PLANNING PRACTICE & RESEARCH

2021, VOL. 36, NO. 4, 430–441

https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2021.1874639

Urban Development Planning and World Cultural Heritage:

Two Perspectives of Planning Practice Dealing with Industrial
Heritage
Heike Oevermann and Harald A. Mieg
Georg Simmel Center for Metropolitan Studies (GSZ), Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany;

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Urban development planning and world cultural heritage represent Urban development
two discourses that are relevant to the transformation of disused planning; sustainable urban
industrial heritage sites. The former Zollverein coal-mining complex development; world cultural
heritage; heritage
(Germany) is a case study in this regard. The synchronous discourse
conservation; heritage
approach enables analysis of conflicts and the potential of consen­ management; synchronous
sus within discourse constellations. Transdisciplinary cooperation discourse analysis
aims to identify good practice in heritage management and can
enable research knowledge to be transferred into practice. Eight
criteria are presented for good practice in industrial heritage con­
servation and urban development, each including several indicators
for analysis and monitoring.

Introduction
Old-industrial cities and regions need new options and visions for economic, ecological,
and social urban development following the decline of their traditional industrial sectors
and the closure or relocation of manufacturing and production. This brings into play the
potential for the reciprocal valorization of the value of the heritage and the urban
landscape (e.g., Pendlebury, 2002; Landorf, 2011; Oevermann & Mieg, 2015); however,
the integration of urban development planning and (world) cultural heritage also pre­
sents various challenges. There is a critical discussion of conflicts in valorization pro­
cesses, such as rigid conservation requirements versus architectural interventions.
Furthermore, the potential increase in urban segregation and gentrification, as well as
the lack of sustainable development perspectives are questioned (e.g., Madgin, 2013;
Swensen et al., 2013; Sowińska-Heim, 2014; Labadi, 2016; Kittang & Bye, 2019). For
World Heritage sites, UNESCO requires the establishment of a management system or
plan for the conservation and careful development of a site. The question arises of how
urban development planning and world heritage sites can be thought of and dealt with
integratively in these planning and management processes; this is addressed with regard
to historic cities (UNESCO, 2011), but further reflection is needed in case of urban
industrial World Heritage sites.
This contribution is based on the lessons from three consecutive research projects
funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG: 2011–2013, 2014, 2016–2018), which

CONTACT Heike Oevermann heike.oevermann@gsz.hu-berlin.de

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 PLANNING PRACTICE & RESEARCH 431

examined conflicts between urban development versus the protection of monuments and
world cultural heritage, and how such concerns may be integrated and addressed within
planning frameworks.

Analysing Conflicts: Synchronous Discourse Analysis (SDA)

Urban development planning is essentially a negotiated processes between different actors
concerning goals, concepts, and their underlying assumptions and values, as in the context of
urban development planning and world cultural heritage. Thus, planning involves different
perspectives on the preservation and development of old-industrial areas (Kierdorf &
Hassler, 2000; Douet, 2012; Oevermann & Mieg, 2015). From a social science perspective,
such perspectives can be understood as discourses. Accordingly, the interactions of various
actors and their discourses in the planning process can be investigated with the help of
synchronous discourse analysis (Mieg & Oevermann, 2015). Urban development planning
and world cultural heritage can be understood as the two central discourses that (must) be
processed when dealing with industrial UNESCO World Heritage; examples include the
former coal-mining complex Zeche Zollverein (Essen, Germany, Figure 1) together with
Saltaire and Liverpool (UK), Crespi d’Adda (Italy), and Røros Mining Town (Norway).
Synchronous discourse analysis (SDA) helps to understand the conflicts and potentials
of these planning processes and to utilize them in practice. The following case study of
the Zollverein Industrial Complex UNESCO World Heritage Site illustrates such
a research analysis and the use of research knowledge in practice by means of the joint
identification of good practice in dealing with industrial World Heritage sites.
Numerous variants of discourse analysis are used in the context of urban research, not
least in planning. Discourse analyses often draw on Michel Foucault (1994), who

Figure 1. Zollverein: Visitor Centre, 2018, © Authors, 2018.

