang theory sees the opposite as complementary (Willmott, 2009). Yin and yang manage a
dynamic balance while changing and evolving interconvertibly.

There are two key ideas derived from the yin yang philosophy. Firstly, according to Zhang
(2020b) and his publications, the multi-harmonious sentient world is born from the mutually
beneficial relationship between yin and Yang. This is the fundamental spirit of the laws of Yi

127
– endless life (生生不息). It supports the true meaning of Yi that ‘die and yet does not perish’.
Secondly, Dam (2021) interprets the coexisting relation between yin and yang as socializing
norms. ‘Everything is a relationship. Nothing can exist by itself, but always comes into being
in relation to something else. And that requires us to be ethically responsible to something
else. Because without them, we wouldn't be a brother, a husband, a teacher, a student. All of
these identities are only possible because of something else.’

Yi is the key to going from the relative world to the absolute world, with multiple laws
reduced to one single law. This is the ideal realm of Confucianism's central idea of harmony
between humans and nature. The unity of humans and nature is the central axis of Chinese
thought. All humanism and the law of nature cannot violate this law. For example, both
Wang (2020) and Chen (2020) believed that the core of Chinese culture is the unity of
humans and nature. No. 15 participant (2020) explained that ‘You have to follow the nature.
There are four seasons of spring, summer, autumn and winter. Then you should do what you
are supposed to do in each season, such as avoiding out-of-season vegetables and fruits. If
you stay up during night and sleep in the daytime, it is the most harmful to the health of the
body.’

Yi’s philosophy of the doctrine of the mean (also known as Zhongyong, 中庸) to neutrality is
the most mentioned Chinese philosophy by interviewees. The reason why Yi can be used is
the theoretical basis of the balance of the five elements (五行). This is also the core idea of
the Confucian doctrine of the mean. Even Chinese traditional medicine cannot do without it.
The neutrality by ancient Chinese sages means a kind of reconciliation, a kind of balance.
Zhong (中) means the right time, harmony and equality, compatibility and respect; it is not
extreme and not about right and wrong. Zhong only seeks perfect harmony. The ancient sages
applied this Five Elements Middle Way (五行中道) to their social relationships, such as with
authority, parents, partners, and in the virtues of humanity, righteousness, propriety, wisdom
and fidelity. The doctrine of the mean, Zhong (中), the Five Elements Middle Way all show
the pursuit of pacifism and help explain the social culture of many Chinese. No. 8 participant
(2020) appreciated the socialising wisdom from the doctrine of the mean. ‘It makes your life,

128
including the people around you, become better, more comfortable and harmonious, no
matter where you live.’ Yi Ching has been the thinking tool for Wang (2020). ‘We never
think how good we are, nor how bad we are. Because we are in the middle, constantly trying
to find the midpoint. […] Moreover, we have also continuously developed a concept called
advancing with the times, which in Yi Ching is called walking with the times.’

5.2.2 Cultural values

Family and moral values

The importance of family was mentioned frequently. Also, it is the central place where
parents could pass on their culture and heritage to the younger generations. Liang (2020)
detailed that family, especially the Chinese ethics, such as dad loves son, son filial to father,
elder brother loves little brother, little brother respects elder brother (父慈子孝兄友弟恭),
were the heritage that she is very persistent about. Similarly, Liu (2020) mentioned the
significance of family and surname to not forget the root of Chinese and Chinese ethnicity.
Back in history, Zhang (2020b) explained that

‘Since ancient times, Chinese have been closely related to their families.
So, they attach great importance to the ethics of family. This is how they
build ethnicity. […] It changed later. [Because] the society gradually
became more complicated and changed. However, if you are looking for
the root of this thinking, what do Chinese people worship first? You see,
sincerely improve upon yourself first, then manage your family, then
govern your state; that is the only way to bring justice and virtue to the
world (正心诚意修身齐家治国平天下).’

Furthermore, the family has been the main place where the Chinese learn and practice their
ethical and moral values. Many locally-born interviewees have shared their traditional family
values, such as helping parents at home, respecting the elders, taking care of parents and
grandparents, wearing something red at their weddings, giving and receiving red packets
between family members during Chinese New Year. Outside of the family, not much can be
done to promote traditional moral values. No. 4 participant (2020) complained that these are
very diluted.

129
In the meantime, the family environment usually does not exclude non-Chinese cultures and
identities. A few interviewees from the younger generation have shown multiple interests in
their cultural identities and cultural heritage tastes. For example, No. 42 participant (2021)
said that ‘a part of my cultural heritage is that I am of Chinese descendant, Chinese culture,
being raised in a Chinese way, and the Chinese language. So, all of those things form part of
my cultural heritage. But then also, I'm also very Kiwi, because I was born here. I grew up in
local schools around by the Kiwi way of life. And so, I bridged both.’ Similarly, Dam (2021)
showed great interest in Māori heritage and shared a unique perspective reflecting Māori and
Chinese moral values.

New Zealand Chinese scholars have promoted the appreciation of Chinese cultural values.
For example, Luen (2007) claims that the influences of Chinese cultural values take many
shapes and manifest in such situations as formal schooling, social interactions, political
organisations, and commercial connections, and could play a varyingly important role in
one’s different stages of life, from childhood to older age. Likewise, Willmott (2009)
introduced that ‘Philosophically, the Confucian ethics of respect for age and authority, of
family loyalty, of education, of hard work, and of the importance of tolerance – all are
admirable aspects of Chinese culture from which New Zealand could benefit’ (p. 35).

Early migrants’ contribution to New Zealand

The long-established Chinese community and their contributions have been another
significant part of their heritage to future generations. Cheung (2020) highlighted, ‘the older
Chinese folks serve as the link between past and present. […] Their contribution to NZ
society should be remembered and preserved’. However, their lives and roles in this city have
not been well documented nor appreciated by mainstream society or recent migrants. Liang
(2020) questioned that ‘we all talk about that Chinese in New Zealand over 170 years ago,
but do you know what they did here? Oh, well, they did gold-digging in the South Island, and
this is the rough idea. Nevertheless, what the Chinese in Auckland were doing?’ She further
added that

‘There were many many Chinese people settled down in Auckland in the

130
 early days. They set a very substantial economic foundation, such as the
supermarket Foodtown or the supply of vegetables. […] I think when it
comes to New Zealand Chinese, we have a big gap with them. […] We
are New Zealand Chinese; we need to know New Zealand Chinese
history. […] The Grey’s Avenue, and the market garden in Carlaw Park,
many traces of Chinese history were demolished. We have to go to
libraries to find these histories, but when we walk in those places, we
don’t see any [landmark]. […] just a picture or a brief intro, but for
Chinese and the places where they have stayed, there is no such thing.’

Indeed, during our interviews with people who arrived in New Zealand after the 1980s, few
interviewees knew about the long-established Chinese community and their ancestors in
Auckland, let alone their contributions. Also, not many heritage professionals knew about
Chinese history in Auckland unless they were involved, such as in archaeological excavation
in Carlaw Park or historical research. At the same time, descendants of the early Chinese
communities brought forward massive contributions not just in market gardening, fruit shops,
laundries, but also to the local economy, food industry, architecture, art collection,
filmmaking. Apparently, there is a huge gap in between what early Chinese communities
have contributed to Auckland and how much the society has acknowledged that contribution.
No. 4 participant (2020) noted that

‘It’s nice to have a little tablet somewhere in Mangere [the Mangere Hall]
here with all the Chinese farmers, market gardeners that have worked in
land and in […] another tablet for other things like socialising like second
generation of market gardeners like myself so that their history won’t be
forgotten. […] they were a significant part in Auckland, and the fruit
shop, … they had made a big contribution too.’

Wang (2021b) agreed that ‘Old immigrants are memories. Auckland is incomplete without
them.’

5.3 The dual lenses of time and space in viewing heritage

The interview data from Auckland Chinese participants indicated the dual lenses of time and
space in viewing Chinese cultural heritage. From the lens of time, there were three
dimensions of past, present, and future. From the lens of space, there were two dimensions of
heritage in mind and heritage on land. Chinese participants applied the dual lenses of time

131
and space to explain and interpret Chinese cultural heritage in their minds. Therefore, there
were multiple divergences in understanding Chinese cultural heritage (see Table 5-1).
Although some divergences seem incompatible, they were not necessarily against each other.
All the divergences contribute to the distinctiveness and uniqueness of Chinese cultural
heritage among Auckland Chinese participants.

Table 5-1. Divergences in understanding Chinese cultural heritage from the dual lenses
of time and space.

Heritage in mind Heritage on land

Past Homeland Home

Present Us Them

Future Authenticity Re-creation

Source: Author

5.3.1 Homeland and home

Most Chinese participants attached their heritage to Auckland for it being the home. They
have learnt their Chinese cultural heritage from parents or grandparents and practiced those at
home. Meanwhile, they also acknowledged the indigenous Māori culture and other those that
emerged in New Zealand. The Chinese communities’ heritage mixed and became diversified
not just among Chinese people but also through broader cross-cultural interactions.

In the meantime, some participants would also like to refer to their past in the homeland. It
did not necessarily happen to first-generation migrants but also among some long-established
communities. Nostalgia and a strong sense of Chinese culture emerged when they recalled
memories of their homeland. Even though some locally-born Kiwi Chinese have never lived
where their ancestors were born, they can still feel connected when they return to their
homeland on short trips. For example, Dam (2021) shared that ‘even though we may be
generations removed from that place, but still having the connection to that place.’ Homeland
was about their roots. It recalled pieces of memories about what they had learnt about
Chinese from parents and where their ancestors came from. No. 24 participant (2020) pointed

132
out that New Zealand Chinese cultural heritage should be able to reconnect the Chinese
communities with the historical path and the cultural path of their ancestors.

5.3.2 Us and them

Although most Chinese participants saw themselves as New Zealand Chinese or Chinese
New Zealanders, and took Auckland as home, they were still concerned if they should and
how they could introduce their Chineseness to other cultures. Many participants were
concerned that firstly, if their Chineseness and heritage play a part in the heritage of
Auckland; secondly, if the whole society would understand and accept their heritage without
bias; thirdly, if such interaction would cause any adverse effect on all Chinese communities.
Therefore, apart from those participants with rich experience in cross-cultural art exchange,
such as Guo (2020), Lin (2020), No. 20 participant (2020), and Zhang (2020b), very few
Chinese participants have had cross-cultural communicating experience. On the one side,
they were proud of their Chinese cultural heritage deeply in mind. On the other side, they
preferred to preserve that only among themselves. When talking about introducing Chinese
culture and heritage to other peoples, there was a strong divergence between us and them.

For most Chinese participants, ‘them’ meant the mainstream society and the colonial heritage.
While many participants strongly agreed on the significance of Chinese heritage, they were
not sure if this should and could be represented in the Auckland context. For example, despite
almost every Chinese participant’s emphasis on being a good Chinese and striving to be a
model citizen, strong cultural and racial prejudice against the Chinese communities persists.
Chinese heritage has been overly associated with opium dens and low classes, and all kinds
of disliked histories and impressions.

5.3.3 Authenticity and re-creation

Considering the future of Chinese cultural heritage in New Zealand, there were two different
voices on how to preserve it. Firstly, a few participants, especially first-generation and those
with long-term experience in traditional Chinese cultural heritage such as watercolour

133
painting, calligraphy, and Teaism, prioritized authenticity. Also, authenticity was one of their
key criteria when assessing which places or sites in Auckland are valid Chinese heritage.

Secondly, participants, particularly those locally-born participants and architects, believed

that New Zealand’s Chinese heritage should be distinctive and unique and therefore re-
created in the local context. For example, Zhu (2021) highlighted architect Ron Sang’s
contribution to the collaboration between cultural heritage and multiculturalism in his work.
‘It’s a fine example of someone who is of Chinese descent, who is influenced by Asian
thinking and aesthetics, and has created something that is of cultural importance, because it's,
it's one of those very few. And just because it doesn't look like […] red lanterns, doesn't mean
that it doesn't deserve an appreciation.’ Many participants thought New Zealand’s Chinese
heritage was not necessarily the same concept as other countries. It should be localized and
take into account other people. Zhu (2021) thought that New Zealand Chinese cultural
heritage does not have to stick to the same as in China. The real face of it has grown and
changed in Auckland. In addition, some Chinese participants believed that Chinese cultural
heritage should be able to evolve itself. For example, Chen (2020) posited that Chinese
culture must crash different cultures to reveal its most superior values. Wang (2020)
particularly criticized the poles of pure Chinese thought or pure assimilation without
Chineseness. Chinese culture and its heritage must reflect on itself, renew itself, and keep
pace with the times. The eventual outcome should be mutual understanding and
communication to make the world better.

The dual lenses of time and space in viewing heritage have led to three divergences of
homeland and home, us and them, authenticity and re-creation in understanding and
perceiving Chinese cultural heritage. These three divergences are inter-connected. The
divergence of homeland and home shows participants’ attachment to place, which is not only
where they have spent most of their lives but where their families and ancestors came from.
Due to the increased human mobility, and the digital means, it is now possible to connect
oneself to multiple places in a geographical sense. Such multiple attachments challenge the
dominant heritage discourse, such as in this research, who belongs to New Zealand and who
does not belong, and whose heritage should represent the heritage of New Zealand. This

134
question concerned most Chinese participants during interviews. Long-standing and widely
shared feelings of traumatized nostalgia and insecurities further reinforced this sentiment.

To some extent, the divergence of homeland and home reinforces the divergence between us
and them. As many participants always felt being outsiders and guests to New Zealand, they
could hardly find a place for Chinese heritage in New Zealand’s dominant heritage discourse.
In addition, some participants feared that cross-cultural communication would be difficult
and could lead to an ostensibly symbolic introduction of Chinese culture. A few participants
worried about whether they would transmit a false sense of heritage or cause any harm to the
reputation of the Chinese community as a whole, which has been humbled and diligently
earned over generations. Thus, many preferred to keep their heritage private among intimate
contacts of Chinese communities.

Although a few Chinese participants conservatively thought of Chinese cultural heritage and
prioritized its authenticity, the majority were open-minded about the future of New Zealand’s
Chinese heritage. They believed that Chinese cultural heritage should interact with the
context and adjust itself locally. For example, Tai (2021) commented that the conservative
attitude would not help Chinese cultural heritage be an integral part of New Zealand. Gee
(2020) believed that Chinese culture was very inclusive. Chinese cultural heritage could
absorb whatever comes to it. However, due to the concerns resulting from the divergence
between us and them, most participants had no idea how Chinese cultural heritage should be
localized appropriately, and where the boundary between conserving itself and adjusting
itself was.

5.4 Meaning of Chinese cultural heritage

Despite the significant variation of Chinese heritage themes, and the internal divergences due
to the dual heritage perspective of time and space, there has been a firm agreement on the
meaning of Chinese cultural heritage among all Chinese participants. Referring to the
interview data, the meaning of Chinese cultural heritage can be explained in three phrases:
‘being Chinese’, ‘cultural inheritance’, and the ‘relationship with Māori communities’.

135
5.4.1 ‘Being Chinese’23

‘Being Chinese’ was the first and foremost meaning of Chinese cultural heritage. Rather than
directly thinking of the meaning of cultural heritage itself, most participants preferred to talk
about their way of being Chinese. It happened not only to first-generation migrants but also to
the long-established Chinese communities. For example, Lowe (2020) explained that Chinese
cultural heritage meant ‘what we are, in this world, […], where we come from, and the value
that we represent. So, it’s basically why we do certain things, […], how, why we assume
values, and then what we represent, and it would become identity, why we have extended
families, […], and the old look after the younger and the younger look after the old, so it’s
why we doing it.’ Chinese cultural heritage is inextricable from participants’ cultural identity
recognition.

‘Being Chinese’ had different meanings for each subgroup of the New Zealand Chinese
communities. Most locally-born participants shared a similar impression of Chinese cultural
heritage. Almost all of their families came from Canton, the Guangdong province in China.
Even though their families have settled down in New Zealand for almost a century, their
parents and grandparents retained Chinese cultural heritage within their families and
community associations, such as Cantonese, lion dancing, and red packet in Chinese New
Year. Chinese cultural heritage has become a part of their lives. For example, No. 4
participant (2020) said

‘If you ask me what is your Chinese cultural experience, it’s not being
practised’. ‘I always, I always do feel Chinese culture. […] and I used to
for many years, even in high school, I used to think in Chinese rather than
English. […] My parents always promoted being Chinese, like respect to
elders, stay in the community, stay together with your Chinese friends or
your family, […] lots of very initial regular tradition and culture
regulations, […] tradition like food, traditional value, family values, and
things cultural. We never failed to celebrate Chinese New Year’.

‘Being Chinese’ means being Chinese in a cultural sense, but not about nationality. It does not conflict with
23

participants self-identifying themselves as Chinese New Zealanders, Kiwi, or Kiwi Chinese.

136
Additionally, these long-established Chinese communities have managed to retain their way
of being Chinese while also being a Kiwi at the same time. For example, No. 3 participant
(2020) demonstrated that although he considered himself a kiwi, in the meantime, he still felt
he was Chinese, having a connection with Chinese culture, language, customs, and the way of
life. ‘Our thinking and our communication […] are English, but be based on our background
of connection to […] Chinese culture’.

However, being Chinese and also Kiwi could attract social accusations. Therefore, many
long-established Chinese people chose not to publicly show their Chineseness or just gave up
that part of their identity. As time went by, the Chinese cultural heritage was gradually
diluted among the long-established Chinese community. Moreover, due to New Zealand
being far away from their homeland of Canton, there has been lacking of transnational culture
exchange for a long time. Thus, many long-established Chinese families only maintained the
permanence of names about food, festivals, ritual, and traditions in their Chinese cultural
heritage.

Along with the Chinese settlement history in New Zealand, the long-established Chinese
community has created a series of diaspora history-related associated values, such as ‘work
hard, be a good person, don’t go show off often’ by Lowe (2020). Generally, most
descendants of people who paid Chinese-only poll tax preferred to maintain a favourable
social profile.

‘Respect is earned, not given. […] You can’t expect who just appreciate
straight away. And if you were that well, I think it’s a sense of pride.’ He
further added that ‘work hard. Put your head down, don't say anything.
And basically, save hard and they were proud that those days that there
was no Chinese prisoner. […] And so, they will not be visible minority. I
think there's one way they felt that they can assimilate into this society
without [increasing] the racial tension.’ (Lowe, 2020)

More often, the long-established Chinese people introspected how their behaviour might
affect the reputation of the whole community. ‘They can’t afford to rock the boat,’ said Lowe
(2020). Keeping quiet and low-key, most retained their cultural heritage only at home. For
example, the majority of them learnt Cantonese and traditional Chinese ethics from parents or

137
grandparents. Being Chinese to the long-established Chinese community was more of a habit
in their lives rather than a holistic list of what should be done to be a Chinese.

For Chinese migrants after 1987, ‘being Chinese’ is also the primary meaning of Chinese
cultural heritage. Most participants who arrived in New Zealand after 1987 had families both
in their homeland and Auckland. The majority of them were first-generation migrants and
grew up in overseas countries. Therefore, being Chinese refers to their roots of cultural
identity. Although some of them changed nationality, it does not conflict with the
Chineseness and its heritage in their blood. For example, Kris (2020) explained his
understanding of Chinese cultural heritage as never forgetting his roots in Chinese culture.
‘You can’t deny yourself being Chinese.’ Gee (2020) added that ‘[Chinese cultural heritage]
has been implanted in your mind, and it has penetrated into your mind.’ Similarly, Zhang
(2020a) said that ‘it’s in my bones, invisible, […] it’s the cultural heritage in my bones.’ Tai
(2021) agreed, ‘it’s part of you. Can you give up this part? No, you can’t, it belongs to you.’
Chinese cultural heritage played an irreplaceable role in their self-identification, especially
how Chinese they were. As Hu (2020) explained, ‘People are the carriers of culture, and
cultural heritage is the concentrated expression of that culture. You don’t even need to talk;
people know where you come from.’

Being part of a diaspora left migrants feeling excluded and lonely sometimes. Spiritual
sustenance was important for migrants who have lived a long time in their original places
(Gee, 2020). Therefore, many recent Chinese participants were happy to attend cultural
activities and learn and practice Chinese arts. For example, Guo (2020) and Lin (2020) have
had many Chinese students. No. 20 participant (2020) have served tea ceremonies to many
Chinese guests. No. 39 participant (2020) added that her Chinese memory was the greatest
comfort being far away from her homeland. Similar to the long-established Chinese
community, the participants of recent migrants after 1987, although it is difficult to
demonstrate the exact meaning of their cultural heritage, they practice Chinese cultural
heritage by eating Chinese food, speaking Chinese, practising Teasim, Chinese watercolour
painting and calligraphy.

138
5.4.2 ‘Cultural inheritance’

All participants agreed that Chinese cultural heritage meant cultural inheritance to future
generations (传承 in Mandarin). Compared to those recent migrants who had a closer
relationship with their homeland, the long-established Chinese community was more
concerned that Chinese cultural heritage has been diluted through generations. According to
No. 4 participant (2020),

‘Before my time, all these people up together with money with the
solution for the Chinese to meet here and enjoy each other's company.
We're all friends, and have a sense of being Chinese. […] second
generation, […] beginning to wonder maybe I'm unique rather than the
other way around. Many of them, they don't understand consequences. To
them, it's like wearing costumes, singing songs, whatever. […] third
generation are allowed to mix and mingle with the general community.
Having fun, or play sports, have European friends, go out with them is
more fun than coming back to community centre [the Mangere Hall]. No
fun here, who wants to come back and look at a person in a costume, that
you have no connection with? […] So once they are integrated into our
society, our general society, it is very hard to draw them back, [kids] too
busy, don't care. So they lost [the Chinese culture]. […] I feel very
strongly that if you're going to try and preserve Chinese culture, you've
got to work very hard on the young generation.’

‘I think they will, they will live in a simulated, a full assimilated life and
become more Kiwi than Kiwi, less and less Chinese, but you cannot
escape, not possible. […] I think you need to remember, you may have
yellow skin. But I think that's a wrong thing to only remember that you
have a yellow skin. To culture, your cultural heritage is more important
than the conscious of yellow skin.’

However, what to pass on and in what way depended on individuals. What to pass on varied
by personal interest, educational background, childhood environment and experience. In what
way mainly depended on available sources in participants’ networking in Auckland. For
example, Guo (2020) wanted to pass on Chinese art, such as cardboard painting and his
original finger ink painting. No. 15 participant (2020), who had a great interest in traditional
Chinese medicine, highly recommended that the unity of humans and nature to the younger
generation.

139
An agreement on what to pass on was the inheritance of those cultures with outstanding
merits. For example, Lowe (2020) chose the traditional Chinese ethics and moral values and
believed in ‘knowing where they come from, appreciate where they come from and then be
proud of it’ to pass on. Additionally, No. 24 participant (2020) emphasized that Chinese
cultural heritage means cultures that have significantly contributed to Auckland’s history.
These cultures should be celebrated and marked as cultural heritage. A few more participants
supported that the contribution, no matter by the long-established Chinese community or the
diverse recent Chinese migrants, should be remembered as part of Auckland.

5.4.3 ‘Relationship with Māori communities’

Reflecting on the Chinese history in New Zealand, many Chinese participants mentioned the
relationship between early Chinese migrants and indigenous Māori tribes being part of their
heritage in Aotearoa New Zealand. According to Dam (2021), the heritage, between Chinese
and Māori in that relationship and how that shaped their identities as New Zealand Chinese,
enabled the uniqueness of Chinese communities in New Zealand. It further influenced their
interaction with this place and the people of this place. Similarly, Zhu (2021) highlighted the
importance of the special connections, collaborations, and mixing with the indigenous Māori,
which makes New Zealand Chinese culture distinct and specific to Aotearoa in the world.
She particularly found that the values that Chinese cultural heritage should pass on were
similar to the core values in Māori culture, such as maanakitanga (respect, hospitality),
kaitiakitanga (guardianship), kotahitanga (collaboration). These values enabled people to
collaborate, protect and pass on their cultural taonga (treasures) such as the arts and language,
and enabled diverse communities to connect with New Zealand Chinese and build mutual
acceptance.

In 2021, the SS Ventnor memorial was built at Ōpononi in order to memorize the wreck SS
Ventnor that created the unique bond between Chinese and Māori. The SS Ventnor was
meant to carry the bones of around 500 Chinese miners back to their homeland Canton.
However, it sank near Hokianga Harbour in 1902. Over the years, local Māori communities
have been gathering bones (kōiwi) for safekeeping at Kawerua in their way of respect. In
2009, Chinese New Zealand Ventnor descendants were invited to Te Rarawa and Te Roroa

140
marae to pay their respect and thank tangata whenua. In 2014, the wreck was given legal
protection by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Piper & Xia, 2021; To, 2018).
Although the site is not located in the Auckland region, participants frequently mentioned the
memorial when thinking about the bond between Māori and Chinese. As Dam (2021)
questioned, ‘without that Memorial, how many people would know these Chinese miners and
their bodies on the ship that sank? How many would know that Māori collected these bones
and looked after them for so many years?’ The relationship between local Chinese
communities and indigenous Māori significantly contributes to the meaning of Chinese
cultural heritage in New Zealand.

5.5 Conception of Chinese cultural heritage

Chinese cultural heritage is a multicultural concept in the case study of Auckland. There are
multiple representative samples in the variation and constant of different heritage themes.
Essentially, Chinese cultural heritage is a meaning-oriented concept that varies by individual
rather than being a scientific term. The primary meanings of Chinese cultural heritage can be
concluded into three aspects: ‘being Chinese’, ‘cultural inheritance’, ‘relationship with Māori
communities’. The very concern is their cultural identity – who they are: who they are in the
past, present, and future; who they are in their minds and the local context. Through the dual
lenses of time and space, participants were concerned with Chinese cultural heritage in three
relations: homeland and home, us and them, authenticity and re-creation. These three
relations uncover the primary dimensions that can explain the concept of Chinese cultural
heritage.

5.5.1 Spatial dimension: place attachment

Participants created the meaning of Chinese cultural heritage by referring to their memories
in the past tense. These memories emerged from their attachment to multiple places, either
physically or psychologically, these. The first place was more often a geographical place
where a participant has lived mostly. Most participants would call Auckland home and think
of their life experiences and memories in New Zealand. Participants brought about their
memories of most visited events and places, market gardening, and ethnic business. Also,

141
some participants acknowledged the contribution made by early sojourners and their
interaction with indigenous and other migrant communities.

The second was a psychological place that does not necessarily exist. It could be the home
country, or the homeland in their memories, such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, or other cities or
regions in mainland China. For example, some first-generation migrants shared the nostalgia
and yearning for where they came from. Such nostalgia does not necessarily diminish, but is
sometimes even heightened after visiting their home countries. Also, even though some long-
established Chinese people have never or only for a couple of times been to where their
ancestors came from. The majority did have a psychological connection with their homeland
by impressions. For example, No. 39 participant (2020) concluded her life as being ‘dream in
Shanghai, daytime in Auckland’.

Additionally, due to the transnationalism character of the Chinese diaspora, a third-place was
observed when participants talked about heritage in a way such as where they felt involved,
places that enlightened their sense of Chinese cultural heritage, and where they have
temporarily stayed, such as Australia and Singapore. During interviews with Chen (2020),
Kris (2020), and No. 15 participant (2020), the third places other than their homeland and
home were mentioned when reflecting on Chinese cultural heritage. Chen (2020) mentioned
Taiwan for its massive book storage of traditional Chinese literature. Kris (2020) and No. 15
participant (2020) both shared their heritage experience in the living place before moving to
New Zealand, such as Canton and Hong Kong. Overall, participants attached their heritage to
three types of places: homeland, home, and the most impressive place. Derived from these
place attachments, participants’ memories provided various heritage representative samples,
both tangible and intangible. Thus, the spatial dimension of place attachment serves as a solid
foundation for the conception of Chinese cultural heritage. Overall, the first place refers to
Chinese migrants’ intimate space; the second refers to the psychological homeland, mostly in
memories; the third indicates the independent perspectives on heritage based on transnational
experiences.

142
5.5.2 Emotional dimension: nostalgia

During interviews, it was not easy and could be very emotional for participants to recall their
personal or family memories. To those whose families suffered from the Chinese-only poll
tax, their memories were often combined with the pain from family separation and over-
workload in childhood (Lowe, 2020; No. 4 participant, 2020). To those non-business and
non-skill categorized migrants, their memories are always intertwined with the financial and
language struggle. Participants’ memories were often filled with emotions of loneliness,
sorrow, being excluded, and homesickness. A strong sense of nostalgia plays a significant
role in the conception of Chinese cultural heritage.

From 1876 to 1920, more than 35 discriminatory policy bills articulated the history of racism
against Chinese people in New Zealand. After 1952, soft racism did not diminish but arose in
the anti-Chinese publicity, such as the propaganda of Asian ‘Inv-asian’ in 1996, and the
‘Chinese virus’ in 2020. For a long time, Chinese people felt insecure and lacked a sense of
belonging in New Zealand. As a few participants recalled, that for many times, showing
Chineseness would make them be accused of not being New Zealander. Lowe (2020) sadly
shared that ‘when I came over, we desperately want to be integrated into a Kiwi way. But
unfortunately […] people will treat you as the way you live and where you come from, […]
they still ask are you from China? From Japan? They still see you different. They still see you
regardless what happened different.’ Their heritage inevitably intertwines with nostalgia and
doubt about whether they belong to New Zealand and for how long they can be valid New
Zealanders. Though people are happy to share their experience in Lantern Festival and
appreciation on the Chinese New Year festival and market day, there is strong insecurity
when talking about heritage. It acts as an invisible switch in their deep mind which
determines to reveal or hide their Chinese cultural heritage.

Also, the separation between us and them was observed when participants talked about cross-
cultural communication experiences about Chinese cultural heritage. While most participants
believed they were New Zealanders, many were hesitant about whether Chinese heritage was
part of New Zealand’s heritage, and whether Chinese identity belongs to New Zealand’s
national identity. Therefore, many participants would like to see traditional Chinese cultural

143
heritage preservation with true merits. For example, many local Chinese families have
maintained practising traditional customs and cultural values at home, such as respecting
parents and taking care of siblings. Also, participants looked forward to seeing more
officially listed or scheduled heritage to acknowledge the variety of social contributions made
by New Zealand Chinese communities.

5.5.3 Temporal dimension: cultural process

When thinking about the future of Chinese cultural heritage, participants had two opposite
opinions: either conserving itself to keep the authenticity or re-create it in a local sense. The
criteria of authenticity mainly applied to traditional Chinese cultural heritage, such as
language, Chinese literature, and Chinese arts. Essentially, participants wanted to pass on
certain core values underneath these languages, literature, and arts. This meaning-oriented
intention was also evident in the constant of Chinese heritage themes, such as philosophy and
cultural values. Therefore, the authenticity of Chinese cultural heritage does not necessarily
lie in a certain type or form of heritage but instead in the values underneath.

The other group of participants thought that Chinese cultural heritage should be reconstructed
and re-created in the local context. Chinese cultural heritage in New Zealand should
distinguish itself from the cultural heritage in the homeland where participants and their
ancestors came from. New Zealand’s Chinese cultural heritage should be associated with the
local context to be a unique part of the heritage of New Zealand. As long as the meaning or
the value of heritage is Chinese culture inspired, the presence of Chinese cultural heritage can
adjust itself and interact with indigenous and other migrant heritage.

The dichotomy between authenticity and re-creation in regards to the preservation of Chinese
cultural heritage has resulted in vastly divergent perspectives on its future direction. However,
both approaches share the belief that the core principles and values of Chinese culture are
paramount in the conceptualization of Chinese cultural heritage. The majority of participants
agreed on the permanence of traditional Chinese cultural values (see Appendix 5) in
worldviews, philosophy, and other ethical values. Therefore, the future of Chinese cultural

144
heritage refers to the inheritance of traditional cultural values while allowing the heritage
representation to either stay authentic or evolve along with the local environment.

Chinese cultural heritage keeps evolving in a cultural process in two ways. Firstly, it breaches
the boundary of ethnicity and mixes with indigenous and other migrant heritage; secondly, it
includes new values resulting from the anti-Chinese history, such as keeping low-key and
being a model citizen. Over time, the manifestation of Auckland’s Chinese cultural heritage
has been diversified and expanded, such as Chinese New Year celebrations, the scale of the
Lantern Festival, and traditional Chinese cultural heritage practice.

145
6 Chapter 6. Official Heritage Discourse in New Zealand
and Auckland

Chapter 6 investigates how New Zealand planning and heritage systems respond to cultural
diversity and Chinese cultural heritage. In light of Regan’s (1978) analysis model of the
public sector planning systems that comprise the political, judicial, and professional
components, this chapter has three main sections: multiculturalism and its application in New
Zealand, the New Zealand heritage system and its deficiencies, and heritage practice in
Auckland. Research data encompasses academic literature, municipal policies, planning
documents, consultant reports, and first-hand interview data with 22 professionals, including
16 heritage specialists whose work experience exceeds one year in New Zealand, and six
Auckland Chinese communities’ participants who have a saying about multiculturalism or
cultural diversity of New Zealand, or have experience in applying Chinese cultural heritage to
local practice in Auckland or New Zealand (see Appendix 4). The diversity of professional
participants is shown in the length of heritage work experience (see Figure 6-1), education
background (see Figure 6-2), and their employers within the New Zealand heritage system
(see Figure 6-3).

146
 N/A
Length of work 30+ years
experience 20-30 years
10-20 years
5-10 years
0-5 years
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of participants

Figure 6-1. Length of heritage work experience by professional participants.

Source: Interview data

Urban design
Geography
Planning
Anthropology
Archaeology
History
Heritage conservation
Architecture

Figure 6-2. The discipline of heritage professional participants' highest education

qualification.
Source: Interview data

Figure 6-3. Employer of heritage professional participants.

Source: Interview data

147
6.1 The New Zealand context

Historically, New Zealand was a British colony. Its transition from colony to nation-state
from the early 20th century was ethnically framed. With the breakdown of imperial trade ties
as the United Kingdom chose to reorient itself toward the European Union, New Zealand was
obliged to develop economic relations with Asia. Compared to the primary population
sources, East Asia is comparatively geographically close (Graham, Ashworth, & Tunbridge,
2000, p. 108). Thus, Asian ethnicities constitute the major source of migrants. Within those,
according to the 2013 Census, Chinese communities comprise the largest ethnic group. New
Zealand has been widely accepted as a bicultural polity involving the indigenous Māori
community and the British Crown as represented by the European, especially British, the
settler population. Biculturalism has been increasingly challenged by the multicultural reality
since the 1960s (Collins & Friesen, 2011).

6.1.1 Multiculturalism dilemma

The formal efforts by government at instituting multiculturalism were at best patchy till the
beginning of the 21st century, when the Labour government introduced cultural diversity as a
key policy goal. A range of official initiatives was instituted, such as the Settlement Strategy,
which provided support for new migrants regarding employment, housing, education, and
health systems. The Office of Ethnic Affairs was established (now the Ministry for Ethnic
Communities). The Race Relations Commission was strengthened. Specialized policy units
were set up to assist migrants and refugees in ministries. During this time, community
organisations and activities, ethnic media of newspapers, radio, and TV channels thrived. The
Human Rights Bill protected people’s freedom to practice diverse languages, cultures, and
religions and prohibits discrimination regarding race and ethnicity (Simon-Kumar, 2019).

