Department of Conservation Children’s Place in Heritage Practice Exploring practitioners’ conditions for allowing children to participate in heritage work and planning Julia Larsson Degree project for Master of Science with a major in Conservation 2022, 30 hec Second Cycle 2022:17 Children’s Place in Heritage Practice Exploring practitioners’ conditions for allowing children to participate in heritage work and planning Julia Larsson Supervisor: Susanne Fredholm Degree project for Master of Science with a major in Conservation, 30 hec UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG ISSN 1101-3303 Department of Conservation 2022:17 UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG http://www.conservation.gu.se Department of Conservation Fax +46 31 786 4703 P.O. Box 130 Tel +46 31 786 0000 SE-405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden Master’s Program in Conservation, 120 ests Author: Julia Larsson Supervisor: Susanne Fredholm Children’s Place in Heritage Practice - Exploring practitioners’ conditions for allowing children to participate in heritage work and planning The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is a law in Sweden - indicating that children should be allowed to express opinions on all matters that affect them. Simultaneously, the National Heritage Goals (NHG) states that everyone should be able to participate in heritage work to increase their understanding and responsibility for the cultural environment and heritage. Although these (inter) -national documents exist, the Swedish National Heritage Board has stated that practitioners do not always know how to relate to these documents in practice. A lack of research on children’s participation in heritage work concerning cultural environments also means unawareness of how the practice functions today. This thesis investigates conditions for heritage and planning practitioners to work with children’s participation in heritage practice by studying legal frameworks, understandings of heritage practice, and the practical work with children’s participation in heritage work and planning. The study has been based on qualitative and quantitative methods to create a general picture and understand practitioners’ experience of this issue. Based on theories and models about children’s participation and the expert-oriented heritage sector, the results of this thesis have been analyzed. It appears that children’s participation in heritage practice is lacking and that practitioners encounter several challenges in working with this issue. There is a great need for support from the top as heritage regulations do not emphasize participation, making the concept interpretable and complex for heritage and planning practitioners to operate in practice. When children are allowed to participate in heritage-related issues, most cases do not relate to active or genuine participation. Implementing the CRC in heritage work is deficient, and the sector is influenced by an expert-focused discourse. Although several practitioners feel they want to work more on this issue, there is a fear - triggered by the discourse - resulting in ideas of children not being fully capable of comprehending cultural heritage. To comply with the CRC and work toward the NHG, practitioners of all public heritage and planning authorities need to look over their child perspectives to increase the possibility for children to participate in heritage work and planning. Title: Children’s Place in Heritage Practice - Exploring practitioners’ conditions for allowing children to participate in heritage work and planning Language of text: English Number of pages: 102 Keywords: Children’s participation, Cultural heritage, Heritage practice, Child perspective, Heritage regulations, Convention on the Rights of the Child ISSN 1101-3303 2022:17 Preface The idea for this thesis started in the summer of 2020, just before I started a Master in Conservation. The Convention on the Rights of the Child had just become a law in Sweden, and discussions about children’s rights increased within institutions and organizations. During the summer of 2020, I had an internship at the department of city planning in Gothenburg. It was the first time I got an insight into the work with Child Impact Assessment and children’s rights in spatial planning. As a building antiquarian, I have found great interest in the built environment and people’s experience of place. I have always assumed that the civilian population possesses much knowledge of the cultural environment, relevant to the heritage sector. I have thus seen civic participation in heritage work as something evident but which I have understood does not always work as intended in practice. The children, who do not have much political influence, thus became extra interesting for me to investigate. Prior to this work, I have studied the importance of a child perspective in community development and children’s use of the city’s public places. This thesis has a greater focus on collecting information about how the authorities handle children’s participation in heritage work and planning and discussing how heritage practice relates to expressed goals of participation. This thesis would not have been possible without all the help I have received from public practitioners. I would therefore like to express a huge thank you to everyone who has taken the time and contributed information to this work. Thanks to practitioners from the Swedish National Heritage Board, the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland, the Administration for Cultural Development, and municipalities that responded to the questionnaire. I would also like to thank my supervisor Susanne Fredholm who has supported me and helped me with many suggestions and substantial tips. I would also like to thank my family and friends who have supported me throughout this process. You have made this thesis possible. Julia Göteborg, maj, 2022 List of Contents 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 9 1.1 Background 9 1.1.1 The Convention on the Rights of the Child 11 1.2 Previous Research 12 1.3 Research Problem 15 1.4 Aims and Research Questions 16 1.5 Delimitations 16 1.6 Concepts 18 1.7 Translation of Organizations, Names and Concepts 19 1.8 Shortenings 20 1.9 Disposition 20 2. Theory and Analytical Framework …………………………………………………………… 21 2.1 Cultural Heritage - From Expert-Oriented to Civic Participation? 21 2.2 Definitions of Participation 23 2.2.1 Models for Children’s Participation 25 2.3 The Distinction Between Child Perspective and Children’s Perspective 28 2.4 Concluding Reflection 29 3. Method ……………………………………………………………………………………… 31 3.1 Methodological Approach 31 3.2 Interviews 32 3.3 Questionnaires 34 3.4 Sampling and Selection of Informants 35 3.4.1 Informants 36 3.5 Ethical Considerations 37 3.6 Data Analysis 37 3.7 Methodological Discussion and Source Criticism 39 4. Integrating a Child Perspective in Swedish Heritage Work and Planning: Current Policy and Practice …………….………….………….………….………….….……… 41 4.1 Participation in Heritage and Planning Laws 41 4.2 National Heritage Goals 43 4.3 Heritage Planning - Understanding Children’s Opportunities to Participate in Planning Processes 45 4.4 Tools for Implementing the CRC into Heritage Planning 48 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice ………………………………………… 50 5.1 Presentation of Central and Regional Authorities’ Incorporation of a Child Perspective 50 5.2 Presentation of Municipalities and their Work with Children’s Participation 52 5.3 Examples of How Children have Participated in Heritage Practice 58 5.4 Challenges for Including Children in Heritage Practice 63 5.5 Heritage and Planning Practitioner’s Needs to Increase Children’s Participation in Heritage Work 65 6. Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………… 68 6.1 Children’s Participation in Heritage Work 68 6.1.1 How and When are Children Included in Heritage Work? 68 6.1.2 Absence of Active and Genuine Participation 70 6.2 Lack of Guidance in the Regulations 72 6.3 Does AHD Affect Children’s Participation in Heritage Work? 74 6.4 Conclusion 75 6.5 Further Research 76 7. Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………… 78 8. Sammanfattning ……………………………………………………………………………… 81 List of Figures / List of Tables ………………………………………………….………………… 84 References ……………………………………………………………………………………… 85 Appendix I - Study Information Sent to Interviewees …………………………………………… 94 Appendix II - Study Information Sent with Questionnaire ……………………………………… 95 Appendix III - Interview Questions ……………………………………………………………… 96 Appendix IV - Questionnaire …………………………………………………………………… 98 1. Introduction This thesis is written during the spring semester of 2022 at the Department of Conservation. The thesis comprises 30 credits and is the foundation for a degree in Master of Conservation. 1.1 Background One-fifth of Sweden’s population is under the age of 18,1 and is therefore covered by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which defines the children’s right to express opinions on all matters affecting them and that all decisions must consider the children’s best interests. The CRC was ratified in 1990, and Sweden thus signed a binding agreement to comply with its articles. On January 1, 2020, the CRC became a law in Sweden after a decision was made in the Riksdag (the highest decision-making assembly in Sweden). The CRC has had a noteworthy impact on the heritage sector, which during the 2000s has executed several projects to include children in heritage practice. Many projects are linked to museum activities, such as Takeover Day in Uppsala’s old museum (2014), where children were allowed to take over a museum for one day, and Tidsvalvet in the Nordic Museum, highlighting childhood heritage.2 Municipalities have also made attempts to include children in issues concerning cultural environments and heritage, such as Den hemlighetsfulla kulturmiljön (2003) and Små barns perspektiv på ett kulturarv (2014). The first project highlighted the importance of young children, in preschool age, being able to take part of the official heritage designated in UNESCO’s world heritage list,3 while the second project investigated how children learn about their nearby cultural environments in relation to the middle school curriculum.4 Moreover, the Swedish National Heritage Board has been commissioned to investigate and map obstacles regarding children’s opportunities to participate in the cultural heritage institutions’ offerings. The assignment was to see how archives and world heritage, listed by UNESCO, are used as a resource for students’ education. The results show that neither the archives nor the UNESCO World Heritage Sites have been used and visited to a large extent for educational purposes.5 Further, Västmanlands County Museum has sought to discover how young people view cultural environments and what they want to preserve.6 In 2022, they were also given grants for the project Mitt slott ditt slott from Allmänna arvsfonden to develop methods for young people’s participation and influence in heritage work and planning.7 1. Boverket, 2020 2. Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2021.12.01 3. See Westlund 4. See Hägglund, 2003 5. Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2020 6. See Sjökvist, 2003 7. Västmanlands läns museum, 2022 9 1. Introduction Several political documents strengthen children’s right to be included in heritage work. The National Heritage Goals (NHG), which should affect all heritage work, emphasize people’s participation in the heritage work to understand and be responsible for the cultural heritage.8 Blücher and Graninger (2003) express, however, that it is challenging for people to be responsible for the cultural heritage if they have no influence over it.9 National projects like Agenda kulturarv, which also included regional authorities, emphasized in 2002 the importance of a broad range of perspectives in heritage work to create a heterogeneous cultural heritage,10 and the Faro-Convention, created by the council of Europe, expressed in 2005 that everyone should be allowed to participate in the definition of the common cultural heritage.11 UNESCO emphasized in 1998 that “/… / the signs of children in both the material and non- material cultural heritage are as good as non-existent”12 and calls for museums to collaborate with children for them to be visible in the society the museum reflects. Children’s participation in heritage practice has thus been raised for 24 years. They also emphasize children as an essential resource for natural and cultural heritage and say that “the key to preservation is participation.”13 The public heritage work has traditionally been handled by regional and central authorities, such as the Swedish National Heritage Board and the County Administrative Board.14 However, the Cultural Environment Act’s portal section distributes responsibility for the cultural environment to all people, and the Faro-Convention states that the cultural environment is a central dimension of community planning.15 Cultural environments are defined as all environments imprinted by human activity,16 and are, therefore, all environments ever touched by humans. That means that several practitioners work with cultural environments indicating that the heritage work needs to be distributed among several employees. The municipalities have thus been given more responsibility for the local heritage work, but there is no requirement for municipalities to have special professional competence in the cultural environment area within their organization.17 That implies that not only antiquarians handle the cultural environment and heritage work within the municipalities. 8. Boverket, 2021 9. Blücher & Graninger, 2003, p.183 10. Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2004, pp.16-17 11. Council of Europe, 2005 12. UNESCO, 1998, p.5 13. Ibid, p.24 14. Olsson et al., 2020, p.7 15. Council of Europe, 2005 16. Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2016, p.9 17. Olsson et al., 2020, p.8 10 1. Introduction 1.1.1 The Convention on the Rights of the Child The CRC was adopted in 1989 by the UN General Assembly. The CRC was the first to emphasize children’s rights in society. As it is an internationally binding agreement, all countries that have ratified it have a common goal of working with the children in focus.18 Sweden played an important role in the development of the CRC and was also one of the first countries to ratify it when it was made possible in 1990.19 Even before the CRC was adopted, children’s needs and interests were considered important issues.20 However, the CRC came with an important function in that it highlights children as subjects of rights and not only in need of adult protection.21 The CRC consists of 45 articles. This thesis highlights five articles that address the issue of child perspective in heritage work, seen in Figure 1. Figure 1: Five selected Articles from the CRC relevant to children’s participation in heritage work. Article 1 is clear as to whom is affected by the CRC. The CRC includes all people younger than 18 years old. The 18-year age limit is set as the last year for a child before they become major. Exceptions are made for countries where children become major at an earlier age.22 18. Sverige, 2000, p.6 19. Ibid, p.13 20. Ibid, p.6 21. Lansdown, 2001, p.1 22. UNICEF 11 1. Introduction Article 2 is one of the most important articles of the CRC. It is this article that highlights the equal value of all children. There are no exceptions to this article. All children should be treated equally. Children must also not be discriminated against in relation to adults.23 Article 3 is a guiding article that should permeate all work that affects children. The article guides how the CRC should be interpreted. It is also an instrument when laws and policies outside the CRC are evaluated.24 The article highlights the child’s best interests as the primary focus. However, the best interests of the child are not defined. It simply depends on the situation. Other articles in the CRC provide a more precise base for what is included in the child’s best interests.25 Article 12 is the democratic article. It is the primary article to highlight the children as subjects with their own opinions that must be respected. The article consists of two parts. One is about the children’s right to be heard. The second part emphasizes the children’s right to participate and influence all matters that affect them. The article also emphasizes that children’s opinions must influence the decision.26 This article is vital in relation to Article 3. Article 3 does not in itself require the children to be listened to. However, Lansdown (2001) believes that adults often think they know what is best for children, even when it is not the case.27 Nevertheless, Article 12 is subordinate to Article 3. The child’s best interests come before children’s rights to be heard. Article 31 emphasizes the right of children to participate in cultural and artistic life.28 Hence, this Article is relevant to issues concerning cultural environments and heritage. In accordance with Article 12, this Article constitutes a reason why children should be allowed to express opinions regarding heritage work and planning. 1.2 Previous Research Participation in heritage practice Weijmer’s (2019) dissertation has contributed crucial pieces to the puzzle for this thesis. In her research, she discusses the political goal of participation in relation to practice. She shows that the heritage work is, to a large extent, characterized by legal regulations and much individual responsibility for practitioners to interpret both laws and goals - making the goal of participation in the NHG something sought after but difficult to achieve.29 23. Sverige, 2000, p.22 24. Nilsson, 2002, p.56 25. Sverige, 2000, p.26 26. Ibid, p.29 27. Lansdown, 2001, p.3 28. UNICEF 29. See Weijmer, 2019 12 1. Introduction Olsson’s (2003) dissertation also highlights essential aspects concerning participation in heritage practice. He focuses on heritage planning and elevates citizens’ views on local planning. He argues that good heritage work requires dialogue between different practitioners where citizens’ values emerge.30 Together with Lanemo (2015), he identifies challenges for including civic society in heritage planning. One challenge is recognizing the need for different perspectives and that the experts do not know everything. Cultural heritage is about different knowledge and experiences relevant to understanding in identifying culturally and historically valuable environments. Another challenge faced is the lack of method knowledge for including citizens.31 Children and cultural heritage Göranssons (2019) thesis comes close to the subject of this thesis as she investigates methods for including children in heritage practice. Her investigation shows that adolescents’ interests in cultural heritage increased the more knowledge they gained about it.32 Garrod and Dowell’s (2020) research also shows significant benefits to including children in various cultural activities. They present that adults who have been allowed to participate in cultural activities in their childhood tend to spend more time with these activities as adults. They are also more likely to volunteer in heritage work and donate money to the heritage sector.33 That implies that children’s participation in heritage practice leads to positive effects for the future of the sector. Nuzzaci (2020) stresses the importance of heritage education and states that it is a universal right and that the lack of it indicates significant flaws in fundamental rights for children.34 Goodarzparvari and Bueno Camejo (2018) correspondingly see that heritage education is essential as it contributes to the preservation of cultural affairs and the maintenance of society’s cultural heritage.35 The anthology Children, childhood and cultural heritage (2012) shed light on research concerning children’s heritage and childhood heritage. In the anthology, Harwood (2012) highlights that post-war schools are not highly valued from a cultural-historical perspective - showing an issue that childhood heritage is not always valued as cultural heritage.36 Darian-Smith and Pascoe (2012) convey that childhood heritage and children’s heritage are usually not raised by children themselves but often by adults on behalf of their own childhood. They also state that adults do not acknowledge many manifestations of children’s heritage if it does not fit the depiction of childhood.37 30. See Olsson, 2003 31. See Lanemo & Olsson, 2015 32. See Göransson, 2019 33. See Garrod & Dowell, 2020 34. See Nuzzaci, 2020 35. See Goodarzparvari & Bueno Camejo, 2018 36. See Harwood, 2012 37. See Darian-Smith & Pascoe, 2012 13 1. Introduction Children’s participation in urban planning Ataol et al. (2019) show that research on children’s participation in urban planning has increased since the 1990s in western societies, and there are many indications that children’s opportunities to participate in urban planning have increased. Planning practitioners have become more aware of the importance of working from a child perspective to create good environments for all city residents. It is also clear that good communication is required for successful planning with children where there is a diversity of practitioners between disciplines. An essential aspect that Ataol et al. (2019) highlight is that policy documents are crucial for implementing planning practices with children.38 Madsen (2015) likewise sees the need for policy documents, but she argues that it is also required that planning practitioners receive more support from the top. She also expresses that children’s participation is not always prioritized due to the fact that it is often not cost- and time-efficient. The financial interests, therefore, outweigh children’s participation.39 Moreover, Nordström and Wales (2019) describe that children bring new perspectives on environments that broader the current understanding of human-environment relations. The children’s involvement challenges the existing ways of thinking about change and contributes to more sustainable proposals for urban development.40 However, Rodela and Norss (2022) see that much research examines children’s participation at several stages in the planning process but that there is a lack of understanding of how children’s voices actually influence decision-making and plans in practice. They see that a common denominator among the literature is a lack of planning guidelines and legislation that help planning practitioners work with children’s perspectives.41 Consequently, Sancar and Severcan (2010) believe that urban planning is an entirely exclusive field that only focuses on the built and economic aspects of environments. People’s understanding and experiences are thus given no space in urban planning.42 Cele and van der Burgt (2015) highlight that planning practitioners have difficulty seeing children as competent actors. Practitioners’ lack of competence and the stiffness of the planning process leads to them being excluded from planning processes.43 That is something that much science emphasize. In Stenbergs and Fryk’s (2021) research, opinions from the adult population are handled more seriously than opinions and suggestions from children. Planning practitioners fail to take advantage of children’s skills and earnestly try to translate children’s thoughts and suggestions into reality.44 38. See Ataol et al., 2019 39. See Madsen, 2015 40. See Nordström & Wales, 2019 41. See Rodela & Norss, 2022 42. See Sancar & Severcan, 2010 43. See Cele and van der Burgt, 2015 44. See Stenberg & Fryk, 2021 14 1. Introduction Abrahamsson and Larsson (2020) believe that there is a structural challenge in including children, which shows that other interests are often prioritized higher than the children’s interests, which shows the prevailing power relationship between adults and children.45 Ultimately, Kylin and Lieberg (2001) show that planning practitioners mainly think about children’s needs regarding playgrounds and schoolyards, indicating the so-called “child-spaces.”46 Jane Strachan (2018) describes that children possess great knowledge of places but are rarely allowed to express their opinions about the future of places.47 Mansfield et al. (2021) argue that it is adult individuals who make decisions that affect various processes concerning urban planning. They believe that adults’ ideas about what are good places for children are based on, among other things, fear for children’s safety and profit margins. That, in turn, affects which environments the children are allowed to participate in and influence.48 However, Winters (2010) sees that children are not always allowed to influence these environments either. Her research examines how children have become involved when the school environment has faced change. It turns out that the children were informally consulted when it came to the playground but were not consulted at all when the school building was facing change. Her research also shows that children are rarely allowed to be part of the decision-making process, even if they are allowed to express their opinions.49 1.3 Research Problem Children have the right to express opinions on all matters that concern them. Since cultural environments are all environments that have been, and are used by people, heritage-related issues thereby concern children. Although project-based initiatives and (inter) -national policy exist to increase children’s participation in heritage work, the Swedish National Heritage Board states there is no clear explanation for how this should be done in practice and how practitioners should relate to children’s perspectives on cultural environments. They also believe that a fundamental part of strengthening children’s participation and influence in heritage work is to start talking about how institutions and organizations work with this issue today.50 Children are not a homogeneous group, but their perspective on the world around them differs from the adult population as they use environments with their whole body.51 Children are the primary users of the outdoor environment, and they use places most intensively of all social groups,52 making 45. See Abrahamsson & Larsson, 2020 46. See Kylin & Lieberg, 2001 47. See Jane Strachan, 2018 48. See Mansfield et al., 2021 49. See Winters, 2010 50. Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2021.12.01 51. Lenninger & Olsson, 2006, p.38 52. Blücher & Graninger, 2003, p.30; Tallhage Lönn, 2000, p.112; Nordström, 2001, p.49 15 1. Introduction them experts of the local area.53 By exploring the world with the whole body, children gain significant knowledge about the local environment (reed cultural environment) and what is physically doable in the area.54 Children thus understand the physical environment differently from adults and can constitute different perspectives on the cultural environment. Much research examines children’s participation in urban planning, but there is an identified research gap regarding children’s participation in heritage work and planning. Although the CRC has been a law in Sweden for two years, and the NHG has expressed the importance of civic participation since 2012, no research emphasizes how heritage and planning practitioners have worked to fulfill these regulations and ensure that children are included and allowed to participate in heritage practice. Hence, there is a need to investigate how this practice looks today. 1.4 Aims and Research Questions This thesis aims to explore practitioners’ practical conditions for working with children’s participation in heritage work and planning. That is accomplished by mapping central, regional, and local levels of heritage and planning governance work and clarifying how and when children may participate in heritage work. This thesis will identify circumstances, responsibilities, and barriers for giving children space to participate in heritage practice. Further, the thesis will analyze heritage and planning regulations and public authorities’ understanding of heritage practice to see how this enables or hinders child perspective in heritage work. Three research questions guide the thesis: - How are children given space by public heritage and planning authorities to participate in heritage work, and what are the considered obstacles? - How do legal frameworks enable/disable a child perspective and children’s participation in heritage work? - How does the understanding of heritage practice affect children’s opportunity to participate in heritage work? 1.5 Delimitations The investigation focuses on public heritage and planning authorities. The Swedish National Heritage Board represents central authorities. They were chosen as they are an institution that entirely focuses on cultural environments and heritage and has also contributed with support to several projects focusing on children’s participation. 53. Tallhage Lönn, 2000, p.148 54. Nordström, 2001, p.49 16 1. Introduction In addition to the central governance work, whose assignments affects the whole country, this thesis has been geographically limited to the Västra Götaland region, seen in Figure 2. The County Administrative Board and the Administration for Cultural Development represent the regional authorities. The choice of the region is based on available documents on participation in heritage work. The Administration for Cultural Development, then Västarvet, reported the Goal 2030 for increased participation in heritage work related to the NHG, and emphasized that everyone should be involved in identifying, preserving, and developing cultural environments.55 The City of Gothenburg also has several reports on children’s participation, focusing, to some extent, on the cultural environment.56 The County Museum in the region was also considered a relevant regional authority to investigate, but no contact was successfully established with them. Figure 2: The studied Västra Götaland region. Source: Developed from Wikimedia contributors. The local authorities consist of selected municipalities, seen in Figure 3. The choice of municipalities is based on a survey conducted by the National Board of Housing, Building, and Planning in 2019. The survey sought answers to whether municipalities work with children’s participation in spatial planning. The results were documented in the report Barnkonventionen i fysisk planering och stadsutveckling - Kartläggning och analys (2020).57 The survey results show that 27 municipalities in Västra Götaland include children in their spatial planning. The 27 municipalities were contacted, but only in 24 of the 27 municipalities was a contact person established. The 24 municipalities where a contact person was reached were all given access to a questionnaire. 55. See Västarvet 56. Kant & Rosengren, 2020; Göteborg stad, 2011; Göteborg2021, 2021 57. See Boverket, 2020 17 1. Introduction A total of 17 municipalities responded to the questionnaire. These municipalities are: - Alingsås - Borås - Gothenburg - Lerum - Lidköping - Mark - Orust - Skövde - Sotenäs - Stenungsund - Strömstad - Tidaholm - Tranemo - Töreboda - Vara - Vänersborg Figure 3: Participating municipalities. Source: Developed from Wikipedia - Öckerö contributors. 1.6 Concepts Actor A person or organization that acts concerning an issue or in a situation.58 Children’s participation in societal processes acknowledges them as actors. Childhood heritage In this thesis, the concept is used to describe cultural heritage linked to the cultural history of childhood. Child perspective Adults’ view of children. It is about understanding the children’s perspective as an outsider. Children All people under 18 years of age. Therefore, young adults are also counted as children in this thesis. Children’s heritage In this thesis the concept is used for cultural heritage created by children. Children’s perspective This perspective can only be expressed by children themselves. Comprehensive plan The comprehensive plan must tell how the physical environment is to be developed and preserved and describe which functions are needed in the municipality’s areas.59 A comprehensive plan must consider the general interests in society but is not legally binding.60 58. Nationalencyklopedin 59. Nyström & Tonell, 2012, p.216 60. Boverket, 2022.02.23 18 1. Introduction Conservation In British usage, conservation has a open view of change. Change can occur as long as it does not affect crucial aspects of the cultural heritage.61 Cultural environment Cultural environments are all environments imprinted by human activity.62 Cultural heritage Tangible and intangible phenomena that is or will be inherited. Detailed plan The detailed plan is a tool for specifying how an environment should be designed. The detailed plan is used to test the suitability of the land for, among other things, buildings, and if the plan is given legal force, it is legally binding.63 Detailed plans constitute an important basis for obtaining a building permit. Participation Participation is a complex concept, discussed further in Chapter 2. It can imply being a part of something, indicating an indirect role. It can also imply being able to take part in decision-making, giving the participant a more active role. Preservation In British usage, preservation is a strict concept that includes acting to maintain an object or phenomenon as it was at the time it was discovered.64 1.7 Translation of Organizations, Names and Concepts The thesis contains multiple titles of Swedish organizations and concepts with unclear English translations. In some cases, there is no definite English translation. Some words have therefore been translated based on what I consider most appropriate. This list shows the Swedish translation of the English expressions. Administration for Cultural Development Förvaltningen för kulturutveckling Child Impact Assessment Barnkonsekvensanalys County Administrative Board Länsstyrelsen Cultural Environment Act Kulturmiljölagen Decision foundation Belsutsunderlag Environmental Code Miljöbalken Environmental Impact Assessments Miljökonsekvensanalys Heritage foundation Kulturmiljöunderlag 61. Howard, 2003, p.199 62. Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2016, p.9 63. Boverket, 2022.02.18 64. Howard, 2003, p.199 19 1. Introduction Knowledge foundation Kunskapsunderlag National Heritage Goals Kulturmiljömålen Notable Building Byggnadsminne Planning and Building Act Plan och bygglagen Planning foundation Planeringsunderlag Stone cist Hällkista Swedish National Heritage Board Riksantikvarieämbetet The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning Boverket 1.8 Shortenings AHD Authorized Heritage Discourse CIA Child Impact Assessment CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child NHG National Heritage Goals 1.9 Disposition This thesis consists of six chapters, where the first chapter presents background, previous research, and research questions. This chapter also explains the study’s delimitation, describing and translating concepts for the reader. Chapter 2 further explains the theoretical framework on which the analysis of the study depends. The chapter describes participation as a sought-after but difficult-to-interpret concept with many practical applications. The chapter also describes different models for analyzing how the concept can be practiced and what can be included in the concept of participation. Chapter 3 presents materials and the methodological approach for the study. The chapter also discusses the study’s ethical considerations and describes how the material has been analyzed. The next chapter explains international documents and national laws that affect children’s participation in heritage work. Furthermore, this part describes how the planning process occurs in relation to children’s participation. In the penultimate chapter, the results of the study are presented. This chapter describes how different public heritage and planning authorities work with cultural heritage and participation - allowing them to include children in heritage work. Examples of cases where children have participated in heritage work are presented, and challenges and needs that public practitioners face regarding this issue are identified. Finally, in Chapter 6, the results are discussed based on previous research and the theoretical framework. This chapter also constitutes ideas of what further research is needed regarding this issue. The thesis is summarized in both English and Swedish. 20 2. Theory and Analytical Framework This chapter constitutes the theoretical framework and forms a foundation for the empirically collected material analysis. This section begins by delving into the concept of cultural heritage and describing the development of the heritage sector to become more - in theory - open and inclusive of different perspectives and civic participation. The theory chapter then continues to delve into different theories and models, explaining different inputs in what children’s participation can represent in practice. The concept of participation is complex, which contributes to different understandings of how this should be practiced in reality. Because the thesis investigates the practical work with children’s inclusion, it also becomes relevant to clarify the concept of child perspective in relation to children’s perspective. Therefore, the last section of the chapter discusses different interpretations of the concepts to clarify what is meant when using them. All these concepts - cultural heritage, child perspective, and participation - together with theories and models, form the basis for the analysis of the - potentially- expert-oriented heritage sector to see how this affects children’s participation in heritage work. 2.1 Cultural Heritage - From Expert-Oriented to Civic Participation? The concept of cultural heritage is ambiguous and consists of two vague concepts - culture and heritage. Coccossis and Nijkamp (1995) describe that culture is a product of human activity expressed through tangible and intangible phenomena.65 The intangible consists of the doing itself, while the tangible is the physical product that the doing, in some cases, result in. Heritage means, by definition, that something will be inherited or is inherited. It involves tangible and intangible aspects passing from one generation to another. With this definition, cultural heritage can be just about anything, and it is not entirely wrong to think so. Howard (2003) clarifies that everything can potentially become heritage (reed cultural heritage). At the same time, everything that is inherited from one generation to another does not become heritage.66 It is simply a matter of what is valued and defined as heritage. Value and valuation are not neutral things. Therefore, what will be conserved or preserved is based on subjective points of departure based on the depiction of what is included in the valuation of heritage. That means that cultural heritage is not something that defines itself. For something to be considered heritage, a decision must be made.67 Because everything can potentially be cultural heritage, Howard (2003) believes that heritage can be divided into official and unofficial heritage. The official heritage is often tangible and linked to the nation. The unofficial heritage could instead represent a private property or intangible phenomena such as knowledge and techniques.68 However, many aspects relate somewhere in-between private 65. Coccossis & Nijkamp, 1995, p.3 66. Howard, 2003, p.6 67. Harrison, 2010, p.25 68. Howard, 2003, p.4 21 2. Theory and Analytical Framework property and the connection to the nation. This complexity has been discussed by Smith (2006). Her book The Uses of Heritage (2006) introduces Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD). The book discusses why heritage is portrayed the way it is, where the official heritage often relates to the nation. Smith (2006) searches to see what determines what becomes heritage. She emphasizes that heritage does not exist. Instead, it is a practice. The heritage discourse affects how we think and talk about heritage. The discourse gives the authority more space for power. The discourse is Eurocentric and expert-oriented, which undermines other forms of heritage to take place in the discourse.69 Smith (2012) also emphasizes that the authorized narrative often obscures children as heritage makers.70 Schofield has criticized the expert role that is seen within the heritage sector. He (2014) believes that the top-down heritage practice, that does not consider individuals or the locals, is both outdated and unsustainable. The Faro-Convention and the Landscape Convention have sent out a similar signal and accentuated locality. There are three points that Schofield (2014) identifies. These are that Heritage is everywhere, Heritage is for everyone, and We are all heritage experts.71 That also relates to Smith’s idea of heritage when she says that heritage does not exist but instead is a process. Schofield (2014) expresses that heritage is personal, and everyone has subjective views about what is valuable in their life. Opinions about cultural heritage also change over time.72 Therefore, Schofield (2014) asks himself what role heritage experts have and emphasizes that everyone possesses expertise regarding place and practice, and therefore heritage.73 However, Scofield’s critique has also been criticized. It is believed that the expression that we are all heritage experts will not lead to the co-creation required to democratize heritage.74 Nevertheless, Schofield’s critique accentuates certain problems that the heritage sector faces to increase democracy and diversity within heritage work. There has been a desire to move away from the traditional way of thinking about heritage, where tangible aspects, like places and objects, are listed for the public. These lists do not shed light on the diversity of the heritage that exists in the world. Therefore, representativeness has gained a greater focus. Representativeness implies preserving various diverse places and practices that can be seen as valuable today or in the future.75 Harrison (2010) explains that those in power may not understand all the places and practices meaningful to the people of society; therefore, representativeness is a way to make the heritage more diverse.76 Cultural policy has set goals for 69. Smith, 2006, p.11 70. Smith, 2012, p.122 71. Schofield, 2014, p.2 72. Ibid, p.7; Howard, 2003, p.213 73. Schofield, 2014, p.8 74. Hølleland & Skrede, 2019, p.829 75. Howard, 2003, p.26; Harrison, 2010, p.26 76. Harrison, 2010, p.26 22 2. Theory and Analytical Framework heritage work that highlight the importance of the work being characterized by diversity and participation.77 Berger and Forsberg (2013) also believe that heritage work constantly needs to capture new perspectives and question the designated cultural heritage. They argue that having active heritage work with increased participation can increase local affiliation.78 Heritage practice is still closely linked to education,79 where the authority of various departments educates people of all ages about selected valuable environments, objects, and practices. Previous research on children and cultural heritage has also shed light on this. Heritage education does not, by definition, mean anything negative. Educating people about cultural heritage and increasing awareness of cultural-historical values in people’s immediate environment has been shown to positively affect increased willingness to preserve.80 However, Smith (2006) highlights the link between heritage education and AHD. She believes that when heritage practice tries to include more people, it is often a matter of the authority inviting excluded groups to learn about the authority’s heritage.81 The open definition of heritage, which defines it as anything, creates an opportunity for children - without expert knowledge - to participate in heritage work and express what is worth preserving based on their own experiences of the surrounding environment. After all, the heritage sector has been criticized for being authoritarian and cultural policies with goals of participation and diversity have been added to counteract this and create a more inclusive heritage. However, it raises questions about what it actually looks like in practice, and if heritage practice still relates to AHD. 2.2 Definitions of Participation Participation is a concept that has emerged on the agenda in heritage work to include more people in identifying and conserving heritage. Consequently, the heritage sector is challenged to interpret the concept of participation within the framework of their work. Participation is a vague concept, and its diverse definitions can give different results in practice. Weijmer (2019) emphasizes, for instance, that when cultural policy articulates participation, there is no straightforward idea of what is expected of the practical work.82 This part, therefore, functions to sort out different interpretations of the concept of participation in order to be able to analyze the level of children’s participation in heritage work. 77. Génetay & Lindberg, 2015, p.48 78. Berger & Forsberg, 2013, p.379 79. Howard, 2003, p.18 80. Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2017, p.22 81. Smith, 2006, p.44 82. Weijmer, 2019, p.25 23 2. Theory and Analytical Framework According to the Cambridge dictionary, participation is the act of taking part in an event or activity.83 With this definition, participation means that it is enough for people to be a part of something for it to be counted as participation. This definition, therefore, allows children to be educated about designated cultural heritage for it to be counted as participation. However, Thomas (2007) expresses another definition of the concept where a critical aspect of the practice of the concept includes involving in decision-making.84 The definition is partly based on Hill et al. (2004) and Sinclair’s (2004) definition, which puts the concept of participation in relation to consultation. They argue that consultation is a way to engage with opinions.85 In practice, this could mean that children can participate with opinions regarding spatial planning or other heritage practice. Based on Cambridge dictionary’s definition, this is a form of participation. Hill et al. (2004) and Sinclair (2004), on the other hand, express that participation (reed active participation) is mainly about the empowerment of those involved in participatory activities, which involves them being part of decision-making.86 Furthermore, the definitions of the concept express an informal and formal dimension of participation. Regarding community planning, Björklid and Nordström (2007) believe that the informal dimension concerns children’s right to move freely in the city.87 Informal participation, in this case, is about the children’s right to discover the surroundings and cultural environment. Weijmer (2019) also sees this dimension of participation in heritage literature, whereas Tweed and Sutherlands (2007) describe Heritage by appropriation as generating heritage through the public’s claim of the physical environment.88 The informal dimension is crucial for the formal dimension of participation. Similar to the first reasoning, this dimension is about being able to influence decisions about the city’s development. Heritage by designation, as Tweed and Sutherlands (2007) express, can also be linked to the more active participation in heritage practice when it comes to the traditional process of pointing out heritage.89 The two definitions of the concept imply entirely different conditions and approaches in practice and the concept is not clarified in the CRC. However, the mentioned definitions of the concept of participation are represented in Article 12. Children have the right to express opinions on all matters concerning them. Therefore, adults should consult with the children and let them be part 83. Cambridge dictionary 84. Thomas, 2007, p.199 85. Hill et al., 2004, p.83; Sinclair, 2004, pp.110-111 86. Ibid, p.83; Ibid, pp.110-111 87. Björklid & Nordström, 2007, p.395 88. Weijmer, 2019, p.30; Tweed and Sutherlands, 2007, p.63 89. Tweed & Sutherlands, 2007, p.63 24 2. Theory and Analytical Framework of the processes that affect them. The article also expresses that what the children say must influence the decision.90 That does not, by definition, imply that children must be part of the decision-making, but it means that children should be empowered to influence decisions. Therefore, the process of decision-making is a fundamental part of children’s participation. 2.2.1 Models for Children’s Participation A common tool for analyzing children’s participation has been created by Roger A. Hart (1992). Hart’s ladder was a development of Arnstein’s ladder, published in 1969, showing civic participation in all political situations.91 Like Arnstein’s ladder, Hart’s ladder contains eight rungs to show different levels of participation, but Hart’s ladder specifies children’s participation, unlike Arnstein. Figure 4: Hart’s ladder of children’s participation. 