432 H. OEVERMANN AND H. A. MIEG

analysed historical lines of discourse in their interactions of power, knowledge, and social
practices. In the following, discourses are conceived as closing, action-guiding epistemic
frameworks that legitimize institutional regimes and also define the professional practice.
The unity of a discourse is not simply defined by a level of knowledge shared among the
actors but is value-determined.
Discourses in planning can be captured by concepts and basic assumptions (epistemic
elements) and goals and values (normative elements). The analysis by means of these four
categories allows specifying dissent and consensus between actors. The practices of the
actors in professional planning alone are characterized by different discourses; city
administration and investors see the prospering city as a goal of their work, while
other offices or departments of monument conservation prioritize the protection of
architectural monuments. Their respective institutional regimes differ, as does the
definition of their professional practice. Today’s approaches to planning participation
also show other groups of actors, such as initiatives or NGOs, that meet in planning
processes. Discourses are dynamic; in addition to their relatively stable core, they form
sub-discourses based on new societal concerns, which include alternative goals and
concepts, and complement the basic assumptions and values of the core discourse.
Industrial heritage would be one such partial discourse of heritage conservation, and
the creative city a partial discourse of urban development. SDA focuses on the fact that
different discourses are in play simultaneously (synchronously). In sum, besides the
conflicts themselves, it becomes evident that there are certain values (termed ‘bridging’
values here), e.g., accessibility, that mediate between discourses and can help to resolve
conflicts. Furthermore, discourses seem to converge when faced with new challenges, by
developing their own sub-discourses with specific values. Tables 1 and 2 show these sub-
discourses for the two discourses which are introduced in the next paragraph.

Table 1. Discourse on heritage conservation.

Values/Bridging
Concepts Objectives Assumptions Values
Core eg Reparation, To protect and preserve the Material heritage is Authenticity,
discourse Minimal testimony to the past a testimony to the past Integrity,
intervention Heritage values
Sub- eg Development-led To conserve the testimony Material heritage is eg Accessibility,
discourse: conservation, to the past, the a testimony to the past, Community
Industrial Heritage-from- landmark, or the a landmark, and values,
heritage below resource a resource Character,
Re-use

Table 2. Discourse on urban development.

Concepts Objectives Assumptions Values/Bridging Values
Core discourse eg Integrated urban To provide a prosperous and Ongoing development Development,
governance, liveable city and transformation are Economic value,
Sustainable needed to meet Environmental
development changing demands value, Spatial
quality, Vision
Sub-discourse: eg Urban regeneration, To use culture and heritage for Heritage sites are assets eg Accessibility,
Industrial Culture-led branding, and as for development Communityvalues
heritage development, memorable spaces Character, Re-use
Heritage-led
development
 PLANNING PRACTICE & RESEARCH 433

In addition to the analysis of dissent and bridges in planning practice, SDA allows
a better understanding of the potential for consensus and can be transferred as research
knowledge into practice. Methodologically, this is understood as the definition and
organization of a transdisciplinary cooperation process (see Defila & Di Giulio, 2006;
Scholz, 2013). What is decisive is, first, to involve the relevant actors, and second, to
organize a binding process that leads to organizational learning. In other words, the
actors should be enabled to identify successful mutual overlapping and shared elements
within different discourses in their own practice and to use them for further integration
in the future decision-making, as the conservation and transformation of a heritage site
are an ongoing process which allows for organizational learning. The successful integra­
tive practice identified in the conservation and transformation processes of the heritage
site so far can be described as good practice.
Therefore, an essential element of the cooperation process is a sequence of workshops
that build on each other in which the researcher helps the actors to analyse and identify
their challenges and their consensus and good practice. Within the framework of the
third DFG project (2016–2018), five transdisciplinary cooperation workshops were held
in Essen with relevant actors: Kick-off workshop, urban development workshop, work­
shop with international experts, interim evaluation workshop, and final workshop. In the
case of Zollverein, there is good cooperation among the actors of the identified discourse
constellation already established within a thirty-year process – therefore several projects
allow for a joint development of criteria and provide examples of good practice, as
explained in more detail below (Visitor Centre/Ruhr Museum and Zollverein Park).
For other case examples, discourses, and actor constellations, other approaches such as
the expert Delphi method can be used, as described in the literature (Mieg & Oevermann,
2015).