However, critics point out that the multiculturalism discourse has been tied up with migration
and the associated economic benefits to the country. It has been shown in the modification of
immigration policy in the last three decades. National interests and economic priorities are
ideologically predilected. From 2008 to 2017, the emphasis has been shifted from the skilled
and permanent residential migrants, and other categories, to the short-term migration, such as

148
temporary work visas and international student visas (Simon-Kumar, 2019). It further
accelerates the multicultural reality. However, the corresponding policy support regarding the
multiculturalism requirement remains lagging and mismatched. The celebration of cultural
differences does not resolve the tension between different communities, ethnicities, and
cultures, but instead increases xenophobia and cross-cultural cracks. It leads to the question
of national identity – the traditional debate about ‘who is or can be a New Zealander, and
who cannot’ (Murphy, 2003).

6.1.2 Biculturalism or multiculturalism?

The biculturalism of New Zealand is accordingly based on the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o
Waitangi signed in 1840, which means the coexistence of Māori and non-Māori in
partnership. Now the biculturalism, which recognises both the indigenous Māori community
and the Pākehā population primarily comprised of those of European descent, is given
prominence in policy discussions and resource allocation (Collins & Friesen, 2011).
Biculturalism has been challenged by the multicultural reality of the demographics of New
Zealanders. Although the New Zealand government had discussion about multiculturalism
policies in the 1970s, it has not been officially implemented like in Canada and Australia
(Bromell, 2008). The absence of multiculturalism policies raises two questions. First, what is
essentially the central contention between biculturalism and multiculturalism? Second, what
occupies the core of New Zealand’s national identity?

The major contention between biculturalism and multiculturalism is the assumed suppression
of either Māori or other migrants’ rights in Aotearoa New Zealand. The prominent voice
against multiculturalism concerns that other parties should engage and influence the
agreement between Māori and government. That could diminish the state-recognized rights
for Māori, their beliefs and culture, and the ‘equal partners in the future of New Zealand’
(Knox & Raukawa, 2005). However, the advocates for multiculturalism think that the bi-
cultural model has marginalised non-European and non-Māori groups (Ballantyne &
Moloughney, 2006). The slowness of multiculturalism establishment by government leaves
non-European and non-Māori citizens nowhere to adapt but fit into the officially bicultural
policy (Ip, 2003, p. 356).

149
6.1.3 An exclusive national identity

The national identity of New Zealand was centred on Britishness; the Britishness was centred
on the idea of race, especially the Anglo-Saxon race (Murphy, 2003). McKinnon (1996)
states that ‘to most intents and purposes, Anglo-New Zealanders and New Zealand were an
identity. There was little conception that the two notions, of the community, the ethnic, that is
the Anglo-New Zealand, and the citizenship or territorial, could diverge.’ Now the core of
New Zealand national identity, was and still in many aspects is, ethnicity-centred and
grounded. Though all citizens are conferred with equal legal status, there are always
discrimination against non-white New Zealanders. Such a conflict between ‘inclusion in law
and exclusion in practice’ has caused much controversy over the idea of New Zealandness.
Whether naturalized or local-born, a New Zealander of non-European descent could continue
to be a perpetual foreigner, a ‘race alien’ (Murphy, 2003).

As neither the colonised nor the colonisers, early Chinese settlers were not officially included
but were instead positioned as a threat to national identity mainly along racial, economic and
moral lines (Butcher & Spoonley, 2011; Ip, 2008; Murphy, 1997; Ng, 2003). Between 1881
and 1920, there were 35 acts passed to ensure that non-Europeans were excluded from New
Zealand (Spoonley & Meares, 2011). The purpose was to stop Chinese, and other immigrants
who are not White, from entering New Zealand, as the country was considered a ‘white
haven’ (O’Connor, 1968; Ip & Pang, 2005, p. 177). The motive of the earlier Public Health
Act 1876 was ‘simply to keep out the Chinese’ (Lee, 1889). The Chinese Immigrants Act
1881 firstly introduced a poll tax to all Chinese. In 1896 poll tax was raised ten times. In
1907 a reading test of 100 English words was introduced. In 1899, the first restrictions on
non-Europeans other than Chinese were introduced. In 1920, the Immigration Restriction
Amendment Act introduced a permit system, by which entry into New Zealand was to be
through application only. The Minister of Customs would decide immigrants’ entry permits.
British and most Western European immigrants were more likely to gain a permit than
Chinese and other non-Europeans (Murphy, 2003). Moreover, the government denied social
welfare entitlements, including unemployment benefits and pensions to all Chinese in New
Zealand, even locally born or naturalized citizens (Ip & Pang, 2005). This period was called a

150
time of ‘White New Zealand’ policy (by scholars; a term not used by the government)
(Murphy, 2003; Elers, 2018).

The repeal of discriminatory legislations in 1952 did not prevent racial discrimination and
ethnic intolerance against Chinese people in New Zealand (Thompson, 1963). In the 1950s
and 1960s, New Zealand governments pursued a policy of assimilation. Chinese New
Zealanders were encouraged to be white New Zealanders as much as possible. In 1996, the
Asian ‘Inv-asian’ controversy revealed that a New Zealander other than white or Māori was
still not widely accepted (Murphy, 2003). ‘It's interesting that we haven't really changed
much, in a way from those sorts of ideas [articulated in the Inv-asian article]. In 2020, these
ideas are still used against Asian people. […] That’s not new, […] we’re still hearing the
same sorts of ideas,’ added Dam (2021). Foon (2021) commented that ‘it wasn’t long ago,
New Zealand was really promoting a white only country.’ Even to Māori communities, it was
not until the 1980s that New Zealand government seriously acknowledged their rights as
indigenous people (Moss, 2005, pp. 191-192).

Willmott (2009) raises a less visible form of racism, the ‘soft racism’ by Malcolm McKinnon
(1996, pp. 60-69). Soft racism is exemplified in statistical surveys breaking people down by
ethnicities and assuming that people in a single category share the same characteristics
without individual differences (see also Schmidt, 2021). This idea rejects the fact of ‘migrant
identity’ being mixed and complex, and results in the ethnicity- and race-based stereotypes
reducing ‘an all-around nation’ to ‘a collection of one-dimensional robots in alien lands’.
Simply categorizing people into ethnicities demonstrates a racist approach. It applies more
often to non-Europeans and thus fosters a ‘we/they dichotomy’. Essentially, the soft racism
implies a hierarchy of values: ‘our’ values are higher than ‘theirs’ (Willmott, 2009).

Schnell and Benjamini (2005) propose that migrants’ identity should not be categorised by
any publicly recognisable social group. Instead, they are autonomous individuals with
complex repertoires of identities in the context of different predefined social categories. As
migrants are exposed to a multitude of community groups differing by socio-spatial ranges,
they tend to form new structures of identity. The new identity is characterised by the migrants’

151
high flexibility between different social networks and limited commitment to each of those
groups (Taylor and Moghaddam, 1987; Bauman, 1995).

The complexity of the cultural identity of New Zealand Chinese communities has remained
under-acknowledged. In the 2019 People’s Panel, there is no such category of Chinese New
Zealander, and it is hard to distinguish those from the general ‘New Zealander’ category.
Likewise, Cheung (2020) shared that ‘when he sees you Asian, he thinks that you Asians can
communicate internally and that language can communicate, but it is far from reality.’ The
illusory impression of ‘Chinese’ or ‘Asian’ denies the deep and full self-realization within the
Chinese communities. With the diversity of language, religious belief, and a plethora of
associations among Chinese communities in New Zealand, it is hard to speak of either a
Chinese community or an Asian community (Willmott, 2009; Yuan, 2001, p. 86; No. 42
participant, 2021). As Ng (2001) suggested, the pervasive concept of multiculturalism
enabled the vanguard generation to explore their remaining Chineseness from their New
Zealand background.

6.1.4 Multicultural responses in New Zealand and Auckland

There has never been any explicit multiculturalism policy in New Zealand. In recent decades,
the predominance of neo-liberalism in central and local government policy-making has meant
that the strategies responding to immigration, specifically settlement and economic
development are taking a particular form (Spoonley & Meares, 2011; see also Spoonley,
2003; Lewis, 2009; Skilling, 2010). Currently, there is an absence of legislative affirmation
of multiculturalism at the central level. The 2021 newly established Ministry for Ethnic
Communities acts as the chief advisor to the government and is mainly responsible for
engaging with communities and administrating relevant funding. However, it is unclear how
much weight it can play a part in the decision-making and empowering the human rights of
ethnic minorities.

The city of Auckland was founded in 1840. The influx of British migrants accelerated
Auckland's transformation into an important trading port and commercial centre. In the first
part of the 20th century, being a ‘New Zealander’ was often synonymous with being British

152
(McKinnon, 1996). Due to the disease and war, the Māori population was relatively small. It
was not until the late 20th century that Māori’s lands and other rights were reasserted and the
granting of new authority to the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Since the 1950s, the
shortage of labour force triggered the urbanization of Māori and the inflows of migrants from
the Pacific Islands. Later in the 1980s, the immigration policy replaced the preferred origins
by the criteria of education, skills, and investment. Since the 1990s, there was a rapid
diversification of migration into New Zealand, with the most visible from Asia into Auckland
(Collins & Friesen, 2011).

In 2006, the Auckland City Council published the Intercultural City Project. ‘Multicultural
communities’ became part of their promotion of ‘community well-being’ (Collins & Friesen,
2011). In 2018, the Auckland Council demonstrated an interest in progress to ‘recognise,
value and celebrate Aucklanders' differences as a strength’ in the outcome of ‘Belonging and
Participation’ in the Auckland Plan 2050. Though it particularly adopts the idea of
interculturalism rather than multiculturalism, there is no further direction pointing how
suggested strategies can incorporate with the current Planning scheme. In addition, many
professionals were concerned about the current curriculum that teased out non-Pākehā and
non-Māori history from the national history framework (see also Ip, 2021). Multiculturalism
remains a very underdeveloped topic of discussion. Overall, the governmental hierarchy
shows conservatism in the progress of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism remains absent in
the prioritization of planning and the heritage field. Any proactive strategy or plan can be left
alone without legislative support.

In this research, the New Zealand heritage system is described as the container of the official
heritage discourses, which comprises a dual identification and protection system. The system
functions through a heritage framework under Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA),
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPT Act), the Conservation Act 1987,
the Reserves Act 1977, and other legislations. The dominant heritage approaches include the
values-based approach and heritage conservation. The following sections will review the dual
identification and protection system, the New Zealand heritage framework, and the heritage
profession in the New Zealand context.

153
6.2 The dual system of identification and protection

The New Zealand heritage system adopts a dual identification and protection system (see
Figure 6-4). HNZPT is the leading agency of heritage identification. It administers the New
Zealand Heritage List of heritage places and areas that are of international and national
significance, and also provides advice to the Crown on the potential heritage value of Crown-
owned heritage buildings under the Crown Land Disposal Process. In the meantime, DoC
manages the largest portfolio of heritage places in the country. Some TAs prepare their own
heritage schedules.

6.2.1 New Zealand Heritage List

Heritage identification relies mostly on HNZPT and local authorities. HNZPT administers the
only national statutory list – New Zealand Heritage List, and other categories of Lost
Heritage of those removed from the List, National Historic Landmarks of those with
outstanding national heritage value. HNZPT uses a theme of significance or value – threshold
for inclusion – key questions model to enlist heritage items to New Zealand Heritage List.
According to HNZPT Act, HNZPT applies the section 66(1) criteria to historic place and
historic area, the section 66(5) criteria to wāhi tūpuna, and section 6 definitions to wāhi tapu,
and wāhi tapu areas. All values criteria incorporate separate thresholds for inclusion and
associated key questions. Currently, HNZPT is not capable of keeping up with the number of
public nominations. The HNZPT listing process is in-depth, holistic and consultative;
however, it is seen by some as overly complex and slow (No. 61 participant, 2021).

6.2.2 Heritage schedules

District plans are also supposed to contain their own heritage schedules, under adequate
assessment of heritage values of scheduled places by local councils. However, the 2018
National Assessment report reveals that 29 district plans do not have adequate assessment
criteria. Some of these simply schedule all the places on the New Zealand Heritage List (the
List). Such ignorance further reinforces the national narrative by New Zealand Heritage List
and instead overlooks those locally significant heritage.

154
The current scheduling process, as part of a district plan review, is seen as unwieldy and slow.
When a report is under review, a nominated heritage can be demolished without protection
from a ‘freezing period’ (No. 62 participant, 2021; No. 63 participant, 2021). Moreover, due
to the planning system deficiencies, heritage identification can be a ‘massive regulatory
hurdle’ (No. 63 participant, 2021). Now approving resource consent on scheduled heritage
remains a high cost in time and money, and there is a considerable risk that an applicant
could have a hearing that will be very expensive. Such high-cost results in owners’ reluctant
attitude toward heritage scheduling (No. 63 participant, 2021). It makes protecting those
heritage in private ownership hard (Tanner, 2021). Despite large increases in the number of
heritage items on RMA plan schedules, the number of items in the New Zealand Heritage
List and plan schedules has not increased much in between 2015 and 2018 (HNZPT, 2018).

As for heritage protection, local authorities have the main role in undertaking heritage
protection under RMA, while HNZPT retains its regulatory role in the pre-1900
archaeological resources and offers statutory protection and management under HNZPT Act;
DoC has the responsibility to conserve, and advocate for the conservation of heritage and to
preserve and manage the areas that possess historic and cultural features and values under
Conservation Act 1987 and Reserves Act 1977.

6.2.3 Heritage covenant

A heritage covenant is an agreement between owners and HNZPT to provide for the
protection, conservation and maintenance of a heritage place under HNZPT Act. Mostly, a
covenant is issued as a consequence of owners receiving grants from Heritage New Zealand
National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund or via heritage assessments undertaken by
HNZPT when Crown land is disposed of. The effectiveness of a heritage covenant mainly
relies on the willingness of owners (MCH, 2021).

6.2.4 Heritage order

Most protective mechanisms are provided by the heritage order within district plans under
RMA (McEwan, 2017, p. 248). It is meant to protect the heritage values of a particular place

155
or structure. Heritage order can be required by HNZPT, TAs, body corporates and Ministers
of the Crown. However, it has been rarely adopted. To date, HNZPT has issued heritage
orders for 17 places; TAs and body corporates have only issued a limited number. For
example, the last heritage order relating to a building was issued in 2011 (MCH, 2021). The
effectiveness of heritage order is greatly reliant on potential fiscal liability (see also No. 63
participant, 2021). Possible reasons include their seeming impact on the future use of the
buildings and land subject to an order, and the underlying risk of compensation if the
Environment Court finds an order excessively restrictive (Schofield & Vossler, 2017, p. 86).

Heritage protection has overly focused on preventing adverse impacts on heritage. The
existing protection rules are unable to address instances of ‘demolition by neglect’. Current
provisions for heritage order allow for interim protection, but this is not well understood and
has no precedent under RMA. Also, according to the 2018 National Assessment report, there
are few improvements in plan provisions to manage the impact of repair and maintenance,
especially safety alterations and earthquake strengthening, additions and alterations. Another
reason is lacking heritage incentives. Although there has been a steady increase in the number
of local authorities providing regulatory and non-regulatory heritage incentives for the
conservation of historic heritage, the current amount cannot meet the demand for restoration
and seismic strengthening.

The dual identification and protection system was criticized for causing ‘bifurcated outcome’
(No. 54 participant, 2021). Both No. 54 participant (2021) and Short (2021) pointed out that
the New Zealand heritage system has put too much attention to identification rather than how
to manage a potential heritage. A proper heritage needs to meet rigorous criteria for being
significant. Those unscheduled heritage can easily disappear (No. 62 participant, 2021).
Moreover, the capability of TAs to effectively identify and protect heritage is limited by a
lack of full-time heritage staff and heritage protection funds. Few councils have sufficient
heritage specialists (No. 61 participant, 2021; No. 62 participant, 2021; No. 63 participant,
2021). Some plans contain a single heritage schedule; some add special character areas or
heritage precincts; some have separate schedules of sites of significance to Māori, and some
may have separate wāhi tapu areas schedules.

156
In addition, the significant deficiencies in the New Zealand heritage framework reinforce
public’s misunderstanding of the identification and protection process. For example, the
meaning of heritage remains unclear and is misunderstood as a building or place under threat
of demolition. New Zealand Heritage List is misunderstood to automatically apply protection
rules to the registered heritage (HNZPT, 2018).

Figure 6-4. New Zealand heritage system.

Source: Author

6.3 The New Zealand heritage framework

New Zealand heritage framework comprises a shared model of legislative framework

(including international, national, and local levels), non-statutory strategies, non-
governmental organisations, community groups, and workforce. The whole range of

157
organisations and individuals is driven by statutory responsibilities primarily under the RMA
and the HNZPT Act, or knowledge of and passion for the heritage to maintain and manage
heritage, including ICOMOS New Zealand, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga
(HNZPT), Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH), Department of Conservation Te Papa
Atawhai (DoC), Territorial Authorities (TAs), professionals, extensive network of local
historical societies, tangata whenua, and community groups.

6.3.1 ICOMOS dominating

ICOMOS New Zealand serves as the principal international stakeholder of the New Zealand
heritage framework. It administers ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010. ICOMOS New
Zealand Charter has been adopted by HNZPT, many TAs and underpins the Policy for
Government Departments’ Management of Historic Heritage 2004. The charter establishes
the benchmark for conservation standards and practice in the New Zealand heritage field. In
the meantime, the World Heritage Convention of UNESCO relies on the Department of
Conservation, with a joint duty from Ministry for Culture and Heritage in New Zealand.
Together, they work to promote a tentative listing of significant New Zealand heritage.

Due to ICOMOS being the principal advisor to UNESCO regarding the conservation and
protection of monuments and sites, the foundation of New Zealand heritage practice
intrinsically sits on an emphasis on materiality and national or international significance of
heritage. As Lixinski (2015, p. 205) criticizes, ICOMOS neglects their work’s political and
social implications. Despite it being acknowledged, for example, in 1994, the Nara Document
firstly addressed the necessity of a broader understanding of cultural diversity and cultural
heritage as it relates to conservation; in 2017, the Delhi Declaration emphasized that ‘cultural
identities should not be compromised by uniform and insensitive planning’. The physicality-
led interpretation and principles still dominate the heritage sector.

Moreover, Eaves (2021) criticized the ranking system by international organisations

ICOMOS and UNESCO, making heritage concerns political and detached from the local
context. As Short (2021) said, ‘It's not our rarest heritage, it's not our most authentic heritage
because a lot of it has been altered and changed, etc. And it is not our most at threat.’ Eaves

158
(2021) supported that ‘when you have a narrow focus, […], you are always going to miss
something.’ As a result, locally significant heritage is at a financial disadvantage. Funds such
as National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund and Lottery Grants Board prioritise heritage
of national and international significance over those of civic importance, or character
buildings.

6.3.2 Lack of national and regional attention

The central government has been reluctant to develop and introduce an NPS pertaining to
heritage. Although NPSs of New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and Urban Development
Capacity 2016 touch on historic heritage (though the latter controversially), no National
Environmental Standards and National Planning Standards are relevant yet. The absence of
National Policy Statements (NPS) on heritage has been an ongoing issue since the 1980s
(Short, 2021; Boileau, 2021; No. 63 participant, 2021). Now the national significance of
heritage remains ‘the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and
development’ in Resource Management Amendment Act 2003. There have been uneasy
agreement between heritage specialists and planners on weighing heritage values of places
and implications under the Urban Development Capacity 2016. Meanwhile, only a handful of
regional policy statements (RPSs) have significantly provided direction about heritage
assessment criteria. In some cases, regional plans identify heritage, but only on the planning
maps, not in a schedule, such as the proposed Northland Regional Plan. The absent heritage
schedule by regional authorities limits the amount of information about heritage and makes it
difficult to assess the range of heritage items identified.

Without a binding NPS on heritage issues, and clear direction and strong wording in RPSs,
the alignment between objectives, policies, methods and rules in district plans can fall short
when rules are weak compared to strong objectives and policies, or vice versa. The
effectiveness of plans is compromised through weak rules, or adequate rules hampered by
weak objectives. For example, a number of plans prioritise the need to provide for the
relationship of Māori to the wāhi tapu and sites of significance in objectives and policies;
necessary rules remain absent to achieve the stated objectives (HNZPT, 2018). Despite the
fact that New Zealand Heritage List acknowledges heritage significance of entire historic

159
place, most heritage schedules only protect exterior of a building, or just façade. It is
inappropriate that now protective decisions on heritage buildings of national significance are
made at local levels. Also, protection decisions are often subject to political influence (see
also Eaves, 2021). With the absence of direction from higher-order policies, by default local
authorities rely on precedent plans, case law, and other jurisdictions’ experience to determine
the threshold for historic heritage significance (McEwan, 2017, p. 246). When heritage issues
come to the courts, that argument of national significance cannot be made, because there is
no NPS, which provides the superior definition of heritage on the national level (Short, 2021).

6.3.3 Fragmentary framework

The fragmented nature of the New Zealand heritage framework has caused major
misunderstandings and significant issues for stakeholders, especially those dealing with
multiple TAs. Short (2021) disagreed with such name of ‘framework’ in the New Zealand
context, because there is a lack of coordination and connection between statutes that deal
with movable and immovable heritage. The current framework remains fragmentary.
Likewise, a few other professionals pointed out that the framework is inconsistent (No. 62
participant, 2021). Different legislations remain separate (Jamieson, 2021). Heritage rules
under RMA do not always reflect other heritage legislations, which results in a bit of clash on
the implementation of RMA (Eaves, 2021). Also, different authorities work with different
timeframes (No. 62 participant, 2021).

The fragment of the heritage framework has been affected by the short history of the New
Zealand heritage system since Town and Country Planning Act 1977. At the beginning of the
1990s, the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) and Historic Places Act 1993 were
released. New Zealand Heritage Pouhere Taonga (renamed Heritage New Zealand Pouhere
Taonga in 2014) was granted to be the lead agency in heritage identification and assessment,
while local authorities take the lead in heritage protection. In 1996, the Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment review distinguished NZHPT’s Register to nationally and
internationally significant places and sites, and territorial authorities (TAs) and Māori
agencies’ responsibility to listing other places (MCH, 2021). Legislative power regarding
heritage has been gradually divided into different authorities. It generates a variety of heritage

160
terms, and identification, assessment, and protection approach across different legislations
and heritage authorities. No. 63 participant (2021) criticized that heritage powers are not
being properly used and it caused the loss of public confidence in the New Zealand heritage
system. Moreover, the fragmentary framework reinforced pressures on heritage professionals.

6.3.4 Inconsistent using of heritage terms

The fragment of the heritage framework has caused great confusion about what qualifies as a
valid heritage to stakeholders such as developers and consultants, especially when different
criteria and processes are employed (Parslow, 2021). Nearly all heritage-related objectives
and policies provide for recognition and protection using a variety of terms. There are
dichotomies of built heritage and cultural heritage, historical heritage and cultural heritage,
cultural heritage and natural heritage, tangible heritage and intangible heritage, movable
heritage and immovable heritage. In most cases, heritage terms are interpreted and explained
by representative samples. In the New Zealand heritage framework, heritage has not been
defined yet (Eaves, 2021).

6.3.5 Lacking of a monitoring system

The last revision of the HNZPT Act was conducted in 2014, under the previous government.
It concerns heritage buildings mostly, without context. Thus, heritage buildings are legally
movable. Many professionals argued that heritage buildings should be considered within the
context and the possible archaeological site underneath, instead of detached from the earth.
They thought that there had been an evolution of understanding what heritage is, and that
should be critically reflected in legislations (see also Short, 2021).

McEwan (2017, p. 243) and Boileau (2021) both advocated for the necessity of robust
monitoring to examine the implementation of heritage protection. According to 2015 and
2018 National Assessment reports, few heritage-related plan effectiveness monitoring reports
have been prepared by local authorities in recent years. Due to the absence of a monitoring
system, regular reviews are not enforced and monitored by the central government. Some
TAs have not reviewed their heritage schedules for at least ten years (MCH, 2021). Some

161
district plans remain outdated and static, and even have not taken into account of the 2003
amendment to the RMA elevating the status of historic heritage to a matter of national
importance (RMA, s6). Without systematic surveying and regularly comprehensive
monitoring, the current information on the state of the environment for cultural and historic
heritage is limited (MCH, 2021).

Moreover, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage engages in the New Zealand heritage system,
particularly in the policy level, for example, by administering the Policy for Government
Departments’ Management of Historic Heritage 2004. The Policy outlines a best-practice
framework for the management of historic heritage in government ownership. Initially, it
applied to 13 core government departments, each providing its own guidelines. However, the
Policy was not made mandatory. It is shown that the implementation requires active
promotion and monitoring to ensure compliance.

6.4 The heritage profession

The New Zealand heritage system also relies on the consensual knowledge on heritage
identification and protection within that background. The heritage framework aligns with the
New Zealand planning system, while retaining its profession tradition and bias.

6.4.1 Subordinance to development

Parslow (2021) criticized that heritage has not been prioritised to the master planning stage.
Heritage concerns in planning remain development-led rather than research-focused and
constrained by an intense timeframe. Likewise, Boileau (2021) explicitly pointed out that the
development pressure from intensification has threatened neighbourhood characteristics and
Special Character Areas. Also, suburban sprawl has swallowed historically valuable land,
such as the agricultural land Pukekohe in South Auckland, which used to have a lot of
Chinese market gardens. Due to development pressures, lots of heritage places have been
demolished or modified due to land-use change. In the Auckland context, many historic
heritage places are scheduled as Special Character Areas. These have a sit under an amenity
provision in RMA, s 7(c) must ‘have particular regard to … the maintenance and

162
enhancement of amenity values’ rather than strictly historic heritage. Now statutory
protection for special character areas remains absent and weak in practice (No. 49 participant,
2021).

Short (2021) contended that in order to level or try to give an equal playing field between
heritage protection and development potential, it would require great monetary investment to
compensate for development opportunities without denying heritage listing on the land.
Without NPS on heritage, it is arguably questionable how much central government can
consider the public good by heritage compared to development potential. Currently, heritage
incentives turn out to be fragmented and inadequate to compensate for heritage costs in New
Zealand. Most covers repair and maintenance, rather than earthquake strengthening, which is
now one of the biggest threats. Effective and well-targeted incentives are needed to facilitate
positive heritage outcomes (MCH, 2021).

6.4.2 Expertise dominating

Built environment obsession

Some professionals thought there was a stereotype of building constrained bias in the New
Zealand heritage system. No. 49 participant (2021) highlighted the intrinsic deficiency of
planning for being spatial planning. Therefore, cultural heritage is often interpreted as historic
heritage with less consideration of community experience and perception. Likewise,
Jamieson (2021) explained that the physical sense of heritage is easier to share, as not all
stories are easy to tell. However, such bias narrows down people’s minds thinking about
heritage and reduces their sensitivity of heritage significance.

Currently, intangible heritage and the legislative safeguarding of tangible heritage are
disconnected. Intangible cultural heritage relies much on people. However, the New Zealand
heritage system is only liable to manage landscape, place, and properties. It has no statutory
role in guarding and supporting the performance of arts and language and other intangible
heritage (No. 54 participant, 2021).

163
Past obsession

A few professionals were concerned about the age-constrained bias toward heritage. It seems
that there has to be some temporal distance so that they can make an objective assessment of
heritage values. Heritage must be old enough in order to receive legislative protection (No. 54
participant, 2021; No. 63 participant, 2021). Heritage terminology in the current heritage
framework remains outdated (Eaves, 2021; Parslow, 2021). When the first Historic Places
Act was enacted in 1954, an archaeological site was defined as anything pre-1900, which was
around 50 years old. If people apply such criterion to 2021, an archaeological site should be
anything pre-1970s (Eaves, 2021). Likewise, Schmidt (2021) criticized that the current
heritage profession in New Zealand does not take recent history into account. Jamieson (2021)
argued that heritage should be free from the long-history requirement. There has to be
heritage without prescribing a certain amount of time to make it important and valid. Heritage
should be allowed to change along with the time (Boileau, 2021).

Lack of community engagement

Many professionals highlighted the importance of people in terms of heritage (Baird, 2021c;
Eaves, 2021; No. 49 participant, 2021; No. 54 participant, 2021). Jamieson (2021) explained
heritage as the relation between people and place, and those long-term understandings that
people form. Paslow (2021) acknowledged that cultural heritage is personalized to
individuals. Without the community knowledge, the heritage profession can be dominated by
expertise and constrained by past obsession (No. 49 participant, 2021). Moreover, the
disconnection between the public and heritage expertise can lead to the identified shortage of
heritage volunteers. Thus, No. 54 participant (2021) and Short (2021) pointed out the
significance of community engagement as the foundation of heritage narrative. However,
Jamieson (2021) claimed that it is hard to let people know about the public benefit of heritage.

6.4.3 Eurocentric

Almost all professionals pointed out that the official discourse within the New Zealand
heritage system remains Eurocentric (Bower, 2021; Jamieson, 2021; No. 49 participant, 2021;
No. 62 participant, 2021; Short, 2021). There has been a White colonial interpretation of what
164
happened within the official heritage discourse (Jamieson, 2021). The New Zealand heritage
system remains immature in its ability to take account of values that come from any other
than a Eurocentric view. Although RMA requires a representative sample of significant
heritage, now the heritage lists remain imbalanced. For example, Baird (2021c) and Jamieson
(2021) revealed that Māori heritage had been underrepresented in New Zealand Heritage list.
Boileau (2021) criticized the Cultural Heritage Inventory under Auckland Council in favour
of Pākehā European heritage, with indigenous Māori heritage accounting for around 10%. No.
62 participant (2021) put forward that a biased represented heritage can impact on people’s
views about heritage and history. In addition, the heritage workforce does not reflect an
accurate representation of all cultures and ethnicities in New Zealand and Auckland. Also,
the workforce lacks sufficient overseas experience (Eaves, 2021).

6.4.4 Lack of history education

A few professionals agreed that the history of New Zealand had not been well taught in
schools (Parslow, 2021). New Zealanders’ perception of cultural diversity and how long
people have been in mainland New Zealand is poor (Schmidt, 2021). Furthermore, Schmidt
(2021) acknowledged the racism and limitation of dividing people by ethnicities. No. 60
participant (2021) particularly pointed out that putting every non-Māori people under Pākehā
is unacceptable. According to Dam (2021), the language dichotomy of Māori and Pākehā
derived from the sign of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. At the time, indigenous
tribes were assembled under Māori, while the early British migrants were under Pākehā. As
neither the colonised nor the colonisers, it is hard to categorize other migrant people under
Pākehā. Zhu (2021) argued for a ‘willingness to learn about oral history, a willingness to look
beyond the surface, to understand that [multicultural reality] does exist and particularly in
Auckland’. Hence, multicultural history education in the curriculum can be an opportunity
(Jamieson, 2021; Parslow, 2021).

165
6.5 Auckland’s responses to its Chinese communities

6.5.1 Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) uses terms of historic heritage and Mana Whenua cultural
heritage. According to Auckland Council (2020), AUP uses the place-based approach to
identify historic heritage. The evaluation process is mainly place-focused. It is made up of six
interrelated and iterative steps: historical summary, physical description on-site, comparative
analysis (themes – lists – comparative format), evaluation (heritage values criteria and
indicators of inclusion and exclusion, integrity and rarity, intangible values), statement of
significance, significance thresholds. It is aligning with the whole system, the historic
heritage framework by AUP privileges materiality and experts-knowledge of heritage
evaluation. Moreover, although AUP has separate schedules of natural heritage, individual
schedules of sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua, historic heritage, historic
heritage areas, and special character areas, there is a lack of policy to evaluate the existing
scheduled historic heritage against the interest or significance to Māori.

In addition, the heritage order used to contain a heritage building - the Thomas Doo Building
(in Schedule 14.1 of the 2018 Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part). The building was
once occupied by a Chinese merchant in the Chinatown, and was scheduled as category B
and was listed in the heritage order No.7 subject to notice of requirement. Now it is removed
from the heritage order and remains significant for being an 1885 commercial building in the
schedule of historic heritage.

6.5.2 Auckland Plan 2050

Auckland Plan 2050 was adopted in June 2018. It was designed to be a 'living plan' that will
evolve to address emerging or changing issues, and also reflect updated data and evidence.
The Plan provides a basis for aligning Auckland Council’s policy and plans, funding
initiatives, and internal operations and investments. In the outcome of ‘Environment and
Cultural Heritage’, cultural heritage is explained as ‘the term used to describe the ways of
living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation’, as well as

166
‘the legacy of knowledge, things and intangible attributes of a group or society passed from
generation to generation.’ Here cultural heritage encompasses tangible culture (buildings,
monuments, landscapes, books, works of art, and artifacts), intangible culture (folklore,
tradition, language, and knowledge), and natural heritage (culturally significant landscapes
and biodiversity). Therefore, it has been discussed separately in the three outcomes of
‘Belonging and Participation' (building community), ‘Homes and Places’ (homes, places and
spaces), ‘Environment and Cultural Heritage’ (recognizing value and the importance of its
protection).

In the outcome of ‘Belonging and Participation', cultural heritage has been highlighted in
three focus areas: Focus area 1 Create safe opportunities for people to meet, connect,
participate in, and enjoy community and civic life, Focus area 4 Value and provide for Treaty
of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the bicultural foundation for an intercultural Auckland,
Focus area 7 Recognise the value of arts, culture, sports and recreation to quality of life. In
the Focus area 1, cultural heritage is highlighted as built heritage for its significance to the
communities’ sense of history and belonging, as well as the uniqueness and distinctiveness of
Auckland. In the Focus area 4, Māori cultural heritage is encouraged to be shared to all
Aucklanders. The Focus area 7 proposes to provide ‘a range of arts, culture and heritage
experiences that all Aucklanders can enjoy’. In the outcome of ‘Homes and Places’ (homes,
places and spaces), cultural heritage has been mentioned in the Focus area 5 Create urban
places for the future. It acknowledges the role of cultural heritage in the placemaking of
Auckland, and thus proposes incorporating and integrating built heritage into existing and
new spaces. In the outcome of ‘Environment and Cultural Heritage’, the Direction 1 aims to
ensure ‘all Aucklanders must play their part in ensuring that the natural environment and
cultural heritage is valued and cared for.’ Direction 2 confirms the significance of mana
whenua and the Māori worldview in treasuring and protecting the natural environment
(taonga tuku iho). It is acknowledged that ‘their body of knowledge – both tangible and
intangible – cultural practices and heritage are all linked to the whenua and its life.’ The
focus on cultural heritage has been split into focus areas of environmental sustainability and
protection, the awareness and protection of cultural heritage sites, cultural landscapes and
sites of significance to Māori.

167
In terms of cultural heritage, there are three main weaknesses identified in Auckland Plan
2050. Firstly, though ‘Environment and Cultural Heritage’ acknowledges cultural heritage in
a broad sense embracing tangible and intangible cultural heritage and natural heritage, the
range has been reduced to built heritage in the outcomes of ‘Belonging and Participation' and
‘Homes and Places’ and natural environment in the outcome of ‘Environment and Cultural
Heritage’. There is no alternative direction nor area identified indicating how intangible
cultural heritage plays a part and should be taken care of, or how intangible heritage works
with other types of heritage. Secondly, going through the planning logic of outcome –
directions – focus areas – implementation, cultural heritage has been inconsistently
considered. For example, it is absent in the plan directions and implementation of ‘Belonging
and Participation' and ‘Homes and Places’. Thirdly, cultural heritage has been interpreted
either in the built or natural environments. There is few in-depth ponderation about what
essentially makes up the heritage of Auckland and how the term should be split and
implemented in a long-term plan.