90. Sweden, 2000, p.29 91. See Arnstein, 2019 25 2. Theory and Analytical Framework The eight rungs in Hart’s ladder, shown in Figure 4, display different levels of children’s participation. However, Hart (1997) points out that it should not be interpreted as matters always having to relate to the highest step. He believes that different situations may need different forms of participation. One important thing is that children have the opportunity to influence when and how they participate.92 The most important aspect of Hart’s ladder, just like Arnstein’s ladder, is to show what non- participation is. The three lowest steps describe non-participation. These are situations where children are included without knowing what purpose or who they represent. It is from the fourth step that Hart (1992) believes that genuine participation occurs. Consultation can thus be interpreted as genuine participation. However, He expresses in his step that participation in decision-making is a higher level of participation. It is crucial that children are treated seriously and with respect for the process to remain on these rungs. The sixth step also emphasizes the children’s opportunity to participate in decision-making. Hart (1992) accentuates the importance of feedback to have genuine participation. He believes that participation falls to the lowest step on the ladder - indicating non-participation - if children do not receive feedback after participating.93 Hart’s ladder was never intended to be used in practice to the extent that it has been, but it was a rhetorical tool to emphasize what is not genuine participation for children.94 Moreover, the model has been criticized for placing different forms of participation in a hierarchical order. Hart himself has criticized the ladder because it is created based on his experiences in the United States and the United Kingdom, thus having a cultural bias. Hart has distanced himself from the model and believes that it has served its purpose.95 Despite the criticism of the ladder, it has had a strong position in the development of children’s participation, and it is challenging to talk about children’s participation without raising Hart’s model. Therefore it is also used in this thesis. Hart’s ladder has formed the basis for developing other models, such as Shier’s five levels of participation. Shier’s model create an additional tool for how practitioners can increase children’s participation in various societal processes.96 Shier’s model, seen in Figure 5, consist of five levels, and each level emphasizes the degree of commitment of practitioners. First, practitioners need to be ready to work at a certain level. This degree is aimed at the individual level. Then the workplace or organization needs to be ready to work on these issues. This degree implies that there are resources and knowledge to handle an issue. The last step highlights the importance of policy documents for 92. Hart, 1997, p.42 93. Hart, 1992, pp.9-14 94. Thomas, 2007, p.204 95. Malone & Hartung, 2010, p.28 96. Shier, 2001, p.109 26 2. Theory and Analytical Framework children’s participation to be constantly included in planning processes.97 Lansdown (2010) likewise accentuates the importance of policy documents. He believes that children’s participation will never be realized if we do not require governments to have the necessary legislation and policy around this.98 Figure 5: Shier’s five levels of participation. Unlike Hart’s ladder, Shier’s model does not emphasize what is not participation. The model is about different approaches that practitioners need to include children. The lowest levels are about giving children the opportunity to express themselves and that the adult authority allows them and encourages them to talk about specific issues. The higher in level, the more power is given to the children. Level three implies that adults handle the children’s statements in societal processes. That is the first level that expresses that adults are responsible for handling children’s statements after they have expressed them. The highest levels indicate that children are given much power in various matters.99 In these scenarios, children can participate in decision-making - relating to active participation described by Hill et al. (2004) and Sinclair (2004). 97. Shier, 2001, p.110 98. Lansdown, 2010, p.11 99. Shier, 2001, pp.112-115 27 2. Theory and Analytical Framework Shier’s model serves a purpose in this thesis as it shows the process of involving children in different societal processes. The most crucial aspect of Shier’s model is the emphasis on the importance of policy documents for a continued activity that includes children.100 Therefore, this starting point forms a foundation for the analysis of regulations and conditions for heritage work to involve children in various processes. 2.3 The Distinction Between Child Perspective and Children’s Perspective This part discusses additional concepts that are relevant in relation to participation. This thesis investigates how practitioners relate to a child perspective and include the children’s perspective in their work through participation. The two concepts are not entirely clear, but Sommer et al. (2010) state the following: “Child perspectives direct adult’s attention towards an understanding of children’s perceptions, experiences, and actions in the world.”101 “Children’s perspectives represent children’s experiences, perceptions, and understanding in their life world.”102 Halldén (2003) and Qvarsell (2003) describe that the distinction between the child perspective and the children’s perspective is formulated based on who is the subject of the perspective.103 They argue that a child perspective is a vague and versatile concept that can mean different things in scientific contexts depending on what is analyzed. Halldén (2003) believes that the concept promotes action for the children’s best interests but that the ambiguity lies in how this is handled in practice, similar to the concept of participation. She believes that there are different opinions about the importance of the children’s perspective to reach a child perspective. In some cases, the concept of child perspective is used to emphasize that dialogue with children has taken place, while in other cases, the concept is used when adults have analyzed the consequences of political decisions for children without dialogue with children.104 In practice, having a child perspective implies an attempt to protect the children’s interests.105 To recap, child perspective is about trying to understand the children’s experience of their surroundings and the consequences that different actions can have for them from an outside point of view. That means a third person is a subject, and the children in question are objects. That 100. Shier, 2001, p.110 101. Sommer et al., 2010, p.22 102. Ibid, p.23 103. Halldén, 2003, p.19; Qvarsell, 2003, p.101 104. Halldén, 2003, pp.13-14 105. Qvarsell, 2003, p.102 28 2. Theory and Analytical Framework leads to some practical difficulties. Eliasson (2010) emphasizes that, in some cases, adults consider themselves to have a child perspective when they may, in fact, have an adult perspective.106 Therefore, the children’s perspective constitutes a significant addition to the child perspective as it focuses on the children as subjects. The children’s perspective is thus about the children’s own experiences of their surroundings. Furthermore, Sommer et al. (2010) clearly distinguish between the two concepts and acknowledge that a child perspective is “a certain way of looking at children.”107 The concept is about understanding a child’s experiences and perceptions about his/hers surroundings. Sommer et al. (2010) accentuate that a child perspective does not require a dialogue with the children.108 The child perspective constantly seeks to understand the children’s perspective. It is necessary to have a child perspective based on everyday experiences where adults have realistic perceptions of the children’s experiences to approach the children’s perspective.109 2.4 Concluding Reflection This chapter highlights four critical aspects for analyzing children’s participation in heritage work. One of the most relevant aspects is what Hart (1992) calls non-participation. That can be interpreted differently from the Cambridge dictionary’s definition of participation as “the act of taking part in an event or activity.” To be part of something can be that children are invited to listen or experience a happening. Non-participation instead shows situations where they are given a more significant role, such as being allowed to express opinions on a matter, without significance. Another critical aspect is Active and Genuine participation. There is a specific difference in these concepts. Active participation emphasizes the importance of children being able to influence decisions, while genuine participation is all situations where children are allowed to express their opinions and follow the process in which they participate. That is done, among other things, through feedback. Shier’s five levels of participation constitute a further aspect as his model can highlight where on his model, the heritage and planning authorities operate to include children. The model complements Hart’s ladder as it shows that children’s participation requires structural changes within organizations and that policy is required for the structure to remain. 106. Eliasson, 2010, p.22 107. Sommer et al., 2010, p.19 108. Ibid, p.19 109. Ibid, pp.20-21 29 2. Theory and Analytical Framework The last aspect concerns AHD as the discourse legitimizes that only a certain type of cultural heritage is given a place in the discourse - making it structurally challenging for the heritage sector to work with different perspectives on heritage. Therefore, it is relevant to identify AHD and put this in relation to children’s participation. This thesis recognizes that for children’s participation in heritage work to be realized, authorities must have a child perspective in their practice - indicating a constant search for the children’s perspective. 30 3. Method This chapter describes the thesis materials and methodological approaches and explains ethical dilemmas and materials analysis. As mentioned in the previous chapter, there is much research on children’s participation in urban planning. However, few of the previous research concerns children’s participation in heritage practices concerning cultural environments. The analysis of the previous research has needed to link research from different disciplines to understand the heritage sector’s role in this issue. Since there has not been much previous research in this subject area, the choice of methods has been based on creating a basic understanding of this practice. 3.1 Methodological Approach As the issue of children’s participation in heritage practice is complex and cross-sectoral, mixed methods have been employed, containing interviews and questionnaires. The mixed method is a methodology where both qualitative and quantitative data are collected and integrated through, for instance, comparison and merging to confirm a common finding.110 The qualitative method consists of interviews aimed at regional and central authorities. Qualitative methods are used to understand the world by describing people’s experiences of a phenomenon. The experiences can be both personal and professional.111 Qualitative methods were chosen because they enable a deeper understanding of why the practice looks a certain way. Interviews with heritage and planning practitioners have enabled a deeper discussion where opinions and feelings have emerged. Nevertheless, qualitative methods are criticized as they do not necessarily contribute to a general understanding of reality. The validity of qualitative methods is based on logical conclusions with supporting arguments.112 Moreover, quantitative information was collected through questionnaires sent to selected municipalities within the Västra Götaland region. Quantitative methods focus on numbers and mathematical analyzes of data instead of stories and experiences.113 Quantitative methods have been used in this study to create an overall understanding of how municipalities handle issues regarding children’s participation in heritage work. The choice of method was based on the fact that not much research has been done on this topic, and the method then gave rise to the possibility of drawing general conclusions. Quantitative methods must, through generalization, be able to show what reality looks like even outside the sample that is examined.114 Quantitative methods can thus, just like qualitative methods, involve certain concerns. For instance, there is a risk that the conclusions will be incorrect as several informants do not participate in the study.115 110. Creswell, 2022, p.7 111. Flick, 2017, p.4 112. Walliman, 2011, pp.130-131 113. Ibid, p.113 114. Gustavsson, 2004, p.23 115. Ibid, p.31 31 3. Method 3.2 Interviews Interviews have been held with public heritage and planning authorities employed within the Västra Götaland region and the Swedish National Heritage Board. The interview informants worked with cultural environment and heritage in different ways. Some worked as antiquarians, while others worked with children’s perspectives in community planning or jurisprudence. Initially, key informants were contacted via email. With some practitioners from the region, informal telephone conversations were held in advance of the interview. That was because there was uncertainty about who possessed the best knowledge of the issues. Each interview began with the informants describing how they interpreted the concepts of child perspective and participation. As explained in Chapter 2, these concepts can be interpreted differently. Therefore, the informants had to give their perspectives on the concepts to create a good understanding of the information collected. Afterward, the rest of the questions were asked in a non-specific order. Appendix 3 shows all interview questions. The questions show both open-ended and closed questions. The open-ended questions examine how and what. The closed questions are questions where the answer is either Yes or No. These questions constituted factual inquiries that sought to be answered. The closed questions enabled follow-up questions such as why, as they initiate a clear and straightforward answer. Structured questions have been used for the informants who have answered the interview questions via email. This type of question design means that the questions are structured, and the follow-up questions are prepared in advance in an interview schedule.116 Getting answers to interview questions via email means a stiffer conversation where the possibility of follow-up questions decreases. Due to practitioners’ wanting to respond in writing or their lack of time, the decision was made to have structured questions for these informants. In contact with the informants, they chose which approach worked best for them. The interview schedule ended with an open-ended question about whether the informant wanted to add something more, making it possible for the informants to give information not asked. Semi-structured interviews were performed with practitioners that wanted to give their perspectives through conversation. Semi-structured interview methodologies have elements of both structured and unstructured approaches. An interview guide was prepared in advance with the various questions to be asked to the interviewees, simultaneously as there was a great space to go beyond the questions through follow-up questions.117 The interview guide differed depending on where the 116. Bernard, 2018, p.166 117. Ibid, p.165 32 3. Method informant worked. For instance, the interview questions emphasized cultural environment and heritage practice to a greater extent in conversations with antiquarians. If a practitioner worked with a child perspective in community planning, the heritagerelated concepts were opted out to get answers that otherwise would have been missed, as some practitioners stated that they did not work in direct contact with cultural heritage and cultural environments. The semi-structured interview method has been used in this study to gain a deeper understanding of the subject. The conversations have provided space to discuss matters outside the interview questions, and the discussions have thus become more profound. The semistructured interviews were also a suitable method of gathering information from those unsure whether they could answer the questions. The conversations made it possible for me as a researcher to more clearly understand difficulties in discussing the researched topic. Additionally, the semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone or in various online meeting rooms. Flexibility over where and how the interviews were to take place has reduced the risks of not getting information and enabled prominent data collection and good contact with practitioners. The interview guide was sent to the informant a few days before the interview, making them more prepared. All semi-structured interviews were recorded with the informants’ approval. The recording took place with the help of recording tools on the telephone and computer. The recording tool was tested in advance in a digital test meeting room to see that the sound could be heard even if the interviewee was talking very low. Notes were taken to a small extent because note-taking can mean that the free flow of conversation interrupts.118 The semi-structured interviews took between 40 minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes. After the interviews, the recorded conversations were summarized in writing. Interviews are usually transcribed and is seen as “the solid rock-bottom empirical data” as the oral narrative is translated into a written narrative.119 However, much time is required for transcription. Before the first interview, I decided that no interviews would be transcribed. Instead, I chose to summarize the interviews to streamline the work process. The summary has tried to get as close to the oral narrative as possible by writing precisely what the informant says. Unlike a transcript, no pauses and consent comments were documented, nor was what I said during the interview. Personal pronouns have also been changed to the organization name to allow informants to emphasize if the information does not represent the organization. Half-finished sentences, often part of an conversation, were written together into finished sentences that the informant then had to confirm. In several cases, the interviews consisted of 118. Kvale, 2007, p.4 119. Ibid, p.2 33 3. Method incomplete sentences and difficult-to-interpret facts. Therefore, the summary contributed to the informants gaining an insight into how I interpreted the conversation and, thus, what was to be addressed in the thesis. The informants were then allowed to comment on the summary. The informants were allowed to change or withdraw their answers throughout the work process. 3.3 Questionnaires Questionnaires are a common tool for collecting quantitative information. Quantitative data is about collecting numbers and analyzing the results mathematically.120 The questionnaire has thus contributed to creating statistics on the local work with children’s perspectives and participation in issues concerning cultural environments. 27 municipalities were selected to take part in the investigation. They were chosen as they had previously expressed that they work with children’s participation in spatial planning. In the preparatory work, the selected municipalities were contacted via email to reach key informants who could help me further. In some cases, I got hold of a contact person from elsewhere than the municipalities themselves. In total, I got a contact person for 24 municipalities. A first dispatch of the questionnaire was sent out in mid-March. The questionnaire was web-based and was reached via a link. The questions aimed to understand child perspective and children’s participation in heritage work, but also spatial planning as much heritage work occurs through heritage planning. The first dispatch resulted in responses from 6 municipalities. That is, a response rate of 25% (6/24 = 0.25). An additional questionnaire was sent out one week after the first. That resulted in several answers being received. In total, I received responses from 17 municipalities. The response rate in municipalities thus went up to 70% (17/24 = 0.70). I interpreted the low number of responses, from the first dispatch, as a lack of clarity in the communication. In the first mailing, I wrote that I was looking for information about how the municipality works with child perspective and children’s participation in heritage planning. Several municipalities do not have a specific person who works with heritage issues. That could have led to few wanting to answer the questionnaire. In the next mailing, I emphasized that the questionnaire was mainly about spatial planning and that they could choose not to answer questions that they did not know the answer to. That could have been the reason why the second mailing got many answers. Email conversations have also been established with municipal practitioners in some cases, as it has emerged that no one wants to answer the questionnaire, even after the second dispatch. I persuaded some of these municipalities to still participate in the study and only answer the questions they could. Nevertheless, some municipalities did not want to participate in the study as they explained that they do not work with issues concerning the cultural environment or children’s participation. 120. Walliman, 2011, p.113 34 3. Method In order to reach eligible informants, existed the opportunity to forward the questionnaire to other colleagues within the same municipality. The questionnaire also encouraged practitioners to write contact information for additional people whom I then contacted. However, this indicates hidden statistics in how many people have received the questionnaire in total. To my knowledge, 37 practitioners have received the questionnaire. Of these, I have received 21 answers. This means a response rate of 56% (21/37 = 0.56). The questions have a structured design where follow-up questions were prepared in advance. The questionnaire consisted of 17 questions in addition to the personal ones (such as name and professional title). The question structure was mixed. Some questions came with multiple-choice alternatives, and others were about reflecting on the extent to which the municipality works with a specific issue. Some questions also enabled more extended answers. All questionnaire questions can be found in Appendix 4. The questionnaire began by asking questions about spatial planning and children’s ability to express what they like and want to preserve in the community. This part created an overview of how municipalities work with children’s participation in issues relevant to the heritage sector. The questionnaire then turned to questions about children’s contact with heritage work and how and when cultural heritage are included in a a Child Impact Assessment (CIA). In the last part of the questionnaire, practitioners were allowed to reflect more on the difficulties existing in work with children’s participation in heritage work and what they need for this work to continue or develop. This part of the questionnaire has enabled a qualitative analysis of the questionnaire. 3.4 Sampling and Selection of Informants Since it has not been evident who can possess good information about the subject, the snowball method has been used to reach informants. The snowball method, or chain-referral sampling has proven helpful in locating and gaining access to hard-to-reach informants. Like a snowball, which gets bigger the more it is rolled, the method works so that the researcher seeks out a key informant who then passes you on to other informants.121 Certain key informants were identified at an early stage, especially practitioners with an antiquarian professional role. In some cases, the contact information was unavailable. In those cases, leaders of relevant units or institutions’ information emails were reached to seek contact. The informants have then led me to other informants that I have contacted. I have not included more people outside the key informants and their mentioned informants. 121. Cohen & Arielis, 2011, p.427 35 3. Method 3.4.1 Informants A total of 29 informants participated in the study, and they represent the central, regional, and local practices. As previously mentioned, I have used the snowball method to get hold of informants as it has been challenging to determine who possesses the most knowledge about the researched topic. Child perspective and children’s participation, as well as heritage work, are operated by practitioners with different backgrounds. Participating informants, therefore, have different professions. Table 1 shows the occupational distribution between the informants based on an analysis of their occupational titles. That can be analyzed in different ways. In practice, many of the participating practitioners come into contact with community planning. However, to shed light on the difficulties of understanding in advance who can possess good information about the researched topic, they have been divided as seen in Table 1. Moreover, the gender distribution highlights a fascinating finding of who can and wants to answer questions about children and cultural heritage. As seen in Table 1, the majority of the informants participating in this study are women - indicating that they are more likely to answer questions regarding children’s participation in heritage practice. Table 1: Characteristics of the thesis informants. 36 3. Method 3.5 Ethical Considerations The thesis topic has not been found to be a sensitive topic with ethical concerns. However, much of the information from the informants is based on their experience of how a workplace handles specific issues. The informants represent their workplace simultaneously as the information told is, to some extent, subjective. As a result, all informants have chosen how they want to answer questions, which questions they want to answer, and if they want to be anonymous. All informants have notified their names and professional role, but for those who have chosen to be anonymous, this information has only been seen by me. I have also chosen to refer to informant x in the flowing text with respect to participating informants. Since certain information is subjective, I did not want the informant to feel pointed out. The names of the informants who did not want to be anonymous can be found in the references. All informants have received information about the study. The interviewees have received an information sheet seen in Appendix 1. Those who responded to the questionnaire received information in connection with the questionnaire, seen in Appendix 2. During the interviews, the information has been repeated to the interviewees for them to directly say if they want to be anonymous or ask questions about the thesis. I have also received confirmation that the informant has received the information sheet. Ethical considerations have also influenced the design of the thesis and are one reason why children are not studied. As the interest has been to map practitioners’ conditions for working with children’s participation and how it functions in practice. Authorities were therefore prioritized over children in this study. Children’s participation would have required much time and significant ethical issues as the children in question had represented both themselves and children in groups. The choice between the two perspectives had to be made early in the process. The election became the former. 