Two Discourses: Urban Development Planning and World Cultural Heritage

First, the discourse on heritage conservation has a major influence on the fundamental
decisions involved in the transformation: against demolition and for conservation. In
contrast, the second discourse of urban development essentially aims to achieve an
economically balanced development of the city and to make the urban environment
liveable for local people, talents, investors, and visitors. Conservation values the con­
scientious authenticity and integrity of historic buildings, whereas urban development
values their change from an old industrial site to one with future prospects.
Insert here: Table 1 Discourse on heritage conservation, Table 2 Discourse on urban
development, © Authors, 2018
However, there are sub-discourses and bridging values that allow for consensus. An
industrial heritage that has achieved listed preservation status can serve as an attractive
asset and unique selling point here. The conservation of the historical substance and its
accessibility is a prerequisite for this. This is where the discourses of urban development
and heritage conservation meet. Accessibility serves a bridging value. Visions with
radiant power and a positive image are necessary in order to develop abandoned
industrial areas into a tourist destination, neighbourhood space, business location, or
a location for culture and creativity. A preserved industrial-listed building can promote
such redevelopment of a site if it allows for a change of identity. In other words,
434 H. OEVERMANN AND H. A. MIEG

conservation – understood in its broadest sense – represents a common value that has
a mediating function between the two discourses. The broad definition of values – what
precise interventions belong to the value of conservation? – allows a balance through
choices between various measures to implement goals and concepts. In this way, com­
mon values can bridge differences within a discourse constellation.
Furthermore, there is another bridging value with potential, namely reuse. Using or
reusing sites is an obvious planning task for urban development, however, reuse bears
also much potential for conservation. The discourse on UNESCO World Cultural
Heritage is closely linked to that of heritage conservation and preservation, since the
latter is legally, institutionally, and professionally responsible for the international pro­
tection of world cultural heritage. The designation of sites as world cultural heritage aims
to protect and preserve their universal outstanding value along with the evidence of such
that is ingrained in the authenticity and integrity of their historic material fabric
(UNESCO, 2016). In addition, the World Heritage Convention (1972) and several
documents on associated principles and guidelines stipulate that the reuse of sites should
be as closely related as possible to the community or general public of cultural heritage
sites (UNESCO, 2012).
Industrial monuments pose a challenge here, which is particularly linked to the use
and development of their listed buildings, infrastructures, and complexes. The industrial
heritage must first be made accessible. The material fabric requires constant care, repair,
or structural intervention to prevent its rapid decay. Acceptance of the claim to protec­
tion must be created amongst communities, politicians, and experts; at the same time,
former workers and locals need jobs. Therefore, the conversion of this highly specific
spatial and structural fabric can rarely be realized without violating its historical authen­
ticity and integrity. This tension within the discourse is resolved by developing concepts
for reuse that are on the one hand compatible with the claim to protection, but, on the
other hand, allow for limited change and present community value. Here, the partial sub-
discourse of industrial heritage enables new concepts such as adaptive reuse. This means
that, within a discourse, the guidance takes place through the formation of sub-
discourses.

Zollverein: Conflicts and Potential for Consensus

The former Zollverein Industrial Complex has been recognized as a UNESCO World
Heritage site since 2001. The site comprises two mineshafts (Shaft 12 and Shaft 1/2/8)
and a coking plant as a continuous area of approximately 100 ha. The sites of two other
Zollverein mineshafts do not part of the heritage listing but, just like the UNESCO site
itself, have been listed as monuments by the city of Essen since 2000 (City of Essen, U. D,
2000). Shaft 12 was the last productive shaft to be closed down in 1986, and the coking
plant in 1993. In the 1980s and 1990s, there was still a debate about which Zollverein
buildings and artefacts had value for listed status. In the early 1990s, artistic interventions
were made at the site, and there was a decision on reusing the site for cultural and creative
purposes. Zollverein was a project of the International Building Exhibition (IBA)
Emscher Park. Several winners of the Pritzker Architecture Prize, such as Norman
Foster, SANAA, and OMA (Rem Koolhaas), have carried out the conversion or new
construction projects at Zollverein. Furthermore, the Zollverein Park was developed. The
 PLANNING PRACTICE & RESEARCH 435

site hosts the Red Dot Design Museum (opened 1997), the PACT performing arts centre
(Performing Arts Choreographisches Zentrum NRW Tanzlandschaft Ruhr, opened
2002)), the Visitor Centre and Ruhr Museum (2006/2010), and Folkwang University’s
Department of Design (opened at Zollverein in 2017). At the same time, the location in
the north of Essen had (and continues to experience) social and economic structural
deficits, which the development of Zeche Zollverein as a business and cultural location is
still intended to counteract. Katernberg, together with the districts of Schonnebeck and
Stoppenberg, forms the Zollverein urban district and has been part of the public-funded
Socially Integrative City program since 1989 (previously: Districts with Special Need for
Renewal). Here, the integration of cultural heritage and urban development was initiated
early on, just as in the IBA Emscher Park programme of the 1990s. The currently
integrated development concept also comprehensively includes the complete Zollverein
World Cultural Heritage site. These 30-year transformation processes at Zollverein have
not been without conflict, but have also revealed the potential for integration of heritage
conservation and urban development planning. With the help of SDA, dissent – in the
sense of conflict as well as consensus – could be specified.