6.5.3 Heritage incentives (Chinese communities specifically)

Auckland Heritage Festival

Auckland Heritage Festival is an annual heritage celebration operated by Auckland Council

Heritage Unit. It usually lasts for a month with multiple activities such as exhibitions,
heritage walks, talks, etc, in multiple locations of Auckland. The primary purpose is to
involve diverse communities in celebrating Auckland’s past. At the 2019 Heritage Festival,
there were two heritage talks associated with Chinese communities. The first was about one
of the early pioneers Ah Chee and his family in Auckland. The other was about
archaeological research about Chinese market gardening and their layers of past in the
Auckland landscape. The front rows were mostly occupied by descendants of the early
Chinese communities who suffered discriminatory policies. However, surprisingly, the
attendees were predominantly non-Chinese. During our interviews, a few participants,
especially recent migrants with limited English skills, said they were not aware of the
Heritage Festival or the sessions on Chinese history. The former media practitioner Lingling
Liang said she had been broadcasting news for 17 years in Auckland. The Festival did not

168
take into account Chinese history until recent years. ‘When I went there, no Chinese, just me
alone, and of course local Chinese.’

Lantern Festival

The cultural event Lantern Festival is a part of the Focus Area 2 – provide accessible services
and social and cultural infrastructure that are responsive to meeting people’s evolving needs
for the outcome of Belonging and Participation in Auckland Plan 2050. The significance and
success of the Auckland Lantern Festival have been widely acknowledged by Aucklanders,
though attendees are predominantly Auckland Chinese population of several generations,
plus recent immigrants, and international students (Auckland Unlimited, 2022; Auckland
Council, 2021).

The annual Lantern Festival has been a distinctive part of Auckland’s identity since 2000.
The first Lantern Festival was presented by Asia New Zealand Foundation, in conjunction
with its founding partner, the then Auckland City Council. Initially, it was a one-day event at
Albert Part. While Aotea Square – ‘the site of the original Chinatown’ and Western Springs –
‘adjacent to Chinamans Hill [so called because of the Chinese market gardeners]’ were
alternatives, the historically multi-layered, site of ‘successive layers of volcanic, Māori,
colonial, military, recreational and commemorative occupation’ – Albert Park was chosen.
Albert Park is historically significant to the majority culture while located adjacent to major
contemporary cultural institutions and universities (Francis, 2014, p. 89). This event has
grown to be a three-day-and-night family-friendly event and moved to the Auckland Domain
after 2016. The crowds grew significantly, with a peak attendance of 200,000 people in 2016.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, 2020, 2021, and 2022 Lantern Festivals were cancelled. Now
the event is delivered by Auckland Unlimited, the region’s economic and cultural agency, on
behalf of Auckland Council, with a founding partner, the Asia New Zealand Foundation. The
celebration was transferred to an online programme of a series of activities in 2022.

169
The Poll Tax Chinese Heritage Trust

Since 2002 the former Prime Minister Helen Clark publicly apologized for the Poll Tax and
other discriminatory laws imposed on Chinese immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries. Chinese gold-mining history and heritage have received more attention than ever,
both from government and the public in New Zealand. The government supported the
establishment of the Chinese Poll Tax Heritage Trust, which provides funding to promote the
preservation of Chinese heritage and history in New Zealand. It has sponsored the Chinese
New Year Festival and market day, Sports & Cultural Tournament, drama, and heritage
restoration of the building on Ashburton historical site and Lawrence Cemetery headstone,
and associated research of market gardening and laundry history, Chinese Refugee women
and children from 1939, Chinese cooking in the 19th century, Chinese restaurants in the 19th
century of Auckland, etc., mainly three aspects of community activities, built heritage
restoration, and historical research. Reflecting on the long history of Chinese New Zealanders
and all the contributions that the descendants of people who paid the Chinese-only poll tax
have made, the amount of funding in each year is relatively small and incapable of meeting
the goal of ‘promoting the preservation of Chinese New Zealand history and awareness of the
contributions of early Chinese settlers’, and ‘providing tangible support [for] the history,
language and culture […] of the early settler Chinese community’ (“Chinese Poll Tax”,
2021).

6.5.4 Heritage research

Heritage Counts programme (2018-2021)

The Heritage Unit of Auckland Council started an annual Heritage Counts programme in
2018. The primary purpose is to ‘raise awareness of the extent and variety of heritage places,
and the social and economic benefits they bring’ (Auckland Council, 2022). In 2019,
Heritage Counts added a section of public engagement with heritage. The 2019 Heritage
Counts identified the lower interest in heritage among Asian respondents, and their less
awareness of heritage protection and participation. In 2020, due to the Covid-19 pandemic,
Heritage Counts started to take account of social media engagement, such as the Heritage

170
Unit’s Te Kahu – Focus on Heritage eNewsletter, heritage podcasts, and online databases etc.
The range of associated media was enlarged and detailed in the 2021 Heritage Counts.
Moreover, the 2021 Heritage Counts introduced the Māori Cultural Heritage Programme in
AUP. However, Boileau (2021) pointed out a lack of a comparison between the statistics of
indigenous Māori heritage sites versus European heritage sites. The gap between different
cultural heritage has been neglected now. The awareness of the demographic diversity of
Aucklanders remains fallen behind.

Heritage Survey in the 2019 People’s Panel

The 2019 People’s Panel was conducted by regular emails to people who signed up to the
Auckland Council. It contained a series of surveys to collect public opinions about the future
of Auckland. As a part of the 2019 People’s Panel, a heritage survey investigated prospective
respondents’ general information, opinions about the importance and protection of historic
heritage, and participation in heritage-related activities in the last 12 months. Since the
general information included the ethnicity of respondents, this survey provided a rough
picture of Auckland Chinese opinions (Auckland Council, 2019b).

There were 57 respondents identified or partly identified themselves as Chinese ethnicity

(‘Chinese respondents’). The result from the raw data released four main findings. Firstly,
heritage was a common topic across different ages of Auckland Chinese. While Chinese
respondents were not purely constrained by Chinese ethnicity, their perceptions and
understandings of heritage could be influenced by other backgrounds of New Zealand
Europeans, other European, and Māori. Secondly, most of them recognized the importance of
heritage protection and showed the most interest in types of residential buildings, commercial
buildings, and Māori heritage sites. They cared about what was being associated between
them and the acknowledged heritage, such as their ancestor’s survival. Thirdly, some were
concerned about the uniqueness of heritage in New Zealand compared to other countries, and
the age of heritage, which was also worried by respondents under other ethnicities. Fourthly,
a limited number of Chinese respondents were represented within the heritage sector,
including those who serve as volunteers in heritage societies, property owners, and
consultants. While most Chinese respondents chose the ambiguous option of the ‘other’ way

171
of involvement, no further detail showed the alternative ways. In addition, more than half of
Chinese respondents were not aware of the historic heritage schedule in the AUP.

6.6 Resilience to the demographic diversity of New Zealand and Auckland

Chapter 6 has reviewed the official heritage discourse within the New Zealand heritage
system from a dual heritage identification and protection system, the New Zealand heritage
framework, deficiencies within the heritage profession, and specific responses to Chinese
communities regarding their heritage in Auckland. This section will discuss the resilience of
the New Zealand heritage system to the demographic diversity of New Zealand and Auckland
from three perspectives: employed terms of ‘cultural heritage’ in the heritage system,
responses to indigenous Māori heritage, and responses to Chinese heritage.

6.6.1 Terms of ‘cultural heritage’

Cultural heritage has been described and explained mainly under the RMA and the HNZPT
Act in the New Zealand heritage system. RMA uses the term of ‘historic heritage’, meaning
‘those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of
New Zealand’s history and cultures’. The definition of historic heritage under the RMA
accords with a typology of heritage qualities, including archaeological, architectural, cultural,
historic, scientific, technological qualities. Historic heritage is divided into four types of
historic sites, structures, places, and areas; archaeological sites; sites of significance to Māori,
including wāhi tapu; and surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources.
HNZPT Act uses the term of ‘historical and cultural heritage’, and divides it into types of
‘historic place’, ‘historic area’, ‘wāhi tūpuna’, ‘wāhi tapu’, ‘wāhi tapu area’, with each
separately defined. HNZPT Act adjusts different definitions and criteria to the five types of
‘historic place’, ‘historic area’, ‘wāhi tūpuna’, ‘wāhi tapu’, ‘wāhi tapu area’. The explanation
of historic place and historic area shows a great emphasis on the physicality and significance
of ‘the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand.’

Both interpretations under the RMA and the HNZPT Act remain ambiguous regarding the
focal point of ‘New Zealand’s history and cultures’ and ‘the historical and cultural heritage of

172
New Zealand’. It empowers the grassroots of heritage protection authorities to decide what
heritage qualifies as the heritage of New Zealand. However, as the multiculturalism climate
in the context of New Zealand and the planning of Auckland reveals, explicit and
comprehensive multiculturalism responses remain absent. The system is over-reliant on
professionals to make decisions as much objectively as possible. However, firstly, it is
observed that currently the workforce is predominantly Pākehā, with less involvement from
Māori and other migrant communities. Secondly, New Zealand school curriculum remains
silent about non-Pākehā migrants’ history at present. Ip (2021) argues that New Zealanders of
non-European descent are seen as perpetual foreigners and migrants in the proposed national
curriculum 2021. Though it is outside of the heritage system, it has impacted on next
generations’ understanding of the national identity of New Zealand and its history. Thirdly,
professionals have rarely received training in terms of alternative heritage understanding and
know little about how to deal with heritage outside of the Western discourse, unless they have
had long-term attached experience, such as the 19th-century gold-mining archaeological sites
in the case of Chinese communities.

Moreover, despite the fact that the HNZPT Act section 3 demonstrates a purpose to promote
the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of the ‘historical and cultural
heritage’ of New Zealand, multiple terms, interpretations, and representative samples of
cultural heritage are being used across different acts. Now a definition of cultural heritage
remains absent in the New Zealand heritage system. The interpretations of cultural heritage
are subordinate to the heritage identification system in favour of instrumental rationality. The
dominant values-based approach relies on the established heritage qualities/values and
professional knowledge. Due to the constraint of timeframe and workforce, and the
professional and cultural biases, non-European heritage is disadvantaged without the
compensation from substantial rationality that can help introspect how scheduled heritage
reflects on the national identity of New Zealand.

6.6.2 Responses to Māori heritage

Since the 13th century, the Māori people have laid down the roots in New Zealand as the
indigenous community. In the 1830s, a formal British colonial government was established

173
regardless of indigenous Māori, and signed the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840)
with Māori. The Treaty promises were gradually broken due to the loss of Māori land through
private and government purchases. It was not until the 1980s that New Zealand seriously
acknowledged the Māori community (Moss, 2005, pp. 191-192). The New Zealand
government now acknowledges the equal partnership between Māori and non-Māori under
the biculturalism of New Zealand. Consequently, an evaluation of theofficial heritage
discourse’s response towards Māori heritage constitutes the most persuasive demonstration of
the adaptability and robustness of the New Zealand heritage system in the face of the
demographic diversity of New Zealand.

According to the 2018 National Assessment report, there remain critical deficiencies in the
identification and protection of Māori heritage. A limited number of district plans have
dedicated individual chapters that outline specific regulations for sites that hold significance
to Māori. By 2018, three-quarters of district plans are making inadequate provisions to
protect sites of significance to Māori. The conservation, planning, and protection work
associated with saving Māori heritage buildings are often regarded by TAs as a
straightforward planning matter, without considering the status of these buildings as a taonga,
and other matters as set out in the Section 7 within the Part 2 of the RMA including
kaitiakitanga, and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The
maintenance of Māori heritage requires a partnership between the government and Māori
communities. While the statutory organisations provide technical support and guidance in
expert areas, Māori communities retain mana whenua over their taonga. There is a lack of
knowledge about the traditional materials and construction technology of Māori heritage
buildings, and other professional guidance and support among TAs.

The HNZPT Act convened the Māori Heritage Council, which acts as an advisory body to
HNZPT regarding the identification and protection of wāhi tūpuna, wāhi tapu, wāhi tapu
areas, and historic places and historic areas of interest to Māori. In 2017, the publication of
Tapuwae put forth a collaborative vision for Māori heritage that incorporates the traditional
perspectives, values and Mātauranga Māori of iwi, hapū and whanau as equal partners.
However, it is worth questioning how much weight the Council and Tapuwae have in the

174
decision-making, and being jointly acknowledged in the mechanisms of identification and
protection, and supported by rules and guidelines in the heritage system.

Also, Māori heritage has been evidently disadvantaged by the lack of consistency in the
heritage system. It causes trouble when the heritage across different TA boundaries, and there
is a lack of consistency between district plan rules and policies. Now the alternative ways of
recognising and providing for the long-term protection of marae are needed, as the system
does not always suit the holistic values of marae. In district plans, Māori built heritage should
be seen as taonga, aligning with Section 6(e) of the RMA, rather than another resource
consent decision.

6.6.3 Responses to Chinese heritage and history

According to Parslow (2021), ‘There's a lot more books now about Chinese immigrants to
New Zealand and the history of that, but not archaeologically speaking often’. ‘So that's
probably been fair to say, a fairly silent history.’ Likewise, Boileau (2021) described Chinese
heritage as ‘hidden heritage’, while Eaves (2021) used ‘hidden history’.

The archaeological record in the North Island and Auckland has remained comparatively
silent about Chinese history (Parslow, 2021). Boileau (2021) said that people rarely know
about what Chinese people did after the end of gold rush in the Otago region. Chinese
heritage has been arguably under-represented by gold-mining archaeological sites in the New
Zealand heritage system. Meanwhile, outside of the heritage field but in society, Chinese
culture seems to be a recent phenomenon in New Zealand since the 1980s, although they
have settled down for over 180 years. Schmidt (2021) commented that Chinese culture had
not been promoted as an integral part of New Zealand society. Current responses are lacking
a long-term plan. De Bock (2020) explained that putting migrant heritage in the spotlight
only requires temporary projects, while mainstreaming it would require ‘a reform of the
heritage sector as a whole’ (p. 199).

As neither the colonised nor the colonisers, early Chinese settlers were not officially included
but were instead positioned as a threat to national identity mainly along racial, economic and

175
moral lines (Butcher & Spoonley, 2011; Ip, 2008; Murphy, 1997; Ng, 2003). Parslow (2021)
explained the difficulty in identifying Chinese heritage that ‘you won’t see it is a Chinese site.
It's a building that Chinese people lived in, right in that sense.’ Also, No. 61 participant (2021)
pointed out that architectural and other heritage linked with Chinese communities is under-
identified, and sometimes only investigated or recognised when threatened with destruction.

Currently, no official policy or rule acknowledges the presence of Chinese heritage in

Auckland. No additional information indicates the connection between Thomas Doo Building
and Brake house with Chinese communities. No investigation identifies how to acknowledge
Chinese heritage in the heritage framework of Auckland. Chinese communities have
contributed to Auckland since the late 19th century, which is also evident in laundry business
research, market gardening historical and archaeological research such as Kong Foong Yuen
in Carlaw Park, and Chinese restaurant research. However, the Auckland heritage framework
is seemingly unresponsive to these facts of history.

So far, Auckland’s responses are limited to intangible efforts, especially festivals, but not
much progress in tangible heritage, where the Eurocentric mindset dominates (Boileau, 2021).
No. 24 participant (2020) revealed that although food is an essential cultural bridge and
something that everyone can share and relate to, there is much more that can be done in the
planning realm. Different cultural aspects have to be taken into account. In addition, some
participants complained that Chinese cultural heritage had been symbolized to red colour,
lanterns, dumplings, and calligraphy. Activities including those community-led festivals and
celebrations were criticized as cultural commodification, rather than in a purely cultural sense.

Furthermore, Chinese communities have faced criticism for their limited engagement with the
New Zealand heritage system. For example, more than half are not aware of the historic
heritage schedule in AUP according to the heritage survey in the 2019 People’s Panel; very
few are involved in the officially-identified heritage volunteer field. This research argues that
heritage participation by Chinese communities has been lacking in Auckland. Firstly, most
Chinese participants showed great interest and enthusiasm in heritage practice and
celebration, no matter how long and how many generations they have settled down in New

176
Zealand. Secondly, the current New Zealand heritage system remains detached from the
public, not particularly from Chinese communities. According to the 2018 National
Assessment report, the public could misunderstand the dual system of identification and
protection. Also, the official guidelines, policies, and rules are cumbersome and sometimes
hard to interpret. Thirdly, the prioritisation of built heritage and the Eurocentric orthodox has
disempowered alternative understandings of heritage. Any culture that does not share the
same idea as the system can be excluded as an outsider to the heritage of Auckland and New
Zealand. As Parslow (2021) criticized, there has not been a significant focus on other migrant
cultures.

Overall, community engagement should go with mutual understanding and acceptance,

otherwise, communities can find nowhere to sit, especially for those non-Pākehā and non-
Māori people. Less engagement does not mean less interest, because heritage can be very
selective and at some point, certain communities may feel excluded. As Bower (2021)
explained, based on experience with Pacific Island origin people and their heritage, ‘I think
it's a cultural thing. It's not so much about a lack of interest or anything like that, because
people are interested in that. They're very proud of their heritage. And they do know that
heritage.’

The next chapter will analyse the mismatches between the community narrative by Auckland
Chinese participants and the official heritage discourse within the New Zealand heritage
system, and reveal the politics of heritage in New Zealand.

177
7 Chapter 7. Mismatches between the Community Narrative
by Auckland Chinese Participants and the New Zealand
Official Heritage Discourse

Chapter 7 uncovers the mismatches between the community narrative by Auckland Chinese
participants and the official heritage discourse within the New Zealand heritage system in
three layers: firstly, the meaning-oriented understanding of heritage vs. material-focusing in
between the community narrative of Auckland Chinese participants and the official heritage
discourse within the New Zealand heritage system; secondly, the diverse manifestation of
heritage vs. festival celebration in between Chinese migrants and heritage responses in
Auckland; thirdly, the cyclical view of history vs. linear progression in between Chinese
culture and Western culture (see Table 7-1). Different heritage significance and assessment
criteria will be compared between Chinese participants and the available approaches in the
RMA and HNZPT Act. This chapter will demonstrate the marginalization of Chinese cultural
heritage, which constitutes a migrant heritage of New Zealand. The political implications of
heritage in New Zealand will be discussed in the aspects of heritage, planning, and national
identity.

Table 7-1. Major mismatches between the community narrative and the official heritage
discourse in the Auckland case study.

Meaning of heritage Heritage manifestation Views of history

Community narrative Meaning-oriented Diverse manifestations Cyclical

Official heritage discourse Material-focusing Festival celebrations Linear

Source: Author

7.1 Meaning-oriented understanding of heritage vs. Material-focusing

The Chinese participants often referred to various heritage themes in order to convey the
embedded meanings, such as the historical background, the activities taking place, and the
significance to communities. Zhu (2021) argued that what has happened in a place is as

178
important as what that place looks like. People might not see it visually, but there are stories
to be told. Most often, it is the stories and history that should be actually looked after.

Due to the meaning-oriented perspective on heritage, not many Chinese participants found
the tangible manifestation of Chinese heritage in Auckland representative. By tangible, they
generally considered buildings or places under threat of demolition. Lowe (2020) said ‘I think
of the history overall, unfortunately, there is not a lot of buildings that around. […] There’s
not too many physical, not really. I mean all the, like ACCC building all these disappeared
basically’. Participants suggested digital libraries or cultural activities such as the Chinese
New Year Festival & Market Day and temple fair (Lowe, 2020; No. 21 participant, 2020).
Lowe (2020) explained that ‘I think having the records of its existence, and the history behind
it. It’s always of interest.’

This finding is seemingly the same as The Chinese Attitude towards the Past by Ryckmans
(2008). Though Ryckmans investigates the Chinese landscape in China, one of the salient
findings is that one who approaches China with the criteria and standards of a European
environment would be shocked by the material absence of the past. ‘The past which
continues to animate Chinese life in so many striking, unexpected or subtle ways, seems to
inhabit the people rather than the bricks and stones. The Chinese past is both spiritually active
and physically invisible.’ The Chinese cosmological ideas, such as the yin yang theory,
Confucianism, and Taoism, have served as common denominators for Chinese views on
heritage. For example, tangible elements such as gates, columns, and colour carry a more
profound and spiritual meaning beyond their functional implications in buildings. The
architectural heritage can be continuously repaired, enlarged, and reconstructed (Chung,
2005a). Such intangible eternity endues Chinese heritage ‘the vital strength, the creativity, the
seemingly unlimited capacity for metamorphosis and adaptation’ and helps the inheritance of
Chinese civilization for thousands of years and over eighty dynasties (Ryckmans, 2008). It
allows the tangible adaptation and thus more diverse and innovative ways of inheritance in
different social contexts other than in China. As Zhang (2020b) pointed out, ‘All these forms
and materials, they all can [change]. But the one inside, of truth, goodness and beauty, that
way of thinking and logic, these are what you can preserve.’

179
However, the meaning-oriented understanding does not deny the tangible manifestation of
heritage, such as Fo Guang Shan, Chinese-inspired architecture and artworks, and
archaeological artefacts. Wang (2020) pointed out that tangible heritage should be built on a
foundation of intangible heritage. Likewise, No. 15 participant (2020) stated that intangible
heritage, such as cultural activities, should be put first, while tangible heritage should be
secondary. A few Chinese participants agreed that the tangible manifestation of Chinese
heritage was indispensable. For example, Yao (2020) shared a story

‘When I came here, there were basically all local Chinese. They were like
living in the 19th century. Because I came from China, I saw those things
and knew that’s definitely Chinese, such as the red lanterns at home. It
must be something Chinese. But no Chinese family [in China] was like
this. So I asked one of them. They said maybe because we left the
mainland, this is the only Chinese thing we can hold. But China is not
afraid, because China is Chinese, it can have any change and doesn’t
need big lanterns. It’s still Chinese. But if we take away those lanterns,
we have nothing left. This is the only ‘China’ we can seize.’

In the New Zealand heritage system, the RMA interprets heritage as natural and physical
resources by the term historic heritage, while the HNZPT Act uses the term historical and
cultural heritage by referring to historic place, historic area, wāhi tūpuna, wāhi tapu, and wāhi
tapu area. These terms and interpretations establish a material-focusing of heritage within the
New Zealand heritage system. As Parslow (2021) pointed out, the New Zealand heritage
system does not really focus on people unless it is a place or building that professionals can
easily trace records and information such as who owned that.

However, during interviews, multiple professionals pointed out the importance of people in
relation to heritage regardless of the manifestations. For example, Parslow (2021) explained
the meaning of heritage as the connection that people develop with the tangible environment.
That sense of place evokes emotion and a sense of belonging and lets people develop an
attachment to the place in the way of spiritual meaning. No. 63 participant (2021) interpreted
heritage as ‘things that we want to keep for present and future generations, whether that's
artifacts, places or traditions, language’. The discrepancy between heritage legislation and the
workforce leads to an excessive dependence on grassroots heritage specialists and

180
professionals to address alternative interpretations and manifestation of heritage in practice.
Systemic biases centred on material heritage preclude those incommensurable understandings
and meanings of heritage. The mismatching of the meaning-oriented understanding of
heritage vs. material-focusing on heritage happens between Auckland Chinese participants
and the heritage legislations in New Zealand.

7.2 Diverse manifestation of heritage vs. Festival celebration

The Chinese community in New Zealand has a long history dating back over 180 years and is
continually diversifying through the influx of new migrants from various countries and
regions. Auckland Chinese participants’ understanding of Chinese cultural heritage varies by
provinces and regions where they came from, personal experience either being more or less
involved in Chinese culture, educational background, and occupation being influenced by the
authorised heritage discourse to different extents. Also, people’s perception and
understanding of heritage evolve with time. Thus, Chinese cultural heritage is highly
inclusive and adaptable. As Cheung (2020) noted,

‘Cultural heritage exists within our Chinese community, being introverted,

internally developing, and you pass it on to your children. […] when
looking closer, each family is different. That is, culture has a big culture
and a small culture. I think what we show here in New Zealand is only a
small part. There are too many Chinese cultures.’

Such opinion was shared by multiple participants that there is no single activity or association
that can represent all Chinese people. Additionally, there is no single heritage item that can
represent the unity of the majority of Chinese cultural heritage. For example, Liang (2020)
pointed out that Chinese culture is not just appreciating a beautiful chi-pao [旗袍] or eating
Chinese food. There are many more things that should be passed on. Cheung (2020)
highlighted that ‘[Chinese cultural heritage] is a multicultural thing, you can only see part of
it. So, if you only acknowledge part of it, that is unfair. So now it might be necessary to have
more opportunities to let everyone know as much as what Chinese cultural heritage is.’

181
Historically, there is more than one singular narrative in the New Zealand Chinese
communities. The Chinese cultural heritage has gradually become multicultural, especially
after the 1980s. It embraces a great variety and flexibility in the local environment, such as
the relationship with indigenous Māori communities. Therefore, the Chinese cultural heritage
has gradually become multicultural through diverse manifestations.

Cheung (2020) pointed out, ‘It is more difficult for us, because the body [of Chinese cultural
heritage] is larger and there are more cultural types, so all they can see is just the impression
of one part of Chinese people.’ Many Chinese participants complained that Chinese cultural
heritage has been over-simplified and reduced to symbolization. So, this research can only
get closer rather than reach an ultimate overview of Chinese cultural heritage.

The Auckland heritage framework acknowledges the manifestation of Chinese cultural

heritage mainly in an intangible way, such as festivals and cultural events. Boileau (2021)
pointed out that the Auckland Council has put efforts towards multicultural heritage more in
intangible than tangible cultural heritage, not just among Chinese but also Indian community.
Non-European communities are currently disempowered in the battlefield of tangible heritage
in Auckland. For example, no official record has been identified concerning the Ah Chee
Market Garden in Carlaw Park, the State Theatre inside of Symonds Street, which used to be
an actual community centre by Chinese people in the early days, and the Grey’s Avenue.
Although Chinese cultural heritage encompasses diverse manifestations in Auckland, the
Auckland heritage framework’s responses mainly concern the intangibility of heritage.

7.3 Cyclical view of history vs. Linear progression

The last mismatch sits in Chinese and Western culture’s different views of history. Whether
being Confucian, Taoist, or Buddhist, the Chinese tradition eschews a linear view of history
and instead embraces a cyclical view of history with no eschatology. The cyclical view of
history indicates an inevitable cycle of endless historical recurrence. For example, Chinese
participants agreed on the significance of Chinese literature for providing suggestions to the
present based on past experiences (No. 8 participant, 2020; Shen, 2020).

182
A glimpse of China and its history demonstrates an ancient and evolving culture with a long
history of civilization. The two millennia of the cycle of one dynasty following another
reinforce this cyclical view. It is supported by the yin/yang theory, which has long served as
the core principle of Chinese metaphysics that drives people’s worldviews (Hwangbo, 2002).
Most Chinese participants thought of heritage in the past, present, and future tenses
simultaneously. Heritage concerns introspecting the past, reflecting on the present, and
directing the future.

On the contrary, a linear view entails a progressive history that moves forward without a
cyclical return (Lemon, 2003, p. 66). The linear progression of history intertwines with the
positivistic paradigm within the Enlightenment doctrines. The teleological and rational
conception of time has a lasting impact on the historical consciousness in Western culture
(Norman, 1999, p. 10; Lemon, 2003, p. 171). No. 49 participant (2021) criticized that if
heritage research is too obsessed with the past while leaving the present to tomorrow, many
accumulations at present would be gone. Short (2021) claimed that heritage should be
liberated from history.

Reflecting on the Fijian views of history, Bower (2021) revealed that people could be
reluctant to talk about heritage unless they feel comfortable opening up. It is culturally
concerned, not because they are not interested in heritage. ‘They're very proud of their
heritage. And they do know that heritage.’ Likewise, Jamieson (2021) explained that the
Māori worldview of heritage is a spiral but not in a linear progression. ‘Kia whakatōmuri te
haere whakamua: “I walk backwards into the future with my eyes fixed on my past” (Rameka,
2017; see also Jamieson, 2021).

Due to the mismatching in the meaning of heritage, heritage manifestation, and the views of
history, Chinese cultural heritage and the dominant understanding of heritage has different
explanation and criteria of heritage significance and values. The next section will
demonstrate Chinese heritage significance and values and reveal their incommensurability in
the New Zealand heritage system.

183
7.4 Chinese heritage significance and values

This section will introduce the heritage significance and assessment criteria of Chinese
cultural heritage as perceived by the Chinese participants. As noted by Cheung (2020), ‘if
you take a Western perspective, there is no Chinese cultural heritage’. Therefore, this section
will also discuss the differences between the significance and criteria acknowledged by the
Chinese participants and those heritage qualities acknowledged by the RMA and the HNZPT
Act.

7.4.1 The significance of cultural representation

Almost all Chinese participants believed that the manifestation of heritage plays a significant
role in cultural representation. No. 24 participant (2020) pointed out that ‘moving forward in
terms of contemporary culture, it's more about representation on multiculturalism and New
Zealand.’ Although Chinese food and calligraphy have achieved great success in mainstream
society, Chinese participants looked forward to more representation and less
misunderstanding. For example, Lowe (2020) saw heritage as ‘a nice cycle of learning and
valuing’: ‘When you understand things, people often create an interest and value to it. And
[those interests and values] make more people willing to learn more, and then generate.’ He
believed that heritage could let people know what the Chinese are doing and why they
celebrate New Year in certain ways. ‘And [people] understand and appreciate why you’re
doing it, and you are not being silly or whatever.’

Many Kiwi-Chinese participants expected their history and contribution to be heard by the
wider society. Also, a third category distinct from investment and skill immigrants after 1987
has received limited recognition in academia and society (Yuan, 2001). Chinese cultural
heritage is about showing their multicultural faces to the local society. They can be Chinese,
Kiwi Chinese, Chinese New Zealander, and New Zealand Chinese. They all contributed and
called Aotearoa New Zealand home. No. 24 participant (2020) shared the opinion that,

‘The Chinese population in Auckland is the biggest in New Zealand. And

for me, cultural significance or cultural heritage is kind of celebrating that,
which I don't see so much. […] ethnic cultures have brought such

184
 diversity and so much value to New Zealand and particularly Auckland
and that's something I wish is celebrated. […] we don't get the idea that if
you don't like it, you should go home, well that's my home, I don't have
anywhere else to go. So in our cultural landscape, we need more
representation to say that, to reflect the real face of New Zealand […] to
acknowledge the people who are making a contribution.’

7.4.2 The significance of mutual acceptance

Very few Chinese participants have had cross-cultural communication with people from other
cultural backgrounds. Most were concerned that it would be challenging, especially in
worldviews and East-Asian philosophy. Even if some did, they chose Chinese food since it
was the easiest way to communicate. Chinese cultural heritage was seen as a great way to
show the most valuable accumulation of their distinctive culture and history to all New
Zealanders. It should enable mutual understanding and worship. A heritage perspective could
add the real historical value to Chinese people as a part of New Zealand identity.

A few 1.5th and second-generation participants expressed their identity struggling during the
growing process in New Zealand. No. 24 participant (2020) shared that ‘I think for minorities,
it's that fear of talking about these differences. I've gone through that fear for a long time.
Because, in a way, it's so tightly bound, it's hard to have authentic identity.’ Some
participants were told to assimilate rather than retain Chineseness, which could attract
xenophobia. No. 24 participant (2020) added ‘I think for immigrants is that we feel like we
don't belong, and there are forces out there that make us feel that way. So I think
representation helps bridge that divide so that everyone feels that they belong.’

Similarly, many other participants agreed that the public presence of Chinese cultural
heritage would increase their trust in New Zealand’s inclusiveness. Those people have
contributed their intelligence and youth to New Zealand. They strongly wished to be accepted.
For example, Wang (2021a) expected heritage for connection and attachment. Grace (2020)
looked forward to a sense of community and belonging. Shen (2020) hoped to be accepted as
part of the general public, albeit of a particular kind with Chinese cultural background. Gee
(2020) would like to see more cross-cultural interactions. No. 24 participant (2020) described
an ideal vision,

185
 ‘I think cultural heritage is one for Chinese to feel more comfortable
being in New Zealand to be able to call this our home, but also for Kiwis
to understand that multiculturalism brings a lot to the country and the
country is changing, you know, we're not a white nation. […] I think a
celebration of cultural heritage can really help to say that actually, we're
all here, this is all our home. We're all part of the Auckland identity,
everyone is just as valid. Someone who has strong group here for several
generations, who's just as valid as a new immigrant, who was legally
entitled to come to New Zealand, and they want to make this their home,
and everyone wants to contribute their part.’

7.4.3 The assessment criteria of Chinese cultural heritage

There are mainly six criteria that Auckland Chinese participants used to assess the Chinese
cultural heritage in Auckland and New Zealand: showing Chinese communities’ contribution
to New Zealand, merit, authenticity, spiritual value, historical value, and aesthetic value.

Showing Chinese communities’ contribution to New Zealand

A few interviewees agreed that Chinese cultural heritage should represent all Chinese
communities’ contributions to New Zealand. No. 24 participant (2020) explained that cultural
heritage should represent the value and the sacrifices that people had arrived in New Zealand
and have contributed to Auckland to make it a great city. Similarly, Wang (2021a) thought
that Chinese cultural heritage should represent what Chinese migrants have achieved through
their participation in the historical process of New Zealand. ‘It’s not only about Chinese, but
their contribution in the local history.’

Merit

Many Chinese participants mentioned the significance of merit when discussing what to pass
on to the future. Some chose family values and their socialising culture. Some talked about
the treasure of philosophy from Yi Ching. Some noted the worldviews and yin yang
philosophy as their thinking tool. Some consider Chinese literature as the source from which
they have acquired knowledge and intelligence. Overall, although people talk about different
types of heritage for various reasons, they all believe heritage with merit is what they want to
preserve and pass on.

186
Authenticity

Authenticity is one of the most frequently mentioned keywords and criteria. Many
participants shared the preference for authenticity. Though due to individual differences, such
as educational background and personal interest, they thought of different types of
authenticity, such as material authenticity, architectural authenticity, and cultural authenticity.
For example, Lian (2020) appreciated Lan Yuan for the authentic garden stones from China.
No. 24 participant (2020) highlighted the architectural authenticity of Fo Guang Shan. Hu
(2020) applied the criteria of cultural authenticity to residential buildings.

Spiritual value

Chinese cultural heritage was expected to touch the communities’ hearts and memories and
be spiritually significant. Many participants thought of spiritual values, such as humanistic
values, the feeling of connection or sense of belonging, respecting the early Chinese migrants,
and their interactions with tangata whenua. They looked forward to being represented,
understood, and accepted as an integral part of New Zealand.

Historical value

Some participants thought that historical value is necessary for a valid heritage. For example,
No. 8 participant (2020) concluded that ‘If you want to look for a particular representative
building with historical precipitation, it might not exist.’ Similarly, Lian (2020) pointed out
that the Chinese scholar garden in Hamilton Gardens was not a valid heritage. ‘These
buildings do not have historical significance but cultural significance. But cultural
significance, even if these buildings are demolished today, they can be rebuilt exactly the
same. So there is no historical significance that is worth to preserve.’ In addition, participants
also applied historical value to intangible heritage such as the Chinese New Year Festival &
Market Day, Lantern Festival, and ACCC. They loved to highlight those histories and how
people have been involved throughout the long history.