3.6 Data Analysis The questionnaire responses were compiled in diagrams and tables belonging to each question. Each question was analyzed individually, and I wrote down how many and which municipalities answered the questions. The diagrams and tables were there to get the numeric answers to see the general picture. After analysis, the diagrams and tables have been redesigned based on the thesis approach. Some questions in the questionnaire were about “the extent” to which a practitioner believed that the municipality handled an issue. The informants had to cross on a scale between 1-6. The thesis presents this as low, medium, and high extent. The number 1-2 is counted as low, 3-4 is counted as medium, and 5-6 is counted as high. The questionnaire also included questions that sought open ended answers. 37 3. Method From some municipalities, several practitioners have responded. If the answers have differed, I have made the analysis based on their free comments and work background. If a person working with culture answered low on a question, it displayed that children are not participating in the cultural work. On the other hand, perhaps an architect expressed that children often participate in spatial planning linked to the cultural environment and preservation. That has then affected individual issues. The architect has more insight into the planning process than other employees who focus on other cultural issues. Thus, the architect’s answer has been used as the municipality’s answer in the questions directly linked to spatial planning. For example, if an architect says that children are allowed to participate in matters concerning schoolyards, but someone else says that they are not, I have analyzed this as children being allowed to influence schoolyards within the municipality. The questionnaire results were compared with the interview summaries and sorted based on themes. For example, all answers about problems and challenges were sorted together. In some cases, challenges were expressed under other topics unrelated to the question. The sorting, therefore, helped in the analysis to identify general problems and challenges that emerged from the informants. The theme sorting also made the writing process smoother as the information was gathered clearly. All material has been analyzed based on participation models and theories presented in Chapter 2 and compared with previous research. The data analysis has been divided into categories that include different forms of participation. For example, some categories were “to be a part of something” and “to influence results.” In some cases, information has been opted out after the categorization. That concerned the projects shown in Chapter 5. Only projects belonging to the category “to influence results” have been prioritized to fulfill the purpose of showing how children have participated in heritage work. Some of the gathered information showed tendencies of the existence of Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD). Thus, the analysis consists to some extent of discourse analysis to analyze whether AHD affects children’s possibility to participate in heritage work. Discourse analysis is about exploring how and what is said about a subject. Through language, the reality is represented, but language also contributes to creating reality.122 That means that language is given a certain power that affects our view of reality. The analysis has focused on how heritage and planning practitioners talk about cultural environments and heritage and their understanding of who possesses knowledge about this issue. The analysis is therefore based on the spoken narrative. 122. Winther Jørgensen & Phillips, 2000, p.15 38 3. Method 3.7 Methodological Discussion and Source Criticism First, it needs to be acknowledged that the informants represent both themselves and their workplace. That means that the information collected to some extent constitutes subjective data and may differ if answered by someone else. It also means that informants may have chosen to withhold information not to let their opinions and feelings about this issue reflect the entire organization. I discovered that children’s participation in heritage work and planning is a complex issue to talk about as there are several interpretations and inputs in its practical process. That also created some uncertainty for informants to participate in the study and led to several phone calls and email conversations explaining the essence of the study, convincing them to contribute with the information they knew. It has emerged that mainly planning practitioners handle children’s perspectives, and heritage practitioners that handle heritage issues. Therefore, it has proved challenging to talk about the two topics combined and may have contributed to many wanting to remain anonymous. Moreover, the questionnaire showed that some practitioners found it difficult to answer the questions. The questions were asked as concretely as possible not to make the questions too long. That meant that interpretable concepts, such as barnperspektiv, deltagande, and kulturmiljöplanering, were used in the questions and may have influenced how many answers the question received. Therefore, the interview method created a better tool for discussing this subject, as it made it possible for me to clarify what information I was seeking. The combination of qualitative and quantitative methods has been beneficial in this study. Interviews have enabled a deeper knowledge of the subject through the possibility of asking follow-up questions. These make it achievable to get more complete data, and they enable the informant to express if they do not understand a question or wonder something about the study.123 The questionnaire has contributed to a more significant number of informants participating in the study than would have been possible through interviews solely. That has thus contributed to a broader understanding of how the issue of children’s participation and heritage practice is interpreted and handled within different organizations. It has also contributed to statistical data complementing the qualitative interviews. Through the snowball method and some convincing, several informants participated in the study, and the response rate to the questionnaire was relatively high (70%). However, the difficulty in talking about this topic meant that several potential informants did not want to participate in the study. That means difficulties in giving a correct general picture of how the Västra Götaland region work with children’s participation in heritage work. Some municipalities gave answers as to why they did 123. Bernard, 2018, p.198 39 3. Method not want to participate, forming some ground in the analysis. These practitioners expressed that they did not want to participate in the study as their workplace (reed municipality) did not work with the issues examined. Other municipalities did not respond to either the questionnaire or the emails. Despite this, I perceive that the collected data represent a larger group than the one examined since the information was repeated by several heritage and planning practitioners and is consistent with previous research, increasing the credibility of the result. With this in mind, another critical aspect is that the questionnaire, in most cases, only received one answer per municipality. That means that in several cases, it is one informant who represents the whole municipality. There have been some differences in the answers from the municipalities where several informants have participated. That entails an additional challenge in being able to express the general results of the study. More answers could have contributed to more general conclusions. However, several similar responses were expressed by different practitioners from different organizations. That shows some general concerns that practitioners experience. During the study process, more information was received than expected from the beginning. That has resulted in some interview questions not representing what is highlighted in this study and no straightforward questions for everything addressed in this thesis. For example, I do not have an interview question specifically about laws, even though regulations are examined, or a question specifically about the understanding of heritage practice, even though I analyze the heritage discourse. Although this has not been specifically asked for, it has emerged through the other interviews and questionnaire questions, indicating its relevance in this thesis. The questionnaire was prioritized for the local public authorities, while interviews were prioritized with regional and central authorities. Interviews were planned with the municipal’ practitioners that answered the first dispatch of the questionnaire. However, this was opted out after receiving a large number of responses after the second dispatch. The analysis of the questionnaire answers was then prioritized as it would require much time. Regardless, more interviews with local practitioners could have contributed to an increased discussion and a deeper understanding of this issue at a local level. 40 4. Integrating a Child Perspective in Swedish Heritage Work and Planning: Current Policy and Practice This chapter constitutes a background understanding prior to Chapter 5. First, this chapter will go through selected laws relevant to heritage practice and clarify how children’s perspectives and participation are given space within the laws. The chapter also clarifies the The National Heritage Goals (NHG) and explains its development. Since much of the heritage work occurs through heritage planning, this chapter concludes with this in focus. Heritage planning is set in relation to rational and communicative planning, and tools for raising children’s perspectives in heritage planning are depicted. 4.1 Participation in Heritage and Planning Laws As every environment touched by humans is considered a cultural environment,124 many laws regarding environments concern heritage practice. However, three laws include cultural environments and heritage to a greater extent than others. These are the Cultural Environment Act, the Environmental Code, and the Planning and Building Act. In this section, these laws will be explained and put in relation to children’s participation. The Cultural Environment Act The Cultural Environment Act aims to protect the cultural heritage of current and future generations to ensure a diversity of cultural environments and heritage. The law’s provisions regulate specific parts of the cultural heritage, such as churches and notable buildings.125 That means that the law does not regulate the entire built environment, such as the Planning and Building Act. The Cultural Environment Act only regulates certain designated environments. The law also distributes responsibility for the state’s heritage work to the Swedish National Heritage Board and County Administrative Boards.126 The Cultural Environment Act has a tool for raising children’s opinions about heritage. The law protects culturally and historically valuable environments identified as notable buildings and the County Administrative Board has the role of making decisions about what becomes a notable building.127 Regardless, anyone may submit a proposal to the County Administrative Board that a building or built environment should be investigated as a notable building. Therefore, one can interpret an opportunity for children to express their opinions about what heritage is through this instrument. However, so far, this has not happened.128 124. Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2016, p.9 125. SFS 1988:950. Kulturmiljölagen 126. Ibid 127. Ibid 128. Informant 3 41 4. Integrating a Child Perspective in Swedish Heritage Work and Planning: Current Policy and Practice Further, only an environment considered to have an exceptionally high cultural-historical value can be protected by the Cultural Environment Act, and it is the authority that makes this decision. Simultaneously as it is the authority that validates if this law should protect a building or a built environment, there is much room for interpretation within the law. Weijmer (2019) expresses that designation of notable buildings is left to be handled by individual actors, such as consultants, and that deciding what becomes a notable building (reed cultural heritage) is therefore based on how these individual actors define and value the built environment.129 The Environmental Code The Environmental Code has some regulations that affect the heritage sector, such as the national interest in cultural environments and cultural reserves. The purpose of this law is to promote sustainable development by protecting valuable landscapes. The regulations of the Environmental Code express no possibility for children to participate in the decision-making process. The process of pointing out national interests and cultural reserves occurs through the authority’s decision. The Swedish National Heritage Board is responsible for pointing out national interests that municipalities must consider in community planning. The County Administrative Board’s role is to check that the municipalities do not expose the environments to significant damage.130 Cultural reserves can be raised both by municipalities and the County Administrative Board.131 The Planning and Building Act The Planning and Building Act is the law that regulates the planning of land, water, and construction. The law’s portal section emphasizes that the law is there to create good living environments for municipal residents by promoting equal and sustainable societal development.132 The law also regulates how the planning process should go. Cultural-historical values are also given a place in the Planning and Building Act through, for instance, the prohibition of distortion (8 Chapter 13§) Designated culturally and historically valuable environments must not be altered wrongfully. In addition to this, all buildings are subject to a precautionary requirement intended to retain the character of the surroundings.133 Linked to other laws that affect heritage work, the Planning and Building Act is the law that, for the most part, calls for civic participation.134 When a plan is to be adopted, it needs to go through consultation. The consultation opens up for communicative planning where municipalities, County 129. Weijmer, 2019, p.77 130. Ibid, pp.73-74 131. SFS 1998:808. Miljöbalken. 132. SFS 2010:900. Plan- och bygglagen 133. Ibid 134. Weijmer, 2019, p.77 42 4. Integrating a Child Perspective in Swedish Heritage Work and Planning: Current Policy and Practice Administrative Boards, and other authorities can express opinions regarding plan proposals. In addition to these authorities, citizens with a significant interest in the proposal can also participate.135 The law emphasizes the importance of citizens having complete democratic insight into the planning process and being allowed to influence the development of society.136 The Planning and Building Act has no age perspective. That means that there is no stated age limit for which people can participate in the planning process. Therefore, there is no difference between how children and adults should be treated based on the law’s sections.137 The fact that the law does not have an age perspective means that it does not emphasize children as actors. For example, there are no requirements for a Child Impact Assessment (CIA) or for the built environment to be suitable from a child perspective.138 The Planning and Building Act also regulates public and private interests. The National Board of Housing, Building, and Planning (2020) emphasize that children’s interests are included in all the general interests that are highlighted in the second chapter of the Act.139 The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that the interests of children must be taken into account in, among other things, community planning. However, the CRC as a law is not overriding the Planning and Building Act. The strong character of the Planning and Building Act in matters of societal development means that if this law conflicts with the CRC, the Planning and Building Act takes precedence. That can be compared to Norway, where the CRC is superior and must be given priority in the event of a conflict with other general laws.140 4.2 National Heritage Goals The NHG are politically developed goals for what the heritage work should strive for. It has previously been mentioned that heritage work seeks new perspectives and that civic participation is sought after within the heritage sector. That is partly due to the development of the NHG. Historically, there have been three versions of the NHG in Sweden. The three goals are depicted in Figures 6, 7, and 8. The first edition of goals was formulated in 1988 in connection with the establishment of the Cultural Environment Act. Therefore, like the Cultural Environment Act, this goal emphasizes the importance of preserving physical attributes and tangible things. This goal is about protecting the cultural heritage from its threats and promoting cultural identity.141 135. Tallhage Lönn, 2000, p.18 136. Cele & Van der Burgt, 2015, p.17 137. Länsstyrelsen Västra Götalands län, 2008, p.7 138. Boverket, 2020, p.7 139. Ibid, p.40 140. Ibid, p.18 141. Prop. 1987/88:104, pp.29-30 43 4. Integrating a Child Perspective in Swedish Heritage Work and Planning: Current Policy and Practice Figure 6: The first NHG from 1988. Ten years later, in 1998, the NHG were updated in connection with the UNESCO Conference’s emphasis on sustainable development and the importance of protecting and enriching both tangible and intangible cultural heritage. The NHG from 1998 are thus the first to express the relation between cultural heritage and sustainability.142 It is also the first goal that expresses the participation of citizens. Heritage work is no longer only about pointing out cultural heritage. Instead, it is a process to achieve other societal goals focusing on sustainable development.143 Figure 7: The second edition of the NHG from 1998. In 2012, proposals were made for the NHG that prevail today. The purpose behind the development of these goals was “att skapa goda förutsättningar för ett offensivt kulturmiljöarbete som aktivt bidrar till ökad livskvalitet och att humanistiska perspektiv ges utrymme att påverka samhälls- 142. Prop. 1998/99:114, p.19 143. Weijmer, 2019, p.67 44 4. Integrating a Child Perspective in Swedish Heritage Work and Planning: Current Policy and Practice utvecklingen”*144 The meaning of participation thus changes. In this case, it is no longer just a matter of participating in one’s own cultural heritage in order to be able to take responsibility for it. More responsibility is placed on the authority. Citizens should be able to participate in heritage work to increase their understanding and responsibility for the cultural heritage. Diversity is also a concept raised in these goals and may indicate that politics opens up different notions of what cultural heritage can be.145 Figure 8: The latest version of the NHG from 2012. It has been acknowledged that participation is an ambiguous concept that can be practiced in different ways. Different interpretations of the concept suggest that participation mentioned in the NHG may have different meanings depending on who interprets the goals. It has been noticed among the studied practitioners that they have different interpretations of the concept - making participation difficult to practice. 4.3 Heritage Planning - Understanding Children’s Opportunities to Participate in Planning Processes Most heritage work dealing with cultural environments occurs in municipalities through community planning since they have a planning monopoly. The planning monopoly implies that the municipalities have the power to decide whether a detailed plan is to be made and adopted. The Planning and Building Act structures the planning and requires that the process goes through certain steps and requires various impact assessments and planning foundations.146 The structure is seen * Translation: “to create good conditions for an offensively heritage work that actively contributes to increased quality of life and that humanistic perspectives are given space to influence the development of society.” 144. Prop. 2012/13:96, pp.35-36 145. Weijmer, 2019, p.68 146. Forsberg, 2019, p.46; Nyström & Tonell, 2012, p.90 45 4. Integrating a Child Perspective in Swedish Heritage Work and Planning: Current Policy and Practice in Figure 9 and is called rational planning. Rational planning is based on a model with a hierarchy of plans, such as regional, comprehensive, and detailed plans. According to the rational planning, the various plans, together with a building permit, must be designed based on clear goals for how the spatial planning is to provide for itself in the city.147 This form of planning focuses on the final product that planning entails.148 Figure 9: The structure of rational planning. It was previously explained that the planning process, through consultation, opens up for communicative planning. Communicative planning emphasizes the importance of cooperation between different actors.149 Internationally, people’s participation has gained a more significant position in planning processes and become a distinct aspect of today’s planning paradigm.150 This planning sets long-term goals, but the focus is not on the final product. Instead, this form of planning is more process-oriented to increase the democratic possibility of influencing the planning process.151 Dialogue is also a vital prerequisite for dealing with contradictions during the planning process.152 Fundamentally, this process needs to be partly bottom-up, with trust between practitioners and the general public.153 Moreover, Kalman (2014) emphasizes the importance of dialogue in regard to heritage planning. He says that collaboration is of great importance when it comes to heritage planning. Heritage practitioners need to work closely with community developers to create a promising development of society. He says that “The heritage planner is partly a professional expert and partly a community facilitator.”154 147. Forsberg, 2019, p.45 148. Olsson, 2003, p.101 149. Forsberg, 2019, p.47 150. Mannberg, 2006, part 3, p.2 151. Sager, 1994, p.106 152. Ibid, p.4 153. Mannberg, 2006, part 3, p.13 154. Kalman, 2014, p.5 46 4. Integrating a Child Perspective in Swedish Heritage Work and Planning: Current Policy and Practice Regarding the planning process, a dialog is only required in the consultation. The consultation is a democratic part of the planning process and allows citizens to gain insight into the planning work. Prior to a consultation, various documents must be available to the invited stakeholders that describe the plan’s starting point.155 The municipality must take into account views and comments and respond to them. However, there is no requirement that plans must change based on the public’s views.156 Thus, the opportunity for participation in the planning process can show sham democracy rather than real influence from the public. Since the Planning and Building Act has no age perspective, there is no age limit for those who want to participate in the consultation. Children can thus be involved in that process.157 The problem that the National Board of Housing, Building, and Planning highlights in the book Unga är också medborgare: Om barns och ungdomars inflytande i planeringen (2000) is that it is stakeholders who are invited to consult. The stakeholders are, for example, tenants and property owners.158 Children are not stakeholders, but they are the main users of place. However, there are no formal requirements for users of a place to influence planning.159 Municipalities can choose to have a citizen dialogue before a planning process. That is an informal way of receiving views that are not regulated in the Planning and Building Act. Children can be given greater opportunities to influence a plan in such an event. However, the National Board of Housing, Building, and Planning (2020) express that if children have participated in a planning process, the child must be given feedback on how their views have been taken into account in the process.160 Today, there is no formal requirement that municipalities must seek citizens’ opinions through various forms of dialogue outside consultation. The desire for more democratic planning, as communicative planning advocates, also affects heritage planning. Community planning as an expert-driven activity is challenged by communicative planning, and there is an increased need for citizen dialogues when it comes to cultural environments.161 The goal of heritage planning is to find ways to preserve, use and develop valuable historical sites in urban development planning,162 and finding concrete protection measures and conservation strategies for society’s culturally-historically valuable environments. That implies that heritage planning is often more product-oriented than process-oriented.163 Although heritage planning, in theory, is an intermediate step between community and developers, heritage planning is mainly related to rational planning. 155. Nyström & Tonell, 2012, p.233 156. Weijmer, 2019, p.77 157. Tallhage Lönn, 2000, p.18 158. Ibid, p.89 159. Ibid, p.107 160. Boverket, 2020, p.20 161. Lanemo & Olsson, 2015, p.8 162. Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2016, p.21; Västarvet, p.4 163. Olsson, 2003, p.96 47 4. Integrating a Child Perspective in Swedish Heritage Work and Planning: Current Policy and Practice 4.4 Tools for Implementing the CRC into Heritage Planning As part of rational planning, certain documents can be required. In this part, a foundation that emphasizes a child perspective and foundations that emphasizes heritage will be set against each other and see how the two concepts - child perspective and cultural heritage relate to each other in each foundation. The first foundation is Child Impact Assessment (CIA). That is a tool for transforming the CRC into practice. The assessment describes the consequences environmental change may have on children.164 Therefore, the first step is to determine whether the case concerns children or not.165 That means that there is no requirement for an assessment in all cases. In this foundation, both the child perspective and the children’s perspective are suggested to be made visible. The goal is to highlight the consequences, positive and negative, that a planning proposal may have for the children. That must then be kept in mind when making decisions.166 The Children’s Ombudsman has developed a tool for essential aspects of a CIA. One essential part of a CIA is to describe how children use the investigated environment and lift their perspectives on what environments are important to them. Therefore, the tool expresses some essential starting points in the work with cultural environments and heritage. Moreover, In 2011, the City of Gothenburg produced the report (BKA) : Barnkonsekvensanalys: Barn och unga i fokus 1.0 (2011), which discusses a different way of relating to the CRC in community planning. The report presents five crucial aspects to analyze based on a child perspective. These are Cohesive city, Interaction, play and learning, Everyday life, Identity, Health, and safety. In this report, cultural environments are emphasized, unlike in the previous report. However, cultural environments and heritage are located only under the identity aspect.167 This has been criticized as it is believed that the cultural environment and heritage are relevant in all aspects.168 There are three forms of heritage foundations. The first is the planning foundation. Planning foundations are produced in an ongoing planning process and express cultural environments and values in relation to other interests. These can also include citizens’ experience of an environment.169 Another form of heritage foundation is a knowledge foundation. These documents do not set interests against each other but have the function of only describing cultural- historical 164. Björklid, 2007, p.13 165. Ibid, p.61 166. Barnombudsmannen, 2001 167. Göteborg stad, 2011, p.35 168. University of Gothenburg, 2011, p.8 169. Boverket, 2021.10.20 48 4. Integrating a Child Perspective in Swedish Heritage Work and Planning: Current Policy and Practice aspects and properties in the environment. The third heritage foundation is the decision foundation. This document is closely linked to Environmental Impact Assessments and is based on existing planning foundations to make a risk assessment of how cultural environments are affected by a transformation in the short and long term. These documents must also include consultation reports.170 Heritage foundations are very much related to rational planning, but there are some openings for civic participation (reed indicating children’s participation). Planning foundations create an opportunity to seek out children’s experiences and use of cultural environments. Therefore, this tool has an inherent function of enabling a child perspective in heritage and planning practices where the children’s perspective on cultural environments is documented. Knowledge foundations are also a tool for this purpose but require that children’s perspectives relate to cultural-historical values. Decision foundation is the most challenging foundation for children to participate in as it is an impact assessment based on planning foundations. 170. Boverket, 2021.10.20 49 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice This chapter presents the results of the investigation. First, the chapter presents the institutions and organizations examined and describes their work with a child perspective. In connection with the presentations, each institution and organization’s conditions for working with children’s participation are also clarified as this is something that differs between public authorities. Some have a more active role regarding heritage and children’s participation, while others have a more indirect role. After the presentations, some examples showing children’s participation in heritage practice are highlighted. Common challenges that the studied practitioners face in working with children’s perspectives and participation are compiled, and lastly, practitioners’ needs to work to include children in heritage practice are identified. 5.1 Presentation of Central and Regional Authorities’ Incorporation of a Child Perspective The Swedish National Heritage Board The Swedish National Heritage Board is Sweden’s central administrative agency for cultural heritage and has an indirect connection to heritage practice as their assignment is to overview and supervise the heritage work in the country. In practice, they ensure that the heritage work goes in a certain direction produced through the The National Heritage Goals (NHG). Their work is mainly about interpreting the Cultural Environment Act and directing the heritage work through regulations and general advice.* The Swedish National Heritage Board works with heritage issues more indirectly than other public authorities - indicating that they do not have the opportunity to influence the immediate heritage work. They state that they work close to other actors, but they do not have an assignment that gives them the power to decide how the heritage practice should operate.171 The indirect role also affects their ability to work with children’s participation and implies that this authority works a lot through other actors when it comes to this issue. Much of the Swedish National Heritage Board’s work concerning children’s participation is done by highlighting good examples from the practical work and giving recommendations on how matters can be handled in practice.172 Nonetheless, there are written guidelines that the Swedish National Heritage Board should work from a child perspective. In their instruction, which the government (Ministry of Culture) produces, it is stated that a child perspective should permeate all their activities.173 However, practitioners within the institution face issues in incorporating a child perspective into practice. Not every work task within the institution affects children directly - making the instruction hard to follow * Regulations explain how the Cultural Environment Act is to be interpreted in Sweden. General advice is recommendations on how individual or general cases should be handled in practice. Regulations are, unlike general advice, binding agreements. 171. Informant 1; Informant 4 172. Ibid 173. Ibid 50 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice in everyday practice. Therefore, they believe that a policy document is not enough, but a lively discussion is needed on how to work with a child perspective. Since they do not have any assignment to work in direct contact with children, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) does not enter into their practical work to a large extent.174 The County Administrative Board There are a total of 21 County Administrative Boards that are deployed across Sweden’s counties. For the County Administrative Board in Västra Götaland, mainly the planning sector handles issues concerning children. Since they have a supervisory role over municipalities’ spatial planning, they have great insight into the planning process. Their instruction states that they “vid beslut och andra åtgärder som kan röra barn [ska] analysera konsekvenserna för dem och då ta särskild hänsyn till barns bästa.”*175 They also have a goal to incorporate the CRC in community planning, and their assignment is to consider and support municipalities’ work with children’s participation.176 As the municipalities have a planning monopoly, they will ultimately be responsible for increasing children’s participation in community planning. The County Administrative Board’s role is to provide advice on these issues to accentuate the importance of a child perspective in the planning process.177 Nonetheless, the cultural environment unit within the County Administrative Board does not incorporate a child perspective to the same extent, and has no policy regarding children’s perspectives and participation.178 The focus within this unit is to work with the official cultural heritage and ensure that it is taken into account in municipalities’ spatial planning. Similar to the National Heritage Board, the cultural environment unit within the County Administrative Board work strictly according to legislation (the Cultural Environment Act and the Environmental Code) and assignments.179 However, their assignment is to work to ensure that the NHG has an impact on the county based on the region’s conditions.180 That indicates an opportunity to incorporate a child perspective into practice. Practitioners also see that there is a significant development potential within the organization.181 174. Informant 1; Informant 4 * Translation: “in decisions and other measures that may affect children [shall] analyze the consequences for them and then take special account of the best interests of the children” 175. Förordningen (2017:868) med länsstyrelseinstruktion 176. Informant 16 177. Länsstyrelsen Västra Götalands län, 2008, p.6; Informant 5; Informant 22 178. Informant 3 179. Ibid 180. Olsson et al., 2020, p.21 181. Informant 3 51 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice The Administration for Cultural Development The second regional authority studied is the Administration for Cultural Development. They handle heritage issues in a more direct sense as they support the municipalities with, for instance, knowledge and planning foundations. It is a knowledge organization that works with various issues concerning cultural expression, cultural heritage, and craftworks and aims to make the Västra Götaland region a leading cultural region. The organization receives commissions from the regional council in Västra Götaland. Their assignment is to work for a cohesive Västra Götaland with a rich cultural life.182 Moreover, the Administration for Cultural Development work closely with civil society and have carried out extensive work to implement the CRC in several of their activities, but they have no specific policy regarding this issue.183 The department for cultural development currently has 13 trained representatives who work with children’s rights issues,184 and they have special working groups for this purpose. Despite this, there are no clear policy documents that the practitioners are using. Employees receive training based on the articles of the CRC and are encouraged to make informed choices on this issue. The work with the CRC is most evident in matters that directly affect children. For instance, practitioners express that in cases that are not about children directly, the child perspective can easily be forgotten, and there is nothing that reminds them to think one extra time concerning this.185 In the cultural environment unit, children’s participation has not been prioritized to a large extent.186 Within both the County Administrative Board and the Administration for Cultural Development it is not antiquarians who handle issues concerning children’s participation. The cultural environment unit, therefore, express that, even though the organization works a lot with children’s participation in whole, the CRC has not been incorporated into their unit. There is no stated goal that they should work with children in cultural environment issues, and thus these issues have mostly come up in project form.187 5.2 Presentation of Municipalities and their Work with Children’s Participation At the local level, the municipalities have a great responsibility for the heritage work. Sweden consists of 290 municipalities that have a great responsibility to incorporate the CRC into community planning due to their planning monopoly.188 Heritage planning is an essential aspect 182. Förvaltningen för kulturutveckling, 2022.02.04 183. Informant 23 184. Förvaltningen för kulturutveckling, 2021.10.21 185. Informant 23 186. Informant 7 187. Ibid 188. Länsstyrelsen Västra Götalands län, 2008, p.6 52 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice of community planning as the municipalities conduct cross-sectoral planning and make overall assessments according to the municipality’s various interests.189 Therefore, municipalities are seen as key actors in heritage work concerning cultural environments.190 The municipalities’ heritage work is primarily regulated by the Planning and Building Act. Since the Act does not explicitly express that special measures must be taken to include children, children’s participation becomes an issue entirely based on the municipality’s interests and opportunities.191 Municipal politics, in the form of a municipal council, also has a certain power in influencing the direction of policy and thereby enabling local priorities in addition to what the law governs. There is no requirement that a municipality has practitioners with specific knowledge of cultural environments or heritage. Therefore, the responsibility for the local cultural environment can also be placed on practitioners with other areas of expertise.192 17 municipalities have participated in this study and answered questions about how children are included in the municipality’s heritage work. How each municipality answered each question is seen in Appendix 4. The answers from the questionnaires show that children’s ability to influence spatial planning differs between the region’s municipalities, as does the work regarding heritage. As stated in Chapter 3, some municipalities did not want to participate in this study because they declared that they do not work with issues concerning cultural environments or children’s participation. It becomes clear that there are municipalities that believe that they do not work with cultural environments, although cultural environments are all environments with human impact.193 Furthermore, the questionnaire results show that in many cases, it is not antiquarians who work with children’s participation, and it is also stated that the CRC is entirely invisible within some municipality’s heritage work.194 Children’s opportunity to get in touch with heritage practice thus also differs between municipalities. Figure 10 shows in what situations children come in contact with heritage practice. Out of 14 municipalities that answered the question, four answered that children do not come into contact with this work at all. Most municipalities, however, answer that children come into contact with heritage practice in some way. The most common way is through comprehensive plans and exhibitions/projects. 189. Olsson, 2003, p.103 190. Olsson et al., 2020, p.48 191. Tallhage Lönn, 2000, p.18 192. Weijmer, 2019, p.82 193. Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2016, p.9 194. Informant 11 53 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice Figure 10: Diagram of children’s contact with heritage work. Although children’s contact with heritage practice seems to appear relatively often, the questionnaire results show that children have little opportunity to influence the practice itself. According to the municipalities questioned, Child Impact Assessment (CIA), which are a tool for relating to the CRC in community planning, rarely mention cultural environments and heritage. Only Gothenburg explains that cultural environments and heritage are included under the theme of Identity and must be analyzed based on the children’s best interests. The questionnaire results also show that the majority of the municipalities surveyed express that CIA are rarely carried out on designated cultural heritage. Only Tidaholm expresses that this is done to a large extent. Tidaholm, together with Öckerö, Orust, and Stenungsund, are four municipalities that provide several indications that children participate in the municipality’s heritage work. In the questionnaire, the municipalities were asked about the extent to which children are allowed to express opinions about properties worthy of preservation and important places for them. 16 out of 17 municipalities answered the questions, and the results, shown in Figure 11, tell that children are generally not given the opportunity to express opinions about this. However, the four mentioned municipalities emphasize that children, to a medium and high extent, are allowed to express opinions about both preservation and important places for them. Skövde is also a municipality that, to a high extent, asks 54 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice children about qualities they want to preserve. Gothenburg asks children about important places for them, but children are not given the opportunity to express opinions about preservation. That shows how much of a difference there is between the municipalities regarding these issues. Overall, children’s perspectives on environments seem to be lacking. Figure 11: Diagram of the extent to which children are asked about preservation and important places for them. Even though there are municipalities that seek children’s perspectives and allow them to express opinions about society’s environments, it might not be enough to be counted as genuine participation. Different views on participation have been discussed earlier in this thesis, but one view is that participation occurs through children being allowed to influence the decision.195 Municipalities express that they collect the children’s perspectives through, above all, dialogue and walking tours, and that this is documented and used in various cases, such as in a CIA, detailed plans, and comprehensive plans. However, it turns out that children’s opinions do not always affect the final result - indicating that children have little power to influence. Even in the municipalities where 195. Hill et al., 2004, p.83; Sinclair, 2004, pp.110-111 55 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice children are allowed to express opinions about preservation and important places for them, this does not impact the physical space to a large extent. Figure 12 shows that places are rarely preserved based on what the children express. That shows that the children are allowed to express opinions and take part in issues relevant to heritage planning without this having much effect in reality. Figure 12: Diagram of the extent to which environments are preserved based on the children’s statements. Another aspect of genuine participation, which Hart (1992) emphasizes in his participation ladder, is that children must receive feedback after participating in community planning.196 Children should be given feedback on how their statements have been handled and how they affected the process. Feedback is also something that the National Board of Housing, Building, and Planning (2020) emphasize as a crucial part of the planning process when children are involved.197 This question was thus asked to the practitioners in Västra Götaland’s municipalities. Figure 13 shows the result of this question. The 13 municipalities that answered the question emphasized that feedback is given 196. Hart, 1992, p.11 197. Boverket, 2020, p.20 56 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice to a relatively small extent. Öckerö, Stenungsund, and Gothenburg are the municipalities that put themselves in the middle, which suggests that feedback sometimes is given. Lerum is the only municipality that places high on the scale and believes that feedback is given to a relatively high extent. Figure 13: Diagram of the extent to which children are fed back after participating in a planning process. Moreover, children seem to have little opportunity to influence all environments in society. Gothenburg, Orust, Skövde and Stenungsund, 4 out of 17 municipalities that answered the question, believe that children have the opportunity to influence all environments in the municipality’s spatial planning. Figure 14 shows that it is mostly the so-called “child spaces”, such as playgrounds and schoolyards, where children are allowed to express opinions about change. That suggests that even when we talk about children’s opportunity to express opinions about preservation and important environments for them, it is mainly about the environments dedicated to children and not all environments in society. 57 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice Figure 14: Diagram of which environments children are allowed to influence through spatial planning. Lansdown (2010) believes that children’s participation will never be fully realized if the necessary policy and legislation do not exist on this issue,198 and Shier’s five levels of participation demonstrate the importance of policy documents for children to be included in societal processes.199 Generally, policy documents seem to be lacking among the region’s municipalities. Out of the 16 municipalities that answered the question about policy documents, only 5 municipalities have some form of policy document regarding child perspective and children’s participation when it comes to spatial planning. However, only Gothenburg express that cultural environments and heritage constitute a part of their policy regarding a CIA. Regardless, the municipalities that ask children about preservation and valuable places for them are currently producing policy documents - indicating the importance of policy for continuous work with children’s inclusion. 5.3 Examples of How Children have Participated in Heritage Practice The questionnaire showed that one way children come into contact with heritage work is through exhibitions and projects. During this study, different practitioners have mentioned several projects in the Västra Götaland region, connected to the cultural environment, showing how children have 198. Lansdown, 2010, p.11 199. Shier, 2001, p.110 58 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice participated in heritage work. The discussed projects are based on the information that has emerged in conversations and what has been written about the projects. The projects mentioned here focus on different ways children have been allowed to participate and influence the end product of a project related to cultural environments. Där fantasin bor, 2021 Purpose: To highlight childhood heritage. About: • Playhouses and huts throughout history. • Both traditional and modern playhouses were built on the exhibition site to show what can be counted as a playhouse and, at the same time, raise both adults’ and children’s perspectives on these structures. The children’s role: • The children participated in the project by giving their perspectives on what a playhouse can be today. • A reference group of children had to tell students at the Royal Institute of Technology what a playhouse could look like, and then the modern playhouses were designed. • The modern playhouses were then placed on the exhibition site among the traditional playhouses, often designed by adults.200 • In the children’s playhouses, function and playfulness were given more space, while the traditional huts, designed by adults, placed greater focus on the aesthetic. Trä äger, 2013 Purpose: Challenge the thinking that “you do not repair - you build new”. About: • The exhibition was about wood as a material in buildings, and details, with focus on the local environment. • The project contributed to an exhibition but could also be carried out after the end of the exhibition. 