Visitor Centre and Ruhr Museum

Conflicts arose, among other things, where the central value of the world heritage
discourse, namely authenticity, was violated. One example how such a conflict was solved
at Zollverein (analysed with the SDA) is the former coal-washing plant at shaft 12,
a complex multi-storey technical facility that was converted into a visitor centre and
Ruhr Museum. The façade had structural problems, having been vacant and neglected for
many years. Moreover, the simple construction was not sufficient to meet the require­
ments of a museum for a stable indoor climate in which humidity and heat must be
precisely regulated. Moreover, a new use also required free space, which was hardly
available in the coal-washing plant. The new construction of the façade with new
construction and material, but with the former, historical appearance, and the exemplary
preservation of existing machinery, represents a painful compromise for those involved
in the conservation and protection of historical monuments. The creation of accessibility
to the remaining machinery and its long-term preservation within the new climatically
high-quality façade shell were used as mediation potentials within the discourse con­
stellation. Its use as a visitor centre, monument trail and Ruhr Museum allows for long-
term preservation, mediation and development as a heritage. A touristic mission is
fulfilled, which contributes to urban and regional development, e.g., within the frame­
work of the European Route of Industrial Heritage, and the program also addresses the
local population and fulfils an educational mission for pupils. This example demonstrates
the enormous importance of bridging values, from accessibility and reuse (as a museum)
to community values (as a museum of the Ruhr region, with ‘Ruhr’ as an identity-
creating designation) and character (a combination of industrial heritage and signature
architecture).
436 H. OEVERMANN AND H. A. MIEG

Zollverein: Good Practice in Dealing with Industrial World Cultural Heritage

Sites
SDA is first and foremost an analytical tool. Our experience with Zollverein showed that
addressing heritage management tasks as ‘conflicts’ – as by SDA – was avoided (even if
they clearly present themselves as conflicts to outsiders). Rather, a variety of predefined
goals and practical experiences were worked with. Therefore, we developed an additional
good-practice tool. The good-practice approach is used for this purpose; it is well known
in urban development planning and in the discourse on world cultural heritage (cf.
World Heritage Centre, 2012; Oevermann, 2020). In the field of planning and manage­
ment, the approach enables a better understanding of which actions or measures are
suited to achieving defined goals (Bretschneider et al., 2005). For UNESCO World
Heritage sites, good practice incorporates the charters, guidelines, and principles of
UNESCO and its partner organizations ICOMOS, ICCROM, and TICCIH (Kalman,
2014). For all UNESCO World Heritage sites, implementing their protection, conserva­
tion, and development involves drawing up a management plan that is binding and ‘is an
integrated planning and action concept for the definition of objectives and measures with
which the protection, maintenance, use and development of World Heritage Sites are to
be realized’ (Ringbeck, 2008, p. 6).
This means that not only different discourses have to be bridged but each discourse
includes requirements to be fulfilled. In the Zollverein case study, eight criteria and
indicators for good practice were identified jointly on the basis of the above-described
requirements and literature, i.e., with the Zollverein Foundation, stakeholders from the
city of Essen, conservation authorities, and international experts. In addition to ‘manage­
ment’, these are conservation, reuse, participation (communities involvement), sustain­
ability/climate change, education, urban development, and research. The criteria
conservation and urban development reflect each the core discourses, the other criteria
include overlapping requirements such as responses to the climate change (and addres­
sing further discourses) and/or bridging values, such as reuse or accessibility (via educa­
tion) and community values (via community engagement). Table 1 shows the eight
criteria and their indicators in practice.
The management system records and monitors the management plan, the con­
stellations of actors and their corporate form, and the process organization and
financing. Furthermore, the understanding of the system is displayed in relation to
boundaries, activated resources, and the significance of a project. The conservation
criterion shows the outstanding universal value or heritage values in relation to
historical materiality and function. In addition, the measures for protection and
conservation and their implementation are monitored on the basis of the planned
and given (preservation) conditions. The reuse criterion identifies whether these are
compatible with the principles and guidelines of conservation and if all those who
are interested in gaining access to the heritage are given access to it. Good practice
means involving people in the planning processes. Concrete forms of participation
can be examined with the help of the participation levels from passive, to active, and
to full engagement (Oevermann et al., 2016). Sustainable development and responses
to climate change are a high priority for UNESCO. The term development is thus
always meant as economic, ecological, and social development. Further important
 PLANNING PRACTICE & RESEARCH 437