187
Aesthetic value

A few participants mentioned the aesthetic value of heritage. For example, Lowe (2020)
thought about tangible Chinese heritage in Auckland and concluded that ‘Some do have
history but not architectural merit in that.’ Similarly, Wang (2021a) agreed that aesthetic
values should be visually and intuitive, such as traditional Chinese symbols of Chinese knot
and the noodle sculpture at the Dominion Road. Aesthetic values can arouse people’s
emotional connection with the heritage.

7.4.4 Heritage qualities by the RMA and HNZPT Act

The RMA uses ‘historic heritage’, meaning ‘those natural and physical resources that
contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures’
(section 2). Historic heritage should meet any of the archaeological, architectural, cultural,
historic, scientific, and technological qualities. For those non-Māori heritage, the HNZPT
Act uses two terms of ‘historic place’ and ‘historic area’. The Section 66(1) demonstrates that
any historic place or historic area in the New Zealand Heritage List should have aesthetic,
archaeological, architectural, cultural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, technological,
or traditional significance or value.

The heritage criteria by Auckland Chinese participants overlap with heritage qualities by
the RMA and HNZPT Act in spiritual, historical, and aesthetic values. The Significance
Assessment Guidelines: Guidelines for Assessing Historic Places and Historic Areas for
the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero (HNZPT, 2019) provides detailed
explanations about each heritage value. According to the guideline, both spiritual and
aesthetic values indicate the importance of community involvement. Historical value is
associated with ‘a significant aspect of New Zealand history’ (HNZPT, 2019, p. 10). While
the thresholds of these three values do not deny the inclusion of Chinese cultural heritage,
either the hidden history of Chinese people in the North Island and Auckland or the heritage
themes by Auckland Chinese participants have been comparatively under-represented in the
New Zealand Heritage List and even less in district plans.

188
Considerations of heritage value remain uneven in practice. The value assessment depends on
the grassroots heritage workforce (No. 62 participant, 2021). Bower (2021) and No. 62
participant (2021) revealed that the social values of heritage are underexplored. The social
side requires particular professionals and funding and is hard to pin down in an intense
timeframe (No. 62 participant, 2021).

7.5 The marginalised Chinese cultural heritage in New Zealand

Chinese cultural heritage is evidently marginalised in the New Zealand heritage system.
Three layers can explain the mismatches between Auckland Chinese participants and the
New Zealand heritage system in the meaning of heritage, heritage manifestation, and views
of heritage. Also, neither the perspectives on heritage significance nor their criteria for
Chinese cultural heritage are incommensurable to the dominant heritage approaches in the
New Zealand heritage system. Therefore, Chinese cultural heritage is unavoidably under-
represented in New Zealand.

In addition, New Zealand possesses a long discriminatory history against Chinese people. For
example, between 1881 and 1920, there were 35 acts passed to ensure that non-Europeans
were excluded from New Zealand. While all legislative discrimination was abolished by 1952,
New Zealand governments pursued a policy of assimilation in the 1950s and 1960s. Chinese
New Zealanders were encouraged to be white New Zealanders while diminishing their
Chineseness. Many Chinese have chosen to assimilate and keep a low profile, which has
resulted in a hesitance towards openly embracing their Chinese cultural heritage. This is due
to concerns that such actions may draw heightened attention and exacerbate the risk of racist
attitudes and discrimination towards the Chinese community

7.6 Politics of heritage in New Zealand

Concerns about marginalised Chinese cultural heritage and underrepresented Māori heritage
have pulled the arguments about the New Zealand official heritage discourse to the edge of
heritage politics. The politics of heritage demonstrate a particular taste and preference to
heritage. It aims to reinforce those dominant and authorised discourse while marginalising

189
those unwanted narratives. Rather than referring to the ‘origins of New Zealand’s distinct
society’ as promised in the HNZPT Act Section 4(a), the heritage arena is somehow filled
with a biased will about what to pass on and what to forget. The politics of heritage in New
Zealand will be revealed by the intrinsic deficiencies in the New Zealand heritage system, the
undervalued importance of heritage in the planning of New Zealand, and the biased national
identity of New Zealand.

7.6.1 Intrinsic deficiencies in the New Zealand heritage system

Heritage orthodox still dominates the understanding and use of heritage in the New Zealand
heritage system. First of all, heritage diffuses into multiple terms across different heritage
legislations. These terms of heritage are interpreted and explained by representative samples
without definition. Secondly, the New Zealand heritage system sits on a dual identification
and protection system through orthodox approaches of the values-based approach and the
Ruskinian tradition. More often, heritage is explained by professional knowledge in terms of
monumental and aesthetic values. The orthodox approaches exclude alternative approaches
and are less responsive to alternative understandings of heritage. In practice, European
settlement heritage predominates on the New Zealand Heritage List and the Cultural Heritage
Inventory in Auckland. While the RMA Section 7 sets out the particular considerations of
kaitiakitanga and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi, there is a lack
of knowledge about the traditional materials and construction technology of Māori heritage
buildings and other professional guidance and support among TAs. In a broader sense,
heritage approaches under the dual system of identification and conservation disconnect with
the ongoing demographic diversity of New Zealand migrant society.

Thirdly, there is unbalanced attention to national heritage and local heritage. The New
Zealand heritage framework concerns a lot about national heritage regardless of the absence
of an NPS on heritage by the central government. However, that protective responsibility of
national heritage is largely distributed to local authorities. In the meantime, many
professionals revealed the shortage of workforce and funding resources by district councils.
Power contention between higher and local authorities is not new and happens between
international organisations and indigenous peoples (see also Disko & Tugendhat, 2014;

190
Vrdoljak, 2018). As a result, the emphasis on national heritage overshadows local heritage, as
does migrant heritage (Short, 2021).

7.6.2 Undervalued heritage in planning

Although New Zealand has its heritage system and framework, the operationalisation of
identification and protection relies mainly on the planning system. The heritage framework is
often disadvantaged by the culture of the planning system, such as timeframe-intense and
monetary-demanding, and more importantly, the place-focusing by the RMA. In addition,
heritage concerns remain absent from planning priorities. Planning practices are often
development-leading with less attention to heritage. Heritage is undervalued in planning with
development pressure from urban intensification and suburban sprawl.

In such a context, it would be even harder to argue for a seat for migrant heritage in heritage
schedules and orders. In the Auckland case study, heritage responses to Chinese people are
mainly intangible, such as Lantern Festival, heritage lectures during Auckland Heritage
Festivals, and other festival celebrations. Instead of a one-off celebration, New Zealand lacks
a long-term vision for the future of migrant heritage. Additionally, the deep but essential part
of Chinese culture is often difficult to obtain through festival celebrations, which typically
cater to a diverse range of audiences and their preferences.

7.6.3 National identity without migrant minorities

In the early migration history prior to 1952, the entry of non-Europeans, particularly Chinese
people, were excluded from New Zealand by 35 discriminatory regulations. In 1952, the
regulatory discrimination ended. However, the exclusion of Chinese identity and Chineseness
arose through the policy of assimilation by New Zealand governments in the 1950s and 1960s.
Chinese New Zealanders were encouraged to adopt Western customs as much as possible
while diminishing their heritage. Due to the recent influx of Chinese migrants after 1987,
anti-Chinese racism has rebounded in publicity, such as the Asian ‘Inv-asian’ in 1996. In
2002, the former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, publicly issued an apology
for the Poll Tax and other discriminatory laws imposed on the Chinese community. After that,

191
the Chinese profile has been raised for a couple of decades. However, the Covid-19 pandemic
and the subsequent fear of mobility and economic recession evoked the anti-Chinese
publicity. Chinese New Zealanders are seen as perpetual foreigners, ‘a label not applied to the
British people who have settled in Aotearoa’ (Ip, 2021). Essentially, the exclusion of Chinese
people has not much changed in New Zealand.

In the Auckland case study, many Chinese participants doubted if Auckland embraces de
facto multicultural reality and multiculturalism. Cheung (2020) sadly recalled that

‘There has never been a multi-culture in the true sense. […] If you look at
the whole Auckland, you can see there are not many things that are
different from the mainstream and Western culture. If you look at the
planning of public spaces, you can actually see there are rare things not
belonging to the mainstream society.’ ‘In Auckland, yes there are many
Asian faces working and doing business, but you cannot see [their marks]
if you take these people away.’

Chinese cultural heritage is closely associated with participants’ cultural identity and sense of
belonging in New Zealand. Being excluded or marginalised from the heritage realm further
diminishes their rights to be an integral part of New Zealand and New Zealanders. New
Zealand’s national identity remains biased against non-Pākehā migrants. There is no
consensus on how to proceed with biculturalism in the multicultural context, or achieve
multiculturalism without diminishing the power of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o
Waitangi. No national policy explicitly addresses such a dilemma. In this context, both
planning and heritage are ambiguous in their response to demographic diversity.

According to the HNZPT, the heritage places of New Zealand are particularly ‘central to our
national identity and well-being, now and in the future’, while embodying ‘the stories of all
generations, cultures, traditions and communities’ and making ‘a creative contribution to the
diversity of our national life’. Correspondingly, the National Historic Landmarks are meant to
‘tell stories of who we are as New Zealanders’; the visitor programme Tohu Whenua
acknowledges ‘places that have shaped our nation and created our defining stories’. However,
the lack of clear direction and guidance on defining ‘national identity’, determining who
qualifies as a ‘New Zealander’ and contributes to ‘us’, and identifying the components of

192
‘diversity’ within the New Zealand heritage system remains a significant issue. Indigenous
Māori heritage and non-Pākehā migrant heritage are relatively less and under-represented.

Now the national identity of New Zealand remains ethnicity-based, in particular on

Britishness, such as the proposed national curriculum 2021. New Zealanders of non-
European descent are perpetual foreigners and migrants (Murphy, 2003; Ip, 2021). While the
HNZPT emphasizes ‘diversity of our national life’ and ‘all generations, cultures, traditions
and communities’, few evidences can be found in heritage workforce, and heritage schedules
and lists. The heritage database within the New Zealand heritage system is predominated by
European settlement heritage. Overall, the New Zealand heritage system remains less
responsive to the migrant society of New Zealand. The current responses do not suit the
‘majority or a large percentage of [its] population’ (Jamieson, 2021; see also No. 62
participant, 2021). No. 24 participant (2020) argues that ‘we can't deny this historical path of
how New Zealand came to be, what would it look like without all the immigrants and all the
minorities that make up Auckland. […] I just want to make it better and have [cultural
heritage] reflect all the people who live in here, because that's the reality of New Zealand.’

The next chapter will respond to research questions by finalising the conception of migrant
heritage based on the Chinese cultural heritage in the Auckland case study, proposing a
community-based heritage model, and suggesting the scope of heritage planning in New
Zealand to respond to migrant minorities. The contribution of this research to the heritage of
New Zealand and the heritage planning in a migrant society will be summarised. In the end,
future work and the limitation of this research will be provided.

193
8 Chapter 8. Conclusion

Chapter 8 will respond to research questions with a conception of migrant heritage, a

community-based heritage model, and a scope of heritage planning to respond to migrant
minorities in New Zealand. Concluding remarks will summarise this chapter and reflect on
the research objectives.

8.1 From Chinese cultural heritage to a conception of migrant heritage

In the Auckland case study, Chinese cultural heritage is represented by the variation and
constant of heritage themes, the dual lenses of time and space, heritage meaning, and
conception. This section will move from the Chinese cultural heritage in Auckland to a
conception of migrant heritage.

8.1.1 Meaning of migrant heritage

In the case study, Auckland Chinese participants referred to heritage as what makes them the
way they are and what to pass on. The meaning of Chinese cultural heritage is established on
the cultural identity of ‘being Chinese’ and ‘cultural inheritance’, and the interaction between
Chinese people and the local environment, such as the ‘relationship with Māori communities.’
Being migrant minorities, Chinese communities maintain internal relations with other
Chinese people and external connections with the local environment, such as their interaction
with indigenous Māori people (see Figure 8-1).

Migrant heritage is built on the community knowledge of what migrants have learned from
their homeland and what migrants have achieved in the settlement place. On the one hand,
migrant heritage differs from the heritage defined in migrants’ homeland. On the other hand,
migrant heritage constantly renews locally beyond the monumentality and aesthetics defined
by the authorised heritage discourse, the historic heritage in the RMA and the historic places
and areas in the HNZPT Act. Therefore, the dichotomy of constant and variation in Chinese

194
heritage themes is observed in the Auckland case study’s diverse manifestations of Chinese
cultural heritage.

8.1.2 Conception of migrant heritage

The preliminary conceptual framework of migrant heritage reveals migrant heritage’s

association with place attachment, sense of place, emotion, and identity. Parslow (2021)
interpreted a micro of heritage that raises a sense of place and evokes emotion, and thereby a
sense of belonging, and a macro of heritage that explains that sense of place and identity.
According to the Chinese cultural heritage in the Auckland case study, identity and the
interaction with the local environment, contribute to the meaning of migrant heritage.
Meanwhile, place attachment, sense of place, and emotion are reflected in Chinese cultural
heritage. The sense of place constantly intertwines with nostalgia and other emotions, as is
supported by the opinion from the literature review (in 3.4.4 A preliminary conceptual
framework of migrant heritage) that sense of place can evolve along with emotions. Due to
the heritage lenses of time and space, the cultural process of Chinese cultural heritage is
identified in New Zealand. Thus, migrant heritage is associated with place attachment,
emotion, and cultural process.

In the Auckland case study, Chinese cultural heritage is conceptualised by the spatial,
emotional, and temporal dimensions. Firstly, the spatial dimension refers to multiple place
attachment to the intimate place of home, migrants’ homeland, and other enlightening places
where migrants have travelled or visited. Secondly, the emotional dimension refers to a
strong sense of nostalgia and other emotions such as loneliness, sorrow, feeling excluded, and
homesickness. Thirdly, the temporal dimension refers to a cultural process. While Chinese
heritage interacts and mix with other migrant heritage, it also re-creates new values and
manifestations from Chinese migrants’ minority histories.

This section will combine the preliminary conceptual framework of migrant heritage from the
literature review and the Chinese cultural heritage conception from the Auckland case study
into a conception of migrant heritage (see Figure 8-1). Firstly, in an age where information
can easily flow through transportation and digital means, migrants can maintain multiple

195
place attachments. They acquire not only the complexity of their identity but also the diverse
manifestations of their heritage. Thus, the spatial dimension of migrant heritage implies
multiple attachments, although the number and objects of attached places can vary from
person to person. Also, the multiple place attachment echoes the opinion from the literature
review (in 3.4.4 A preliminary conceptual framework of migrant heritage) that migrants can
develop and relate their identities to various places simultaneously. Such attachments can be
free from the length of residence and authentic tangibility.

Secondly, Lu (2020a), based on New Zealand’s Chinese history, argues that the history of
ethnic minorities is shaped by context – ‘the way that these historical actors chose to carry
out their lives, what they recorded about it, and the way that they speak about it in hindsight
are all contained within the bounds of what was required for survival.’ Migrant communities
experience discrimination at different times and to varying degrees. The traumatized past
enables them to attach various emotions and expectations to heritage and see it as a
significant cultural representation. For example, many Auckland Chinese participants
explicitly or implicitly hope that they and their heritage can become an integral part of New
Zealand and be understood and accepted by mainstream society.

Thirdly, Chinese cultural heritage does not bound with geographical territory and ethnicity in
the Auckland case study. It becomes highly inclusive and multicultural through diverse
manifestations. Since migrants mix and are autonomous individuals with complex repertoires
of identities in different predefined social categories, migrant heritage can breach beyond
national borders and across generations and even ethnicities. It is not frozen but always
belongs to ‘a creative social process involving routes and roots’ (Dellios & Henrich, 2021;
Reed, 2015). Also, heritage studies proponents have argued that the understanding of heritage
should move forward to a cultural process where meaning and memory are constantly being
made and remade (Smith, 2006, p. 74; Waterton & Watson, 2013). Thus, the cultural and
social process interpretation denotes the temporal dimension of migrant heritage.

However, in the case of Chinese cultural heritage, due to the cyclical view of heritage in
Chinese culture, the cultural process of heritage avoids linear progress from an initial

196
imperfection to an eventual enlightened state but adopts an adaptive attitude while preserving
its core (see 5.2 The constant of Chinese heritage themes). Thus, the ‘creative social process’
of Chinese cultural heritage does not involve its ‘roots’. Essentially, it maintains the
permanence of traditional Chinese philosophy and cultural values.

8.1.3 Societal effects of migrant heritage

In the Auckland case study, the heritage significance of Chinese cultural heritage
encompasses cultural representation and mutual acceptance between Chinese people and
mainstream society. Also, there is a large and notable proportion concerning their relationship
with indigenous people in the meaning of Chinese cultural heritage. Thus, the societal effects
of migrant heritage will be discussed in order of cultural exchange, sense of belonging, and
community cohesion (see Figure 8-1).

Cultural exchange

Many Chinese participants thought that a lack of understanding is the primary reason that
causes the poor integration between Chinese and other cultures. Therefore, they expected a
better representation of Chinese cultural heritage could help with cultural exchange and
cross-cultural communication. For example, Zhu (2021) shared that

‘Our Chinese cultural heritage makes me feel proud, because it’s through
the language, art, architecture, music, dance, films and cuisine, that we
can showcase what we have brought with us from our homeland and
introduce this to the diverse people who we share our new home with.’

Many Auckland Chinese believed in the societal effect of Chinese cultural heritage, such as
Teaism, incense rituals (香道), martial arts, calligraphy, and language in cultural exchange.
They emphasized the importance of heritage practice and engagement. Migrant heritage
should be promoted in homogeneous communities and across heterogeneous populations to
understand each other better. For example, No. 24 participant (2020) hoped that Chinese
cultural heritage could expand people’s horizons regarding Chinese communities to more
than the stereotypes of fried rice and takeaways.

197
Sense of belonging

Ethnic minorities - particularly those who are also New Zealand citizens - are continuously
expected to represent or act on behalf of their ethnicities rather than New Zealanders, a label
which easily applies to European descents (Simon-Kumar, 2019). Many Chinese participants
expected that the representation of migrant heritage could fill the gap where migrants are
insecure about their identity and belonging. The acknowledgement of migrant heritage
indicates the acceptance of migrants as an integral part of the national identity. This is
exemplified in the case study of Auckland, where the relationship between the Chinese and
Māori communities and the contributions made by Chinese communities to New Zealand
society are recognized.

Community cohesion

A prominent societal effect of migrant heritage can be community cohesion. The Chinese
communities in the Auckland case study maintain a high level of interconnectivity within
their own community by sharing the same heritage perceptions. Meanwhile, No. 4 participant
(2020) was happy to see an influx of new migrants importing new blood to continue Chinese
cultural heritage in New Zealand. Migrant heritage has impact on community cohesion. For
example, Foon (2021) pointed out that ‘[Chinese cultural heritage] has already influenced the
Chinese community in many ways. The old face immigrants, they [the Poll-tax Chinese]
came here, and then they have children. There’s always less and less culture. But fortunately
for Chinese people in New Zealand, we have new immigrants coming in all the time. And
they actually provide and show us the culture.’

198
Figure 8-1. The meaning, conception, and societal effects of migrant heritage.
Source: Author

199
8.2 Community-based heritage model

The meaning and conception of migrant heritage are mainly established on community
knowledge of Chinese cultural heritage in the Auckland case study. Considering the analysed
data in Chapter 5 and the data collection experiences, a community-based heritage model is
proposed to open to alternative understandings and interpretations of heritage from different
communities.

In the Auckland case study, Boileau (2021) and Eaves (2021) revealed that Chinese heritage
remains hidden within the current dominant heritage discourse in New Zealand. Likewise,
following the evacuation of a Chinese market garden underneath Carlaw Park, Bader, and
Adamson (2011) noted that ‘Being a 'silent' group, much less historic sources talk about the
Chinese of 19th century, thus information held by the family, the descendant group, is more
important than with a European archaeological site’ (p, 51). The significance of community
knowledge from oral history was pointed out by professional participants from the HNZPT
and DoC during interviews. Thus, a community basis is considered for migrant heritage
investigation. As many Chinese participants have argued, few tangible manifestations of
Chinese heritage cannot deny Auckland’s over 130-year Chinese history.

The idea of community-based heritage aims to investigate heritage knowledge from the
opposite side of expertise. A community-based understanding of heritage does not assume
how heritage should be represented and maintained. Instead, it is built up from community
consultation. In the Auckland case study, research methods of literature review and
interviews were used. The research process was always iterative. Now reflecting on that
experience, interview suggestions are given as follows. Firstly, before interviews, the
researcher should be aware of the historical background and the rough demographical picture
of the target community. During interviews, the conversation should be led by people’s
talking instead of professional terms and comments from the interviewer. After interviews,
the data analysis should be abstracted step by step from reading the interview data multiple
times.

200
Interview data from Chinese participants in the Auckland case study indicates a shallow-to-
deep process. In the beginning, participants thought about heritage according to most
experienced events or visited places, what they want to pass on to future generations, and the
most employed philosophy or values. Most data are derived from participants’ memories and
experiences in this stage. They would highlight what they did, where, and with whom. Then,
after recalling memories, participants explained why they chose specific heritage themes.
They reflected on their cultural identity, Chineseness, and understanding of heritage in New
Zealand and the Chinese cultural heritage. At last, participants rethought the precise
manifestation and representation of their heritage and visioned the future of Chinese cultural
heritage in Auckland and New Zealand and what that future requires.

Therefore, the community-based heritage model can be divided into three parts:

1. What – heritage themes, such as event, activity, exhibition, architecture;

2. Why – heritage significance, such as cultural representation, mutual acceptance, and

heritage uniqueness of being different from other migrant heritage in the home
country and the traditional cultural heritage in the homeland;

3. How – heritage representation of diverse manifestations.

The first step is about prominent themes from most experienced occasions, such as heritage
events, activities, cultural or artefacts exhibitions, Chinese- inspired architecture, or artworks.
The second step is about the significance of migrant heritage and its uniqueness. According
to the mismatches between Auckland Chinese participants’ heritage narrative and the New
Zealand heritage system’s heritage discourse, migrant heritage can be disadvantaged for its
meaning-oriented characteristic, diverse manifestations, and the typical cyclical view of
history in Chinese culture. Thus, as the major component of heritage assessment, heritage
significance should be consulted. Moreover, according to the history of heritage (see 3.1
Evolution and expansion process of the definition and scope of heritage), migrants’
understanding and requirement of heritage can be different from indigenous people. Such
opinion is supported by Auckland Chinese participants, who distinguished their heritage
requirement from the indigenous Māori people, and the Chinese cultural heritage in Hong

201
Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China. Thus, the uniqueness of migrant heritage is added after
heritage significance.

The third step is about how migrant heritage is and should be represented in the local
environment. The representation of migrant heritage does not always follow the
tangible/intangible dichotomy. For example, in the Auckland case study, Chinese cultural
heritage is inclusive and multicultural. Its manifestations are interlinked and inseparable. The
categorization-based definition of cultural heritage by UNESCO and ICOMOS (see 3.1.3
Cultural heritage) may diminish the meaning behind these manifestations, such as the
Chinese food culture and festivals.

The community-based heritage model serves an exploring purpose regarding migrant heritage.
It does not aim to picture the whole canvas of heritage by migrants, which goes against the
critical premise that migrant heritage continuously evolves and has an inclusive nature. In the
Auckland case study, mostly shared experiences and opinions about Chinese cultural heritage
were chosen. What Chinese cultural heritage has been shown in this research is not
necessarily representative but indicates its distinctiveness and uniqueness.

8.3 Heritage planning in New Zealand

Due to the politics of heritage in New Zealand, Chinese cultural heritage has been
marginalised in the dominant heritage discourse. Primary reasons include the intrinsic
deficiencies in the New Zealand heritage system, heritage being undervalued in the planning
of New Zealand, and the national identity without migrant minorities. This section will
provide the heritage planning recommendations accordingly.

8.3.1 Community partnership

Community partnership is introduced by promoting heritage education and consultation with

tangata whenua and migrant minorities.

202
History education

Heritage education aims to introduce the history of New Zealand and let all New Zealanders
know about their ancestors and themselves in the heritage world of New Zealand. It requires
a broader historical narrative involving not only the history of the nation but also its people.
Migration history should be incorporated into a significant part of New Zealand history.

Migration history now remains a particular strand of history, emphasizing migrants. It is

seemingly underrepresented as an integral part of national history, just as non-Pākehā
migrants’ identity is ignored in the national identity and migrant heritage is underrepresented
in the dominant heritage discourse. For example, a dominant timeline can be divided into
Māori settlement before 1642, when the first known European - a Dutch explorer arrived in
Aotearoa; the early European explorers and their trading with Māori from 1642 to 1833,
when the British government sought to intervene by sending commissioners to Aotearoa New
Zealand; the colonisation history from 1833 to 1890, when New Zealand’s first modern
political party came into power; the social reforms history of several political parties from
1890 to 1947 when New Zealand became fully independent, and the contemporary migration
history after 1947 (Wilson, 2020).

However, Bedford, Ho and Lidgard (2000) reveal a timeline of migration history: tangata
whenua of indigenous Māori since the late 18th century, a British colony from the early 19th
century with residents mainly from the United Kingdom and Ireland via Australia, Chinese
gold miners in the 1860s and 1870s, Polynesian labour migration in the second half of the
20th century, and middle-class Chinese and Koreans migration after 1986. Therefore, while
being the home of Aotearoa for indigenous Māori, New Zealand contains a migrant society
for ‘the majority of European, Polynesian and Asian ethnic groups that have claims on New
Zealand citizenship or residence’ (p. 3).

New Zealand’s history is established on tangata whenua and their interaction with Aotearoa
and all people arriving. While different migrants may predominate the historical rhythm for a
while, each contributes a distinctive part to New Zealand. Multiple narratives take place
sometimes conjointly, sometimes separately. These different streams of history infuse New

203
Zealand’s heritage with multiple layers. A digital library can be proposed to restore the
database of minority histories (see also Eaves, 2021; Parslow, 2021).

Community consultation

Community engagement and consultation hold significant value in heritage planning and
decision-making processes, as highlighted by Boileau (2021) and Jamieson (2021).
According to Timothy and Boyd (2003), the preservation of cultural heritage requires a
balance between preserving the history of aristocratic elites and giving voice to the histories
of common folk, particularly ethnic minorities, who may have had their pasts overlooked or
forgotten. Many Auckland Chinese participants preferred community engagement through
proactive networking and contributing rather than relying solely on the government.

Community consultation aims to engage tangata whenua and non-Pākehā migrants. It

requires mutual respect and an understanding of potential cultural differences. As Bower
(2021) explained, people only talk about heritage when they feel comfortable opening up.
Therefore, the heritage consultation could require extra time or someone whom the
interviewee is familiar with. According to Grace (2020), the Chinese people have maintained
their heritage through the close contacts they have kept with fellow community members. An
idea of inner-community consultation between people who know each other and have
accepted interview training could be a solution. Professionals who undertake community
consultation should be equipped with a cultural guide or induction before proactive
engagement with different communities (Jamieson, 2021).

8.3.2 Strong collaboration

Heritage planning should be broadened to be a multi-discipline where stakeholders, research

studies, disciplines, and professions have a holistic view of heritage. ‘Otherwise, you are only
going to be getting one facet of the story’ (Parslow, 2021). Reflecting on the Auckland case
study, strong collaboration is proposed between community and government, migration and
heritage studies, and heritage and planning.

204
Community and government

The collaboration between the community and government aims to fill the gap between the
public and the New Zealand heritage system. It requires a mutual understanding and an
acknowledgement of knowledge limitations by both sides. The community should learn about
the current New Zealand heritage system and their rights within the heritage of New Zealand.
The variety of heritage societies should be promoted, especially among migrant minorities, to
enable a community voice between migrants and local governing bodies and heritage
organisations such as HNZPT and ICOMOS New Zealand while raising communities’
heritage awareness. As Parslow (2021) pointed out, if the public is provided with more
information about heritage, people would recognise the importance and thus have more
opportunities to promote that heritage.

Furthermore, to compensate for the the regulatory and institutional limitations, local
community organisations should also be involved to engage the public more. These non-
profit organisations play an intermediary role in between heritage planning and community
development with professional skills. With certain social and organisational networks and
resources, they allow different views and opinions to be represented, understood, and
negotiated (Hou, 2004).

The New Zealand heritage system should explicitly acknowledge the demographical diversity
of New Zealand and an understanding of the community-based heritage. The New Zealand
heritage framework should provide a cultural guide or induction to professionals before
proactive engagement with different communities (Jamieson, 2021). Also, heritage education
is suggested in terms of different stakeholders for various purposes. For example, developers
should be informed about their impacts on the land and the earth underneath where
archaeological sites might exist. Migrants need to know their rights and obligations in
supplementing the missing community knowledge in the current New Zealand heritage
system.

205
Migration and heritage studies

The collaboration between migration and heritage studies aims to enrich the theoretical basis
of migrant heritage. Heritage studies should consider prominent theories and research
findings on the people-place relationship between migrants and the local environment. On the
contrary, heritage studies add a sense of heritage value to migration research, as migrants will
not be guests forever.

Aotearoa/New Zealand is the last habitable land masses to be settled by human beings (Liu et
al., 1999). The archipelago of Aotearoa was firstly discovered by Māori, who sailed in canoes
from the Western Pacific. The indigenous Māori people established a tribal society (May,
2002). According to New Zealand’s founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o
Waitangi, the Māori worldviews and philosophy toward the landscape of Aotearoa should be
the fundamental laws. After the concerted European settlement in the 1830s, the second half
of the 19th century witnessed a significant decrease in the Māori population and their land
rights (Liu et al., 1999). Moreover, due to the rise of agriculture economy based on frozen
meat, butter, and cheese, more landscape was transformed from forest to farmland (Wilson,
2020). The place identity and attachment by Māori were significantly destroyed and so was
their landscape heritage.

Now the number of the non-Māori population significantly exceeds the number of indigenous
Māori. According to the 2018 Census, the indigenous Māori occupy 16.5% of the New
Zealand population, while the rest is Europeans with 70.2%, Asian with 15.1%, and Pacific
Island origin with 8.1%. New Zealand is evidently a migrant society. Due to different place
attachment to Aotearoa New Zealand, there is a distinguished difference between indigenous
Māori and migrants’ understanding and heritage requirement. The New Zealand heritage
studies should be in parallel with demographic diversity. Currently, there is not much
consideration of how migrant communities have impacted the heritage of New Zealand and
how the New Zealand heritage system should respond to such diversity. As migration studies
usually describe migration history and settlement, it offers a solid basis where heritage
studies better understand migrant heritage.

206
Heritage and planning

The collaboration between heritage and planning aims to maximise the understanding of the
strengths of each discipline in the other’s field with a broader horizon beyond identification
and protection. It requires planning to move forward beyond the place-focusing of built
heritage and heritage to move forward beyond the expertise dominance of material and past
obsession. So far, there is not much planning effort to reveal New Zealand heritage’s
distinctiveness and uniqueness and its potential and strength, nor much counter pressure
combating the dominant heritage discourse. The implementation of heritage identification
and protection is distorted to be the old buildings under threat with the public good that
professionals can only assess, and thus one of the technical problems in planning and a
burden to owner and developer. In the Auckland case study, heritage is often reduced to be
one of the issues in resource consent. It is bounded with low flexibility but a high cost of
preservation. Heritage planning needs to be explicitly constructed based on heritage
stakeholders within the New Zealand heritage system. Institutions’ legal roles and timeframes
should be clarified with less ambiguity and inconsistency.

The dual identification and protection system within the New Zealand heritage system
possesses two blind spots: non-listed/-scheduled heritage and alternative approaches other
than conservation. However, not having been identified does not diminish a potential
heritage’s heritage significance. The current heritage system should take a proactive attitude,
thinking of how heritage should be maintained, rather than struggling over whether it is
heritage.

Moreover, planning should play a joint role by supporting heritage on a broader sense. For
example, heritage planning should acknowledge the importance of heritage advocacy, which
can be promoted in mainstream social media (Bade, 2021; No. 54 participant, 2021), ethnic
media such as newspapers, broadcasting, and TV channels (Zhu, 2020), migrant museums
displaying archaeological artefacts, or seasonal cultural events and exhibitions (see also
Boileau, 2021; De Bock, 2020), travelling exhibitions of migrant heritage (Boileau, 2021),
and heritage interpretation, for example, a building’s historical connection with Chinese

207
residents, the area of Grey’s Avenue, or the landscape that used to be occupied by a Chinese
market garden for a while (Boileau, 2021).

8.3.3 Cultural diversity awareness

The awareness and sensitivity of cultural diversity should be incorporated into the heritage
profession and the national identity. Additionally, a stand-alone heritage monitoring system is
suggested.

Heritage profession

An awareness of cultural diversity should be raised in the heritage profession of New Zealand.
Firstly, the heritage profession should move forward to recognise a more comprehensive
picture of the heritage of New Zealand. Professional education regarding the history of New
Zealand and the ongoing multicultural reality should be delivered in educational institutions,
heritage institutes, and professional training to raise cultural sensitivity (see also No. 42
participant, 2021). Secondly, the range of heritage disciplines should be broadened beyond
archaeology and architecture to involve a multi-disciplinary future of heritage, such as oral
history and history studies. Thirdly, the diversity of the heritage workforce should align with
the demographic reality of New Zealand as a migrant society in order to diminish the
predominance of European settlement heritage in the current heritage system.

The heritage of New Zealand should be understood for its multiple layers (see also Eaves,
2021; No. 61 participant, 2021; Parslow, 2021; Zhu, 2021). As No. 60 participant (2021)
explained, ‘New layers are being laid down all the time’. The heritage of a migrant society
should be seen as a living museum, which does not always stay one way but changes.
Migrant heritage requires the understanding of heritage to break up the myth of built
environment and past obsession. It can also be recognised for its cultural significance to a
specific group of community. However, locally or internationally, the significance of migrant
heritage has not attracted much attention yet. Heritage specialists rely on personal experience
and connections to address issues and challenges posed by migrant heritage. More often, the

208
migrant heritage quietly disappeared. Over time, as relics or evidence dwindle, migrant
heritage may be permanently marginalised, as is migrant history.

Heritage monitoring system

A stand-alone heritage monitoring system aims to supplement the current New Zealand
heritage system. The monitoring system should be highly critical of the multicultural
outcome of the heritage strategies and plans in the New Zealand heritage system and be
sensitive to what has been achieved in practice and the feedback from affected people. As
Short (2021) pointed out, there is a lack of dialogue and critical thinking about different types
of values and different ways of incorporating those values into the system in order to have the
diaspora of all different peoples who live in New Zealand recognize heritage by their terms,
instead of assimilating such diversity into a Eurocentric mindset.

The monitoring system should involve, firstly, regular reviews of heritage policies and acts in
order to upgrade those to keep up with the real face of New Zealand’s people and heritage;
secondly, the implementation evaluation of heritage planning in terms of separate heritage
institutes, planning goals, and the proposed timeframe; and thirdly, the regular examination
about how responsive the community partnership in the heritage system is. The monitoring
system will need to generate annual reviews of the monitoring findings and collaborate with
the New Zealand heritage system to produce annual reports about what to focus on and what
to achieve in the following session.