200. Slöjd och byggnadsvård, 2022.02.01 59 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice The children’s role: • The project was about children learning about wood in the local environment in relation to other modern materials. • There were five tasks that children would perform. Some would look for traditional wooden houses in the immediate area. Others would look for wooden details. A third group would list different materials found in their school environment. Some would discuss sustainable housing, and the last group would analyze local squares.201 • The children’s perspective on their immediate environment was emphasized by the request that the children document the different places through photographs, sketches, and models. • Children’s documentation formed part of the exhibition. Hembygden i landskapet, 2019-2020 Purpose: To elevate the landscape as a cultural environment and emphasize the intangible values that these places possess. About: • Getting people closer to the landscape by learning about the qualities they possess today and how they have been used throughout history. • The project was divided into three stages. Steps one and two were about describing the past and present landscape to spread an understanding of its historical significance and how it has changed to today. The third step was about how the landscape will look and be used in the future. The children’s role: • The children learned about the landscape and tried different activities from the past. • They had to think about what they thought the landscape would look like and be used in the future. • The children’s thoughts were then collected in a cultural catalog.202 201. Wannerskog & Zhang 202. Landskapsobservatorium Västra Götaland, 2019 60 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice Här bor jag - 4000 år på Siriusgatan, 2018 Purpose: To create an attractive meeting place around a historic place in Bergsjön, Gothenburg. About: • The site holds a 4000-year-old stone cist marked as a cultural monument. • The project wanted to increase interactions at the site and, at the same time, tell about the stone cist as a cultural heritage. • The focus was on highlighting the children’s history at the site. The children’s role: • The children learned about how children lived and used the place before. • The site’s design took place in close consultation with children in the local area. • There is an outdoor classroom, an exhibition, and signage showing children from different times on site. • The children got to experience how children lived in the past by being allowed to wear clothes typical of the time, and they also were allowed to be part of the storytelling.203 • Through activities, stories, and clothing typical of the time, the childhood heritage on the site is represented. Kunskapsbyggen, 2021 Purpose: To make an inventory and present Gothenburg’s modern schools. About: • The inventory is a knowledge base over schools from the post-war period in Gothenburg, where a cultural-historical value is evident. • This project received a grant from the County Administrative Board because they see that few schools are protected in detailed plans.204 • Schools with a particular cultural-historical value were selected to open a dialogue with students and teachers. The schools had a high cultural-historical value at the same time as there were some spaces for change. 203. Rehnström, 2019.09.04 204. Informant 3 61 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice The children’s role: • The children gathered and discussed what cultural-historical value in architecture means. • They got to photograph details that they thought were unique or liked or disliked. • Children learned how to see what are new elements and what are original. • The children’s photographs and statements became part of the final report.205 All projects show how children’s perspectives have been given space in heritage work and how the CRC and NHG can be addressed in practice. In all projects, children have been allowed to express their opinions, which have since come to influence the result. They have had to decide on the design of exhibition spaces, tell how they want cultural environments to look and be used in the future, and give their perspectives on what attributes they like and what elements they think are unique. Therefore, the examples show several ways to include children in heritage work and give their participation significance. Table 2: Summary of the essence of the projects. 205. Jonsson & Lindman, 2021, p.220 62 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice Table 2 shows that three of the projects highlight childhood heritage. Schools and playhouses show the tangible heritage of childhood, as it represents aspects that most children can relate to. The child perspective also emerges through the choice to highlight “child-spaces” as culturally significant. However, “child-spaces” are not the only environments important for children. The project Här bor jag - 4000 år på Siriusgatan shows that childhood heritage can also be lifted through the intangible heritage and, in this process, raise childhood history in a place that is not automatically tied to childhood. Two projects also show that children can be given an important role through their participation even when the cultural environment does not directly relate to childhood - indicating that children’s perspective thus constitutes a necessary aspect of all heritage work. The County Administrative Board believes that heritage education is an essential part of children’s participation in heritage work as it allows the children to get their own idea of what heritage can be.206 As seen in Table 2, all the mentioned projects relate to education somehow. It can be about teaching children about traditional house buildings and how people lived in the past. All relate to the cultural environment and cultural heritage somehow. These projects teach children that all environments can be culturally-historically significant as the projects are not only representing designated cultural heritage - opening the opportunity for children to create their own perception of heritage. Another common denominator to the projects is that the children’s participation is, in some way, about physical activity. The children are given the role of documenting and dressing up in traditional clothes. That is a playful way to include children in heritage work and enable a meaningful discussion about history and heritage in relation to the future and change of cultural environments. 5.4 Challenges for Including Children in Heritage Practice During this study, several practitioners have expressed that they face some challenges that hinder them from working with children’s participation in heritage practice. It has been acknowledged that heritage practitioners often do not handle issues of children’s participation. Instead, this is handled by planning practitioners. Some practitioners even state that including citizens of all ages in heritage work is challenging.207 All public heritage and planning authorities know that the CRC is a law, but the CRC has not been implemented to a large extent in the region’s heritage work. Four challenges have been identified, as seen in Table 3. 206. Informant 3 207. Informant 14 63 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice Table 3: Four identified challenges heritage and planning practitioners encounter concerning children’s participation in heritage work. The first challenge relates to how the law is designed. Neither the Cultural Environment Act nor the Environmental Code expresses civic participation or indicates how the NHG should be interpreted in practice. The Cultural Environment Act protects specific culturally and historically valuable environments for which the law provides some protection. It is also clearly regulated what function different authorities have in these issues. Therefore, central practitioners believe that it does not matter what adults or children consider cultural heritage if it can not relate to the framework of the law.208 The process of defining cultural heritage is also complicated. It is usually an expert who is tasked to point out cultural-historical valuable environments.209 Because these two laws do not pay attention to civic participation, there is no requirement for a child perspective or children’s participation in the process of defining heritage. The second challenge identified is the lack of resources. Working from a child perspective requires a lot of resources and time. That is something that several municipalities express that there is not enough of. The region also expresses that resources constitute an obstacle for them to work more from a child perspective and support other actors in the practical work.210 Another issue brought to attention is unawareness of how to proceed. This challenge is expressed by both municipalities and the Administration for Cultural Development, authorities who work actively with the population and cultural heritage. For instance, heritage practitioners emphasize 208. Informant 4 209. Informant 3; Informant 12 210. Informant 3 64 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice that antiquarians, who work with cultural environments and heritage, are not educators. Therefore, it is challenging to know how children should be included and how to arouse interest in cultural environments for children.211 In addition to this, there are no good tools that check that the CRC is always followed.212 Moreover, some heritage and planning practitioners express concerns about how children can handle heritage-related questions. Heritage work is abstract and requires some analytical ability.213 The questionnaire results show that practitioners believe that children do not always possess this analytical trait, and it can also be difficult for children to comprehend preservation and conservation as a phenomenon. That also makes it difficult for practitioners to fully motivate why children should be included in heritage work over other age groups.214 5.5 Heritage and Planning Practitioner’s Needs to Increase Children’s Participation in Heritage Work This part will go through what heritage and planning practitioners have expressed they need to be able to have a child perspective in their work. The Swedish National Heritage Board expressed that much help is needed in working with cultural heritage in general.215 Hence the question was asked about what support the municipalities receive from central and regional authorities regarding child perspective in heritage work. 13 municipalities answered the question. The results show a variation where some municipalities have received support through dialogue while others do not know what support is available. There are various checklists produced by, among others, the County Administrative Board and UNICEF, but these do not seem to provide sufficient support as only one municipality expressed that they have received support by method tools. Overall, Figure 15 shows a great need for more support in this matter. There is some hope that the Swedish National Heritage Board would also work more to provide concrete advice on how heritage practitioners should work based on the CRC. The Swedish National Heritage Board has heard several times that practitioners need support from them, but they emphasize that this is not how they work. If the Swedish National Heritage Board is to be an institution that provides guidance and advice on various issues, they first need to be given an assignment that this is how they should work.216 211. Informant 7 212. Informant 23 213. Informant 7 214. Informant 19; Informant 24 215. Informant 1; Informant 4 216. Ibid 65 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice Figure 15: Diagram of municipalities’ support from regional and central authorities. In addition to the question of what support heritage and planning practitioners receive (and do not receive), further discussions have touched on what practitioners feel is needed to be able to work from a child perspective in their everyday practice. In total, four common needs have been identified among the studied heritage and planning practitioners, shown in Table 4. Table 4: Four identified needs to increase children’s participation in heritage work. 66 5. Result: Children’s Participation in Heritage Practice The first and second needs are partly connected. In order to gain knowledge, municipalities have expressed that they need more training in the matter. It is also necessary for better communication channels between heritage practitioners where they can discuss various projects and issues where children have been included. Even though the Swedish National Heritage Board is working to spread good examples of children’s participation in heritage work, not all heritage and planning practitioners seem aware of this. For instance, practitioners desire a pioneering project that will lead the way, even though there already are several examples Some practitioners express that it feels like they are “reinventing the wheel” every time children are to participate in a case since they do not know how other practitioners previously have handled the same issue.217 One challenge expressed was the lack of resources. Therefore, an identified need is that local and regional authorities need more time and resources to work with children’s participation. One crucial aspect that Vänersborg municipality expresses is that the work with child perspective must not make the process more complicated. The goal should be to make community planning and other heritage work more sustainable. They express that including children requires time, and stressful deadlines do not work in these situations.218 The fourth need, expressed by both municipalities and the region, is the need for clear leadership and political mandate. Guidelines need to come from the top authorities for these issues to be operated in practice. This point also creates conditions for the other identified aspects. If management takes a particular position on this issue, practitioners will gain more resources and knowledge. Although there are some significant needs to increase the work from a child perspective, it has been emphasized in discussions with practitioners that there are some things that they could do in the present. Practitioners could change their approach to a child perspective within the institutions and encourage other actors to work more with children’s participation in heritage work.219 That would suggest that heritage and planning practitioners are reminded to relate to a child perspective and increase the possibility for children to participate in heritage practice. 217. Informant 7; Informant 11 218. Informant 27 219. Informant 1; Informant 3; Informant 4 67 6. Discussion This thesis has explored practitioners’ practical conditions for working with children’s participation in heritage work and planning. This chapter will discuss the results collected from this study based on the previous research described in Chapter 1, the theoretical framework accentuated in Chapter 2, and answer the study’s research questions. The research questions are: - How are children given space by public heritage and planning authorities to participate in heritage work, and what are the considered obstacles? - How do legal frameworks enable/disable a child perspective and children’s participation in heritage work? - How does the understanding of heritage practice affect children’s opportunity to participate in heritage work? 6.1 Children’s Participation in Heritage Work The theoretical framework is primarily based on the concept of participation, which is a concept that is included in all of the research questions. Participation has no straightforward definition for practical work, which has emerged from both theorists and practitioners who have tried to interpret the concept and implement it in their work. This part of the discussion will put the practice in relation to the different definitions of the concept of participation. The phrase “given space,” as articulated in the first question, includes both how and when children are allowed to participate in heritage work. 6.1.1 How and When are Children Included in Heritage Work? The results show that children’s participation in heritage work can occur in different ways and situations. The projects have been about exhibitions, heritage foundations, and creating a meeting place. The highlighted examples concern natural and urban landscapes, civic history, childhood history, past, present, and future. The children have been allowed to contribute thoughts and opinions about environments and details, and different methods have been used to gather the children’s perspectives. Common to the projects is that they all relate to heritage education. Heritage means that something is inherited from one generation to another,220 and learning about certain aspects of a historical site is thus a way of passing on historical narratives and cultural heritage to a new generation. According to Nuzzaci (2020), Goodarzparvari, and Bueno Camejo (2018), heritage education is a right for children and contributes to the continued preservation of society’s cultural heritage.221 220. Howard, 2003 221. Nuzzaci, 2020; Goodarzparvari & Bueno Camejo, 2018 68 6. Discussion However, Göransson shows that it is also vital for children to have conversations about cultural heritage to increase their understanding and interest in the subject.222 This indicates that children’s participation and opportunity to express opinions are of great relevance to heritage practice. Heritage education can also be linked to the informal dimension of participation. The informal dimension is about children being allowed to move freely and experience different environments.223 Therefore, giving children the opportunity to learn about natural and urban landscapes, as the result shows, means that they can create their own opinions about these environments relevant to the formal dimension of participation. Furthermore, the result show a willingness to relate to representativeness within heritage practice. For instance, Harwood (2012) emphasized that post-war schools were not highly valued from a cultural-historical perspective.224 The mentioned heritage foundation Kunskapsbyggen handled this issue to highlight the cultural-historical values among these buildings and environments, while some children were allowed to contribute to the project. That indicates an awareness among heritage authorities to highlight “child-spaces” as culturally-historically valuable and contribute to childhood heritage. Nonetheless, it is essential to remember that the adults and the authority decide when childhood heritage should be highlighted. One problem that Darian-Smith and Pascoe (2012) express is that childhood heritage is often not lifted by children, and adults do not acknowledge childhood heritage if it does not fit their depiction of childhood.225 As expressed in Chapter 4, no children have expressed that they want to protect an environment as a notable building. The results also show that children are rarely asked what they want to preserve or like in an environment. That means that adults can not fully understand which environments should be included in the concept of “child-spaces” and thus which environments represent childhood. Adults’ idea of what is “child-spaces” affects which environments children are allowed to express opinions about. The results show that most municipalities do not involve children in matters concerning all environments facing change, although children use environments most intensely of all social groups.226 That has previously been noted by Jane Strachan (2018), who expresses that children are rarely allowed to give their opinions about the future of places.227 Corresponding to 222. Göransson, 2019 223. Björklid & Nordström, 2007, p.395 224. Harwood, 2012 225. DarianSmith & Pascoe, 2012 226. Blücher & Graninger, 2003, p.30; Tallhage Lönn, 2000, p.112; Nordström, 2001, p.49 227. Jane Strachan, 2018 69 6. Discussion Kylin and Lieberg (2001), it appears in the result that it is mainly in the so-called “child-spaces” - playgrounds and schoolyards - in which children are most involved. Mansfield et al. (2021) argue that adults decide which environments are, and should be, meant for children and that this also affects which environments the children are allowed to influence.228 However, similar to Winters’ (2010) research, the results show that children are not always included when these environments face change either. 6.1.2 Absence of Active and Genuine Participation Although there are examples of children’s participation in heritage work, children’s participation occurs to a relatively small extent. For instance, Child Impact Assessment (CIA) rarely mentions cultural environments and heritage, simultaneously as few children come in contact with heritage practice through the work with heritage foundations. Moreover, children are given little opportunity to express opinions about preservation and places important to them - showing that children rarely participate in heritage work. The results demonstrate that some municipalities ask the children about issues relevant to the heritage sector (preservation and important places), but that the children’s statements rarely affect the actual development, such as the preservation of the environment. That corresponds with Stenberg’s and Fryk’s (2021) research that emphasizes that practitioners often have difficulty translating children’s thoughts and suggestions into reality.229 Based on the definitions of participation, these results can be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand, based on Hill et al.’s (2004) and Sinclair’s (2004) definition, the children’s participation displays consultation rather than participation.230 The children are given a certain opportunity to express opinions, but they have no opportunity to influence decisions - indicating that it is not active participation. However, on the other hand, this can be interpreted as genuine participation as planning practitioners express that the children are informed and that the opinions are collected and documented in various documents used in decision-making. It shows a process where children’s participation can mean something in practice. In Hart’s ladder, genuine participation does not per se mean that children are allowed to influence decisions. Regardless, the ladder’s hierarchy shows a higher level of genuine participation if children are allowed to influence decisions.231 228. Mansfield et al., 2021 229. Stenberg & Fryk, 2021 230. Hill et al., 2004, p.83; Sinclair, 2004, pp.110-111 231. Hart, 1992, p.12 70 6. Discussion Moreover, the result shows that children are rarely given feedback after their participation. Hart (1992) emphasizes the importance of giving children feedback after participating in a process as it shows that children are treated with respect and taken seriously. Hart believes that if children are not given feedback, children’s participation ends up at the lowest rung on the ladder - indicating that it is non-participation.232 That indicates that even when children participate with opinions concerning heritage-related issues, it does not count as genuine participation but rather non- participation Shier (2001) sets out different choices and actions in a hierarchical order. He does not emphasize genuine contra non-participation, making the lowest level - that the children are listened to - a form of participation.233 The projects show that the children’s opinions have been requested and have since influenced the final product. That means practitioners’ actions end up around the third level in his model. Some projects can be analyzed as ending up on level four, such as Där fantasin bor, as children have been part of a decision-making group. However, in terms of heritage-related issues in spatial planning, it is clear that children are not given the same opportunity. The results show that several municipalities do not ask the children about preservation or important places for them. The fact that this action is not visible in the practical work means that it is not even possible to analyze based on Shier’s model. Despite these rather negative results, several practitioners express that they want to work more with children’s participation - showing a readiness among heritage and planning practitioners. That is a vital first step of participation, according to Shier’s model. As Ataol et al. (2019) show, practitioners are aware that children’s perspectives are important for creating good living environments. The projects mentioned in the result show that there have been some initiatives to include children and let them influence the final product, such as an exhibition or heritage foundation. That is a step in the direction of giving children meaningful participation. However, the results show that practitioners face challenges in the form of a lack of knowledge about how to proceed. Rodela and Norss (2022) see that there is generally a lack of guidelines for how planning practitioners should work with children’s participation.234 Moreover, Cele and van der Burgt (2015) believe that the lack of knowledge contributes to children being entirely excluded from planning processes.235 This also contributes that the work with children’s participation in heritage practice stays on the first aspect of Shier’s model. It is required that there are resources and knowledge to move on to the second aspect,236 which several practitioners express lacking. 232. Hart, 1992, p.9 233. Shier, 2001, p.110 234. Rodela & Norss, 2022 235. See Cele and van der Burgt, 2015 236. Shier, 2001, p.110 71 6. Discussion Furthermore, the results show that some heritage and planning practitioners find it challenging to include all age groups in heritage work. Similarly, Sancar and Severcar (2010) believe that all people are excluded from urban planning.237 That suggests that communicative planning does not emerge in heritage practice to a large extent. Children’s perspectives contribute to a broader understanding of human-environment relations,238 and therefore contribute to essential aspects for the heritage sector. Therefore, it is problematic that more heritage practitioners do not apply a child perspective. Additionally, the absence of policy is visible in this result. Shier (2001), Ataol et al., and Lansdown (2010) state that policy documents are required to fully incorporate children’s participation in societal processes.239 However, the result displays that policy documents solely do not change the practical work. The Swedish National Heritage Board expresses that they do not always know how to relate to a child perspective even though it is stated in their instruction. That shows that existing policy documents do not always convey how an issue should be handled in practice. Nevertheless, the result shows that municipalities that work a lot with children’s participation in heritage-related issues seek policy - showing that policy has an essential function for the practical work of including children to continue. Ultimately, there is a lack of communication between different authorities. Ataol et al. (2019) point out that good communication is required to include children successfully,240 and Olsson believes that good heritage work requires dialogue with different actors.241 Several heritage and planning practitioners are not aware that there are examples of children’s participation in heritage work, even though the Swedish National Heritage Board has highlighted examples from all over Sweden. That, in turn, affects the lack of knowledge on how to proceed to include children. 