Table 3. Good practice in heritage management: Criteria and indicators, © Authors, 2018.
Criteria Indicators
Management Management system and management plan: Information about system and plan of
management
Stakeholders and form of organisation:
Owner and its legal form, constellation of stakeholders, administrative levels/body, steering
groups, NGO’s
Organisation of processes: Policies, planning instruments, monitoring
Funding: public, private, and PPP
Understanding what to manage: Core, new, and further resources, system boundaries,
relevance
Conservation Outstanding universal value (OUV): Statement of OUV, Heritage values
Historical structure and function: Information about historic design, development, and
use
Protected area: Boundaries, buffer zones, view, silhouettes, panoramea
From preservation to adaptive reuse: Concepts to protect authenticity and integrity,
implementation
Reuse New function: Objectives, structures and architecture, target groups
Access and accessibility: Physical, virtual, intellectual
Communities Initiatives: Needs and implementations
Engagement Participation: Information, contribution, joint decision making, own decision making
Sustainability/Climate SDGs (sustainable development goals): social dimension, economical dimension,
Change ecological dimension
Responding Climate Change: Mitigation and adaptation
Up/Downscaling: Local and global relevance
Education Information: Signatures, websites, guided tours, etc.
Learning: Educating disseminators, school co-operations, youth camps etc.
Urban Development Multilevel governance: Neighborhood (micro), city (meso) and regional level (macro)
Aspects of urban development:
Including aspects of transport, housing, etc.
Aspects of historic urban landscapes (HUL): Various elements of urban structure
Research Basic research: Analysing the evidence and heritage values, inventories
Evaluation research: Heritage impact assessment (HIA) and research regarding
monitoring processes

indicators include measures for preventing and adapting to climate change.

Educational processes support awareness-raising, which is the basis for broad public
recognition of heritage sites, especially for younger generations. Users and visitors
also need information, such as for orientation or in the form of guided tours. The
many aspects of urban development can be defined and evaluated at the micro,
meso, and macro levels, including status–target comparisons. Information and
research are needed both as basic research to establish the heritage values of sites
and as evaluation research to monitor management processes and their effects on-
site (monitoring).
Figure 2 shows that the eight criteria also refer to each other. Only if all criteria are
considered and work together is meaningful integration possible, such as the preserva­
tion of buildings by means of conversion in accordance with the regulations for listed
buildings and including the participation of people living on-site. The formalized repre­
sentation of goals and experiences in Table 3 and Figure 2 supports decision-making by
bringing different discourses and possible connections (via bridging values) into
a manageable system. The following provides an example.
438 H. OEVERMANN AND H. A. MIEG

Figure 2. Eight criteria of good practice in heritage management, © Authors, 2018.

Zollverein Park
Maintaining rail tracks, and making these open spaces and the Zollverein Park accessible,
especially as part of the Emscher cycle path network, is not only a form of conversion but
also a small but important contribution to sustainable development and the promotion of
climate-neutral mobility.
Basic Information: The Zollverein Park covers an area of approximately 70 ha and
comprises different zones of green- and open space, the largest part of which is the
Industrial Forest at approximately 25 ha. Zollverein Park is an accessible recreation park
offering an orientation system for visitors to Zollverein and enabling multiple activities
for all. Approximately one million people visit and use the park each year.
Sustainable Development & Climate Change: The Park explicitly serves two pillars of
sustainability. The social dimension of sustainability corresponds to the diverse activities
provided or enabled within the Park. The Park functions as public space for locals and
provides an urban green space in a district where many people live in apartments that
lack gardens. The environmental dimension is constituted by the Park’s diverse green
zones and by two protected habitats located within the post-industrial landscape, which
enrich biodiversity within the city and contribute to improving the region’s air quality.
Education: The Park’s information and orientation system consists of information
desks, signs, 3D models of the entire site, and lettering on the pathways. Furthermore, the
 PLANNING PRACTICE & RESEARCH 439