Biculturalism-acknowledged multicultural national policies

New Zealand’s biculturalism sits on the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi
signed between the British Crown and 540 Māori rangatira (chiefs) in 1840. The
biculturalism has been challenged by the influx of migrants and the demographic diversity of
New Zealanders. Non-Pākehā migrants remain absent in the official discourse of
biculturalism and the proposed curriculum in 2021 (see also Ip, 2021). In the Auckland case
study, many local-born Chinese New Zealanders struggled over their identity and whether
they belonged to New Zealand at their teenage age.

209
Under such circumstances, one particular voice is that of Pākehā, which is broadened to
encompass all non-Māori people. However, the Māori and Pākehā relationship was
particularly established in the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi between Māori
rangatira (chiefs) and the British Crown. No other migrant community was involved in that
history and the Treaty narrative. Therefore, by enlarging Pākehā to include all non-European
migrants, the upgraded biculturalism does not fit the history of Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o
Waitangi.

Migrant communities have contributed to New Zealand in many aspects, more than what has
been researched and acknowledged thus far. As Simon-Kumar (2019) points out, the
multiculturalism discourse has been shaped by historical, economic, and cultural imperatives
in the New Zealand context. The multicultural policies are ‘an admixture of progress and
predicaments’. The recognition of ethnic minority populations depends on political
prioritization. It requires a long-term and realistic vision of the future of society. Accordingly,
the national policies of multiculturalism should move forward from ‘a feel-good celebration
of ethnocultural diversity, encouraging citizens to acknowledge and embrace the panoply of
customs, traditions, music, and cuisine that exist in a multiethnic society’ to ‘new models of
democratic citizenship’ grounded in human-rights ideals. The primary purpose is to construct
new civic and political relations to combat the deeply entrenched inequalities that persist after
the abolition of regulatory discrimination (Kymlicka, 2012) while in a localized sense that
prioritizes indigenous Māori and their land rights.

8.4 Research limitations

Research limitations mainly concern the interviews with participants from Auckland Chinese
communities in participant recruitment before interviews, during interviews, and the data
analysis after interviews.

8.4.1 Complexity of migrant identities

This research involved interviewing those who self-identify themselves as Chinese or partly
Chinese and are descendants of people who paid the Chinese-only poll tax implemented in

210
1881 or migrants from mainland China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan. During interviews,
participants could not be asked to choose which part of their identity is the base to think of
their opinions and experiences, which is impossible in reality. Therefore, what the researcher
heard from participants regarding research questions might not consistently demonstrate the
participants’ ‘Chinese’ side of perception or understanding. Thus, the results generated
should be understood more as answers from the Auckland Chinese community rather than a
pack of pure ‘Chinese answers’ in Auckland.

The complexity of each migrant’s identity should be recognized in this research. As migrants
are exposed to a multitude of community groups differing by socio-spatial ranges, they tend
to form new structures of identity. The new identity is characterised by the migrants’ high
flexibility between different social networks and limited commitment to those groups
(Bauman, 1995; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1987). Schnell and Benjamini (2005) propose that
migrants’ identities should not be categorised by any publicly recognisable social group.
Instead, they are autonomous individuals with complex repertoires of identities in the context
of different predefined social categories. Therefore, any single categorization of one’s
‘ethnicity’ or ‘race’, or a migrant’s ‘identity’ could exclude their autonomous chance of
possibility in a new environment. Moreover, it is important to consider that linking migrants'
opinions or behaviours solely to their migrant identity may overlook the impact of their new
environment and the fact that migrants possess agency as autonomous individuals.

Therefore, Dam (2021) expressed the concern that ‘it’s really hard to put a square box around
[such as different languages and dialects] and say this is Chinese cultural heritage. […] All of
these things, I think make up Chinese identity, but they are also very, very diverse and fluid
and changeable.’ Also, Foon (2021) shared

‘Am I a Chinese New Zealander? Or am I a New Zealand Chinese?

Interesting, I always had trouble like, yeah, so I have New Zealand
citizenship. Yeah, I was born in New Zealand. I enjoy both cultures. I
think I'm gonna call myself a New Zealand Chinese. […] so I think if you
feel you belong in that nation that you're living in, you should describe it
first. And then it doesn't diminish the Chinese part.’

211
Scholars have demonstrated that the diaspora is comprised of individuals who leave their
settled territory but maintain a shared ethnic identity. Many of them hold a dual identity as
both members of their ethnic group and citizens of their adopted country, which is why they
are often referred to as ‘hyphenated community’, such as Chinese-New Zealanders in this
study. Their identity is largely shaped by a combination of their ancestral traditions and the
cultural forces of the society in which they now reside (Hague, 2001; Morgan, Pritchard, &
Pride, 2003; Xie, 2010). A comprehensive understanding of diaspora identity requires
examining three distinct perspectives: the unique characteristics of the diaspora group, their
country of origin, and the host society (Shuval, 2000).

8.4.2 Participant recruitment from Auckland Chinese communities

Two main barriers most frequently stopped the prospective Chinese participants in this
research. First and foremost, many prospective participants, especially the descendants of
people who paid the Chinese-only poll tax, were likely unsure whether they should be
considered part of New Zealand’s contemporary Chinese community and thus worthy of
being interviewed. As Cheung (2020) explained, that ‘the population of people who think
they are Chinese is not much, even they do admit they are, they might not want to participate
in this topic. Many things that they think are sensitive, they will not talk. Because if you
admit you are Chinese first, it will be hard to involve in the mainstream society.’ He gave one
example of name-calling,

‘I know Asians here are called immigrants; Kiwi who migrate to Australia is
called expatriate. Have you ever thought about this question? […] They
already have differences in terms. Therefore, many people are actually
unwilling to say that they are migrants or immigrants. […] you might see no
difference in academia, but the reality is not like this. If you have been stayed
in a Western country for a while, you will know it, just not being spoken.’
‘Some do not think they are Chinese, they think they are Kiwi, and some
people think they are rootless people. […] They think they have left the
previous place and now they are new people, striving to integrate into the new
society.’

212
Secondly, many prospective participants were concerned about ‘whether I could contribute’
to New Zealand heritage research. Whether being communicated through Mandarin or
English, many doubted if they were qualified to have a voice in this research topic. Heritage
was interpreted as a middle-class concept of being far away from their daily life, therefore
needing someone who has a professional background such as cultural studies or any art
knowledge. These concerns mainly happened during participant recruitment. Despite
numerous hours explaining the focus and goal of this research, the identity concern remained
widely shared and was uneasy to figure out with some prospective participants.

Finally, the sample frame and potentially the size of Auckland Chinese community
participants are relatively small and potentially skewed. Firstly, the 2006 New Zealand
Census did not further define Chinese ethnicity, so there is no available sub-structure of the
New Zealand Chinese population to inform the sampling frame of Chinese participants in this
research. Although the sample size includes participants from more than 25 cities, speaking
more than ten languages and dialects, ranging in age from 10 to 90 years old, and working in
over 20 different occupations, it is uncertain whether the sample frame and size accurately
represent the diversity of the New Zealand Chinese population. Secondly, the majority of
interviews with Auckland Chinese participants were conducted between January and May of
2020. Due to New Zealand's Covid-19 lockdown policies, recruitment was overly reliant on
personal networks and snowballing, rather than through a variety of methods such as
community activities, cultural events, and in-person fieldwork. As a result, the sample frame
of Auckland Chinese participants may be biased due to the limited recruitment means during
the Covid-19 pandemic.

8.4.3 Interviews with participants from Auckland Chinese communities

Conducting interviews with Chinese participants was not an easy task for two reasons. Firstly,
some found heritage a private or confidential topic, particularly the ‘Chinese cultural heritage’
in a Western context. It mainly happened among the descendants of the Poll-tax. A prominent
reason is that they were concerned about the further impact of their contribution, as they do
not want to cause any harm or negative impression to the reputation of the whole Auckland
and New Zealand Chinese community. It is similar to Shum’s (2003) finding in her research

213
about Haining Street in Wellington. Most Chinese migrants and their descendants have been
living in a racist environment. As Liu (2010) reveals, while the effect of actions such as racial
prejudice, harassment, exclusion, and name-calling cannot be precisely measured, the
impressions left in the society and targeted community have been long gone and are still felt
today. So, they get used to keeping a low profile. Thinking and talking about their memory
and heritage could be an unpleasant experience.

Secondly, some participants doubted whether this is and should be a concept of Chinese
cultural heritage in Auckland and New Zealand. They would instead regard their home
country or region as an appropriate context where Chinese cultural heritage would last. Under
such circumstances, Auckland and New Zealand should act as showcases, displaying all
imported Chinese cultural heritage. However, seeing Chinese cultural heritage as an exotic
term denies the century-old Chinese history in New Zealand and the sense of belonging in the
Chinese communities. Chinese cultural heritage has been constructed and reconstructed in
New Zealand. Otherwise, sooner or never, when can migrant heritage be memorized and
qualified to be part of New Zealand?

Finally, the majority of interviews with Auckland Chinese participants were conducted
during the Covid-19 lockdown period in New Zealand, primarily utilizing phone calls. For
some participants, the use of phone calls allowed for more freedom in their conversation and
sharing. However, this method may have led to a reduction in the quality of the interviews, as
the absence of face-to-face interaction between interviewer and interviewee can have an
impact on the nature of the conversation.

8.4.4 Data translation from Mandarin to English

Interviews with recent Chinese migrants were mainly conducted in Mandarin. All Mandarin
interview data were translated into English by the researcher. Sometimes there was no
English word available to mean the same meaning as the Mandarin words. In some cases, the
researcher added Chinese simplified characters and Pinyin, the official Romanized letters for
Standard Mandarin Chinese. Moreover, the initial meaning and beauty of the Chinese
language can be inevitably lost through the distortion and reduction of translation and the

214
mere act of paraphrasing (see also Yuan, 2001, p. 95), such as food culture, festivals, rituals,
family values, and philosophy.

8.5 Future research

The process and findings of this research indicate two directions for future research. Firstly,
incorporating the community-based heritage model into the current New Zealand heritage
system requires future research about the operationalisation and power distribution of the
current heritage framework. Secondly, a mix of heritage and the politics of its representation
in a migrant society has not attracted much attention in academia.

8.5.1 Incorporating the community-based heritage model into the New Zealand
heritage system

The community-based heritage model is proposed to be one of the available heritage

approaches in the New Zealand heritage system. However, the heritage system is primarily
led by the RMA and HNZPT Act, both focusing on place. An acknowledgement of the
community-based heritage model will require the heritage system to broaden more than the
current dual system to embrace alternative strategies other than identification and protection.
Such incorporation will require a significant change to the current heritage framework,
introducing collaboration with other government bodies or new heritage authorities. The
systematic upgrade of the current New Zealand heritage system will require research
explicitly focusing on the operationalisation and power distribution of the current heritage
framework.

8.5.2 Mix of heritage and its representation in a migrant society

Migrant heritage could mix because it breaches beyond national borders and across
generations and ethnicities. Such a mix of heritage poses a significant challenge to claiming
ownership or naming to a particularly identified heritage in a migrant society. As the politics
of heritage has been identified in both the literature review and the Auckland case study in
this research, it may also happen to other migrant societies. A mix of heritage is more likely
to be represented by the ‘naming’ or ‘ethnicity’ that the local dominant heritage discourse

215
favours. Therefore, the correlation between heritage mixing and the politics of heritage in a
migrant society will be a future direction. It helps to deeper explain the absence and
marginalisation of migrant heritage and uncover the political underpinnings of heritage.

8.6 Concluding remarks

There is a politics of heritage embedded in the dominant heritage discourse of New Zealand.
Firstly, the New Zealand heritage system has intrinsic deficiencies within its dual
identification and protection system. Secondly, the integration between heritage and planning
is poor, while heritage is undervalued in the planning context. More often, heritage is less
prioritised in the promotion of development. Heritage concern is reduced to be one of the
issues in the resource consents process. Lastly, the mainstream biculturalism remains
ambiguous about non-Pākehā migrants. While some suggest to categorise those under
‘Pākehā’, non-Pākehā migrants were excluded in the founding document Treaty of
Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. As a result, migrant minorities’ heritage is excluded from the
dominant heritage discourse of New Zealand.

Chinese cultural heritage has been overly represented by the gold mining heritage in the
South Island while remaining not much visible in the North Island and Auckland. There are
three aspects of mismatches between the community narrative by Auckland Chinese
communities and the dominant heritage discourse. Firstly, Chinese cultural heritage is
meaning-oriented, while the dominant discourse favours the materiality of heritage. Secondly,
the manifestation of Chinese cultural heritage is diverse and multicultural in Auckland.
However, the Auckland heritage framework’s responses to Chinese heritage are narrowly
focusing on festival celebrations. Thirdly, due to the fact that the New Zealand heritage
discourse is mainly Eurocentric, there is a cultural difference between the cyclical view of
history by Chinese culture and the linear progression of Western culture. As a result, Chinese
cultural heritage has been comparatively marginalised in the New Zealand heritage system.

In the Auckland case study, Chinese cultural heritage has been represented through diverse
manifestations. Essentially, Chinese cultural heritage means ‘being Chinese’, ‘cultural
inheritance’, and ‘relationship with Māori communities’. Participants’ heritage concerns are

216
broadly interpreted by lenses of time and space, which lead to the divergence of perspectives
in the homeland and home in the past tense, us and them in the present tense, authenticity and
re-creation in the future tense. Therefore, Chinese cultural heritage primarily concerns
multiple place attachment, nostalgia, and the cultural process of heritage. According to the
cyclical view of history, Chinese cultural heritage evolves and becomes inclusive and
multicultural while retaining the constant of Chinese philosophy and cultural values. Thus, a
dichotomy of variation and constant is observed among the Chinese heritage themes.

According to the literature-based preliminary conceptual framework of migrant heritage and

the Chinese cultural heritage in the Auckland case study, migrant heritage can be explained
by its meaning, conception, and societal effects. Firstly, the meaning of migrant heritage is
dichotomous by the cultural identity of the migrant community and their interaction with the
local environment. Such dichotomy aims to distinguish itself from other migrant heritage in
the local context and its traditional version in the homeland.

Secondly, the conception of migrant heritage can be explained by the spatial, emotional, and
temporal dimensions. The spatial dimension indicates multiple place attachment to the home,
homeland, and other enlightening places where migrants used to live or visit. The emotional
dimension mainly concerns various emotions such as loneliness, sorrow, feeling excluded,
and homesickness derived from migrants’ memories and minority histories. The temporal
dimension reveals the cultural process of migrant heritage. It can evolve in its own sense, mix
with other migrant heritage, and be created in the local environment, such as deriving from
the nostalgia from emotional dimension. Thirdly, the societal effects of migrant heritage
include cultural exchange, a sense of belonging, and community cohesion in a migrant
society.

In order to be inclusive of migrant heritage, a community-based heritage model is proposed.

The model can be divided into three parts:

1. What – heritage themes, such as event, activity, exhibition, architecture;

2. Why – heritage significance, such as cultural representation, and mutual acceptance,

217
 heritage uniqueness of being different from other migrant heritage in the home
country and the traditional cultural heritage in the homeland;

3. How – heritage representation of diverse manifestations.

The first step concerns the most experienced heritage occasions by migrants. The second step
concerns the significance of migrant heritage and its uniqueness, as migrants’ understanding
and requirement of heritage can be different from each other and also indigenous people.
Also, migrants have a strong intention to distinguish their heritage from other migrant
heritage and the traditional version of their heritage in the homeland. The third step concerns
the manifestation of migrant heritage in the local environment, which does not always follow
the tangible/intangible dichotomy but is multicultural, interlinked, and inseparable.

The heritage planning of New Zealand can be broadened to include community partnership,
strong collaboration, and cultural diversity awareness. The community partnership
encompasses history education that embraces all New Zealanders and their ancestors in the
heritage world of New Zealand and community consultation that aims to engage tangata
whenua and migrant minorities with mutual respect and an understanding of potential cultural
differences.

Strong collaboration should be promoted between community and government, migration and
heritage studies, and heritage and planning. The collaboration between community and
government requires the community to be aware of the current New Zealand heritage system
and their rights within that, and the New Zealand heritage system to explicitly acknowledge
the demographical diversity of New Zealand and corresponding responses by long-term
strategies. Heritage education is suggested to various heritage stakeholders for different
purposes. The collaboration between migration and heritage studies enables each to add
significant research value to the other. Heritage studies should take the migrant-settlement
research into account, while migration studies could consider the heritage aspect to
acknowledge migrants’ heritage rights. The collaboration between heritage and planning
requires heritage to move forward beyond the expertise dominance of material and past
obsession and planning to move forward beyond the place-focusing of built heritage with a
broader vision of heritage. Heritage planning needs to be clarified based on the current New

218
Zealand heritage system with less inconsistency and ambiguity about the legal
responsibilities of heritage institutions and stakeholders and their timeframes. The importance
of heritage advocacy should be added in social media, migrant museums, travelling
exhibitions of migrant heritage, and heritage interpretation for associated history.

The cultural diversity awareness should be promoted in a heritage profession that supports a
broader picture of the heritage of New Zealand, a stand-alone heritage monitoring system,
and the adapted national multicultural policies based on the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o
Waitangi. The education of the heritage profession should acknowledge the ongoing
multicultural reality of New Zealand in educational institutions, heritage institutes, and
professional training. Also, heritage should be multi-disciplined more than archaeology and
architecture by involving oral history and history studies. The diversity of the heritage
workforce should align with the demographic reality of New Zealand as a migrant society.

A stand-alone heritage monitoring system should be highly critical of the multicultural

outcome of heritage strategies and plans in the New Zealand heritage system and be sensitive
to what has been achieved and the feedback from affected people. The monitoring system
involves regular reviews of heritage policies and acts in order to upgrade those to keep up
with the real face of New Zealand’s people and heritage; the implementation evaluation of
heritage planning in terms of separate heritage institutes, planning goals, and the proposed
timeframe; and regular examination about how responsive the community partnership in the
heritage system is. The monitoring system aims to supplement and collaborate with the New
Zealand heritage system by producing annual reports about monitoring findings and what to
focus on and what to achieve in the following session.

The recognition of migrant minorities at the national level requires a long-term plan of
multicultural policies based on the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi and an explicit
political will to promote these. In the New Zealand context, an acknowledgement of
democratic citizenship grounded in human-rights ideals while respecting indigenous Māori
and their land rights should be promoted. The primary purpose is to construct new civic and

219
political relations to combat the deeply entrenched inequalities that persist after the abolition
of regulatory discrimination.

Overall, heritage planning in a migrant society should be inclusive of migrant heritage by

introducing alternative heritage approaches and upgrading its range by heritage, planning,
and multiculturalism dimensions to ensure a diverse and just future of heritage. This research
has limitations primarily in interviews with participants from Auckland Chinese communities,
as neither identity nor heritage is easy to confirm and answer to anyone. The process and
research findings indicate two future research directions: firstly, how to incorporate the
community-based heritage model into the current New Zealand heritage system, and secondly,
the correlation between heritage mixing and the politics of heritage in other migrant societies.

220
APPENDIX 1: CHRONOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OF THE EXPANSION OF THE
HERITAGE CONCEPT FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL CHARTERS,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

International SPAB Athens Charter Hague UNESCO UNESCO Venice ICOMOS UNESCO World
Charters, the manifesto (ICOMOS) Convention Recommendation Recommendation Charter Constitute Recommendation Heritage
Recommendations (ICOMOS) Assembly Convention
and Conventions (UNESCO)

Prominent contents Building Historic Surrounding Cultural Public interest Landscape, Urban or Monument, Archaeological and Monuments,
monument areas property natural rural setting site historic or scientific groups of
environment and sites, structures or buildings,
the whole other features, historic sites
quarters and
ethnological
structures in urban
and rural areas

1870 1877

1930 1931

1933

1940

1950 1954

218
International SPAB Athens Charter Hague UNESCO UNESCO Venice ICOMOS UNESCO World
Charters, the manifesto (ICOMOS) Convention Recommendation Recommendation Charter Constitute Recommendation Heritage
Recommendations (ICOMOS) Assembly Convention
and Conventions (UNESCO)

1956

1960 1962

1964

1965

1968

1970 1972

219
(continued).

International Amsterdam Florence Deschambault Washington Burra Charter Charter for the Nara Principles for the Convention for
Charters, the Declaration (the Charter Declaration Charter (ICOMOS) Conservation of Document on Conservation of the Safeguarding
Recommendations Council of Europe) (ICOMOS) (ICOMOS) (ICOMOS) Places of Cultural Authenticity Heritage Sites in of the Intangible
and Conventions Heritage Value in (ICOMOS) China (ICOMOS) Cultural
New Zealand Heritage
(ICOMOS) (UNESCO)

Prominent Historic quarter, Historic Human Historic Place, Water areas and Spiritual Archaeological sites Intangible
characteristic towns and villages, gardens environments cities cultural airspace messages and remains, tombs, cultural
historic parks and significance, ancient architecture, heritage
gardens, traditional fabric cave temples and
environment and historic villages and
contemporary towns
buildings

1870 1877

1930 1931

1933

1940

1950 1954

1956

1960 1962

1964

1965

220
 1968

1970 1972

1975

1979

1980 1982

1987

1988

1990 1992

1994

1999

2000 2003

Source: Adapted from Vecco (2010, p. 323)

221
APPENDIX 2: CHINESE HISTORIC PLACES AND
AREAS ON THE NEW ZEALAND HERITAGE LIST24

Heritage Category Location Time (in Date Notes

building/site relation to entered
Chinese
communities)

Ah Lum’s Store Historic Arrowtown, 19th century 1987 ‘One of the only original
Place Otago Region buildings that remains
Category 1 standing in the Chinese
settlement of Arrowtown’

Arrowtown Historic Arrowtown, 19th century 1985 ‘The last remaining Chinese
Chinese Place Otago Region settlement in a relatively
Settlement Category 2 intact state in Otago’

Gay Tan’s Historic Macraes, 19th century 2004 ‘An extremely rare example
Cottage Place Otago Region of Chinese affluence in the
Category 2 goldfields’

Illustrious Historic Alexandra, 19th century 2004 ‘Represents the history of the
Energy Historic Area Otago Region Chinese miners living in
Area isolated and harsh conditions
in nineteenth century Otago.’

Kaiapoi House Historic Hamilton, 1938-c1965 2009 ‘Strong associations with

(Former) Place Waikato Waikato’s Chinese
Category 2 Region community’

Lawrence Historic Lawrence, 19th century 2019 ‘A vital part of the history of
Chinese Camp Place Otago Region Chinese miners in Otago.’
Category 1

Lawrence Historic Lawrence, 19th century 2004 ‘Represent the often unwritten
Chinese Graves Area Otago Region and untraceable histories of
Historic Area, individual miners who came
Lawrence to New Zealand to seek their
Cemetery fortune in the goldfields. ’

Lower Nevis Historic Lower Nevis 19th century 2010 ‘Was once home to a scattered
Historic Area Area Valley, Otago community of pastoralists,

24
According to the keyword of ‘Chinese’ and the criterion of the significance of Chinese community to the
place or area, researcher identified 17 registered Chinese historic places and areas in the List by February, 2022.

222
 Region miners (both European and
Chinese) and their families. ’

Lye Bows Historic Alexandra, 19th century 2004 ‘Lye Bow’s market garden,
Historic Area Area Otago Region orchard and associated
workings represent the
interrelationship of
goldmining and support
industries in Otago.’

Miner’s Rock Historic Fruitlands, 19th century 2005 ‘A representative example of

Shelter Place Otago Region the type of shelter used by
Category 2 miners in the 1860s in this
area of Otago.’

Murphy’s Flat Historic Macraes, 19th century 2001 For a cluster of “Chinamen’s
Reserve Historic Area Otago Region huts” on the flat in 1891 and
Area the isolation of the dead
Chinese man Hui Shing Tsoch
who was thought to have
leprosy

Ng King Historic Ashburton, 20th century 2020 ‘A rare remaining example of

Brothers Place Canterbury a twentieth century Chinese
Chinese Market Category 1 Region market garden settlement in
Garden New Zealand’
Settlement

Sew Hoy’s Gold Historic Upper Nevis 19-20th century 2019 ‘Sew Hoy’s Gold Mining and
Workings and Place Valley, Water Race System represents
Water Race Category 1 Southland the significant history of
System Region Chinese gold mining in Otago
and more widely in New
Zealand.’

Sew Hoy’s Big Historic Queenstown, 19th century 2004 ‘Provided the impetus for the
Beach Claim Area Otago Region gold dredging boom of the
Historic Area late 1880s and confirmed Sew
Hoy’s status as a leading
player in the goldmining
industry in Otago.’

Sew Hoy’s Historic Dunedin, 19th century 2021 ‘The only surviving
Building Place Otago Region representation of an important
(Former) Category 1 and extensive network of
Chinese retailers in Stafford
Street.’

Southern Historic Dunedin, 19-20th century 2006 ‘It contains a section of

Cemetery Place Otago Region nineteenth and early twentieth
Category 1 century Chinese burials.’

Wong Gong’s Historic Queenstown, 19th century 2004 ‘It provides a representative,
Terrace Historic Area Otago Region largely unmodified
archaeological example of a

223
Area Chinese store, market gardens
and associated structures in an
isolated area of the nineteenth
century Otago goldfields.’

224
APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW DOCUMENTS

Interview documents for participants from Auckland Chinese communities (including

English and simplified Chinese versions):

225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
Interview documents for professional participants:

243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
APPENDIX 4: INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS25

Auckland Chinese communities’ participants information list

No. Interview Participant Language Length of time26 Birthplace / living place before moving
date to New Zealand (if applies)

1 18th, 01, Hanford Cheung Mandarin 1st generation, 20+ Hong Kong
2020 years

2 30th, 01, Cecil Wong English 50+ years New Zealand-born

2020

3 25th, 02, [Anonymous] English 50+ years New Zealand-born

2020

4 25th, 02, [Anonymous] English 50+ years New Zealand-born

2020

5 26th, 02, Zhiming Guo Mandarin 1st generation, 18 Shanghai

2020 years

6 13th, 03, Tony Lowe English 50+ years Hong Kong, 4th generation of early
2020 sojourners

7 20th, 03, Hongtao Shen Mandarin 1st generation, 20+ Tianjin

2020 years

8 20th, 03, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 18 Kaifeng, Henan province

2020 years

9 21st, 03, Junyang Liu Mandarin 1st generation, 3-4 Yantai, Shandong province
2020 months

10 22nd, 03, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 12 Chengdu, Sichuan province

2020 years

25This appendix provides basic information about participants of Auckland Chinese communities and professionals. It
serves as the background information that participants felt comfortable to provide during interviews. In the cases that
participants did not mention during interviews, table cells are filled with ‘N/A’. Additionally, for those anonymous
participants who did not agree to be identified in this research, researcher does not provide identifiable information about
them.

26The interview phase happened between March 2020 and July 2021. The ‘length of residence’ starts from the day one
arrived in New Zealand and ends up at the interview date. For local-born participants, their ‘length of residence’ are
described as ‘local-born’ and other details.

253
11 01st, 04, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 12 Shanghai
2020 years

12 01st, 04, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 10 Puyang, Henan province

2020 years

13 05th, 04, Kris Mandarin 1st generation, 10 Hubei province / Guangdong province
2020 years

14 05th, 04, Grace Mandarin 1st generation, 7 Nanjing, Jiangsu province

2020 years

15 11th, 04, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 18 Wenchang, Hainan province / Hong Kong
2020 years

16 12th, 04, Lily Zhang Mandarin 1st generation, 25 Shanghai

2020 years

17 13th, 04, Jianshi Wang Mandarin 1st generation, 4 Beijing

2020 years

18 13th, 04, Rick Gee Mandarin 1st generation, 25 Taiwan

2020 years

19 14th, 04, Chen Mandarin 1st generation, 27 Guangdong province

2020 years

20 14th, 04, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 5 Suzhou, Jiangsu province

2020 years

21 16th, 04, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 14 Beijing

2020 years

22 16th, 04, Shifeng Liu Mandarin 1st generation, 2 Shandong province / Zhongshan,
2020 years Guangdong province

23 22nd, 04, Kris (Qingyi) Mandarin 1st generation, 7 Suzhou, Jiangsu province
2020 Lian years

24 24th, 04, [Anonymous] English 1.5th generation, Kunming, Yunnan province

2020 26 years

25 24th, 04, Alyssa Mandarin 1st generation, 7 Taiyuan, Shanxi province / Beijing
2020 years

26 25th, 04, Eric Zhu Mandarin 1st generation, 12 Wuxi, Jiangsu province
2020 years

27 30th, 04, [Anonymous] Mandarin 2nd generation, 5 Taiyuan, Shanxi province

2020 years

254
28 08th, 05, Jinshui Lin Mandarin 1st generation, 10 Longyan, Fujian province
2020 years

29 14th, 05, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 6+ Shenyang, Liaoning province

2020 years

30 15th, 05, Sihai Zhang Mandarin N/A Taiwan

2020

31 21st, 05, Lingling Liang Mandarin 1st generation, 15 Taiwan

2020 years

32 22nd, 05, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 7 Yuxi, Yunnan province

2020 years

33 23rd, 05, Wenbin Hu Mandarin 1st generation, 9 Guangdong province

2020 years

34 30th, 05, Nora Yao English, 1st generation, 36 Shanghai

2020 Mandarin years

35 16th, 04, Zhishan Yang Mandarin 1st generation, 2 Ha’erbin, Heilongjiang province
2020 years

36 21st, 04, Wei Li Mandarin 1st generation, 2 Guangzhou, Guangdong province /

2020 years Taiwan

37 14th, 05, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 2 Dalian, Liaoning province

2020 years

38 08th, 02, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 10+ N/A

2020 years

39 21st, 02, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 4 Nanjing, Jiangsu province / Shanghai
2020 years

40 19th, 04, Shaoxu Wang Mandarin 1st generation, 5+ Zhoukou, Henan province
2021 years

41 01st, 05, Zhengyang Mandarin 1st generation, 12 N/A

2021 Wang years

42 16th, 05, [Anonymous] English 1st generation, 30+ New Zealand-born

2021 years

43 17th, 05, Manyu (Many) English 25 years Guangzhou, Guangdong province,

2021 Zhu Descendant of early sojourners

44 04th, 06, Dajiang Tai Mandarin 23 years Liaoning Province

2021

255
45 10th, 06, Meng Foon English 50+ years New Zealand-born
2021

46 23rd, 06, [Anonymous] English 47 years Hong Kong

2021

47 06th, 07, Lincoln Dam English 30 years New Zealand-born

2021

48 20th, 06, [Anonymous] Mandarin 1st generation, 4+ Liaoning province

2021 years

256
 Professionals’ participants information list

No. Interview Participant Language Length of Education background Notes

date heritage
experience27

49 17th, 04, [Anonymous] Mandarin 5 years Bachelor and Master 1st generation migrant.
2021 degrees in landscape
architecture, PhD in
urban design

50 27th, 04, David Bade English 8 years Bachelor, Master, and Having experience in
2021 PhD degrees in Historic England, London.
geography Now in Heritage Unit,
Auckland Council.

51 04th, 05, Nicola Short English 30 years in Bachelor degree in art Having experience in
2021 New Zealand history, Master degree Australia and New Zealand
in heritage and museum museums, heritage manager
management, PhD in in local government, now
heritage planning undertaking Māori heritage
PhD research.

52 05th, 05, Joanna English 48 years in Master degree in Having experience in

2021 Boileau New Zealand anthropology and Chinese market gardening
and England archaeology, PhD in and laundries history in New
Chinese market Zealand.
gardening in Australia
and New Zealand

53 06th, 05, Myfanwy English 40 years in Bachelor and Master Having experience in
2021 Eaves New Zealand degrees in archaeology Department of
and Chinese Conservation, Heritage New
Zealand, engineering
company, Auckland
museums and other
museums. Now in the
cultural heritage
implementation team in
Heritage Unit, Auckland
Council.

54 12th, 05, [Anonymous] English 20 years Bachelor degree in Overseas experience.

2021 history, Master degree

27The interview phase happened between April and July in 2021. The ‘length of heritage experience’ starts from the date
when participants entered the heritage field and ends up at the interview date. Some participants have added their overseas
experience as well.

257
 in the public history
program

55 15th, 05, Candace English 19 months Bachelor degree in Mixed Fijian ethnicity.
2021 Bower design, Master degree
Now in the built heritage
in heritage conservation
implementation team in
Heritage Unit, Auckland
Council.

56 21st, 05, Bev Parslow English 30 years Bachelor and Master Overseas experience. Now
2021 degrees in anthropology being the Area Manager
and archaeology Mid Northern Office of
Heritage New Zealand.

57 24th, 05, Rosemary English Around 20 Bachelor and Master Now in Heritage New
2021 Baird years degrees in History, PhD Zealand Christchurch
in oral history about Office.
New Zealanders
migrating to and from
Australia from the
1960s to the 1990s

58 25th, 05, Dr. Matthew English 33 years Bachelor, Master, and Overseas experience.
2021 Schmidt PhD degrees in Having experience in
archaeology cultural heritage
management, New Zealand
representative for Asia-
Pacific UNESCO. Now
being a senior archaeologist
for the southern South
Island in Department of
Conservation.

59 03rd, 06, Brooke English 20 years Bachelor and Master Having experience as
2021 Jamieson degrees in archaeology private consultant, regional
archaeologist in Heritage
New Zealand Auckland
Office. Now being senior
heritage advisor for the
Auckland region in
Department of
Conservation.

60 05th, 06, [Anonymous] English 50+ years Archaeology Having experience in

2021 Department of
Conservation.

61 17th, 06, [Anonymous] English 20 years in Bachelor and Master Now being senior heritage
2021 Heritage New degrees in archaeology assessment advisor in
Zealand Heritage New Zealand
Auckland Office.

258
62 22nd, 06, [Anonymous] English 20+ years Bachelor degree in Now being planner in
2021 history and geography, Heritage New Zealand
Master degree in Auckland Office.
geography

63 28th, 07, [Anonymous] English Around 20+ Bachelor degree in Now being a heritage
2021 years history, Master degree professional in Ministry for
in heritage conservation Culture and Heritage.
and architectural history

64 16th, 07, Vanessa English 23 years Bachelor of Arts Having experience in

2021 Tanner combined honours Department of
degree in anthropology Conservation, New Zealand
and geography, Master Archaeological Association,
degree in anthropology, Auckland Council,
majoring in Wellington City Council.
archaeology. Now being manager of
archaeology in Heritage
New Zealand.

41 01st, 05, Zhengyang Mandarin 4 years Bachelor and Master Also ‘Chinese participant’.
2021 Wang degrees in architecture

42 16th, 05, [Anonymous] English N/A Bachelor and Master Also ‘Chinese participant’.
2021 degrees in architecture

43 17th, 05, Manyu English N/A Bachelor of Fine Arts Also ‘Chinese participant’.
2021 (Many) Zhu (Hons) and Bachelor of
Arts majoring in
Economics and Art
History

44 04th, 06, Dajiang Tai Mandarin N/A Architecture Awards-winning architect.

2021
Also ‘Chinese participant’.

46 23rd, 06, [Anonymous] English 40+ years History studies Also ‘Chinese participant’.
2021

47 06th, 07, Lincoln Dam English N/A Bachelor degree in arts, Also ‘Chinese participant’.
2021 PhD research in the
ethics and politics of
biculturalism and
multiculturalism in
Aotearoa New Zealand.