6.2 Lack of Guidance in the Regulations One part of this thesis is to examine legal frameworks to see how they enable or hinder the work with children’s participation. The results indicate that the Cultural Environment Act and also the Environmental Code constitute a challenge for heritage and planning practitioners to integrate a child perspective into heritage work. The laws do not express a need for civic participation, and they give the power to decide what becomes official heritage to public heritage authorities. The National Heritage Goals (NHG) arose with the development of the Cultural Environment Act in 1988. However, although NHG has been developed to highlight participation in heritage work, the Cultural Environment Act remains in place. Public heritage authorities are thus given an unclear approach to how they are to achieve the NHG in relation to what the law regulates. 237. Sancar & Severcan, 2010 238. Nordström & Wales, 2019 239. Shier, 2001, p.110; Ataol et al., 2019, p.41; Lansdown, 2010, p.11 240. Ataol et al., 2019 241. Olsson, 2003 72 6. Discussion The County Administrative Board has an assignment to ensure that NHG impacts the region based on the region’s conditions.242 However, just as Weijmer (2019) expresses, laws and goals are interpretable, and it is often individuals who must interpret them - leading to participation being challenging to achieve.243 Many heritage and planning practitioners state that they need more support in the work with children’s participation, just as Madsen’s (2015) research indicates. Local and regional heritage and planning authorities have expressed that more support is needed from the top. The Swedish National Heritage Board, a key player who could potentially provide support, has no assignment to work in that way. The County Administrative Board examines municipalities’ planning based on the law, and they express that they could work more with highlighting children’s perspectives to other actors than they do at the moment. That indicates that the regional heritage authorities have not inspected or reviewed children’s participation in heritage work. That leads to children’s participation being a goal rather than a must. Children’s participation thus becomes an action based on time and knowledge of individual practitioners, which the result shows constitutes a challenge for practitioners to include children in heritage practice. As Tweed and Sutherlands (2007) express, one way to participate in heritage work is by being involved in pointing out valuable environments that become part of the official heritage.244 However, the result shows that practitioners feel that it does not matter what the civic population emphasizes is heritage if it does not relate to the frameworks of the law. That corresponds with Abrahamsson’s and Larsson’s (2020) research, demonstrating a structural challenge in including children.245 There is an opening in the Cultural Environment Act for children to participate in heritage designation by requesting that an environment should be investigated as a notable building. Although non-experts may request an investigation, the County Administrative Board makes the final decision on what will be protected by the law. The Cultural Environment Act, which only includes specific designated cultural environments, thus contributes to the experts having the last word in what counts as official heritage. The Planning and Building Act provides more opportunities for children to participate in spatial planning, but there is no explicit process to include children. Although the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that children have the right to express opinions on all matters that concern them, nothing in the Planning and Building Act emphasizes that children should always be given the right to be consulted. That, in turn, suggests that the decision about which environments children should be able to influence falls entirely in the hands of the adult authority. In turn, this also indicates discrimination against children in relation to other adults as children do not have the same opportunities to participate in the planning process without initiative from the authority. 242. Olsson et al., 2020, p.21 243. Weijmer, 2019 244. Tweed & Sutherlands, 2007, p.63 245. See Abrahamsson & Larsson, 2020 73 6. Discussion Nevertheless, the results show several projects where practitioners have worked with children’s participation in different ways. That demonstrates that, although the mentioned laws do not encourage participation, nothing in the laws prevents children from participating in heritage work. 6.3 Does AHD Affect Children’s Participation in Heritage Work? The third research question concerns practitioners’ understandings of heritage practice and has been analyzed based on Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD). AHD implies that how one talks about heritage legitimizes an expert-oriented view of what is heritage,246 even though heritage practice is a process and, in theory, can include anything.247 There are several indications of the existence of AHD in the result. For instance, practitioners have stated that heritage legislations do not enable civic society to point out heritage, even though the law is interpretable, and thus constitutes some possibility for this to occur. This interpretation of heritage laws thus legitimizes AHD to continue and indicates that AHD permeates heritage practice. The results show that children are not prioritized in everyday heritage practice as public heritage practitioners express that they do not work much with children’s participation. Simultaneously, some planning practitioners expressed that they do not work with cultural environments, although all environments imprinted by human activity are defined as a cultural environment.248 AHD is thus present and puts heritage practitioners in their own sphere where other practitioners think that all knowledge about cultural environments and heritage exists. Lanemo and Olsson (2015) see that heritage practitioners have difficulty recognizing the need for more perspectives in their work and that heritage experts do not possess all the knowledge about cultural environments.249 This puts the brakes on children’s opportunity to participate in heritage work. The discourse thus influences planning practitioners’ approach to including children in their work relating to heritage. If children mainly come into contact with planning practitioners who express that the built environment is not a cultural environment, how should children then understand what is, and could be, cultural heritage? The discourse (AHD) also becomes apparent when several heritage and planning practitioners express that one challenge is to get children to understand heritage practice. Likewise, Cele and van der Burgt (2015) express, there are thoughts that children are not competent actors.250 This challenge may thus connect to AHD as there is an underlying idea that those who are not experts can not understand what cultural heritage is. The results show that children can express how they think the environment should look in the future and what they like and want to preserve from the 246. Smith, 2006, p.11 247. Howard, 2003, p.6 248. Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2016, p.9 249. Lanemo & Olsson, 2015 250. Cele and van der Burgt, 2015 74 6. Discussion present. It thus shows that it is not completely impossible for children to understand heritage work if the children understand how they can contribute. The discourse thus affects children’s ability to participate in heritage practice. Heritage education has been expressed by Smith (2006) as having a connection to AHD, where excluded groups are educated about the authority’s heritage.251 The results show that all projects have a connection to heritage education. However, they also show that the children’s opportunity to participate challenges AHD as their perspective is highlighted. For example, the children have been given their perspectives on what a playhouse is, documented cultural environments, and express opinions about what they consider valuable in an environment. As the children’s statements have affected the result, their perspective has also contributed to the educational purpose. 6.4 Conclusion This thesis set out to map and investigate the conditions for public planning and heritage practitioners to allow children to participate in heritage practice and show how the practice operates today, two years after the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) became a law. The CRC is a vital basis for the argument that children should be allowed to participate in heritage work. However, several heritage practitioners express that the CRC does not appear at all in their work. Children’s participation in heritage practice rarely occurs, and when it does, it is mainly through consultation and not active participation - meaning that children are not part of the decision-making process. Article 12 of the CRC emphasizes that a fundamental right of children is that they should be able to influence decisions through participation. Overall the heritage sector has a lot to work with to fulfill this article in the CRC. However, this thesis shows that there is an interest and willingness among several practitioners to work with children’s participation. That can be seen in the projects and cases raised. Despite this, there seems to be a barrier for heritage and planning practitioners to fully take on the children’s perspective in heritage practice. One of the most important results of this thesis is that individual practitioners encounter great obstacles in terms of resources and methods. Through regulations and practice, public heritage and planning practitioners are permeated by the idea that “heritage experts” possess the greatest knowledge about cultural heritage - resulting in beliefs that children and other actors do not and can not handle this issue. Heritage regulations may not enable children’s participation. Still, they do not disable it either. Resources, method development, education, and political leadership are critical to getting the ball rolling and working more with children’s participation in all heritage-related issues. 251. Smith, 2006, p.44 75 6. Discussion A significant result is that practitioners expressed a great need for support from the top. However, it has been proven, both through projects and in conversations with practitioners, that there are things that practitioners could do instantly. That means that all public heritage and planning authorities need to think about how they can apply a child perspective in their daily work and the expert-driven view of heritage practice needs to change. Change needs to occur at all levels of heritage and planning governance work for children’s opportunity to participate in heritage work to increase. Everyone is responsible for the cultural heritage, even children. As Blücher and Graninger (2003) express, it is challenging for people to be responsible for the cultural heritage if they have no influence over it.252 Therefore, everyone needs to operate to let the children participate in heritage practice. 6.5 Further Research The delimitation in this thesis conveys that the content represents a specific geographical area. As emerged in the thesis background, there are several projects and cases in other places in Sweden, which indicates that there may be other conditions and strategies for working with children’s participation in heritage work if looked outside the Västra Götaland region. In 2022, the project Mitt slott ditt slott by Västmanland County Museum starts developing methods and creating structures for children’s participation in heritage work and planning.253 This thesis shows that several municipalities want methodological tools and knowledge about how to involve children in heritage work. Thus, it becomes relevant to follow up on the project Mitt slott ditt slott and investigate how it can increase continued work involving children in heritage practice. Furthermore, the children’s conditions for participating in heritage work need to be studied, where the opportunity to participate in heritage work is put in relation to the children’s social background. There are municipal reports that highlight the children’s experiences and thoughts about preserving cultural environments, but there is a lack of research on the children’s understanding of what cultural environments and heritage are. Investigating children’s understanding of this issue can increase understanding of how AHD has affected several generations’ ideas about heritage. This study has prioritized public heritage and planning authorities and not focused on private actors. It appears from the results that, in several cases, it is consultants who produce heritage foundations and are the ones who point out different values in cultural environments. They, therefore, have a certain responsibility to involve children in their work to give the children a chance to express themselves about their experience of heritage. Moreover, municipalities have an important role as active authority concerning community development and children’s participation. This thesis has 252. Blücher & Graninger, 2003, p.183 253. Västmanlands läns museum 76 6. Discussion examined different municipalities based on quantitative methods to gather an overall understanding. However, it is relevant to dive deeper into some municipalities to understand better how they work with children’s participation. That would shed more light on the relationship between private and public heritage and planning authorities and create an understanding of the conditions for including children in heritage work. Lastly, it has been shown in this thesis that practitioners rarely know that there are projects and cases where children participate in heritage work, and practitioners are looking for suitable methods to involve children. Thus, it appears to be a certain lack of communication between municipalities and regions on how to handle this issue. There is a need to develop communication tools that practitioners can easily share and receive information about how other municipalities and regions handle a particular issue. In addition, there is also a need for increased research on different methods and their function in terms of children’s participation in heritage work. 77 7. Summary The purpose of this thesis has been to explore conditions for central, regional, and local authorities to work with children’s participation in heritage work and planning and to see what the practical work looks like today, two years after the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) became a law. In parallel with the CRC, the National Heritage Goals (NHG) emphasize that people should be allowed to participate in heritage work. However, attention has been drawn to a shortcoming among both research and government reports that shed light on what the practice looks like right now and how these laws and goals are met in practice. Three research questions have been formulated to create a basic understanding of this topic. The questions are: How are children given space by public heritage and planning authorities to participate in heritage work, and what are the considered obstacles?; How do legal frameworks enable/disable a child perspective and children’s participation in heritage work?; How does the understanding of heritage practice affect children’s opportunity to participate in heritage work? In the cultural heritage sector, an expert-oriented discourse (AHD) has been accentuated that legitimizes the authority’s power to decide what becomes cultural heritage and thus excludes certain forms of cultural heritage from being included in the discourse, for instance, the children’s heritage. At the same time, the sector has tried to become more inclusive through regulations and goals, where diversity and participation are given greater focus. Hence, the theory behind the study broadly focuses on the concept of “participation.” The concept is complex, and the interpretation of the practical meaning differs. One view is that one participates as soon as they are part of something, while another view is that one must influence decisions in order for it to be counted as participation. That has also given rise to theories and models that specifically concern children’s participation. Central to this essay are Hart’s ladder and Shier’s five levels of participation. These models set up different forms of participation in a hierarchical order, which together with theories give rise to analytical concepts such as “active/genuine participation” and “non-participation.” These have since been used to analyze children’s participation in cultural environment work and planning. In order to create an overall picture of the practice and the different conditions for working with a child perspective, several official levels of heritage work are examined. In addition to the Swedish National Heritage Board, which represents central actors, the thesis is limited to Västra Götaland. The County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland and the Administration for Cultural Development represent regional actors, and municipalities within the region represent local actors. A total of 17 municipalities participated in the study. 78 7. Summary The information has been collected through both qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative method consisted of interviews and was aimed at central and regional authorities. Questionnaires, which constitute the quantitative method, have been directed to local authorities. That is to include as many municipalities as possible in the study. Qualitative and quantitative methods have been analyzed individually and compared with each other based on different themes. The sorting has, among other things, given ground for identifying AHD in heritage work and planning practice. The study results relate to previous research that highlights that children are excluded from planning processes. In general, children’s opportunities to participate in heritage work and planning are shallow and, in several cases, non-existent. There are examples of projects where children have been allowed to participate and influence a final product, such as an exhibition or a heritage foundation. The examples are not many, but they highlight the possibility for authorities to include children. Moreover, there are no concrete conditions for children to participate in planning processes as the Planning and Building Act does not express children as an actor when it comes to spatial planning. Children’s conditions for participating in planning processes differ from adults’ as they are not primarily stakeholders but users of space. That means that children’s participation in planning processes is mainly based on the individual initiatives of practitioners. There is a clear difference among municipalities to include children in heritage planning. The results show that children are rarely allowed to express opinions about conservation or environments that they like, issues that may be relevant to the heritage sector as they shed light on children’s experience and use of environments. When children are allowed to express their views on an environment, it often has no real impact. That means that the children’s participation does not impact decision- making. In addition to this, it turns out that in many cases, municipalities do not provide feedback to children after they have participated in a case. Feedback is an essential part of “genuine participation.” That is because it allows children to understand how their opinions have been handled, even if they did not influence the result. Although the results show examples of both “genuine” and “active participation” in heritage work, most cases fall into the category of “non- participation.” 79 7. Summary Practitioners experience several difficulties in working with children’s participation in heritage work and planning. In line with previous research, the results express a lack of resources and approaches to include children. Laws also do not constitute support in how children should be included in heritage work. Additionally, they do not express participation and therefore do not require children’s participation. Policy documents are lacking among most authorities and do not always constitute a clear starting point for practice. Despite this, several theorists believe that policy is necessary for children’s participation to be realized. It also appears that several municipalities are in the process of developing a policy on children’s perspectives. In general, it is mainly planners who work with child perspectives and heritage workers who handle issues concerning cultural environments and heritage. That has been clarified as several heritage workers have expressed that they do not see that the CRC is apparent in their work. Planners have also expressed that they do not work with issues concerning cultural environments. Thus, AHD makes itself evident and puts heritage work in its own sphere, contributing to an interpretation of cultural environments and heritage as something that only experts can understand. The perception thus prevents children from understanding what cultural environments and cultural heritage are and can be. Furthermore, there is a certain fear among practitioners about how well children can understand heritage work, which means that the view of children portrays them as an incompetent actor in terms of heritage work. That has also been expressed by other researchers who see that this contributes to the risk that children are completely excluded from various societal processes. This thesis shows examples of children’s participation in heritage work, indicating that children can understand aspects of the practice. The understanding of heritage practice thus constitutes a certain negative impact on children’s opportunities to participate in heritage work. Although the CRC has been a law for two years and the NHG express that people should be allowed to participate in heritage work, the work of including children in heritage practice is lacking. Practitioners have shown a willingness to include children to a greater extent, but more is needed for this to become a reality. Some things can be done right away. For example, the issue of children’s participation needs to be raised in more cases, and the child perspective needs to be encouraged in all work. It is not enough that change takes place within one organization; change needs to occur everywhere. 80 Sammanfattning Syftet med denna uppsats har varit att utforska centrala, regionala och lokala tjänstepersoners förutsättningar att arbeta med barns deltagande i kulturmiljöarbete och -planering, samt se hur det praktiska arbetet ser ut idag, två år efter att barnkonventionen blivit lag. Parallellt med barn- konventionen finns de nationella kulturmiljömålen som betonar att människor ska få delta i kulturmiljöarbetet. Det har dock uppmärksammats en brist bland både forskning och myndighets- rapporter som belyser hur praktiken ser ut just nu och hur dessa lagar och mål uppfylls i praktiken. Tre forskningsfrågor formulerats för att skapa en grundläggande förståelse om detta ämne. Frågorna är: Hur får barn utrymme av kulturmiljöarbetare- och samhällsplanerare att delta i kulturmiljö- arbetet, och vilka hinder finns?; Hur möjliggör/omöjliggör rättsliga ramar ett barnperspektiv och barns deltagande i kulturmiljöarbete?; Hur påverkar förståelsen av kulturarv och kulturmiljö barns möjlighet att delta i kulturmiljöarbetet? Inom kulturarvs- och kulturmiljösektorn har en expert-orienterad diskurs (AHD) uppmärksammats som legitimerar auktoritetens makt att bestämma vad som blir kulturarv och därmed exkluderar vissa former av kulturarv att få plats i diskursen, bland annat barnens kulturarv. Samtidigt har sektorn genom regler och mål försökt att bli mer inkluderande där mångfald och deltagande får ett större fokus. Därav fokuserar teorin bakom studien i stora drag på begreppet ”participation” (deltagande). Begreppet är komplext och tolkningen av den praktiska innebörden skiljer sig åt. En uppfattning är att en deltar så fort de är del av något, medan en annan uppfattning är att en måste få påverka beslut för att det ska räknas som deltagande. Detta har också gett upphov till teorier och modeller som specifikt berör barns deltagande. Centralt för denna uppsats är Hart’s ladder och Shier’s five levels of participation. Dessa modeller ställer upp olika former av deltagande i en hierarkisk ordning, som tillsammans med teorier ger upphov till analytiska begrepp som ”active/genuine participation” och ”non-participation”. Dessa har sedan använts för att analysera barns deltagande i kulturmiljöarbete och -planering. För att kunna skapa en helhetsbild över praktiken och de olika förutsättningarna för att arbeta med barnperspektiv undersöks flera officiella nivåer av kulturmiljöarbete. Utöver Riksantikvarieämbetet, som representerar centrala aktörer, avgränsar sig arbetet till Västra Götaland. Länsstyrelsen Västra Götaland och Förvaltningen för kulturutveckling representerar regionala aktörer och kommuner inom regionen representerar lokala aktörer. Totalt har 17 kommuner deltagit i studien. Informationen har samlats in genom både kvalitativa och kvantitativa metoder. Den kvalitativa metoden består av intervjuer och har riktats till centrala och regionala aktörer.Enkäter, som utgör den kvantitativa metoden, har riktats till lokala aktörer. Detta för att kunna inkludera så många kommuner som möjligt i studien. Kvalitativa och kvantitativa metoder har analyserats enskilt och jämförts med varandra utifrån olika teman. Sorteringen har bland annat gett upphov till identifierandet av AHD inom kulturmiljöoch planeringspraktiken. 