ring promenade, as the central element of the landscape design, guides visitors around
the complex without getting lost. One example is the Nature Path implemented at
Zollverein, comprising 12 locations offering a discovery tour of the Zollverein ecosystem,
which works interactively via digital devices.
Urban Development: Regional and federal policies are supported through the site’s
newly established integration and interconnectivity in the urban setting, as well as its
general enhancement of environmental quality within a settlement area. Furthermore,
the new public green space is used for daily activities and mobility, thereby specifically
meeting the requirements of local policies. The Park has opened the former-gated
industrial sites, becoming an integrated space within the district, city, and region.
Research: For more than two decades there has been ongoing research into the
environmental development of the Ruhr region. The International Building Exhibition
Emscher Park (1989–1999) started to highlight the concept of industrial nature
(Industrienatur) and pushed Ruhr towards becoming a green region. Other publications
have concentrated on interpretations and reuses of the Park. The Ruhr Regional
Association has implemented a three-year framework for monitoring research outputs.
Management: The Zollverein Foundation is the principal owner of the Park and is
responsible at the local level for design and activities, development, as well as main­
tenance. The Ruhr Regional Association is responsible at the regional level for coordina­
tion, managing regional maintenance, public relations, the realisation of projects such as
the regional cycle path system, and monitoring. Diverse planning instruments were used
in the transformation process: listing of historic objects, especially the railway system;
landscape design competition; formal planning processes (e.g., public procurement
procedures); and binding, long-term cooperation between the region, city, and owner.
Conservation: The park itself is located within the boundaries of the World Heritage
Site, and its historic objects are listed. However, the post-industrial ecology of the site
(succession vegetation, etc.) itself is not included in the conservation measures.
Uncontrolled vegetation growth might cover or destroy historic objects such as railway
tracks, and impact the visual integrity of the World Heritage Site. Thus, on the one hand,
wilderness is an obstacle to the conservation of Zollverein. On the other hand, the specific
biodiversity that has colonised the site following the closure of its original functions is
part of the character of Zollverein today. Consequently, a design was developed that
integrates historic objects, pioneer plant species, and new elements of landscape design.
Furthermore, a binding maintenance plan cares for and monitors the Park’s condition.
Reuse: The general idea is to transform the industrial area into a public and popular
destination experienced by locals and visitors. The design supported and enabled several
activities (dog-) walking, running, rollerblading, and cycling, as well as specific summer
and winter attractions that were established for the long term, such as the
Werksschwimmbad (works swimming pool), parkour facility, open-air cinema, and
winter ice-skating rink. The open, paved spaces of the Park host diverse events, such as
the annual colliery festival (Zechenfest), a huge event for the district. The Park is
probably the most important element in the continuous revitalisation process at
Zollverein.
Communities Engagement: A parkour project is located within the Park, and is
presented on the website as an example of good practice, specifically due to communities
engagement. Further examples of active participation include several children’s play
440 H. OEVERMANN AND H. A. MIEG

facilities within the park. The open-air cinema, which hosts around five events each
summer, is another project with active community involvement. Initiatives and decisions
are taken by the NGO Friends and Supporters of Zollverein.

Discussion
Synchronous discourse analysis (SDA) reveals the discourse constellations present in
negotiated planning processes and enables a deeper understanding of both conflicts and
potential for consensus. SDA can be used for scientific analysis. However, the reference to
conflicts between discourses, as helpful as it was for the many SDA analyses in the
Zollverein case, was rather avoided on the part of the site management. Therefore, in
a transdisciplinary cooperation process, we developed an integrative good-practice system
that combines the formal requirements, the local experiences and the SDA results. The
joint thinking and implementing of these eight criteria of the good-practice system can
offer a way in which actors from different perspectives and discourses can work system­
atically in an integrative manner in planning. Furthermore, this should also enable critical
evaluation of potential outcomes (e.g., gentrification or serious losses of heritage value) to
be negotiated and – if not avoided – to at least be addressed in a targeted manner.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG - German Research
Foundation).