259
 APPENDIX 5: TRADITIONAL CHINESE CULTURAL
VALUES

In order to compensate the gap between the Western and Chinese cultural and worldview
differences, appendix 5 provides a brief summary about traditional Chinese cultural values. It
also helps to interpret Chinese participants’ understanding and preferred manifestations of
Chinese cultural heritage in Auckland. Kirkbride et al. (1991) conclude Chinese cultural
values as ‘harmony, collectivism, conformity, power-distance, holism, contextualism, time,
face, shame, reciprocity, and guanxi [in socializing]’ (p. 367). Similarly, based on the value-
orientation model by Kluckhohn and Strodbeck (1961), Yau (1988) describes traditional
Chinese cultural values as the following.

Table: Traditional Chinese cultural values.

Traditional Chinese cultural values Human-to-nature orientation Harmony with the nature

Yuarn (‘Karma’)

Human-to-oneself orientation Abasement

Situation orientation

Relational orientation Respect for authority

Interdependence

Group orientation

Face

Time orientation Continuity

Past-time orientation

Personal-activity orientation The doctrine of the mean

Harmony with others

Source: Yau (1988, p. 46)

260
Traditional Chinese culture regards human as part of nature and believes Tian ren he yi (天人
合一) - that human have to learn how to adapt to nature so as to reach harmony in between.
Yuarn (缘) refers to, on the one hand, the fact that ‘the existence or absence of interrelations
with the universe is predetermined or governed by a powerful external force … [that] could
be supernatural … [and] too sophisticated to be understood by human beings’, and on the
other hand, the potentially purposeful interrelations with others or objectives that one can
actively search and establish (Yau, 1988, p. 47). Yau (1988) explains ‘abasement’ by the
statement that the ‘Chinese are used to believing in modesty and self-effacement’ (p. 48).
Reflecting on the worldviews in China, however, one would interpret it as a series of
Confucius-led thoughts that guide Chinese to act Zhongyong (中庸) and well maintain one’s
social network in accordance to different roles in different situations with different people.
Generally, modest is always required to show one’s sincere respect to others, no matter in the
context of workplace or family. ‘Situation orientation’ according to Yau (1988, p. 48)
indicates a flexible recognition towards facts in different circumstances.

Socializing principles are a key part in Chinese culture. It is not surprising that Yau (1988)
identifies ‘respect for authority’, ‘interdependence’, ‘group orientation’, and ‘face’ as part of
the ‘relational orientation’ of the model (pp. 49-52). Reflecting on the worldviews from
Confucianism, subordination to authority applies to nation and family, such as the five typical
Confucian cardinal relations between father and son, ruler and minister, husband and wife,
elder and younger, and between friends. In addition, dealing with interpersonal relations is a
serious form of ‘social investment’. Chinese people believe that the reciprocity of doing
favours is as certain as a cause-and-effect relationship and it will continue so that affinity for
each other can be well established (Yau, 1988). Hsu (1968) claims that the collectivistic
nature of Chinese people reflects in their family and kinship system. Protecting and
enhancing one’s private kinship interests is the primary concern of most Chinese, which leads
to a strong sense of group orientation. Chinese culture about face is more complicated to
describe by words but it no doubt has a pervasive influence in the interpersonal relations
among Chinese or even the diaspora. Face concerns once’s social status and reputation. One
should act and behave properly to maintain face and also try to avoid causing others to lose
face. It is of central importance as people who disregard face could lead to a total

261
transformation of one’s social identity (Yau, 1988, p. 51). King and Myers (1977)
demonstrate such cause and effect as the dichotomy between the face-shame complex.

‘Continuity’ and ‘past-time orientation’ also reflect the worldviews of China that embrace a
cyclical view of history (Yau, 1988, pp. 53-54). Van Oort (1970) claims that Chinese people
is the most history-minded. Burkhardt (1953) explains such history-minded attitude by stating:
‘China has always been a conservative country … which held to the belief that what was food
for their forefathers, and had been tested by countless generations, was sacrilege to tamper
with’ (cited in Yau, 1988, p. 53). Essentially, the cyclical view of history believes that
everything had happened before in the far distant Past; nothing new every happened at
present or would happen in the future (Kluckhohn & Strodbeck, 1961).

The doctrine of the Mean has been the most important Chinese cultural value (Watson, 2007).
According to Confucius, ‘the gentleman does what is proper to the station in which he is; he
does not desire to go beyond this’. Literally, the Mean is referred to as ‘being without
inclination to either side’ (Legge, 1971, p. 382). In the context of Chinese culture, it concerns
a high degree of moral self-regulation and reflection (see also Yau, 1988). In a wider sense in
regard to the individual, Chinese conform to behaviour according to Li (propriety) derived
from Confucianism, which prioritizes ‘living properly’ (Yau, 1988, p. 54). Maintaining
harmonious relations with others is of supreme importance in traditional Chinese culture.
Jarvie and Agassi (1969) interpret such importance by stating that ‘being considerate to
others is equated with … strict observance of the accepted code. To observe the code is to be
human; to forget it is to become barbarian’ (pp. 151-152).

262
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ababneh, A. (2016). Heritage management and interpretation: Challenges to heritage site-based values,
reflections from the heritage site of Umm Qais, Jordan. Archaeologies, 12(1), 38-72.

Adamson, J., & Bader, H. D. (2013). Gardening to prosperity: the history and archaeology of Chan Dah Chee
and the Chinese market garden at Carlaw Park, Auckland. Finding Our Recent past: Historical
Archaeology in New Zealand, Monograph, 29, 143-165.

Ahmad, Y. (2006). The scope and definitions of heritage: From tangible to intangible. International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 12(3), 292-300. DOI: 10.1080/13527250600604639

Ai, J. (2011). ‘Selecting the refined and discarding the dross’: The post-1990 Chinese leadership’s attitude
towards cultural tradition. In P. Daly, & T. Winter (Eds.), Routledge handbook of heritage in Asia (1st ed.,
pp. 129-138). Milton Park: Routledge. DOI:10.4324/9780203156001-16

Aitken Rose, E. (2017). Old Stuff: The conundrums of historic heritage. The Proceedings of the 2017 Rodney
Davies Research Symposium, 105-121.

Alexander Don’s ‘Roll’ of the Chinese. (2021). University of Otago database online. Alexander Don’s ‘Roll’ of
the Chinese (otago.ac.nz)

Allen, J., D. Massey & A. Cochrane (1998), Rethinking the Region. London: Routledge.

Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (1992). Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.

Andrews, M. (1999). Landscape and Western Art, New York: Oxford University Press.

Andrews, M. (2017). How maligned Chinese gold miners helped build New Zealand and how discrimination
drove them away. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/article/2102620/howchinese-gold-miners-
helped-build-new-zealand-and-how-discrimination#comments

Ang, I. (2005). The predicament of diversity: Multiculturalism in practice at the art museum. Ethnicities, 5(3),
305-320.

Appleton, J. (1975) The Experience of Landscape, London: Wiley.

263
Arksey, H. (1996). Collecting data through joint interviews. Social Research Update, 15, 1–4.

Armstrong, H. (2004) Making the Unfamiliar Familiar: Research Journeys towards Understanding Migration
and Place, Landscape Research, 29:3, 237-260, DOI: 10.1080/0142639042000248906.

Ashley, S. (2016). Acts of heritage, acts of value: Memorialising at the Chattri Indian Memorial, UK.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(7), 554-567.

Ashley, S. (2020). Heritage-making, borderwork and (multi) cultural organisations in the north of England. In A.
Dellios & E. Henrich (eds), Migrant, Multicultural and Diasporic Heritage: beyond and between borders
(pp. 21-35). Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Ashworth, & Larkham. (2013). In G.J. Ashworth & P.J. Larkham (Ed.), Building a new heritage (RLE tourism)
(Routledge Library Editions: Tourism ed.). London, New York: Routledge. doi:1135083312/978-1-135-
08331-1

Ashworth, G. J. (1994a). “From History to Heritage – From Heritage to Identity.” In Building a New Heritage:
Tourism, Culture and Identity in the New Europe, edited by G. J. Ashworth and P. J. Larkham, 13–30.
London, UK: Routledge.

Ashworth, G. J. (1994b). Guiding the Arrow of Time into the Target of Space: Heritage Planning as the
Contemporary Uses of the Past. Groningen, the Netherlands: GeoPers.

Ashworth, G. J. (2011). Pluralizing the past heritage policies in plural societies , 13-23. Retrieved from
https://sites.eca.ed.ac.uk/ear/files/2011/11/EAR_30_2.pdf

Ashworth, G. J. (2013). “Heritage, Landscape and the Environment: Heritage in Planning: Using Pasts in
Shaping Futures.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning and Culture, edited by G. Young and
D. Stevenson, 185–201. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

Ashworth, G. J., Graham, B. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2007). Pluralising pasts: Heritage, identity and place in
multicultural societies Pluto Press London.

Auckland Council (2018). Auckland’s Heritage Counts 2018 annual summary. Retrieved February 10th, 2022
from https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/arts-culture-
heritage/heritage/docsheritagecountssummaries/aucklands-heritage-counts-2018.pdf

264
Auckland Council (2019a). Auckland’s Heritage Counts 2019 annual summary. Retrieved February 10th, 2022
from https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/arts-culture-
heritage/heritage/docsheritagecountssummaries/aucklands-heritage-counts-2019.pdf

Auckland Council (2019b). Aucklanders’ attitudes to heritage and participation in heritage activities: a survey
of Auckland Council’s Peoples’ Panel, July 2019.

Auckland Council (2020). Auckland’s Heritage Counts 2020 annual summary. Retrieved February 10th, 2022
from https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/arts-culture-
heritage/heritage/docsheritagecountssummaries/aucklands-heritage-counts-2020.pdf

Auckland Council (2021). Auckland’s Heritage Counts 2021 annual summary. Retrieved February 10th, 2022
from https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/arts-culture-
heritage/heritage/docsheritagecountssummaries/aucklands-heritage-counts-2021.pdf

Auckland Council (2022). Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part (Updated 11 February 2022). Retrieved
February 15th, 2022 from
https://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/pages/plan/Book.aspx?exhibit=AucklandUnitaryPlan_Print

Auckland Council. (2020). Methodology and guidance for evaluating Auckland’s historic heritage, Version 2,
August, 2020. Retrieved February 10th, 2022 from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wiC9pmv5PL1AhVFILcAHQi3ATEQFnoECAYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aucklandcouncil.gov
t.nz%2Farts-culture-heritage%2Fheritage%2Fprotecting-our-heritage%2FDocuments%2Fmethodology-
guidance-evaluating-aucklands-historic-heritage.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2opx5TlvDEj4mC5JXebDU8

Auckland Council. (2021). I Am Auckland Implementation and Evaluation Annual Update, September 2021.
Retrieved February 10th, 2022 from https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-
bylaws/our-plans-strategies/topic-based-plans-strategies/community-social-development-
plans/annualreports/i-am-auckland-annual-update-2021.pdf

Auckland Council. (2022). Auckland’s Heritage Counts programme. Retrieved January 27th, 2022 from
Auckland's Heritage Counts programme (aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)

Auckland Unlimited. (2022). Auckland Lantern Festival History. Retrieved February 10th, 2022 from
https://www.aucklandnz.com/lantern/history

265
Avrami, E., Mason, R. and de la Torre, M. (eds) (2000). Values and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles, The
Getty Conservation Institute.

Backe, H. J. (2016). ‘Past time. Questionable epistemologies of time and identity in SUPER HOT and Metal
Gear Acid 2’, Proceedings of the Philosophy of Computer Games Conference. University of Malta.
Available at: http://pocg2016.institutedigitalgames.com/site/assets/files/1015/backe_-_past_time.pdf

Bader, H. D. and Adamson, J. (2011). Kong Foong Yuen 江风园 – the Garden of Prosperity: final report on the
archaeological excavations at Carlaw Park, Auckland. Unpublished Archaeology Solutions Ltd report to
Hayden & Rollett Construction Ltd.

Baird, R. (2021a). Chinese Market Garden Settlement restoration. Heritage New Zealand, 2021 Winter, 11.

Baird, R. (2021b). Rare surviving Chinese warehouse given Category 1 heritage status. Heritage New Zealand,
2021 Winter, 7.

Ballantyne, T., & Moloughney, B. (2006). ‘Asia in Murihiku: Towards a Transnational History of Colonial
Culture’, in Moloughney, B. and Ballantyne, T. (Eds.), Disputed Facts: Histories for the New Century,
Dunedin.

Barker, J. F. (1979). Designing for a Sense of Place in Mississippi Small Towns. In P. W. Prenshaw & J. O.
McKee (Eds.), Sense of Place: Mississippi (pp. 162-178): University Press of Mississippi.

Barriball, K. L., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper.
Journal of Advanced Nursing 19, 328-335.

Baum, H. (1999) Forgetting to plan, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, (Fall), pp. 101–113.

Baum, H. (2000) Culture matters, but it shouldn’t matter too much. In M.A. Burayidi (Ed.), Urban Planning in
a Multicultural Society. Westport: Praeger Publishers.

Bauman, Z. (1995). ‘Making and unmaking of Strangers’, Thesis Eleven, 43(1): 1–16.

Beal, T. (2001). Taiwanese business migration to Australia and New Zealand. In M. Ip (Ed.), Re-examining
Chinese transnationalism in Australia-New Zealand. Canberra: Centre for the Study of the Chinese
Southern Diaspora (CSCSD), Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National
University.

266
Beardslee, T. (2016). Whom does heritage empower, and whom does it silence? Intangible cultural heritage at
the Jemaa el Fnaa, Marrakech. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(2), 89-101.

Beatson, P., & Dianne, D. (1990). Chinese New Zealanders (1st ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann
Education.

Beattie, J. (2007). Growing Chinese influences in New Zealand: Chinese gardens, identity and meaning. New
Zealand Journal of Asian Studies, 9(1), 38.

Bedford, R., & Ho, E. (2008). Asians in New Zealand, Implications of a Changing Demography, Wellington:
Asian NZ Foundation.

Bedford, R., Ho, E., & Lidgard, J. (2000). International migration in New Zealand: context, components and
policy issues. University of Waikato, Population Studies Centre.

Beitin, B. (2012). Interview and sampling: how many and whom. In Gubrium, J. F., Holstein, J. A., Marvasti, A.
B., & McKinney, K. D. The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 243-
254). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. DOI: 10.4135/9781452218403

Bekele, M. K., Pierdicca, R., Frontoni, E., Malinverni, E. S. and Gain, J. (2018). ‘A survey of augmented,
virtual, and mixed reality for cultural heritage’, ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 11(2),
Article 7 (June 2018). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3145534.

Bennett, D. (1998) ‘Introduction.’ In D. Bennett (ed.), Multicultural States: Rethinking Difference and Identity,
London: Routledge.

Berardi, F. B. (2017). Futurability: The Age of Impotence and the Horizon of Possibility. London: Verso.

Bergdahl, E. (2012). Conversations Piece: Intangible Cultural Heritage in Sweden. Safeguarding Intangible
Cultural Heritage, 47-56.

Bernardo, F., & Palma, J. M. (2005). Place change and identity processes. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento
humano, 6, 71–87.

Berry, K.A. (1997) Projecting the voices of others: issues of representation in the teaching of race and ethnicity,
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(2), pp. 283–289.

267
Bir, H. (1992). The Meaning of Objects in Environmental Transitions: Experiences of Chinese Students in the
United States. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12, pp. 135-147.

Bissoondath, N. (1994). Selling illusions: The cult of multiculturalism in Canada. Toronto: Penguin.

Blake, J. (2000). On defining the cultural heritage. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 49(1), 61-85.

Boileau, J. (2014). Chinese market gardening in Australia and New Zealand, 1860s–1960s: A study in
technology transfer. (Doctoral dissertation). University of New England, Armidale, Australia.

Bollens, S. (2002). Urban planning and intergroup conflict: Confronting a fractured public interest. Journal of
the American Planning Association, 68(1), 22-42.

Bonacich, E. (1973). A theory of middleman minorities. American sociological review 38, pp. 583-594.

Borrelli, N., & Davis, P. (2012). How culture shapes nature: Reflections on ecomuseum practices. Nature and
Culture, 7(1), 31-47.

Bounia, A., Witcomb, A., & Papataxiarchis, E. (2020). The Politics of Mnemonic 'Restorative Practices':
Contesting memory, mobility, identity and objects in post-'refugee crisis' Lesbos. In Dellios, A., & Henrich,
E. (Eds.). (2020). Migrant, Multicultural and Diasporic Heritage: Beyond and Between Borders (147-163).
Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice (trans. R. Nice), Cambridge: Polity Press.

Boyer, T. (1995). Home sweet home?: An analysis of Taiwanese immigration since 1986, and the present status
of the Taiwanese community in Auckland. In Hong-key Yoon (Eds.), An Ethno-Geography of Taiwanese,
Japanese and Filipino Immigrants in Auckland (1st ed., pp. 19-88). Auckland: Department of Geography,
University of Auckland.

Boyer, T. (1996). Problems in paradise: Taiwanese immigrants to Auckland, New Zealand. Asia Pacific
Viewpoint, 37(1), 59-80.

Boym, S. (2001). The Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books.

Bracken, I. (2007). Urban planning methods: Research and policy analysis. New York: Methuen.

268
Braidotti, R. (2011). Nomadic Theory: The Portable Rosy Braidotti. New York: Columbia University Press.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic Analysis. In Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology. (1st Ed.,
pp. 57-71). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Brawley, S. (1993). ‘No “White Policy” in New Zealand: Fact and Fiction in New Zealand's Asian Immigration
Record, 1946-1978’, New Zealand Journal of History, 27(1), 16-36.

Brewer, M. B., & Feinstein, A. S. H. (1999). Dual processes in the cognitive representation of persons and
social categories. In S. Chailen, Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York:
the Guilford Press, pp. 255-270.

Brewer, M.B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. Srull, R. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in
social cognition, Vol. 1, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 1-36.

Bromell, D. (2008) Ethnicity, identity and public policy: critical perspectives on multiculturalism. Institute of
Policy Studies, Victoria University, Wellington.

Brown, B. B. & Werner, C. M. (1985). Social cohesiveness, territoriality and holiday decorations. Environment
and Behavior, 27, 539-565.

Brown, B., Perkin, D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neighbourhood: Individual and
block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 259–271.

Brown, S. (2010). Cultural landscapes: A practical guide for park management. NSW Department of
Environment, Climate Change and Water.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th edition). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A., Bell, E., & Teevan, J. (2005). Social research methods. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University
Press.

Burayidi, M. A. (2000). Urban Planning as a Multicultural Canon. In Urban planning in a multicultural society.
Ed. Burayidi, M.A. 1-13. Westport: Praeger Publishers.

Burayidi, M. A. (2003). The Multicultural City as Planners’ Enigma, Planning Theory & Practice, 4:3, 259-273,
DOI: 10.1080/1464935032000118634

269
Burke, G. (1976). Townscapes. New York, USA: Penguin Books.

Burke, H. (2010). Vestiges of colonialism: Manifestations of the culture/nature divide in Australian heritage
management. In P. M. Messenger and G. S. Smith (Eds.) Cultural Heritage Management: A Global
Perspective. Florida Scholarship Online, Sep 2011: 21-37.

Burke, K. (1986). Review of Immigration Policy, August 1986. AJHR, G42.

Burkhardt, V. R. (1953). Chinese Creeds and Customs (Vol. 1). Hong Kong: South China Morning Post.

Burns, N., & Grove, SK. (2005). The Practice of Nursing Research. Conduct, Critique and Utilization (5th
eds.). Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders.

Butcher, A., & Spoonley, P. (2011). Inv-Asian: Print media constructions of Asians and Asian
immigration. Localizing Asia in Aotearoa, 98-115.

Butler, P. (1977). Opium and gold. A history of the Chinese goldminers in New Zealand, Alister Taylor,
Martinborough, New Zealand.

Byrne, D. R. (2008). Heritage as social action. In G. J. Fairclough, R. Harrison, J. H. Jameson & J. Schofield
(Eds.), The heritage reader (1st ed., pp. 149-173). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cain, T., & Spoonley, P. (2013). Making it Work: The Mixed Embeddedness of Immigrant Entrepreneurs in
New Zealand. Labor: Supply & Demand eJournal.

Callaghan, D. I. (2015). 'That's not who I was the last time I was here.'A diverse heritage and England's
heritage: mutual partners or mutually exclusive (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham).

Calligaro, O. (2014). From ‘European cultural heritage' to ‘cultural diversity': The changing core values of
European cultural policy. Politique européenne, 3(3), 60-85. https://doi.org/10.3917/poeu.045.0060

Campbell, S. and Fainstein, S. (2003). Introduction: The Structure and Debates of Planning Theory. In
Campbell, S. and S. Fainstein (Eds.) Reading in Planning Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1-16.

Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place. The Architectural Press Ltd.

Carter, P. (1992) Living in a New Country, London: Faber & Faber.

270
Cayford, J. (2012). Oriental Market on Auckland’s Waterfront? Reflections on Auckland Planning, 16th
Novermber, 2012. Retrieved from Reflections on Auckland Planning: Oriental Market on Auckland's
Waterfront? (joelcayford.blogspot.com) at 22nd, December, 2021.

Chan, W. F. (2007) Writing Multiculturalism? Planning for Culturally Different Identities in the City of
Birmingham, Planning Theory & Practice, 8:1, 69-85, DOI: 10.1080/14649350601158154

“Change in Auckland’s Chinatown.” The Weekly News, January 26, 1955

Chavis, David, and Wandersman, Abe. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for
participation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1): 55–79.

Chesney, M. (2000). Interaction and understanding: ‘me’ in the research. Nurse Researcher 7(3), 58-69.

“Chinatown is Gone…” Auckland Star, October 26, 1966.

“Chinese now adapting to life in N.Z.” Auckland Star, October 25, 1957

“Chinese Poll Tax Heritage Trust funding round now open.” (5 February 2021). Department of Internal Affairs.
Retrieved at November 20, 2021 from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wjbgOfW2dn3AhXSR2wGHWdPC0oQFnoECBIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dia.govt.nz%2Fpres
s.nsf%2Fd77da9b523f12931cc256ac5000d19b6%2Fbb7df51f64cf04efcc25867700064224!OpenDocument
&usg=AOvVaw1B7361St4CLdEqgcyQo7q2

Chinese resources. (2021). National Library of New Zealand, retrieved from

https://natlib.govt.nz/researchers/guides/chinese-resources

Chung, S. J. (2005a). East Asian values in historic conservation. Journal of Architectural Conservation, 11(1),
55-70.

Chung, Y. S. S. (2005b). Seoul, Korea: its concept of culture and nature in heritage planning, International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 11:2, 95-111, DOI: 10.1080/13527250500070287

Churchman, A. & Mitrani, M. (1997). The Role of the Physical Environment in Culture Shock. Environment
and Behaviour 29: 64-86.

271
Clark, K. (2014). Values-based Heritage Management and the Heritage Lottery Fund in the UK. APT Bulletin,
45(2), 65-71.

Clark, K. (2017). Values in Cultural Resource Management. Heritage Values in Contemporary Society, 89-100.

Clarke, A. (2006). Qualitative interviewing: encountering ethical issues and challenges. Nurse Researcher 13(4),
19-29.

Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12:3, 297-298, DOI:
10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613

Collier, J., & Collier, M. (1990). Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method. Albuquerque,
N.M.: University of New Mexico Press.

Collins, F. L., & Friesen, W. (2011). Making the most of diversity? The intercultural city project and a rescaled
version of diversity in Auckland, New Zealand. Urban Studies, 48(14), 3067-3085.

Collins, J., Kunz, P. (2007). Ethnic entrepreneurs, ethnic precincts and tourism: the case of Sydney,
Australia. In: Wilson G and Richards J, eds. Tourism, Creativity and Development. Routledge,
London, pp. 207-214.

Cosgrove, D. & Daniels, S. J. (1988) The Iconography of Landscape, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cossons, N. (2000). Foreword: Our questions for you. Review of policies relating to the historic environment.
London: English Heritage.

Creative New Zealand (CNZ) (2015). Asian Aucklanders and the arts: Attitudes, attendance and participation in
2014. ISBN 978-0-478-41851-4

Cromwell Museum. (2020, July 31). Chinese Miners. Retrieved from

https://www.cromwellmuseum.nz/chinese-miners

Cuba, L., & Hummon, D. M. (1993, December). Constructing a sense of home: Place affiliation and migration
across the life cycle. In Sociological forum (Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 547-572). Kluwer Academic Publishers-
Plenum Publishers.

272
Datel, R. & Dingemans, D. (1984). Environmental Perception, Historic Preservation, and Sense of Place, pp.
131–144. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography.

Davison, G., & McConville, C. (Eds.) (1991). A heritage handbook (1st ed.). St Leonards NSW: Allen & Unwin.

De Bock, J. (2020). Definition, participation, and exceptionalism: an empirically based discussion of three key
issues in migrant heritage practices. In Dellios, A., & Henrich, E. (Eds.). (2020). Migrant, Multicultural
and Diasporic Heritage: Beyond and Between Borders (198-214). Routledge.

de la Torre, M. (2005). Part One: Project Background. In M. de la Torre, M. MacLean, R. Mason & D. Myers
(Eds.), Heritage Values in Site Management: Four Case Studies. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation
Institute, pp. 1–13.

de la Torre, M., & Mason, R. (2002). Introduction. In M. de la Torre (Ed.), Assessing the values of cultural
heritage (1st ed., pp. 3-4). Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.

De Vaus, D. (2001). Research design in social research. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC: SAGE.

Delafons, J. (1997). Politics and preservation: A policy history of the built heritage, 1882-1996. London: E &
FN Spon.

Dellios, A., & Henrich, E. (2020). Migratory Pasts and Heritage Making Presents: Theory and Practice. In A.
Dellios & E. Henrich (eds), Migrant, Multicultural and Diasporic Heritage: beyond and between borders
(pp. 1-18). Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (3rd eds.).
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Deutsch, N. (2005). A second home. In B. J. Hirsch (Ed.), A place to call home: After-school programs for
urban youth (pp. 41–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Devine-Wright, P., & Lyons, E. (1997). Remembering pasts and representing places: The construction of
national identities in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 33-45.

Di Giovine, M. A. (2008). The heritage-scape: UNESCO, world heritage, and tourism. Lexington Books.

273
Disko, S., & Tugendhat, H. (Eds.). (2014). World heritage sites and indigenous peoples' rights (Vol. 551).
Copenhagen: IWGIA.

Don, A. (1879-1913). Diaries, Inland Tour Reports, Roll of Chinese (in New Zealand 1883-1913).

Donald, J. (1997). This, here, now. Imagining the modern city. In S. Westwood, & J. M. Williams (Eds.),
Imagining cities: Scripts, signs, memory (1st ed., pp. 179-199). London, England: Routledge.

Dunn, K., Thompson, S., Hanna, B. et al. (2001). Multicultural policy within local government in Australia.
Urban Studies, 38, pp. 2477–2494.

Durie, E. T. (2005). The rule of law, biculturalism and multiculturalism. Waikato L. Rev., 13, 41.

Edgington, D. W. and Hutton, T. (2001). Multiculturalism and Local Government in Greater Vancouver.
Vancouver: RIIM.

Elers, S. (2018). A'white New Zealand': Anti-Chinese Racist Political Discourse from 1880 to 1920. China
Media Research, 14(3).

Erzberger, C., & Prein, G. (1997). Triangulation: Validity and empirically-based hypothesis
construction. Quality & Quantity, 31, 141–154.

Escobar, A. (2001). Culture sits in places: reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of
localization. Political geography, 20(2), 139-174.

Evans, G. (2002). Living in a World Heritage City: stakeholders in the dialectic of the universal and
particular. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8(2), 117-135.

Fan, Y. (2000). A classification of Chinese culture. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 7(2),
3-10.

Fielding, N. (1994). Varieties of research interview. Nurse Researcher 1(3), 4-13.

Fincher, R. (2003) Planning for cities of diversity, difference and encounter, Australian Planner, 40:1, 55-58,
DOI: 10.1080/07293682.2003.9995252

274
Fincher, R., Iveson, K., Leitner, H., & Preston, V. (2014). Planning in the multicultural city: Celebrating
diversity or reinforcing difference?. Progress in Planning, 92, 1-55.

Fincher, R., Iveson, K., Leitner, H., & Preston, V. (2014). Planning in the multicultural city: Celebrating
diversity or reinforcing difference? Progress in Planning, 92, 1-55.

Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to
individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In Zanna,
M.P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 23, pp. 1-74.

Fitch, J. M. (1990). Historic preservation: Curatorial management of the built world (5th ed.). Charlottesville
and London: University of Virginia Press.

Flinn, A. (2011). ‘Archival activism: Independent and community-led archives, radical public history and the
heritage professions’. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 7(2). DOI:
10.5070/D472000699

Fong, B. (1959). The Chinese in New Zealand: a study in assimilation. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press, pp. 9-10.

Forester J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Forester, J. (2000) Multicultural planning in deed: lessons from the mediation practice of Shirley Solomon and
Larry Sherman. In Burayidi, M.A. (Ed.), Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society. Westport: Praeger
Publishers.

Förster, S., Frank, S., Krajewsky, G., & Schwerer, J. (2016). Negotiating German colonial heritage in Berlin’s
Afrikanisches Viertel. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(7), 515-529.

Forsyth, A. (1999). Soundbite Cities: Imaging Futures in Debates Over Urban Form. Journal of Architectural
and Planning Research, 16(1).

Foucault, M. (1984). What is enlightenment? In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (1st ed., pp. 32-50).
New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

275
Francis, K. (2014). NZ Chinese/Chinese NZ: Auckland Architecture’s Changing Response. In Schnoor, C. (Ed.)
Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand: 31, Translation (pp.
81-91). Auckland, New Zealand: SAHANZ and Unitec ePress; and Gold Coast, Queensland: SAHANZ.

Franz, M., Gules, O., & Prey, G. (2008). ‘Place-making and ‘Green’ Reuses of Brownfields in the Ruhr’,
Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 316-328.

Fraser, J. and Lepofsky, J. (2004) The uses of knowledge in neighbourhood revitalization, Community
Development Journal, 39, 4–12.

Fraser, N. (1997). Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist Condition.” New York:
Routledge.

Fredheim, L. H., & Khalaf, M. (2016). The significance of values: Heritage value typologies re-examined.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(6), 466-481. DOI:10.1080/13527258.2016.1171247

Freeman, G.P. (2004) ‘Immigrant incorporation in Western democracies’, International Migration Review,
38(3): 945–69.

Freestone, R., Marsden, S. & Garnaut, C. (2008). A Methodology for Assessing the Heritage of Planned Urban
Environments: An Australian Study of National Heritage Values, International Journal of Heritage Studies,
14:2, 156-175, DOI: 10.1080/13527250701844043

Frey, B. S., & Steiner, L. (2011). World Heritage List: does it make sense? International Journal of Cultural
Policy, 17(5), 555-573.

Friesen, W. & Kearns, R. (2010) Ōtara and Dannemora: contrasting landscapes and ethnic identities in two
South Auckland suburbs. In Stephenson, J., Abbott, M., & Ruru, J. (eds), Beyond the scene: landscape and
identity in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 93-110). Otago University Press, Dunedin.

Friesen, W. (1992). New Asian migrants in Auckland: issues of employment and status. Labour, Employment
and Work in New Zealand.

Friesen, W. (2006) Planning for cultural diversity. In Thomson-Fawcett, M. and Freeman, C. (Eds.) Living
Together: Towards Inclusive Communities in New Zealand (pp. 57–76). Dunedin: Otago University Press.

276
Friesen, W. (2008). Diversity Auckland: the face of New Zealand in the 21 st Century?, Asia New Zealand
Foundation: Wellington.

Friesen, W. (2015). Asian Auckland: The multiple meanings of diversity. Wellington: Asia New Zealand
Foundation.

Friesen, W., & Ip, M. (1997). New Chinese New Zealanders: profile of a transnational community in Auckland.
In East Asian New Zealanders: Research on New Migrants, Aotearoa/New Zealand Migration Research
Network Research Paper: Department of Sociology, Massey University at Albany, Auckland, 3-19.

Friesen, W., Murphy, L., & Kearns, RA. (2005). Spiced-up Sandringham: Indian transnationalism and new
suburban spaces in Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31:385–401.

Fryer, O. (1984). Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain. London: Pluto Press.

Furlan, R., & Faggion, L. (2015). Italo-Australian Transnational Houses: Culture and Built Heritage as a Tool
for Cultural Continuity. Architecture Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, 2015, pp. 67-87. DOI:
10.5923/j.arch.20150502.04.

Furlan, R., & Faggion, L. (2016). Post-WWII Italian Immigration to Australia: The Catholic Church as a Means
of Social Integration and Italian Associations as a Way of Preserving Italian Culture. Journal of
Sociological Research, 6, 27-41.

Gaber, J., & Gaber, S. (2007). Qualitative analysis for planning & policy: Beyond the numbers. Chicago,
Illinois and Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association.

Galster, G. (2007). Neighbourhood social mix as a goal of housing policy: A theoretical analysis. European
Journal of Housing Policy, 7(1), 19–43.

Gard’ner, J. M. (2004) Heritage Protection and Social Inclusion: A Case Study from the Bangladeshi
Community of East London, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10:1, 75-92, DOI:
10.1080/1352725032000194259

Gatley, J. (2008). Shabby and Shambling: Decadent Housing in Greys Avenue. Architectural History
Aotearoa, 5, 45-54.

277
Gibson, L., & Pendlebury, J. (2009). Introduction: valuing historic environments. Valuing historic environments,
1-16.

Gilroy, R. (2010). Planning and Diversity in the City: Redistribution, Recognition and Encounter, 11:1, 132-133,
DOI: 10.1080/14649351003622433

Giuliani, M. V. & Feldman, R. (1993). Place attachment in a developmental and cultural context. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 13, 267-274.

Giuliani, M. V. (1991). Towards an analysis of mental representations of attachment to the home. Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research, 8, 133–146.

Goonewardena, K., Rankin, K. N., & Weinstock, S. (2004). Diversity and planning education: A Canadian
perspective. Canadian journal of urban research, 1-26.

Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2000). A geography of heritage: Power, culture, and economy
(1st ed.). London: Arnold.

Greenwood, J. (2020). Cosmopolitan capitals: migrant heritage, urban tourism, and the re-imagining of
Australian cities. In Dellios, A., & Henrich, E. (Eds.). (2020). Migrant, Multicultural and Diasporic
Heritage: Beyond and Between Borders (pp. 119-132). Routledge.

Gross, M. (2008, Sep 5). Lessons from the frugal grand tour. The New York Times, Vol. 35.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln,
Y. S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Gunton, T. I., and Day, J. C. (2003). The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Planning in Resource and
Environmental Management. Environments, 31(2), pp. 5-19.

Gustafson, P. (2001). Roots and routes: Exploring the relationship between place attachment and mobility,
Environment and Behavior, 33(5), pp. 667–686.

Habermas, J., & Ben-Habib, S. (1981). Modernity versus postmodernity. New German Critique, Special Issue
on Modernism (22), 3-14.

278
Hague, E. (2001). The Scottish diaspora. Tartan Day and the appropriation of Scottish identities in the United
States. In D. C. Harvey, R. Jones, N. McInroy & C. Milligan (Eds.), Celtic geographies: Old culture, new
times (pp. 139–156). London: Routledge.