81 8. Sammanfattning Resultatet av studien förhåller sig till tidigare forskning som belyser att barn exkluderas från planeringsprocesser. Generellt är barns möjlighet att delta i kulturmiljöarbete och -planering väldigt låg och i flera fall icke-existerande. Det finns exempel på projekt där barnen har fått delta och påverka en slutgiltig produkt, som en utställning eller ett kulturmiljöunderlag. Exemplen är inte många men de belyser en möjlighet för tjänstepersoner att inkludera barn. Dessutom, finns det inga konkreta förutsättningar för barn att delta i planeringsprocesser då plan och bygglagen inte uttrycker barn som en aktör när det kommer till fysisk planering. Barns förutsättningar att få delta i planeringsprocesser skiljer sig från vuxnas då de främst inte är sakägare utan brukare av plats. Detta medför att barns deltagande i planeringsprocesser oftast baseras på enskilda tjänstepersoners initiativ. Det framgår en tydlig skillnad bland kommuner att inkludera barn i kulturmiljöplaneringen. Resultatet visar att barn sällan får uttrycka sig om bevarande eller miljöer som de tycker om, frågor som kan vara relevanta för kulturmiljösektorn då de belyser barns upplevelse och användning av miljöer. När barn ges möjlighet att uttrycka sina åsikter om en miljö, får detta oftast ingen verklig påverkan. Det innebär att barnens deltagande inte medför en påverkan på beslutsfattandet. Utöver detta visar det sig att kommuner i många fall inte återkopplas barn efter att de har deltagit i ett ärende. Återkoppling är en viktig del av ”genuine participation”. Detta för att barn ska förstå hur deras åsikter har hanterats även om de inte påverkade resultatet. Även om resultatet visar exempel på både ”genuine” och ”active participation” i kulturmiljöarbetet, hamnar de flesta fallen under kategorin ”non-participation”. Tjänstepersoner upplever flera svårigheter i arbetet med barns deltagande i kulturmiljöarbetet och -planeringen. I samklang med tidigare forskning uttrycker resultatet att det saknas resurser och tillvägagångssätt för att inkludera barn. Lagar utgör inte heller ett stöd i hur barn ska inkluderas i kulturmiljöarbetet. Dessutom uttrycker de inte deltagande och kräver därför inte barns deltagande. Policydokument saknas bland de flesta aktörer och utgör inte alltid en tydlig utgångspunkt för praktiken. Trots det menar flera teoretiker att policy är nödvändigt för att barns deltagande ska förverkligas. Det framkommer även att flera kommuner är i processen att ta fram policy kring barnperspektiv. Överlag är det främst planerare som arbetar med barnperspektiv och kulturmiljöarbetare som hanterar frågor om kulturmiljöer och kulturarv. Detta har tydliggjorts då flera kulturmiljöarbetare har uttryckt att de inte ser att barnkonventionen är tydlig i deras arbete. Planerare har också uttryckt att de inte arbetar med frågor som berör kulturmiljöer. Det framgår därmed att AHD gör sig tydlig och sätter kulturmiljöarbetet i en egen sfär som medverkar till en tolkning av kulturmiljöer och kulturarv som något som bara experter kan förstå sig på. Uppfattningen förhindrar därmed barn från att förstå vad kulturmiljö och kulturarv är och kan vara. 82 8. Sammanfattning Vidare finns det en viss rädsla bland tjänstepersoner om hur väl barn kan förstå kulturmiljöarbete, vilket medför att synen på barn skildrar dem som en inkompetent aktör i fråga om kulturmiljöarbete. Även detta har uttrycks av andra forskare som ser att detta bidrar till risken att barn helt exkluderas från olika samhällsprocesser. Denna uppsats visar exempel på barns deltagande i kulturmiljöarbetet vilket indikerar att barn kan förstå aspekter av praktiken. Förståelsen om kulturmiljöpraxis utgör därmed en viss negativ påverkan på barns möjlighet att delta i kulturmiljöarbetet. Trots att barnkonventionen har varit lag i två år och nationella kulturmiljömål uttrycker att människor ska få delta i kulturmiljöarbetet finns det ett bristande arbete med att inkludera barn. Tjänstepersoner har visat på en vilja att inkludera barn i större utsträckning, men det krävs mer för att detta ska bli verklighet. Vissa saker kan göras direkt. Till exempel behöver frågan om barns deltagande lyftas inom fler ärenden och barnperspektivet behöver uppmuntras i allt arbete. Det räcker inte med att förändring sker inom en organisation; förändring behöver ske överallt. 83 List of Figures Figure 1: Five selected Articles from the CRC relevant to children’s participation in 11 heritage work. Figure 2: The studied Västra Götaland region. 17 Source: Developed from Wikimedia contributors. SWE-map län. CC-BY-SA-2.5. 2010.05.02. Retrieved 2022.04.05. Available on: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SWE-Map_L%C3%A4n.svg Figure 3: Participating municipalities. 18 Source: Developed from Wikipedia contributors. Sveriges kommuner. CC-BY-SA-2.5. 2007.04.06. Retrieved 2022.04.05. Available on: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveriges_kommuner Figure 4: Hart’s ladder of children’s participation. 25 Figure 5: Shier’s five levels of participation. 27 Figure 6: The first NHG from 1988. 44 Figure 7: The second edition of the NHG from 1998. 44 Figure 8: The latest version of the NHG from 2012. 45 Figure 9: The structure of rational planning. 46 Figure 10: Diagram of children’s contact with heritage work. 54 Figure 11: Diagram of the extent to which children are asked about preservation and 55 important places for them. Figure 12: Diagram of the extent to which environments are preserved based on the 56 children’s statements. Figure 13: Diagram of the extent to which children are fed back after participating in 57 a planning process. Figure 14: Diagram of which environments children are allowed to influence through 58 spatial planning. Figure 15: Diagram of municipalities’ support from regional and central authorities. 66 List of Tables Table 1: Characteristics of the thesis informants. 36 Table 2: Summary of the essence of the projects. 62 Table 3: Four identified challenges heritage and planning practitioners encounter 64 concerning children’s participation in heritage work. Table 4: Four identified needs to increase children’s participation in heritage work. 66 All Figures and Tables, except Figures 2-3, are made by the author. 84 References Informants 1. Informant: Ahnlund Berg, Charlotte, Kulturarvspedagog, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Interview 2022.02.28 2. Informant: Andersen, Alexander, Samhällsplanerare, Stenungssund, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.16 3. Informant: Apelman, Johan, Antikvarie, Länsstyrelsen Västra Götaland, Interview, 2022.03.10 4. Informant: Barkin, Maria, Jurist, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Interview 2022.02.28 5. Informant: Blom-Adapa, Nirmala, Planhandläggare, Länsstyrelsen Västra Götaland, Email 2022.03.08 6. Informant: Bruhn, Josephine, Bygglovshandläggare/Bebyggelseantikvarie, Alingsås, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.17 7. Informant: Carlsson, Carina, Antikvarie kulturmiljö / slöjd och byggnadsvård, Förvaltningen för kulturutveckling, Email 2022.02.16 8. Informant: Gustafsson, Johanna, Kultursamordnare, Tranemo, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.24 9. Informant: Gustafsson, Tora, Plan- och trafikchef, Lidköping, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.24 10. Informant: Göteborg, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.16 11. Informant: Hjelm, Fredrik, Stadsantikvarie, Borås, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.16 12. Informant: Jansson, Amanda, Planarkitekt/Bebyggelseantikvarie, Sotenäs, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.16 13. Informant: Jönsson, Lars, Samordnande planarkitekt, Mark, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.24 14. Informant: Kjerfve, Linda, Planarkitekt, Skövde, Questionnaire respons 2022.04.11 15. Informant: Lerum, Questionnaire respons 2022.04.07 16. Informant: Lugero, Diana, Utvecklare på enheten för folkhälsa och rättighetsfrågor, Länsstyrelsen Västra Götaland, Email, 2022.03.08 17. Informant: Orust, Questionnaire respons 2022.04.04 18. Informant: Seberbrink, Madelene, Antikvarie, Göteborg, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.18 19. Informant: Solefors, Pia, Kultur- och fritidschef, Stenungssund, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.17 85 References 20. Informant: Solvang, Elin, Plan- och byggchef, Strömstad, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.16 21. Informant: Stenungsund, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.22 22. Informant: Svensson, Frida, Planhandläggare, Länsstyrelsen Västra Götaland, Email 2022.03.08 23. Informant: Teimouri, Mania, Konsulent samtida konst, arkitektur, form och design, Förvaltningen för kulturutveckling, Telephone interview 2022.03.10 24. Informant: Tidaholm, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.24 25. Informant: Töreboda, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.24 26. Informant: Vara, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.24 27. Informant: Vänersborg, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.24 28. Informant: Vänersborg, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.24 29. Informant: Öckerö, Questionnaire respons 2022.03.24 Printed Sources and Literature Abrahamsson, Olivia & Larsson, Kristina, Små kliv i rätt riktning: Tillvägagångssätt för att inkludera barnperspektiv och barns perspektiv i kommunal planering, Linköpings universitet, 2020 Arnstein, Sherry, R, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(1), 24-34, 2019 Ataol, Özlemnur, Krishnamurthy, Sukanya & Van Wesemael, Pieter, “Children’s Participation in Urban Planning and Design: A Systematic Review”, Children, Youth and Environments 29, no. 2: 27-47, 2019 Barnombudsmannen, Uppnå kvalitet i beslut som rör barn och unga, Faktablad från www.barnombudsmannen.se, 2001 Berger, Sune & Forsberg, Gunnel, Planeringens utmaningar och tillämpningar, 2. uppl., Liber, Stockholm, 2013 Bernard, H. Russell, Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches, 5. ed., AltaMira, Lanham, MD, 2018 Björklid, Pia, Barnkonsekvensanalys - erfarenheter och visioner: vägverksregionernas barnkonsekvensanalyser : en processutvärdering, Lärarhögskolan i Stockholm, Forskningsgruppen för miljöpsykologi och pedagogik, Stockholm, 2007 86 References Björklid, Pia, & Nordström, Maria, “Environmental Child-Friendliness: Collaboration and Future Research”, Children, Youth and Environments, 17(4), 388-401, 2007 Blücher, Gösta, Graninger, Göran, & Stiftelsen Vadstena forum för samhällsbyggande, Finns det rum för barn? : En antologi (Skrift / Stiftelsen Vadstena forum för samhällsbyggande ; 2003), 2003 Boverket, Barnkonventionen i fysisk planering och stadsutveckling - Kartläggning och analys, Boverket, 2020 Cele, Sofia & Van der Burgt, Danielle, “Participation, consultation, confusion: Professionals’ understandings of children’s participation in physical planning”, Children’s Geographies, 13(1), 14-29, 2015 Coccossis, Harry & Nijkamp, Peter (red.), Planning for our cultural heritage, Avebury, Aldershot, 1995 Cohen, Nissim & Arieli, Tamar, “Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling”, Journal of Peace Research, 48(4), 423-435, 2011 Council of Europe, Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural, Heritage for Society, (Faro-convention), 2005 Creswell, John W. A, Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research, Second ed. 2022 Darian-Smith, Kate, & Pascoe, Carla. Children, Childhood and Cultural Heritage. 1.st ed. Key Issues in Cultural Heritage. New York: Routledge, 2012. Eliasson, Tina, Att bli tagen på allvar: exempel på barns och ungas inflytande, Tryggare och mänskligare Göteborg, Göteborg, 2010 Flick, Uwe, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, London: SAGE Publications, 2017 Forsberg, Gunnel (red.), Samhällsplaneringens teori och praktik, Första upplagan, Liber, Stockholm, 2019 Förordningen (2017:868) med länsstyrelseinstruktion Garrod, Brian & Dowell, David, “The Role of Childhood Participation in Cultural Activities in the Promotion of Pro-Social Behaviours in Later Life”, Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 12(14), 5744, 2020 Génetay, Cissela & Lindberg, Ulf, Plattform Kulturhistorisk värdering och urval [Elektronisk resurs] : grundläggande förhållningssätt för arbete med att definiera, värdera, prioritera och utveckla kulturarvet, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm, 2014 Goodarzparvari, Parnaz & Bueno Camejo, Francisco Carlos, “Preservation of Cultural Heritage via Education of Children, Utilizing Visual Communication: Persepolis as a Case Study”, Creative Education, 9(2), 141-151, 2018 87 References Gustavsson, Bengt (red.), Kunskapande metoder inom samhällsvetenskapen, 3., [rev.] uppl., Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2004 Göransson, Julia, UNGDOMAR: EN GRUPP SOM SÄLLAN HÖRS NÄR DET KOMMER TILL KULTURARV - Hur talar man med ungdomar om kulturarvsfrågor [Unpublished], 2019 Göteborg2021, Berättelser om ungt inflytande - Göteborg 400 år, 2021 Göteborg stad, (BKA) : Barnkonsekvensanalys : Barn och unga i fokus 1.0, Göteborg: Göteborgs stad, 2011 Halldén, Gunilla, “Barnperspektiv som ideologiskt och/eller metodologiskt begrepp”, Pedagogisk Forskning I Sverige, 8, 12, 2003 Harrison, Rodney, “What is Heritage” In: (ed) Understanding the politics of heritage, Manchester University Press in association with the Open University, Manchester and Milton Keynes; pp. 5-42, 2010 Hart, Roger A., Children’s participation: from tokenism to citizenship, UNICEF, Florence, 1992 Hart, Roger A., “Children’s participation: the theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and enviromental care”, Earthscan, London, 1997 Harwood, Elaine, “School buildings and the architectural heritage of childhood: designing mid-twentieth-century schools in England” In: Children, Childhood and Cultural Heritage, 1.st ed. Key Issues in Cultural Heritage. New York: Routledge, pp. 190-205, 2012. Hill, Malcolm, Davis, John, Prout, Alan, & Tisdall, Kay, “Moving the Participation Agenda Forward”, Children & Society 18, no. 2, 77-96, 2004 Howard, Peter, Heritage: management, interpretation, identity, Continuum, London, 2003 Hägglund, Ulla, Den hemlighetsfulla kulturmiljön [Elektronisk resurs] lärarhandledning för förskoleklass- skolår 5, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm, 2003 Hølleland, Herdia & Skrede, Joar, “What’s wrong with heritage experts? An interdisciplinary discussion of experts and expertise in heritage studies”, International Journal of Heritage Studies : IJHS, 25(8), 825-836, 2019 Jane Strachan, Teresa. “Undercover placemakers: transforming the roles of young people in planning”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Urban Design and Planning, 171, no. 1: 5-12, 2018 88 References Jonsson, Kristian, & Lindman, Maja, KUNSKAPSBYGGEN - Kulturhistorisk inventering av Göteborgs skolhus från åren 1950-2000, Göteborgs stadsmuseum, Göteborg, 2021 Kalman, Harold, Heritage planning: principles and process, Routledge, London, 2014 Kant, Henrik & Rosengren, Anna, Barn & ungas perspektiv på Göteborgs Stads förslag till ny översiktsplan, Göteborg stad, 2020 Kvale, Steinar, “Transcribing interviews”, In: Doing interviews (SAGE qualitative research kit). Los Angeles, [Calif.] ; London: SAGE, pp. 1-10, 2007 Kylin, Maria & Lieberg, Mats, “Barnperspektiv på utemiljön”, Nordisk Arkitekturforskning, 1(1), 63-77, 2001 Lanemo, Emy, & Olsson, Krister, Kunskap och underlag i planeringen – exemplet kulturmiljö, PLAN 4 – 2015, 2015 Lansdown, Gerison, “The realisation of children’s participation rights - Critical reflections”, In: A handbook of children and young people’s participation perspectives from theory and practice, London : New York: Routledge, pp. 11-23, 2010 Lansdown, Gerison & UNICEF. International Child Development Centre, Promoting children’s participation in democratic decision-making (UNICEF innocenti insight), Florence, Italy: Unicef, United Nations Childrens’s Fund, Innocenti Research Centre, 2001 Lenninger, Anna & Olsson, Titti, Lek äger rum: planering för barn och ungdomar, Formas, Stockholm, 2006 Länsstyrelsen Västra Götalands län, Barnkonventionen i den fysiska planeringen,Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, Samhällsbyggnadsenheten, 2008 Madsen, Elin, Planering med barns perspektiv: En studie om barn och ungas roll som medborgare och aktörer i spelet om stadens framtid, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, 2015 Malone, Karen & Hartung, Catherine, “Challenges of participatory practice with children”, In: A handbook of children and young people’s participation perspectives from theory and practice, London : New York: Routledge, pp. 24-38, 2010 Mannberg, Marianne & Luleå tekniska universitet (LTU), Avdelningen för arkitektur och infrastruktur, Communicative planning : (how) does it work? (Licentiate thesis / Luleå), 2006 Mansfield, Robyn G, Batagol, Becky & Raven, Rob, ““Critical Agents of Change?”: Opportunities and Limits to Children’s Participation in Urban Planning”, Journal of Planning Literature, 36, no. 2: 170-86, 2021 89 References Nilsson, Nic, Barnens stad: en barnvänlig stad för barns bästa, lek och inflytande, IPA - Barns rätt till lek, Stockholm, 2002 Nordström, Maria, “Svenska och finska barns värderingar av fysisk miljö”, In: Barn i stan? : Om barns tillgång till stadsbygden, pp. 49-60, 2001 Nordström, Maria & Wales, Mark, “Enhancing urban transformative capacity through children’s participation in planning”, Ambio, 48(5), 507-514, 2019 Nuzzaci, Antonella, “The Right of Children to Use Cultural Heritage as a Cultural Right”, Open journal of social sciences, (8) 574-599, 2020 Nyström, Jan & Tonell, Lennart, Planeringens grunder: en översikt, Tredje [utökade och uppdaterade] upplagan, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2012 Olsson, Krister, Från bevarande till skapande av värde: kulturmiljövården i kunskapssamhället, Diss. Stockholm : Tekn. högsk., 2003,Stockholm, 2003 Olsson, Krister, Fredholm, Susanne, Sahlin, Elin, Alton, Johanna, & Håkansson, Maria, Kulturmiljöarbete och fysisk planering - roller och ansvar, 2020 Prop. 1987/88:104. Om kulturmiljövård. Prop. 1998/99:114. Kulturarv – kulturmiljöer och kulturföremål. Prop. 2012/13:96. Kulturmiljöns mångfald Qvarsell, Birgitta, “Barns perspektiv och mänskliga rättigheter: Godhetsmaximering eller kunskapsbildning?”, Pedagogisk Forskning I Sverige, 8(1-2), 101, 2003 Riksantikvarieämbetet, Agenda kulturarv: slutrapport, [Riksantikvarieämbetets förlag], Stockholm, 2004 Riksantikvarieämbetet, Vision för kulturmiljöarbetet 2030: redovisning av regeringsuppdrag om ett offensivt och angeläget kulturmiljöarbete [Elektronisk resurs], Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2016 Riksantikvarieämbetet, Kulturvärden i planerings- och bygglovsprocesser - en utvärdering om kommuners förutsättningar för att ta hänsyn till kulturvärden, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm, 2017 Riksantikvarieämbetet, Skolan och kulturarvet [Elektronisk resurs] regeringsuppdrag att kartlägga och främja samverkan mellan skolväsendet och kulturarvsinstitutionerna, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm, 2020 Rodela, Romina & Norss, Emma, “Opening up Spatial Planning to the Participation of Children and Youth : The Swedish Experience”, European Planning Studies, 2022, European Planning Studies, 2022 90 References Sancar, Fahriye Hazer, & Severcan, Yucel Can, “Children’s Places: Rural–Urban Comparisons Using Participatory Photography in the Bodrum Peninsula, Turkey.” Journal of Urban Design 15: 293–324, 2010 Sager, Tore, Communicative planning theory, Avebury, Aldershot, 1994 Schofield, John, Who needs experts? counter-mapping cultural heritage (Heritage, culture and identity), Farnham: Ashgate, 2014 SFS 1988:950. Kulturmiljölagen. SFS 1998:808. Miljöbalken. SFS 2010:900. Plan- och bygglagen. Shier, Harry, “Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations”, Children & Society, 15(2), 107-117, 2001 Sinclair, Ruth, “Participation in Practice: Making It Meaningful, Effective and Sustainable”, Children & Society, 18, no. 2, 106-18, 2004 Sjökvist, Helén, Ungdomar K-märker: [en enkätundersökning om ungdomars inställning till kulturmiljön], Kulturmiljöavdelningen, Västmanlands läns museum, Västerås, 2003 Smith, Laurajane, “Taking the children: children, childhood and heritage making”, In: Children, Childhood and Cultural Heritage. 1.st ed. Key Issues in Cultural Heritage. New York: Routledge, pp. 107-125, 2012. Smith, Laurajane, Uses of heritage, Routledge, New York, 2006 Sommer, Dion, Pramling Samuelsson, Ingrid & Hundeide, Karsten, Child perspectives and children’s perspectives in theory and practice, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010 Stenberg, Jenny & Fryk, Lasse, “Making School Children’s Participation in Planning Processes a Routine Practice”, Societies (Basel, Switzerland) 11, no. 1: 3. 2021 Sverige, Barnombudsmannen UnspecifiedContributor, Mänskliga Rättigheter För Barn : Ett Informationsmaterial Om FN:s Konvention Om Barnets Rättigheter, 2000 Tallhage Lönn, Iréne (red.), Unga är också medborgare: om barns och ungdomars inflytande i planeringen, 1. uppl., Boverket, Karlskrona, 2000 Thomas, Nigel, “Towards a Theory of Children’s Participation”, The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 15(2), 199-218, 2007 Tweed, Christopher, and Sutherland, Margaret, “Built Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, no. 1, 62-69, 2007 91 References UNESCO, Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development, Final report, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, 1998 Västarvet, Kulturmiljö 2030 ett framåtriktat kulturmiljöarbete i Västra Götaland 2020–2030, Västarvet Walliman, Nicholas, Research methods: the basics, Routledge, London, 2011 Wannerskog, Anna Sofia & Zhang, Wenxuan, Visa vad ni kan! Och var med i utställningen Trä äger! – Handbok för lärare och elever som vill lära mer om trä, trähus och hållbart byggande, Västra Götalandsregionen Weijmer, Malin, I sökandet efter delaktighet: praktik, aktörer och kulturmiljöarbete, Acta universitatis Gothoburgensis, Diss. Göteborg : Göteborgs universitet, 2019, Göteborg, 2019 Westlund, Anna Nirs, Små barns perspektiv på ett kulturarv, Ovanåkers kommun Winters, Judith, “Children’s Participation in Planning and Regeneration”, The Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 5, no. 2: 85-111. 2010 Winther Jørgensen, Marianne & Phillips, Louise, Diskursanalys som teori och metod, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2000 Electronic Sources Boverket, Fördjupad översiktsplan och planprogram ur ett brottsförebyggande och trygghetsskapande perspektiv, 2022.02.23, Available on: https://www.boverket.se/sv/fordjupad-oversiktsplanplanprogram/ Boverket, PBL kunskapsbanken, Kulturmiljöunderlag - vad är det, 2021.10.20, Available on: https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/kulturmiljounderlag-vad-ar-det/ Boverket, PBL kunskapsbanken, Vad är en detaljplan, 2022.02.18, Available on: https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/detaljplan/ Cambridge dictionary, Participation, 2022, Available on: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/participation Förvaltningen för kulturutveckling, Vårt barnrättsarbete, 2021.10.21, Available on: https://www.vgregion.se/f/kulturutveckling/om-oss/sa-arbetar-vi/manskliga-rattigheter/ barnrattsarbete/ 92 References Förvaltningen för kulturutveckling, Vårt uppdrag, 2022.02.04, Available on: https://www.vgregion.se/f/kulturutveckling/om-oss/vart-uppdrag/ Landskapsobservatorium Västra Götaland, Hembygden i landskapet, 2019, Available on: https://lovg.se/hembygden-och-landskapet/ Nationalencyklopedin, aktör, 2022, Available on: http://www.ne.se/uppslagsverk/encyklopedi/lång/aktör Rehnström, Åsa, Bortglömd forngrav blir mötesplats i Bergsjön, 2018.09.04, Vårt Göteborg. Available on: https://vartgoteborg.se/kultur-o-fritid/bortglomd-forngrav-blir-motesplats-i-bergsjon/ Riksantikvarieämbetet, Barn har rätt – om barns och ungas delaktighet och medverkan i kulturarv, Webinarium, 2021.12.01, Available on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN8uf0_K3Vs Slöjd och byggnadsvård, Där fantasin bor - en utställning om lekstugor & kojor, 2022.02.01, Available on: https://www.slojdochbyggnadsvard.se/aktiviteter-och-utstallningar/lekstugor/ UNICEF, Barnkonventionen, Available on: https://unicef.se/barnkonventionen Västmanlands läns museum, Mitt slott ditt slott, 2022, Available on: https://www.vastmanlandslansmuseum.se/SV/News/14960/Mitt-slott-ditt-slott 93 Appendix I - Study Information Sent to Interviewees 94 Appendix II - Study Information Sent with Questionnaire 95 Appendix III - Interview Questions 96 Appendix III - Interview Questions 97 Appendix IV - Questionnaire 98 Appendix IV - Questionnaire 99 Appendix IV - Questionnaire 100 Appendix IV - Questionnaire 101 Appendix IV - Questionnaire 102