References
Bretschneider, S., Marc-Aurele, F. J., & Wu, J. (2005) Best practices research: A methodological
guide for the perplexed, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), pp.
307–323. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui017.
City of Essen, U. D. (2000) List of Monuments City of Essen: 911, Zeche Zollverein. Including
Enclosure 1 (Essen: City of Essen).
Defila, R., & Di Giulio, A. (2006) Research Network Management. Manual for the Design of Inter-
and Transdisciplinary Projects (Zurich: vdf).
Douet, J. (Ed) (2012) Industrial Heritage Re-Tooled: The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage
Conservation (Lancaster: Carnegie Publishing, Ltd).
Foucault, M. (1994) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (Vintage:
Reissue).
Kalman, H. (2014) Heritage Planning: Principles and Process (London, New York: Routledge).
Kierdorf, A., & Hassler, U. (2000) Denkmal des Industriezeitalters: Von der Geschichte des Umgangs
mit Industriekultur (Tübingen: Wasmuth).
Kittang, D., & Bye, M. (2019) Managing urban heritage - A case study of the warehouses in
Kjøpmannsgata, Trondheim, Norway, Planning Practice & Research doi: 10.1080/02697459.
2019.1624441.
 PLANNING PRACTICE & RESEARCH 441

Labadi, S. (2016) The impacts of culture and heritage-led development programmes: The cases of
Liverpool (UK) and Lille (France), in: S. Labadi & W. Logan (Eds) Urban Heritage, Development
and Sustainability. International Frameworks, National and Local Governance, pp. 137–150
(London, New York: Routledge).
Landorf, C. (2011) A future for the past: A new theoretical model for sustainable historic urban
environments, Planning Practice and Research, 26(2), pp. 147–165. doi:10.1080/02697459.
2011.560458.
Madgin, R. (2013) A town without memory? Inferring the industrial past: Clydebank re-built,
1941–2013, in: C. Zimmermann (Ed) Industrial Cities. History and Future, pp. 283–304 (Frankfurt
[u.a.]: Campus Verlag).
Mieg, H. A., & Oevermann, H. (2015) Planungsprozesse in der Stadt (Zürich: vdf).
Oevermann, H. (2020) Good practice for industrial heritage sites: Systematization, indicators, and
case, Journal of Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 10(2), pp. 157–171.
doi:10.1108/JCHMSD-02-2018-0007.
Oevermann, H., Degenkolb, J., Dießler, A., Karge, S., & Peltz, U. (2016) Participation in the reuse
of industrial heritage sites: The case of Oberschöneweide, Berlin, International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 22(1), pp. 43–58. doi:10.1080/13527258.2015.1083460.
Oevermann, H., & Mieg, H. A. (Eds) (2015) Industrial Heritage Sites in Transformation: Clash of
Discourses (New York: Routledge).
Pendlebury, J. (2002) Conservation and regeneration: Complementary of conflicting processes?
The case of Grainger Town, Newcastle upon Tyne, Planning Practice and Research, 17(2),
pp. 145–158. doi:10.1080/02697450220145913.
Ringbeck, B. (2008) Management Plans for World Heritage Sites: A Practical Guide (Bonn: German
Commission for UNESCO).
Scholz, R. W. (2013) Transdisciplinarity, in: H. A. Mieg & K. Töpfer (Eds) Institutional and Social
Innovation for Sustainable Urban Development, pp. 305–322 (London: Earthscan).
Sowińska-Heim, J. (2014) Margins and marginalizations in a post-socialist urban area. The case of
Łódź, Art Inquiry. Recherches sur les arts, XVI, pp. 297–312.
Swensen, G., Stenbro, R., & Lusiani and Luca Zan, M. (2013) Urban planning and industrial
heritage – A Norwegian case study, Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable
Development, 3(2), pp. 175–190. doi:10.1108/JCHMSD-10-2012-0060.
UNESCO (1972): The world heritage convention. Available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/conven
tion/(accessed 18 October 2020).
UNESCO (2011) Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (Paris: UNESCO World
Heritage Centre). Available at http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-
638-98.pdf (accessed 7 September 2020).
UNESCO (2012) Community development through world heritage. Available at http://whc.unesco.
org/document/117040 (accessed 7 September 2020).
UNESCO (2016) Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention.
Available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/(accessed 7 September 2020).
World Heritage Centre (2012) Sharing best practice in world heritage management. Available at
http://whc.unesco.org/en/recognition-of-best-practices/(accessed 7 September 2020).
Copyright of Planning Practice & Research is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.