Hall, C. M., & McArthur, S. (1996). The human dimension of heritage management. In C. M. Hall & S.
McArthur (Eds.), Heritage management in Australia and New Zealand: The human dimension (pp. 2-21).
Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday & Company Inc.

Hall, S. (1999). ‘Un-settling “the heritage”, re-imagining the post-nation. Whose heritage?’, Third Text, 13(49),
pp. 3-13. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09528829908576818, 9 May 2019.

Hall, S. (1999/2007). Whose Heritage? Un-settling the Heritage, Re-imaging the Post-nations. In L. Smith (ed.),
Cultural Heritage: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.

Hall, S. (2001). ‘The multicultural question’. Milton Keynes, UK: Pavis Centre for Social and Cultural Research,
The Open University.

Hall, T. D. H. (1929). New Zealand and Asian Immigration. In Ngata, A. T. et al, New Zealand Affairs.
Christchurch: NZ Branch of the Institute of Pacific Relations and L. M. Isitt Ltd, pp. 87, 93.

Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (2011). Case study methods (1st ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
DOI://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983587

Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organisation of Meaning. New York: Colombia
University Press.

Hardy, D. (1988). Historical geography and heritage studies. Area, 20(4), 333-338. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20002646

Hareven, T. and Langenbach, R. (1981). ‘Living Places, Work Places and Historical Identity’.
Conservationtech.com, retrieved from http://www.conservationtech.com/RL’s%20resume&%20pub’s?
RL-publications/Milltowns/1981-Binney-Brook/LivingPlaces-(TH&RL).doc

Harnett, W. (2013). Chinese New Zealanders: An Inventory of Records Held by Archives New Zealand.
Chinese Southern Diaspora Studies, Volume Six, 178-194.

279
Harrell, M. C., & Bradley, M. A. (2009). Data Collection Methods. Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus
Groups. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Harrison, R. (2013). Heritage: Critical Approaches, London: Routledge.

Harrison, R. (2015). Beyond “Natural” and “Cultural” Heritage: Toward an Ontological Politics of Heritage in
the Age of Anthropocene, Heritage & Society, 8:1, 24-42, DOI: 10.1179/2159032X15Z.00000000036

Harrison, R. (2018). On heritage ontologies: Rethinking the material worlds of heritage. In Hill, M. J. (Eds.),
World Heritage and the Ontological Turn: New Materialities and the Enactment of Collective Pasts,
Anthropological Quarterly, 91(4), pp. 1365-1383. George Washington University Institute for
Ethnographic Research SN.

Harrison, R., & Hitchcock, M. (2010). The politics of heritage. In Harrison, R. (Ed.) Understanding the Politics
of Heritage (pp: 154-196), Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press.

Harrison, S.R., & Dourish, P. (1996). Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in collaborative
systems. CSCW '96.

Harvey, D. C. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage
studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4), 319-338. DOI:10.1080/13581650120105534

Harwood, S. (2005). Struggling to embrace difference in land-use decision making in multicultural communities.
Planning Practice & Research, 20(4), 355-71.

Harwood, S. A. (2004). Dealing with Diversity: Planning in Multicultural Communities. PAS Memo.
November/December.

Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of environmental psychology, 18(1), 5-29.

Hayden, D. (1997). The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history. MIT press.

Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation,
Environment and Planning B, 23(2), pp. 217–234.

Heclo, H. H. (1974). Modern Social Policies in Britain and Sweden. New Haven, Yale University Press.

280
Heidegger, M. (1953) Being and Time (1996 edn trans. J. Stambaugh), Albany, NY: State University Press.

Heinich, N. (1988). The Pompidou Centre and its public: the limits of a utopian site. In Lumley, R. (Ed.) The
Museum Time Machine (1st ed.) (pp: 199-212). London: Routledge.

Henderson, A. (2003). Untapped Talents: Employment and Settlement Experiences of Skilled Chinese in New
Zealand. In M. Ip (Eds.), Unfolding History, Evolving Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand (1st ed., pp.
141-164). Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Henderson, A., Trlin, A. D., Pernice, R., & North, N. (1998). English language requirements and immigration
policy in New Zealand, 1986-1997. New Zealand Population Review, 23(1), 19-44.

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, Versions as at 28 October 2021. Retrieved February 10th,
2022 from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wj91cKlpID2AhX88HMBHfNcAc4QFnoECAgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislation.govt.nz%2
Fact%2Fpublic%2F2014%2F0026%2Flatest%2Fwhole.html&usg=AOvVaw3VODDRrnYaKgakLav-
IHZy

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. (2017). Tapuwae: Te Kōrero a te Kaunihera Māori o te Pouhere
Taonga. Retrieved February 10th, 2022 from https://www.heritage.org.nz/resources/-
/media/bfa29419db7f42beaaeebc831193de67.ashx

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. (2018). National Assessment RMA Policies and Plans – Heritage
Provisions. Retrieved February 4th, 2022 from https://www.heritage.org.nz/protecting-heritage/-
/media/54e6192a0ea0452498f2b4271545f232.ashx

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. (2019). Significance Assessment Guidelines: Guidelines for Assessing
Historic Places and Historic Areas for the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero. Retrieved February
9th, 2022 from https://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list/-/media/fcf2e3c8de8c44a5bf5afcc95b24816a.ashx

Hernandez, B., Hidalgo, M.A., Salazar-Laplace, M.E., & Hess, S. (2007). Place Attachment and Place Identity
in Natives and Non-natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 310-319.

Hewison, R. (1987). The heritage industry: Britain in a climate of decline (1st ed.). London: Methuen.

281
Hewison, R. (2007). Brideshead Revisited. In L. Smith (ed.), Cultural Heritage: Critical Concepts in Media and
Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.

Hewlett, S. (2002). Volunteering in libraries, museums, and archives. Cultural Trends, 12(46), 39-66. doi:
10.1080/09548960209390322

Hicks, W. (1972). What is Photojournalism? In Schuneman, R.S. (Ed), Photographic Communication. New
York: Hastings House Publishers.

Hidalgo, M. C. & Hernández, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 21, 273-281.

Higgins, M. (2010). Urban design and the planning system in Aotearoa - New Zealand: Disjuncture or
convergence? Urban Design International, 15(1), 1-21.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1057/udi.2009.16

Hillier, J. (2016 [2013]). ‘Case study window – global futures: New opportunities for creative cultural
transformation’. In Young, G. and Stevenson, D. (Eds.) The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning and
Culture (pp. 411-430). London and New York: Routledge.

Ho, E. S. (2002). Multi-Local Residence, Transnational Networks: Chinese ‘Astronaut’ Families in New
Zealand. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 11(1), 145–164.
https://doi.org/10.1177/011719680201100107

Ho, E. S. (2003). Reluctant exiles or roaming transnationals? The Hong Kong Chinese in New Zealand. In M. Ip
(Eds.), Unfolding History, Evolving Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand (1st ed., pp. 165-184). Auckland:
Auckland University Press.

Ho, E., Ip, M., & Bedford, R. (2001). Transnational Hong Kong Chinese families in the 1990s. New Zealand
Journal of Geography, 111(1), 24-30.

Hodder, I. (2010). ‘Cultural Heritage Rights: From Ownership and Descent to Justice and Well-being’,
Anthropological Quarterly, 83(4):861-882.’

Holtorf, C. (2007). What does not move any Hearts—Why should it be saved? the denkmalpflegediskussion in
Germany. International Journal of Cultural Property, 14(1), 33-55.

282
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2000). Museums and the interpretation of visual culture (1st ed.). London: Routledge.

Hopkins, I. (2008). Places from which to speak, Journal of the Society of Archivists, 29(1), April 2008, pp. 83-
109.

Hou, J. (2004). Preserving for multiple publics: Contesting views of Urban Conservation in Seattle's
International District. City and Time, 1(3), 29-38.

Howard, M.C., & McKim, P.C. (1983). Contemporary Cultural Anthropology. Toronto: Littel, Brown &
Company.

Hsiao, F. S. T., Jen, F. C. and Lee, C. F. (1990). Impacts of culture and communist orthodoxy on Chinese
management, in Advances in Chinese industrial studies, Vol. 1, Part A, 301-314.

Hsu, F. L. K. (1968). ‘Psychological Anthropology: An Essential Defect and its Remedy’, paper presented at the
1968 annual meeting of the American Anthropologist Association, Seattle, Washington.

Huang, Y. H. (2011). An analysis of the development of Chinese heritage sites in New Zealand and their
potential for tourism (Doctoral dissertation, Lincoln University).

Hughey, Joseph, and Speer, Paul W. (2002). Community, sense of community, and networks. In Fisher, A. T.,
Sonn, C. C., Bishop, B. J. (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and
implications (pp. 69–84). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Hutchinson, S. A., & Wilson, H. S. (1992). Validity threats in scheduled semistructured research interviews.
Nursing Research, 41(2), 117-119.

Hwangbo, A. B. (2002). An Alternative Tradition in Architecture: Conceptions in Feng Shui and Its Continuous
Tradition. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 19(2), 110–130.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030604

Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London:
Routledge.

Ioannides, M., Magnenat-Thalmann, N. and Papagiannakis, G. (Eds.) (2017). Mixes Reality and Gamification
for Cultural Heritage. Cham: Springer.

283
Ip, M. & Friesen, W. (2001). The New Chinese Community in New Zealand: Local Outcomes of
Transnationalism. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 10(2), 213-240.

Ip, M. (1990). Home Away from Home, Life Stories of Chinese Women in New Zealand, Auckland: New
Women’s Press, ISBN 0-908652- 45-3.

Ip, M. (1995). Chinese New Zealanders: Old settlers and new immigrants. In Greif, S. W. (Eds.), Immigration
and national identity in New Zealand: One people, two peoples, many peoples (1st ed., pp. 161-199).
Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

Ip, M. (1996). Dragon on the Long White Cloud: the Making of Chinese New Zealanders. North Shore City:
Tandem Press, ISBN 0- 908884-64-8.

Ip, M. (2001). Chinese Business Immigrants to New Zealand: Transnationals or Failed Investors? In M. Ip (Ed.),
Re-examining Chinese transnationalism in Australia-New Zealand. Canberra: Centre for the Study of the
Chinese Southern Diaspora (CSCSD), Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National
University.

Ip, M. (2003). Seeking the last utopia: the Taiwanese in New Zealand. In M. Ip. (Ed.), Unfolding History,
Evolving Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand (1st ed., pp. 185-210). Auckland: Auckland University
Press.

Ip, M. (2006a). Asian New Zealanders: Emergent Political Leadership and Politicised Communities, In Miller,
R. & Mintrom, M. (Eds.) Political Leadership in New Zealand (pp.153-174), Auckland: Auckland
University Press.

Ip, M. (2006b). Returnees and transnationals: Evolving identities of Chinese (PRC) immigrants in New
Zealand. Journal of Population Studies, 33, 61-102.

Ip, M. (2008). Being Māori Chinese: Mixed Identities. Auckland University Press.

Ip, M. (2021). The New Zealand Chinese experience is unique and important – the new history curriculum can’t
ignore it. The Conversation, May 26, 2021. Retrieved February 18 th, 2022 from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wiy0KCb9Ib2AhVqTWwGHSI9BaoQFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Ft
he-new-zealand-chinese-experience-is-unique-and-important-the-new-history-curriculum-cant-ignore-it-
160782&usg=AOvVaw3QB-kCKXlb-AwECJSHwShq

284
Ip, M., & Pang, D. (2005). New Zealand Chinese identity: Sojourners, model minority and multiple identities. In
J. H. Liu, T. McCreanor, T. McIntosh & T. Teaiwa (Eds.), New Zealand identities: Departures and
destinations (pp. 174-190). Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.

Jacobson-Widding, A. (1983). Identity: personal and socio-cultural. A Symposium Acta Universitatis

Uppsaliensis, Uppsala.

Jameson, J. H. (2008). Presenting archaeology to the public, then and now: An introduction. The Heritage
Reader, pp. 427-456.

Janssen, J., Luiten, E., Renes, H., & Rouwendal, J. (2014). Heritage planning and spatial development in the
Netherlands: Changing policies and perspectives. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20(1), 1-21.
doi:10.1080/13527258.2012.710852

Jarvie, I. C. and Agassi, J. (1969). “A Study in Westernization”, in Jarvie, I. C. & Agassi, J. (Eds.), Hong Kong:
A Society in Transition, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Jellicoe, G. A. (1970). Studies in Landscape Design (3 volumes), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, W. I. (1978). Policy Analysis: A Political and Organisational Perspective. London, Martin Robertson.

Johansson, R. (2003). Case study methodology. Paper presented at the Methodologies in Housing Research,
Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 22-24.

Johnson, T. H. (1960). The Poems of Emily Dickinson. Boston: Little Brown.

Johnston, R., Gendall, P., Trlin, A., & Spoonley, P. (2010). Immigration, multiculturalism and geography: Inter-
group contact and attitudes to immigrants and cultural diversity in New Zealand. Asian and Pacific
Migration Journal, 19(3), 343-369.

Jokilehto, J. (1999). A history of architectural conservation (1st ed.). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Jokilehto, J. (2006). World heritage: Defining the outstanding universal value. City and Time, 2(2), 1-10.

Jones, S. (2012). “Thrown like chaff in the wind”: excavation, memory and the negotiation of loss in the
Scottish Highlands. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 16(2), pp. 346-366.

285
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of Place as an Attitude: Lakeshore Owners Attitudes toward
Their Properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233-248.

Kalman, H. (1982). Politics, patriotism and preservation. Canadian Heritage, August, 5.

Kalman, H. (2014). Heritage planning (1st ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review,
39, 328–339.

Kenderdine, S. (2010). Immersive visualization architectures and situated embodiments of culture and heritage.
Paper presented at the Information Visualisation (IV), 2010 14th International Conference, 408-414.

King, A. U. C. and Myers, J. R. (1977). Shame as an Incomplete Conception of Chinese Culture: A Study of
Face, Research Monograph, H. K. Social Research Institute, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

King, C. (2014). Por Pors cookbook (Second edition (revised). ed.). NZ: Ashburton. ISBN: 9780473249373.

Kirkbride, P. S., Tang, S. F., & Westwood, R. I. (1991). Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behaviour:
Cultural and psychological influences. Organization studies, 12(3), 365-386.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1998). Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage. Berkeley: University
of California Press.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2004). “Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production.” Museum International 56

(1–2): 52–65.

Kluckhohn, F. R. and Strodbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in Value Orientation, Illinois: Row, Paterson and Co.

Knez, I. (2005). Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived climate. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 25, 207–218.

Knox, C, & Raukawa, N. (2005). Māori, Chinese, and the Treaty of Waitangi. In Crouching Tiger, Hidden
Banana Conference, AUT University, Auckland, vol. 4. 2005.

Koopmans, R. (2010). Trade-offs between equality and difference: Immigrant integration, multiculturalism and
the welfare state in cross-national perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(1), 1–26.

286
Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. In E. Barnouw, G. Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. L. Worth, & L. Gross
(Eds.), International encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 1, pp. 403-407). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/226 on Aug, 8, 2019.

Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners (3rd edition). Los Angeles,
London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J., & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place meaning: An
examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of environmental
psychology, 24(4), 439-454.

Kymlicka, W. (2012). Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future. In Stiftung, B., Migration Policy
Institute (eds.) Rethinking National Identity in the Age of Migration: The Transatlantic Council on
Migration (pp. 33-78). The Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Labadi, S. (2007). Representations of the nation and cultural diversity in discourses on World Heritage. Journal
of social archaeology, 7(2), 147-170.

Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related Identity: Theory, measurement and empirical endings. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 12, 285-303.

Lambert, S. D., & Loiselle, C. G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data
richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 228–237.

Larsen, K. E. (1995). Nara conference on authenticity. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Publishers.

Lee, J. (1889). Anti-Chinese legislation in Australasia. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 3(2), 218-224.

Lee, J. B. J. (2003). Eating Pork Bones and Puha with Chopsticks: Māori-Chinese Constrictions. In M. Ip.
(Eds.), Unfolding History, Evolving Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand (1st ed., pp. 94-112). Auckland:
Auckland University Press.

Lee, L., & Lam, R. (2012). Sons of the soil: Chinese market gardeners in New Zealand. Dominion Federation
for New Zealand Chinese Commercial Growers.

287
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2014). Practical research: planning and design (11th edition). Boston,
Columbus, Indianapolis etc.: Pearson.

Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space, Oxford: Blackwell.

Legge, J. (1971). Confucians: Confucian analects, the great learning and the doctrine of the mean. (Translated
by Legge, J.). New York: Dover Publications.

Lemon, M. C. (2003). Philosophy of History. USA: Routledge.

Lewicka, M. (2005). Ways to make people active: The role of place attachment, cultural capital, and
neighborhood ties. Journal of environmental psychology, 25(4), 381-395.

Lewicka, M. (2008). Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: restoring forgotten city past. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 28(3): 209–231. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001

Lewis N, Lewis O, Underhill-Sem Y (2009). Filling hollowed out spaces with localised
meanings, practices and hope: progressive neoliberal spaces in Te Rarawa. Asia Pacific
View- point, 50(2), 166-184.

Lewis, N. (2009). Progressive Spaces of Neoliberalism. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, vol.50, no.2, pp.113-119.

Lewis, P. (1979). Denning sense of place. In Prenshaw, W. P., McKee, J. O. (Eds.), Sense of Place: Mississippi
(pp. 24-46). University of Mississippi: Jackson, MI.

Li, P. H., &Turner, J. B. (2017). New Zealand Chinese in historical images (1st ed.). Beijing: Social sciences
adamic press.

Li, Q. (2018). Between Aotearoa and China: An autoethnography of a Chinese international student (Doctoral
dissertation, ResearchSpace@ Auckland)

Li, W. (1998). Anatomy of a new ethnic settlement: Chinese ethnoburb in Los Angeles. Urban Studies 35: 479–
501.

Licciardi, G., & Amirtahmasebi, R. (2012). In Licciardi G., Amirtahmasebi R. (Eds.), The economics of
uniqueness: Investing in historic city cores and cultural heritage assets for sustainable development.
Washington: World Bank. DOI:10.1596/978-0-8213-9650-6

288
Lilley, R. (2000). The Hong Kong handover. Communal/Plural: Journal of Transnational & Cross-Cultural
Studies, 8(2), 161-180.

Lip, E. (1995). Feng shui: Environments of power: A study of Chinese architecture. London: Academy Editions.

Littler, J. and Naidoo, R. (2004). White past, multicultural present: Heritage and national stories. In
Brockelhurst, H. and Philips, R. (Eds.) History, Nationhood, and the Question of Britain (pp. 330-341).
Basingstoke: Palgrave macmillan.

Littler, J. and Naidoo, R. (Eds.) (2005). The Politics of Heritage: The Legacies of Race. London: Routledge.

Liu, J. H., Wilson, M. S., McClure, J., & Higgins, T. R. (1999). Social identity and the perception of history:
Cultural representations of Aotearoa/New Zealand. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(8), 1021-
1047.

Liu, L. (2010). Home on the move–new Chinese immigrants to New Zealand as transnationals (Doctoral
dissertation).

Lixinski, L. (2015). Between orthodoxy and heterodoxy: The troubled relationships between heritage studies
and heritage law. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 21(3), 203-214.
DOI:10.1080/13527258.2014.922113

Logan, W. (2008). ‘Cultural Heritage and Human Rights’, in Graham, B.J. and Howard, P. (eds), Ashgate
Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, pp. 439-454.

Logan, W., Langfield, M. and Nic Craith, M. (2010). ‘Intersecting Concepts and Practices’, in Langfield, M.,
Logan, W. and Nic Craith, M. (Eds), Cultural Diversity, Heritage and Human Rights: Intersections in
Theory and Practice (pp. 3-20). Abington and New York: Routledge.

Low, S. & Lawrence-Zuniga, D. (2003). Locating culture. In Low, S. and Lawrence-Zuniga, D. (Eds.) The
Anthropology of Space and Place (pp. 1–47). Oxford: Blackwell.

Low, S. M. (1992). Symbolic ties that bind. Place attachment in the plaza. In Altman, I. & Low,
S.M. (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 165-185). Plenum Press, New York and London.

Low, S.M. & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In Altman, I. & Low,
S.M. (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 1-12). New York and London: Plenum Press.

289
Lowe, J. (2015). Multiculturalism and its exclusions in New Zealand: the case for cosmopolitanism and
indigenous rights, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 16:4, 496-512, DOI: 10.1080/14649373.2015.1103010

Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

Lowenthal, D. (1998). The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lowi, T. J. (1970). Decision making versus policy making: toward an antidote for technocracy. Public
Administration Review, 3, 314--25.

Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 4, 298-310.

Lu, H. (2020a). The Standing Point: Studying the History of Auckland’s Chinese People. Auckland: The
University of Auckland, Auckland History Initiative. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wjaj5mf8rX3AhXDTmwGHePoDaIQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fahi.auckland.ac.nz%2F2020
%2F10%2F27%2Fthe-standing-point-studying-the-history-of-aucklands-chinese-
people%2F&usg=AOvVaw2Jh6RD3dtT8bszQ7go0xET at 23rd, December, 2021.

Lu, H. (2020b). The Auckland’s Chinese: Home, Youth and Joy in Turbulence. Auckland: The University of
Auckland, Auckland History Initiative. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wiKnP2z8rX3AhWaRmwGHcujDK4QFnoECAcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fahi.auckland.ac.nz%2F202
0%2F11%2F03%2Faucklands-chinese-home-youth-and-joy-in-
turbulence%2F&usg=AOvVaw1gRXXqurNBBSe43tjkb6Qy at 24th, December, 2021.

Lu, H. (2020c). The Borders of Identity: Illusions in Auckland’s Chinese History. Auckland: The University of
Auckland, Auckland History Initiative. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wjTqbTO8rX3AhUKR2wGHcZxDacQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fahi.auckland.ac.nz%2F20
20%2F11%2F10%2Fthe-borders-of-identity-illusions-in-aucklands-chinese-
history%2F&usg=AOvVaw0rn1XBS_744et0bLdGzd5_ at 22nd, December, 2021.

Ludwig, C. (2016). From bricks and mortar to social heritage: planning space for diversities in the AHD,
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22:10, 811-827, DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2016.1218909.

290
Luen, P. (2007). Cultural Identity: Developing A Sense of Chinese Identity in New Zealand. Bananas NZ Going
Global International Conference, 18-19th Aug 2017. Retrieved from Bananas NZ Going Global Conference
(2007) - conference papers (goingbananas.org.nz) on 30th Jun. 2021.

Lusiani, M., & Zan, L. (2013). Planning and Heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 3(2), 108-115.

Lydon, J. (1999). Many Inventions: The Chinese in the Rocks, 1890-1930. Dept of History, Monash University,
Victoria: Monash Publications in History 28.

Lynch, B. (2017). Migrants, museums and tackling the legacies of prejudice. In C. Johnson & P. Bevlander
(Eds.), Museums in a time of migration: Re-thinking museums’ roles, representations, collections, and
collaborations (pp. 225-242). Sweden: Nordic Academic Press.

Lyotard, J. (1992). The postmodern explained: Correspondence, 1982-1985 (1st ed.). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.

Macdonald, S. (2013). Memorylands: Heritage and Identity in Europe Today. London: Routledge.

Macgregor, P. (1995). Chinese? Australian? “The Limits of Geography and Ethnicity as Determinants of
Cultural Identity'. In Ip, M. (Eds.), Chinese in Australia and New Zealand: a Multidisciplinary Approach.
(1st., pp. 5-20). New Delhi: Wiley Eastern.

MacRae, G. (2017). Universal heritage meets local livelihoods: ‘awkward engagements’ at the world cultural
heritage listing in Bali. International journal of heritage studies, 23(9), 846-859.

Malik, K. (1996). The meaning of race: Race, history and culture in Western society. Macmillan International
Higher Education.

Manzo, L., & Perkins, D.D. (2006). Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to
Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20, 335 - 350.

Marcus, C.C. (1995). House as a Mirror of Self. Exploring the Deeper Meaning of Home. Berkeley, California:
Conari Press.

Margerum, R. D. (1997). Integrated Approaches to Environmental Planning and Management, Journal of

Planning Literature 11(4): 459-475.

291
Martiniello, M. (1998). Multicultural Policies and the State: A Comparison of Two European Societies, Utrecht:
ERCOMER.

Mason, R. (2002). Assessing values in conservation planning: Methodological issues and choices. In M. de la
Torre (Ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage (1st ed., pp. 5-30). Los Angeles: The Getty
Conservation Institute.

Mason, R. (2008). Be interested and beware: Joining economic valuation and heritage conservation.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14(4), 303-318.

Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Massey, D. (1995), The Conceptualization of Place. In: Massey, D. & Jess, P., (Eds.) A Place in the World?
Places, Cultures and Globalization (pp. 45–85). Oxford: The Open University.

May, H. (2002). Aotearoa-New Zealand: An overview of history, policy and curriculum. McGill Journal of
Education/Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill, 37(001).

McClelland, A., Peel, D., Hayes, C. M., & Montgomery, I. (2013). A values-based approach to heritage
planning: raising awareness of the dark side of destruction and conservation. Town Planning Review, 84(5),
583-605.

McEwan, A. (2017). Heritage issues. In C. Miller, & L. Beattie (Eds.), Planning practice in New Zealand (1st
ed., pp. 243-253). Wellington, New Zealand: LexisNexis NZ Ltd.

McKinnon, M. (1996). Immigrants and Citizens: New Zealanders and Asian Immigration in Historical Context.
Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington Institute of Policy Studies.

McMillan, David W., and Chavis, David M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of
Community Psychology, 14(1): 6–23.

Meares, C., Ho, E., Peace, R., Spoonley, P. (2010). Bamboo Networks: Chinese Employers
and Employees in Auckland. Integration of Immigrants Programme, Massey
University/University of Waikato, Auckland.

Memon, A. and Perkins, H. (Eds.) (2000). Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand.
Wellington: Dunmore Press.

292
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Meskel, L. (2010). ‘Human Rights and Heritage Ethics’, Anthropological Quarterly, 83(4): 839-860.

Milroy, B. M. and Wallace, M. (2002). Ethnoracial Diversity and Planning Practices in the Greater Toronto
Area: Final Report. Toronto: Centre of Excellence for Research in Immigration and Settlement (CERIS).

Ministry for Culture and Heritage. (October 2021). OIA Response to Request for the final version of the
Stakeholder Report: Strengthening protections for heritage buildings. Retrieved January 28th 2022 from
proactive-release-strengthening-protections-for-heritage-buildings-report.pdf (mch.govt.nz).

Ministry for Education. (2021). Aotearoa New Zealand’s Histories in the New Zealand Curriculum, draft for
consultation, January 2021. Retrieved February 18 th, 2022 from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wj_h9_08ob2AhWxzDgGHVVpAgIQFnoECAwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnzcurriculum.tki.org.nz%2
Fcontent%2Fdownload%2F169209%2F1249015%2Ffile%2FCO2716_MOE_Aotearoa_NZ_Histories_A3
_FINAL-020.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1AyXQqp1uY9ssAzXx4U4dW

Ministry for the Environment. (2021). New Zealand’s Cultural Heritage. Retrieved January 31st, 2023 from
https://environment.govt.nz/publications/the-state-of-new-zealands-environment-1997/chapter-two-the-
place-and-the-people/new-zealands-cultural-heritage/

Ministry for the Environment. (2010). Building competitive cities: Reform of the urban and infrastructure
planning system - A discussion document.

Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Mitchell, K. (1993) Multiculturalism, or the united colours of capitalism? Antipode, 25, pp. 263–294.

Moloughney, B. (2005). ‘Translating Culture: Rethinking New Zealand’s Chineseness’, in Ferrall, C., Millar, P.,
and Smith, K. (Eds.), East by South: China in the Australasian Imagination (pp. 389-404), Wellington.

Moore, J. (2000). Placing home in context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 207-217.

Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (2003). Marketing to the Welsh diaspora: The appeal to hiraeth and
home-coming. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), 69–8

293
Morris, Miranda. (1997). Placing Women: A Methodology for the Identification, Interpretation, and Promotion
of the Heritage of Women in Tasmania. Hobart: Office of the Status of Women.

Morris, Miranda. (1999). Placing Women II: A National Framework for Ensuring the Visibility of Women in
Heritage. Hobart: Office of the Status of Women.

Morris, W. (1877). The SPAB manifesto.

Morse, J. (1991). Strategies for sampling. In Morse, J. (Ed.), Qualitative Nursing Research. A Contemporary
Dialogue (2nd eds.) (pp. 127-145). Newbury Park CA: SAGE.

Moss, L. (2005). Biculturalism and Cultural Diversity, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11:2, 187-197,
DOI: 10.1080/10286630500198195

Muñoz-Viñas, S. (2005). What is conservation. In Muñoz-Viñas, S. (Eds). Contemporary theory of conservation

(pp. 14-21). Oxford e Burlington: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Muñoz-Viñas, S. (2017). The Transactional Nature of Heritage Conservation. Text of the Reinwardt Memorial
Lecture, 9.

Murphy, N. (2003). ‘Joe Lum v. Attorney General: The Politics of Exclusion’. In M. Ip. (Eds.), Unfolding
History, Evolving Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand (1st ed., pp. 48-68). Auckland: Auckland
University Press.

Murphy, N. (1997). A Guide to Laws and Policies Relating to the Chinese in New Zealand 1871-1996.
Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Chinese Association Inc.

Naidoo, R. (2016). All that we are–heritage inside out and upside down. International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 22(7), 504-514.

Najafi, M., & Shariff, M. K. B. M. (2011). The concept of place and sense of place in architectural
studies. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 6(3), 187-193.

Nardi, A. (2017). Landscape and sense of belonging to place: the relationship with everyday places in the
experience of some migrants living in Montebelluna (Northeastern Italy). Journal of Research and
Didactics in Geography, 6.

294
Nasar, J. L. (1998). The evaluative image of the city. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Needham, J. (1956). Science and Civilization in China. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nelli, H. (1970). The Italians in Chicago, 1880-1930: A Study in Ethic Mobility. Oxford, UK: University Press.

New Zealand Chinese Collection. (2021). Presbyterian Research Centre: The Archive and Library for the
Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand. New Zealand Chinese Collection | Presbyterian Research
Centre (recollect.co.nz)

Ng, E. W. (2005). Greys Avenue and the Auckland Chinese scene 1890s-1960s. In Crouching Tiger, Hidden
Banana Conference, AUT University, Auckland, vol. 4. 2005.

Ng, J. (2001). Chinese settlement in New Zealand, past and present: Ng Fong and his family in New Zealand.
Dunedin, New Zealand: Amity Centre Publishing Project.

Ng, J. (2003). The sojourner experience: The Cantonese goldseekers in New Zealand, 1865-1901. In M. Ip.
(Eds.), Unfolding History, Evolving Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand (1st ed., pp. 5-30). Auckland:
Auckland University Press.

Ng, J. (2007). “Language when I was young” (address to graduating students in Chinese language in
Christchurch), available at www.nzchinasociety.org.nz.

Nicholas, L. N., Thapa, B., & Ko, Y. J. (2009). Residents’ perspectives of a world heritage site: The pitons
management area, st. Lucia. Annals of tourism research, 36(3), 390-412.

Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de mmoire. Representations, 26(1989), 7-24. DOI:
10.2307/2928520

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980) Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture, London: Academy

Editions.

Norman, J. W. (1999). History in crisis? Recent directions in historiography, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Nour, H. (2015). Reconsidering the Waqf: Traditional Mechanism of Urban Regeneration in Historic Muslim
Cities. International Journal of Architectural Research-IJAR, 9(1), 18-30.

295
NZIS. (1995). Background Paper: A review of New Zealand’s residence policies: the ‘trageted’ immigration
streams, and New Zealand’s Targeted Immigration Policies: Summary of October 1995 policy changes,
July 1995. Wellington: NZIS, p. 3.

O'Connor, P. S. (1968). Keeping New Zealand White, 1908-1920. New Zealand Journal of History, 2(1), 41-65.
Retrieved from http://www.nzjh.auckland.ac.nz.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/docs/1968/NZJH_02_1_04.pdf

ODPM. (2005). Diversity and Equality in Planning. London: HMSO.

Offen, R. (2016). What is Heritage. Australian Garden History, 27(3), 13-25.

O’Hare, P. (2010). Capacity building for community-led regeneration: Facilitating or frustrating public
engagement? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30 (1/2): 32–47. DOI:
10.1108/01443331011017029

'Old-age Pensions Act becomes law', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/old-age-pensions-act-passes-into-law,

(Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 9-Sep-2020.

OneRoof Commercial. (2021). “105 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland City, Auckland City”,
retrieved April 9th, 2022 from
https://s.oneroof.co.nz/image/a5/e4/a5e463cc77e302c16d8baced6f096546.jpg?x-oss-
process=image/quality,q_80

Orsman, B., Kiong, E. (2005). Millennium Tree ends fraught journey. Retrieved February 22 nd, 2022 from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wiljuCe0ZD2AhWT4zgGHatmCGgQFnoECAYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzherald.co.nz%2Fnz
%2Fmillennium-tree-ends-fraught-
journey%2FXTZO6UBPM3EGDBSPLAOI53KG44%2F&usg=AOvVaw3zr0Js7mIsQYFzvMyQW3O5

Pang, D. (2003). Education, politics and Chinese New Zealander identities: the case of the 1995 Epsom Normal
Primary School’s ‘residency clause and English test’. In M. Ip. (Eds.), Unfolding History, Evolving Identity:
The Chinese in New Zealand (1st ed., pp. 236-257). Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Parekh, B. and Bhabha, H. (1989). ‘Identities on parade’, Marxism Today, June, pp. 24–29.

Parker, S. (October 1991). Mr and Mrs Chan’s Pagoda: The Dream of an Ambitious Immigrant Family Turned
into a Nightmare. Metro, pp. 112-117.

296
Parliamentary Counsel Office. (1991). Resource Management Act, retrieved at 30th August, 2020 from
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM230265.html

Parliamentary Library. (2008). Immigration chronology: selected events 1840-2008, retrieved at 26th March,
2022 from https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-
NZ/00PLSocRP08011/754befd1150a25f0c4057d9c32e53a92b5a3071a

Patiwael, P. R., Groote, P., & Vanclay, F. (2019). Improving heritage impact assessment: an analytical critique
of the ICOMOS guidelines. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25(4), 333-347.

Pendlebury, J. (2015). Heritage and policy. In The Palgrave handbook of contemporary heritage research (pp.
426-441). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Perkins, D. D., & Long, D. A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of community and social capital. In Fisher, A., Sonn,
C., and Bishop, B. (Eds.) Psychological sense of community (pp. 291-318). Boston, MA: Springer.

Pestieau, K., & Wallace, M. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for planning in the ethno-culturally diverse
city: A collection of papers--introduction. Planning Theory & Practice, 4(3), 253-258.

Peterman, W. (2004). Advocacy vs. collaboration: Comparing inclusionary community planning models.
Community Development Journal, 39(3), 266-276. DOI: 10.1093/cdj/bsh021.

Peterson, G. G., & Saarinen, T. F. (1986). Local Symbols and Sense of Place. The Journal of Geography, 85,
164-168.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 65-85.

Piper, A. (1988). Chinese diet and cultural conservatism in nineteenth-century southern New Zealand. The
Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology, 34-42.

Piper, D., Xia, L. (2021). Honouring the dead: Sinking of SS Ventnor in 1902 creates unique bond between
Chinese and Māori. Retrieved February 22nd, 2022 from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wjM_Lja-5L2AhXx4zgGHU_NB4gQFnoECAoQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.stuff.co.nz%2Fpou-
tiaki%2F124722500%2Fhonouring-the-dead-sinking-of-ss-ventnor-in-1902-creates-unique-bond-between-
chinese-and-
mori%23%3A~%3Atext%3DWu%2520found%2520%25E2%2580%259CNg%2520Joy%2520Ching%2C

297
 grandfather%2520was%2520on%2520the%2520ship.%26text%3DAfter%2520119%2520years%252C%2
520the%2520SS%2Cbond%2520between%2520Chinese%2520and%2520M%25C4%2581ori.&usg=AOv
Vaw0c-nEhkx6S8CqblrKy5IZm

Pocock, C., Collett, D., & Baulch, L. (2015). Assessing stories before sites: identifying the tangible from the
intangible, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 21:10, 962-982, DOI:
10.1080/13527258.2015.1040440.

Poirrier, P. (2003). Heritage and cultural policy in france under the fifth republic. International Journal of
Cultural Policy, 9(2), 215-225.

Poole, B. (2010). Commitment and criticality: Fairclough's critical discourse analysis evaluated. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 137-155.

Poulios, I. (2010). Moving beyond a values-based approach to heritage conservation. Conservation and
Management of Archaeological Sites., 12(2), 170-185.

Pred, A. (1983), Structuration and Place: On the Becoming of Sense of Place and Structure of Feeling. Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 13: 45-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1983.tb00461.x

Pressman, J. L. and Wildavsky, A. B. (1973). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are
dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Pretty, G., Chipuer, H., & Bramston, P. (2003). Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural
Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place
dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 273-287.

Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the
self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83.

Proshansky, Harold M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10:147–69.

Pye, L. W. (1972). China: An introduction (1st ed.). Boston: Little Brown.

Qadeer, M. (2000). Urban Planning and Multiculturalism: Beyond Sensitivity. Plan Canada, 40(4):16-18.

298
Qadeer, M. A. (1997). Pluralistic planning for multicultural cities: the Canadian practice, Journal of the
American Planning Association, 63(4): 481–494.

Qadeer, M. A. (2015). The Incorporation of Multicultural Ethos in Urban Planning. In Burayidi, M. (Ed.). Cities
and the Politics of Difference: Multiculturalism and Diversity in Urban Planning (pp. 58-86). Toronto;
Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctvg25453.

Qadeer, M. and Agrawal, S. (2011). The Practice of Multicultural Planning in American and Canadian Cities.
Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 20(1):131-155.

Quaranta, R. (2021). In memory of Auckland’s Oriental Markets (1989-1998). The Newest Zealander, 4th April,
2021. Retrieved from In memory of Auckland's Oriental Markets (1989-1998) (thenewestzealander.com) at
24th, December, 2021.

Quinn, K. (2002). Planning History/Planning Race, Gender, Class, and Sexuality. Journal of Planning History,
1(3), 240–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/153851320200100308

Rahder, B., & Milgrom, R. (2004). The Uncertain City: Making Space(s) For Difference. Canadian Journal of Urban
Research, 13(1), 27-45. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44321054

Ramdin, R. (1999). Reimaging Britain: 500 Years of Black and Asian History. London: Pluto Press.

Rameka, L. (2017). Kia whakatōmuri te haere whakamua: ‘I walk backwards into the future with my eyes fixed
on my past’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(4), 387–398.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949116677923

Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Ahmad, A. G., & Barghi, R. (2017). Community participation in World
Heritage Site conservation and tourism development. Tourism Management, 58, 142-153.

Reed, A. (2015). Of Routes and Roots: Paths for Understanding Diasporic Heritage. In E. Waterton and S.
Watson (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Reeves, D. (2005). Planning for Diversity: Policy and Planning in a World of Difference. New York, N.Y.:
Routledge.

299
Reeves, D., & Zombori, E. (2016). Engendering cities: international dimensions from Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Town Planning Review, 87(5).

Reeves, K., Wheeler, F., Laing, J., & Frost, W. (2010). Chinese mining heritage and tourism in the goldfields of
the Pacific Rim. In M. V. Conlin, & L. Jolliffe (Eds.), Mining heritage and tourism: A global synthesis (1st
ed., pp. 23-32). London, England: Routledge.

Regan, D. E. (1978). The pathology of British land use planning. Local Government Studies, 2, 3-21.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness, London: Pion.

Resource Management Act 1991, Versions as at 21 December 2021. Retrieved February 10th, 2022 from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wjGrcuFpoD2AhXr6XMBHWUmBKQQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislation.govt.n
z%2Fact%2Fpublic%2F1991%2F0069%2Flatest%2FDLM230265.html&usg=AOvVaw0A7X1kqGDIIdU
cNV8JlH_3

Ribbens, J. (1989). Interviewing: an unnatural situation. Women’s Studies International Forum, 12(6), 579-592.

Riegl, A. ([1903] 1996). The Modern Cult of Monuments. In Price, N. S., Talley, M. K. and Vaccaro, A. M.
(Eds.), Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage (pp. 69–83). Los
Angeles, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute.

Riessman, C. (2012). Analysis of personal narratives. In Gubrium, J. F., Holstein, J. A. & Marvasti, A. B.
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 367-380). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. DOI: 10.4135/9781452218403.n26

Riger, S., & Lavrakas, P. (1981). Community ties patterns of attachment and social interaction in urban
neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 55–66.

Rishbeth, C. & Powell, M. (2013). Place Attachment and Memory: Landscapes of Belonging as Experienced
Post-migration, Landscape Research, 38:2, 160-178, DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2011.642344

Rishbeth, C., & Finney, N. (2006). Novelty and Nostalgia in Urban Greenspace: Refugee
Perspectives. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 97, 281-295.

300
Rishbeth, C., Ganji, F., Vodicka., G. (2018). Ethnographic understandings of ethnically diverse neighbourhoods
to inform urban design practice. Local Environment 23:1, pages 36-53.

Ritchie, N. A. (1984). The Arrowtown Chinese Settlement: an interim report on the excavation, Department of
Lands and Survey, Dunedin.

Ritchie, N. A. (2003). Traces of the past: Archaeological insights into the New Zealand Chinese experience in
southern New Zealand. In M. Ip. (Ed.), Unfolding History, Evolving Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand
(1st ed., pp. 31-47). Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Robertson, I. (2013). Heritage from below: Class, social protest and resistance. In Kean, H. and Martin, P. (Eds.),
The Public History Reader (pp. 55-67). London: Routledge,.

Rogerio-Candelera, M. A., Lazzari, M., & Cano, E. (Eds.). (2013). Science and technology for the conservation
of cultural heritage. CRC Press.

Rogers, A. and Tillie, J. (eds) (2001) Multicultural Policies and Modes of Citizenship in European Cities,
Aldershot: Ashgate.

Rose, G. (1995). Place and Identity: A Sense of Place. In: Massey, D. & Jess, P. (Eds.), A Place in the World?
Places, Cultures and Globalization (pp. 87–132). Oxford: The Open University.

Rossipal, C. (2020). The Noncitizen Archive: transversal heritage and the jurisgenerative process. In Dellios, A.,
& Henrich, E. (Eds.). (2020). Migrant, Multicultural and Diasporic Heritage: Beyond and Between
Borders (pp. 36-51). Routledge.

Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI). (1983). Planning for a Multi-racial Britain. London: Commission for
Racial Equality.

Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Rudman, B. (2011). Chinatown Idea Misses the Point. The Chronicle, 25.

Ruiz, C., Hernandez, B., & Hidalgo, M.A. (2011). Confirmation of the factorial structure of neighbourhood
attachment and neighbourhood identity scale. Psyecology, 2, 207 - 215.

Ruskin, J. (1885). The seven lamps of architecture (1st ed.). New York: John B. Alden.

301
Russell, I. (2010). Heritage, identities, and roots: A critique of arborescent models of heritage and identity. In
Smith, G. S., Messenger, P. M., and Soderland, H. A. (Eds.), Heritage Values in Contemporary Society (pp.
29-41). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Russell, J. C. (2005). Breach of Faith: American Churches and the Immigration Crisis. Washington DC:
Representative Government Press.

Ryckmans, P. (June, 2008). ‘The Chinese Attitude towards the Past’, China Heritage Quarterly, China Heritage
Project, The Australian National University. Retrieved from The Chinese Attitude Towards the Past | China
Heritage Quarterly on 11th July, 2021.

Said, E. W. (1995). Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin.

Samuel, Raphael. (2012 [original 1994]). Theatres of Memory: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture.
London and New York: Verso Books.

Sandercock, L & Kliger, B (1998) 'Multiculturalism and the planning system, Part Two', Australian Planner,
35(4): 223-227

Sandercock, L. (2000). When Strangers Become Neighbours: Managing Cities of Difference. Planning Theory
& Practice 1(1): 13-30.

Sandercock, L. (2003). Cosmopolis Ⅱ: Mongrel Cities in the 21st Century. London: Continuum.

Sandercock, L. (2004). Longer View: Towards a Planning Imagination for the 21st Century. Journal of the
American Planning Association 70(2): 133-141.

Sandercock, L. (2006). Cosmopolitan urbanism: A love song to our mongrel cities. In Binnie, J. (Ed.),
Cosmopolitan urbanism (pp. 37-52). London, UK: Routledge.

Sandercock, L. (2011). Commentary: Where Do Theories Come From? Canadian Journal of Urban Research
20(1): 157-159.

Sang Architects. (2021). Choice Plaza CBD -Commercial Architects Auckland. Retrieved from Sang Architects
Commercial Building — Sang Architects 15 July, 2021.

302
Sauer, C. O. (1925). ‘The morphology of landscape’, University of California Publications in Geography, 2(2),
pp. 19–53.

Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30, 1-10.

Schiller, N. G. (2015). Diasporic cosmopolitanism: migrants, sociabilities and city making. In Schiller, N. G., &
Irving, A. (Eds.). Whose cosmopolitanism?: Critical perspectives, relationalities and discontents (pp. 57-
64).

Schiller, N. G. (2015). Diasporic cosmopolitanism: migrants, sociabilities and city making. In Schiller, N. G., &
Irving, A. (Eds.). Whose cosmopolitanism?: Critical perspectives, relationalities and discontents (pp. 57-
64).

Schnell, I. & Yoav, B. (2001) The Sociospatial Isolation of Agents in Everyday Life Spaces as an Aspect of
Segregation, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91:4, 622-636, DOI: 10.1111/0004-
5608.00262

Schnell, I., & Benjamini, Y. (2005). Globalisation and the structure of urban social space: the lesson from Tel
Aviv. Urban Studies, 42(13), 2489-2510.

Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22(3), 347-358.

Shamai, S., & Ilatov, Z. (2005). Measuring sense of place: Methodological aspects. Tijdschrift voor
economische en sociale geografie, 96(5), 467-476.

Shaw, S., Bagwell, S., Karmowska, J. (2004). Ethoscapes as spectacle: reimaging

multicultural districts as new destinations for leisure and tourism consumption. Urban
Studies 41(10), 1983-2000.

Shen, B. (2013). Street Fronts and Backways: Catalysing a Community Space with Architecture in the
Commercial Strip of Auckland’s Balmoral (Master thesis, ResearchSpace@ Auckland).

Shields, R. (1991). Places on the Margins: Alternative Geographies of Modernity, New York: Routledge.

Shum, L. (2003). Remembering Chinatown: Haining Street of Wellington. In M. Ip. (Eds.), Unfolding History,
Evolving Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand (1st ed., pp. 69-72). Auckland: Auckland University Press.

303
Shuval, J. (2000). Diaspora migration: Definitional ambiguities and a theoretical paradigm. International
Migration, 38(5), 41–56.

Silverman, H. and Ruggles, D.F. (2007). ‘Cultural Heritage and Human Rights’, in Silverman, H. and Ruggles,
D.F. (Eds), Cultural Heritage and Human Rights (pp. 3-22), New York: Springer.

Simon-Kumar, R. (2019). The Multicultural Dilemma: Amid Rising Diversity and Unsettled Equity Issues, New
Zealand Seeks to Address Its Past and Present. Migration Information Source – Migration Policy Institute,
5 September. Retrieved January 28th 2022 from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/rising-diversity-
and-unsettled-equity-issues-new-zealand

Sinclair, A. & Britton Wilson, V. (1999). The Culture Inclusive Classroom: Perspectives from Management
Education, Parkville, Melbourne Business School, The University of Melbourne.

Skeldon, R. (1994). Reluctant exiles?: Migration from Hong Kong and the new overseas Chinese. Armonk,
N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Skilling, G. (2010). The Construction and Use of National Identity in Contemporary New Zealand Political
Discourse. Australian Journal of Political Sciences, vol.45, no.2, pp.175-189.

Smith, J. E. (2010). Biculturalism and multiculturalism: Competing tensions in visual arts education in
Aotearoa-New Zealand. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 12(2).

Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage (1st ed.). London, England: Routledge.

Smith, L., & Waterton, E. (2012). Constrained by commonsense: The authorized heritage discourse in
contemporary debates. In Skeates, R., McDavid, C., Carman, J. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public
archaeology (pp. 153-171). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, L., Wetherell, M., and Campbell, G. (Eds.). (2018). Emotion, Affective Practices, and the Past in the
Present. London: Routledge.

Smith, P. (2019). The Contributions and Motivations of Auckland Volunteer Heritage Organisations (Master
thesis, University of Auckland).

Smith, T. B. (1973). The policy implementation process. Policy Sciences, 4,197-209.

304
Spoonley, P. (2003). ‘The Contemporary Political Economy of Labour Migration in New Zealand’. Paper
presented at the Annual Sociological Association of Aotearoa, New Zealand Conference, Auckland
University of Technology.

Spoonley, P., & Bedford, R. (2012). Welcome to our world? Immigration and the reshaping of New Zealand.
Dunmore Publishing, Auckland, pp. 241-243.

Spoonley, P., & Meares, C. (2011). Laissez-faire multiculturalism and relational embeddedness: Ethnic
precincts in Auckland. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(1), 42-64.

Spoonley, P., Meares, C., Peace, R., & Cain, T. (2014). The changing immigrant cartography of Auckland, New
Zealand: An Asian ethnic precinct. MMG Working Paper 14-05, ISSN 2192-2357.

Stade, K. (2010). Appo Hocton: Woo Ah Poo Hoc Ting. Nelson, New Zealand: The Nelson Provincial Museum.

Stake, R. E. (1998). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative
inquiry (1st ed., pp. 119-150). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Stamer, D., Lerdall, K., & Guo, C. (2008). Managing Heritage Volunteers: An Exploratory Study of Volunteer
Programmes in Art Museums Worldwide. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 3(3), 203-214. doi:
10.1080/17438730802138949

Stedman, R. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions,
attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34, 561–581.

Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to
sense of place. Society &Natural Resources, 16(8), 671-685.

Steele, F. (1981). The sense of place. CBI publishing company.

Stodolska, M. (1998). Assimilation and Leisure Constraints: Dynamics of Constraints on Leisure in Immigrant
Populations. Journal of Leisure Research 30, pp. 521-551.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1988). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Su, J. (2018). Conceptualising the subjective authenticity of intangible cultural heritage, International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 24:9, 919-937, DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2018.1428662.

305
Susskind, L. & Cruickshank, J. (1987). Breaking the Impasse. New York: Basic Books.

Susskind, L. & Field, P. (1996). Dealing with an Angry Public. New York: The Free Press.

Susskind, L. (1995). Resolving conflicts the kinder, gentler way. Planning, May, 61(5), p. 16.

Swensen, G., & Jerpåsen, G. B. (2008). Cultural heritage in suburban landscape planning: A case study in
Southern Norway. Landscape and urban planning, 87(4), 289-300.

Swyngedouw, E. (2000). Authoritarian governance, power, and the politics of rescaling. Environment and
planning D: Society and space, 18(1), 63-76.

Taiping. (2021). 公司简介 – Tai Ping 23rd November, 2021

Tan, B. K. and Rahaman, H. (2009). Virtual heritage: Reality and criticism. In Tidafi, T. and Dorta, T. (Eds.)
Joining Languages, Cultures and Visions: CAAD Futures 2009. Montreal, Canada: PUM, pp. 143-156.

Taylor, D. M., and Moghaddam, F. M. (1987). Theories of Intergroup Relations: International Social
Psychological perspective, Praeger, New York.

Taylor, K. (2016). The Historic Urban Landscape paradigm and cities as cultural landscapes. Challenging
orthodoxy in urban conservation, Landscape Research, 41:4, 471-480, DOI:
10.1080/01426397.2016.1156066

Taylor, N. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945 (1st ed.). London, England: SAGE.

Taylor, R. B., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. (1984). Neighbourhood naming as an index of attachment to
places. Population and Environment, 7, 103–125.

Terracciano, A. (2018). ‘Zelige Door on Golborne Road: Exploring the design of a multisensory interface for
arts, migration and critical heritage studies’, DHN2018 – An Analysis of a Digital Humanities Conference.
Proceedings of Digital Humanities in the Nordic Countries 3rd Conference. Edited by E. Makela and M.
Tolonen. Helsinki, Finland, 7-9 March 2018. Available at: heep://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2084/paper12.pdf,
EID:2-s2.0-85045342526.

306
Terracciano, A. (2020). Intangible heritage and the built environment: using multisensory digital interfaces to
map migrant memories. In Dellios, A., & Henrich, E. (Eds.). (2020). Migrant, Multicultural and Diasporic
Heritage: Beyond and Between Borders (pp. 87-101). Routledge.

Thompson, I. H. (1999). Ecology, Community and Delight, New York: E&FN Spon.

Thompson, S. & Kwitko, L. (2001). Teaching planning in the culturally inclusive classroom: guidelines for
educators. In Freestone, R. & Thompson, S. (Eds.) Bridging Theory and Practice in Planning Education:
Proceedings of the 2001 ANZAPS Conference held at UNSW, Sydney, 21–23 September. See also
www.une.edu.au/ ANZAPS.

Thompson, R. (1963). Race Relations in New Zealand, A Review of the Literature, Christchurch: National
Council of Churches.

Thompson, S. (2003). Planning and Multiculturalism: A Reflection on Australian Local Practice, Planning
Theory & Practice, 4:3, 275-293, DOI: 10.1080/1464935032000118643

Thurley, S. (2005). “Into the Future. Our Strategy for 2005–2010.” Conservation Bulletin 49 (2005): 26–27.
United Utilities. 2014. “120 Years since Lake District Water Arrived in Manchester: Anniversary of
Thirlmere Aqueduct.” Accessed 16 March 2016. http://corporate.unitedutilities.com/120-year-anniversary-
thirlmereaqueduct-lake-district-water-manchester.aspx

Timespanner. (2012, January 4). Chinaman’s Hill, Grey Lynn. A Journey through Avondale/Te Wao, Auckland
and Aotearoa New Zealand History. https://timespanner.blogspot.com/2009/09/chinamans-hill-grey-
lynn.html

Timothy, D. J., and Boyd, S. W. (2003). Heritage Tourism. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Tirone, S. C. & Shaw, S. M. (1997). At the Center of Their Lives: Indo Canadian Women, Their Families and
Leisure. Journal of Leisure Research 29, pp. 225-245.

To, J. (2018). ‘A spiritual connection’: Fate of the SS Ventnor links Chinese with Māori. Asia New Zealand
Foundation. Retrieved February 22nd, 2022 from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wjb1Nmu-
pL2AhXaxzgGHVRlC_QQFnoECAYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.asianz.org.nz%2Fnews%2Fa-

307
 spiritual-connection-fate-of-the-ss-ventnor-links-chinese-with-
Māori%2F&usg=AOvVaw37SQX7q_3nP4DlWUAZrY_S

To Grow Roots Where They Land – Eye witness accounts of WW2 Chinese Refugees. (2022, April 28).
Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE
wjdtJbvgLb3AhXPSmwGHe3TCCMQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rnz.co.nz%2Fnationa
l%2Fprogrammes%2Feyewitness%2F20141119&usg=AOvVaw0wwh2jEP7jU0hYdsB-pxy0

Trlin, A. D., Henderson, A., & Pernice, R. (1998). Asian immigration, public attitudes and immigration policy:
recent patterns and responses in New Zealand. In Laquian, E., Laquian, P., and McGee, T. G. (Eds.), The
Silent Debate: Asian immigrations and racism in Canada (pp. 227-248). Vancouver: Institute of Asian
Research, University of British Columbia.

Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. (2007). The Research Methods Knowledge Base (3rd eds.). Mason, OH:
Thomson Custom Publishing.

Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. London: Edward Arnold.

Tunbridge, J. E., & Ashworth, G. J. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The management of the past as a resource in
conflict. (1st ed.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Turner, M., Hill, K., & Clough, R. (2005). Chinese Artefacts from A Site at Wakefield St., Auckland.
Archaeology in New Zealand 48(3): 260-278.

Turner, P., & Turner, S. (2006). Place, sense of place, and presence. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual
Environments, 15(2), 204-217.

Twigger-Ross, C. L, Bonaiuto, M. & Breakwell, G. (2003). Identity theories and Environmental Psychology. In
M. Bonnes, T. Lee & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues (pp. 203-233).
Hants: Ashgate.

Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of environmental
psychology, 16(3), 205-220.

Unger, D. G. & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of neighbors: the social, cognitive and affective
components of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 139-169.

308
Urry, J. (1995). How Societies Remember the Past. The Sociological Review, 43(1), 45-65.

Uyesugi, J. L. and R. Shipley. (2005). Visioning diversity: Planning Vancouver’s multicultural communities.
International Planning Studies 10(3-4): 305-322.

Uzzell, D., Pol, E. & Badenas, D. (2002). Place identification, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability.
Environment and Behavior, 34 (1), 26-53.

Van Assche, K., & Duineveld, M. (2013). The good, the bad and the self-referential: Heritage planning and the
productivity of difference. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(1), 1-15.
DOI:10.1080/13527258.2011.632639

Van Oers, R. (2016). The Economic Feasibility of Heritage Preservation. A Companion to Heritage Studies,
307-321.

Van Oort, H. A. (1970). Chinese Culture - Values Past and Present, Chinese Culture, Vol. 11, 1 March, China
Academy, Taipei.

Vecco, M. (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural
Heritage, 11(3), 321-324. DOI:10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006

Vertovec S (2009). Transnationalism. Routledge, Abingdon.

Vertovec, S., & Wessendorf, S. (2010). ‘Introduction: Assessing the backlash against multiculturalism in
Europe’. In Vertovec, S., & Wessendorf, S. (Eds.) The Multiculturalism Backlash: European
Discourses, Policies and Practices (pp. 1-31). London and New York: Routledge.

Vitiello, D. (2009). The migrant metropolis and American planning. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 75(2), 245-55.

Volunteering New Zealand. (2017). State of Volunteering Report. Retrieved from

https://www.volunteeringnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/VNZ_SoV-Report_FINAL.pdf

Vrdoljak, A. (2018). Indigenous Peoples, World Heritage, and Human Rights. International Journal of Cultural
Property, 25(3), 245-281. doi:10.1017/S0940739118000218

Walter, N. (2014). From values to narrative: a new foundation for the conservation of historic buildings,
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20:6, 634-650, DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2013.828649.

309
Wang, C. (2016). The Turtle Garden: Tan Kah Kee’s last spiritual world, International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 22:7, 530-542, DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2016.1153494

Warren, J. A. N., & Taylor, C. N. (2001). Developing heritage tourism in New Zealand. Wellington, New
Zealand: Centre for Research, Evaluation and Social Assessment Ltd.

Warren-Findley, J. (2001). Human Heritage Management in New Zealand in the Year 2000 and Beyond,
Wellington, Ian Axford New Zealand Fellowship in Public Policy.

Waterton, E. (2007). Rhetoric &'reality': politics, policy and the discourses of heritage in England (Doctoral
dissertation, University of York).

Waterton, E. and Smith. L. (2008). ‘Heritage protection for the 21st century’, Cultural Trends, 17(3), pp. 197-
203.

Waterton, E., & Smith, L. (2010). The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage. International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(1-2), 4-15. DOI:10.1080/13527250903441671

Waterton, E., & Watson, S. (2013). Framing theory: Towards a critical imagination in heritage studies.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(6), 546-561. DOI:10.1080/13527258.2013.779295

Waterton, E., Smith, L., & Campbell, G. (2006). The utility of discourse analysis to heritage studies: The burra
charter and social inclusion. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(4), 339-355.

Watson, B. (Trans.). (2007). Analects of Confucius. New York: Columbia University Press.

Watson, S., & Waterton, E. (2010). Reading the visual: Representation and narrative in the construction of

heritage. Material Culture Review/Revue De La Culture Mat �rielle, 71

Wedgwood, T. (2009) History in Two Dimensions or Three? Working Class Responses to History,
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 15:4, 277-297, DOI: 10.1080/13527250902933611

Wells, J. (2007). The plurality of truth in culture, context, and heritage: A (mostly) post-structuralist analysis of
urban conservation charters. City & Time., 3(2), 1.

310
Wester-Heber, M. (2004). Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts-the role of place identity in risk perception.
Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 109-116.

Whiting, LS. (2008). Semi-structured interviews: guidance for novice researchers. Nursing Standard 22(23), 35-
40.

Williams, D. R., & McIntyre, N. (2001). Where heart and home reside: Changing constructions of place and
identity. In: Trends 2000: Shaping the Future (September 17–20, 2000) (pp. 392–403). Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University, Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources.

Willmott, B. (2009). Kiwi Dragon: the Chinese in Aotearoa New Zealand: History, Culture, Hope. The Quaker
Centennial Lecture 2009. Wellington: the Religious Society of Friends in Aotearoa New Zealand Te Haahi
Tuahauwiri.

Wilson, J. (2020). 'External links and sources', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, retrieved at 19th May,
2022 from http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/history/sources

Winchester, S. (2008). Bomb, Book and Compass: Joseph Needham and the Great Secrets of China.
Camberwell, Victoria: Viking (Penguin Books).

Winter, T. (2014). Heritage studies and the privileging of theory. International journal of heritage studies, 20(5),
556-572.

Wong, G. (1989). Race on for the REAL Chinatown. New Zealand Herald, January 10, 1989.

Wong, H. 'Ah Chee, Thomas Henry', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 2019,
updated January, 2020. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/6a4/ah-chee-thomas-henry (accessed 23 November 2021).

Wong, K. (2003). A place to stand: The Chun family experience. In M. Ip. (Eds.), Unfolding History, Evolving
Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand (1st ed., pp. 113-140). Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Wong, L. S. (2002, May). The Moulding of the Silent Immigrants: New Zealand Born Chinese (NZBC). Paper
presented at the Auckland University of Technology Chinese Centre, Auckland. Retrieved from
http://www.stevenyoung.co.nz/The-Chinese-inNew-Zealand/Whats-New/The-Moulding-of-the-Silent-
Immigrants.html.

311
Worthing, D., & Bond, S. (2007). Managing built heritage: The role of cultural significance. John Wiley &
Sons.

Xie, P. (2010). Developing Ethnic Tourism in a Diaspora Community: The Indonesian Village on Hainan
Island, China. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 15:3, 367-
382, DOI: 10.1080/10941665.2010.503627

Xue, J., Friesen, W., & O'Sullivan, D. (2012). Diversity in Chinese Auckland: hypothesising multiple
ethnoburbs. Population, Space and Place, 18(5), 579-595.

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis (Vol. 47). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Yau, O. H. (1988). Chinese cultural values: Their dimensions and marketing implications. European Journal of
marketing, 22(5), 44-57.

Yee, B. (2003). Coping with insecurity: Everyday experiences of Chinese New Zealanders. In M. Ip. (Eds.),
Unfolding History, Evolving Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand (1st ed., pp. 215-235). Auckland:
Auckland University Press.

Yeoh, B. S. A., & Lin, A. (2012). Rapid growth in Singapore’s immigrant population brings policy challenges.
Washington: Migration Information Source. Available at
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=887.

Yin, R. K. (2014). In Knight, V. (Ed.), Case study research: Design and methods (5th eds.). Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE.

Yoon, H. K. (2003). Recent East Asian immigrants and their contribution to multiculturalism in Auckland, New
Zealand. Japanese Journal of Human Geography, 55(3), 293-304.

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Yuan, S. Y. (2001). From Chinese gooseberry to Kiwifruit: the construction and reconstruction of Chinesehood
in Aotearoa/New Zealand: a thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Sociology at Massey University.

312
Zeng, R., & Greenfield, P. M. (2015). Cultural evolution over the last 40 years in China: Using the Google
Ngram Viewer to study implications of social and political change for cultural values. International
Journal of Psychology, 50(1), 47-55.

Zhang, J., Shelton, E. (2015). Ordering the Disordered Subject: A Critique of Chinese Outbound Tourists as
New Zealand Seeks to Become China Ready. Tourism Analysis, 20(3): 343-353
http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/108354215X14362097173837

Zhang, S. (2012). 易經與中華文化. In 新西蘭中華文化學會 (Eds.), 論文集 (1st episode) (pp. 28-32).
Unpublished resource.

Zhang, S. (2013). 趣味漢字 (一). In 新西蘭中華文化學會 (Eds.), 論文集 (1st episode) (pp. 99-102).
Unpublished resource.

Zhu, Y. (2006). The potential of the Chinese market for New Zealand tourism: Chinese tourists and Chinese
heritage in New Zealand. Lincoln, New Zealand: Lincoln University. Environment, Society & Design
Division.

Zhuang, Z. C. (2013). Rethinking multicultural planning: an empirical study of ethnic retailing. Canadian
Journal of Urban Research, 22(2), 90-116.

歷史發展 (n.d.). Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church. Retrieved July 6, 2021, from
http://acpc.org.nz/index.php/zh-cn/about-us-zh/menu-acpc-history

313
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Auckland Chinese Community Interviews:

Cheung, Hanford (2020). Personal communication, January 18th, 2020.

Wong, Cecil (2020). Descendant of people who paid the Chinese-only poll tax implemented in 1881. Personal
communication, January 30th, 2020.

No. 3 participant (2020). Descendant of a fruit shop family in Auckland since 1950. Personal communication,
February 25th, 2020.

No. 4 participant (2020). Descendant of a market gardening family in Auckland since the late 1930s. Personal
communication, February 25th, 2020.

Guo, Zhiming (Jimmy) (2020). Art professor in painting. Personal communication, February 26th 2020.

Lowe, Tony (2020). Family history in Auckland since the 1930s, intermarriage. Personal communication,
March 13th, 2020.

Shen, Hongtao (2020). Personal communication, March 20th, 2020.

No. 8 participant (2020). Personal communication, March 20th, 2020.

No. 10 participant (2020). Personal communication, March 22nd, 2020.

Kris (2020). Personal communication, April 5th, 2020.

Grace (2020). Personal communication, April 5th, 2020.

No. 15 participant (2020). Personal communication, April 11th, 2020.

Zhang, Lily (2020a). Graduated Architect. Personal communication, April 12th, 2020.

314
Wang, Jianshi (2020). Lecturer of Chinese culture, doctoral candidate in Chinese philosophy. Personal
communication, April 13th, 2020.

Gee, Rick (2020). Taiwan's Senior media professional, president of NZ Sinology Poetry Art Association,
Chinese poet. Personal communication, April 13th, 2020.

Chen (2020). The Chief editor helping with publishment of articles and poems on a Mandarin newspaper,
Chinese poet and the member of New Zealand Chinese Writers Association, intermarriage. Personal
communication, April 14th, 2020.

No. 20 participant (2020). Tea sommelier. Personal communication, April 14th, 2020.

No. 21 participant (2020). Pastor, MA in theology. Personal communication, April 16th, 2020.

Liu, Shifeng (2020). Martial artist. Personal communication, April 16th, 2020.

Lian, Kris (Qingyi) (2020). President of Auckland University Mandarin Debating Society. Personal
communication, April 22nd, 2020.

No. 24 participant (2020). Planning consultant. Personal communication, April 24th, 2020.

Zhu, Eric (2020). News presenter, who hosted the closing ceremony of Auckland Lantern Festival for five or six
sessions. Personal communication, April 25th, 2020.

Lin, Jinshui (2020). President of New Zealand Chinese Painting and Calligraphy Academy, President of New
Zealand Chinese Painting Research and Exchange Association. Personal communication, May 8th, 2020.

Zhang, Sihai (2020b). Director of New Zealand Chinese Culture Association, Lecturer of Tsinghua University
in Taiwan, Volunteer for Chinese Culture Promotion. Personal communication, May 15th, 2020.

Liang, Lingling (2020). Former news presenter and the Chief editor of Best News Entertainment 佳讯全媒体
(previous World TV 中华电视网). Personal communication, May 21st, 2020.

Hu, Wenbin (2020). Personal communication, May 23rd, 2020.

315
Yao, Nora (2020). Director of the Confucius Institute in New Zealand. Personal communication, May 30th,
2020.

No. 39 participant (2020). Personal communication, February 21st, 2020.

Wang, Shaoxu (2021a). Planning researcher. Personal communication, April 19th, 2021.

Wang, Zhengyang (2021b). Architect. Personal communication, May 1st, 2021.

No. 42 participant (2021). Architect. Personal communication, May 16th, 2021.

Zhu, Manyu (Many) (2021). Work experience in the creative and cultural sector related to research, public
programming and events, and Auckland Art Gallery. Personal communication, May 17th, 2021.

Tai, Dajiang (2021). Architect. Personal communication, June 4th, 2021.

Foon, Meng (2021). Race Relations Commissioner of New Zealand. Personal communication, June 10th, 2021.

Dam, Lincoln (2021). Lecturer and researcher at University of Auckland. Personal communication, July 6th,
2021.

Heritage Professional Interviews:

No. 49 participant (2021). Heritage Researcher, University of Auckland. Personal communication, April 17th,
2021.

Bade, David (2021). Built Heritage Specialist, Auckland Council. Personal communication, April 27th, 2021.

Short, Nicola (2021). Heritage Researcher, University of Auckland. Personal communication, May 4th, 2021.

Boileau, Joanna (2021). Historian. Personal communication, May 5th, 2021.

Eaves, Myfanwy (2021). Senior Archaeologist, Auckland Council. Personal communication, May 6th, 2021.

No. 54 participant (2021). Experience in Auckland Council. Personal communication, May 12th, 2021.

316
Bower, Candace (2021). Built Heritage Specialist, Auckland Council. Personal communication, May 15th, 2021.

Parslow, Bev (2021). Mid Northern Regional Archaeologist, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. Personal
communication, May 21st, 2021.

Baird, Rosemary (2021c). Outreach Advisor, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Christchurch Office.
Personal communication, May 24th, 2021.

Schmidt, Matthew (2021). Senior Heritage Advisor, Department of Conservation Dunedin Office. International
Correspondent for the Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO. Personal communication, May 25th,
2021.

Jamieson, Brooke (2021). Senior Heritage Advisor, Department of Conservation Auckland Office. Personal
communication, June 3rd, 2021.

No. 60 participant (2021). Experience in Department of Conservation. Personal communication, June 5th, 2021.

No. 61 participant (2021). Senior Heritage Assessment Advisor, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga
Auckland Office. Personal communication, June 17th, 2021.

No. 62 participant (2021). Planner, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Auckland Office. Personal
communication, June 22nd, 2021.

No. 63 participant (2021). Heritage Professional, Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Personal
communication, July 28th, 2021.

Tanner, Vanessa (2021). Manager Archaeology, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. Personal
communication, July 16th, 2021.

317