European Planning Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

A sustainable afterlife for post-industrial sites:

balancing conservation, regeneration and heritage
tourism

Maria Della Lucia & Albina Pashkevich

To cite this article: Maria Della Lucia & Albina Pashkevich (2023) A sustainable afterlife for
post-industrial sites: balancing conservation, regeneration and heritage tourism, European
Planning Studies, 31:3, 641-661, DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2022.2154141

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2154141

Published online: 06 Dec 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 467

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceps20
EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
2023, VOL. 31, NO. 3, 641–661
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2154141

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A sustainable afterlife for post-industrial sites: balancing

conservation, regeneration and heritage tourism
a b
Maria Della Lucia and Albina Pashkevich
a
Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, Trento, Italy; bSchool of Culture and
Society, Centre for Tourism and Leisure Studies, Dalarna University, Borlange, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Giving industrial sites new life requires enabling change and Received 22 April 2022
overcoming change resistance. By cross-fertilizing relevant Revised 31 October 2022
managerial and urban development literature, this study Accepted 25 November 2022
develops a theoretical and analytical framework that integrates
KEYWORDS
several factors that can lead to the sustainable transformation of Industrial heritage WHS;
post-industrial sites. Case evidence collected using qualitative conservation; sustainable
methods at the Great Copper Mountain WHS, Sweden, reveals a development; regeneration;
Managerial innovation model of industrial heritage regeneration heritage tourism; Great
which fails to fully engage the surrounding communities. This Copper Mountain
model is associated with early-stage post-industrial heritage
tourism. The resistance, controversy and community
misperceptions hindering the adaptive reuse of the site’s
industrial heritage and urban surrounds are mainly determined
by institutional norms arising from the industrial monoculture.
Change management entails working to dismantle lock-ins and
empower change at different levels.

1. Introduction
The tremendous impact of the Industrial Revolution on modern societies is reflected in
the abundance of the world’s industrial heritage. Our industrial heritage represents the
remains of industrial culture and is an integral part of a place/country’s cultural core
and identity (TICCIH 2003). This irreplaceable endowment needs to be preserved and
enhanced (Alfrey and Putnam 2003). The inclusion of unique industrial heritage on
UNESCO’s list of World Heritage Sites (WHSs) encourages the preservation of key
heritage sites.
The shift towards a service-oriented and symbolic economy (Zukin 1995) has created
opportunities to give industrial heritage new life (Szromek, Herman, and Naramski 2021)
and allows industrial heritage to continue to generate value (Landorf 2009). Heritage,
culture and creativity are among the key elements enabling post-industrial societies to
create new pathways for economic development and regeneration, sustainability, and
innovation (Sacco et al. 2013) and new forms of tourism (Richards 2014), including
industrial heritage tourism (Xie 2015). Various factors affect the repositioning of

CONTACT Maria Della Lucia, maria.dellalucia@unitn.it Department of Economics and Management, University of
Trento, Trento, 38122 Italy
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
642 M. DELLA LUCIA AND A. PASHKEVICH

industrial heritage in the local and global context. At the local level, socio-economic and
institutional conditions and tacit knowledge affect decision-making and future develop-
ment paths (Heldt Cassel and Pashkevich 2011, 2014). At the international level, recog-
nizing the (universal) cultural value of a place’s industrial heritage also shapes protection
regulations and/or sustainable development goals and creates close ties between a par-
ticular place and the wider world (Bathelt, Malmberg, and Maskell 2004; Getzner et al.
2014). Recent research shows that envisioning a sustainable development path for
post-industrial sites is a challenging but worthwhile process. Exploratory work has
focused on ways to protect and use urban public spaces (Oevermann and Gantner
2021) and the opportunities and problems that the post-industrial transformation of
industrial sites and small urban areas faces (Harfst 2015; Oevermann and Mieg 2021;
Szromek, Herman, and Naramski 2021; Xie 2006). However, no comprehensive frame-
work for understanding and stimulating the changes best suited to transforming sites
into creative places (Richards and Duif 2018) or post-industrial heritage tourism sites
(Szromek, Herman, and Naramski 2021) has yet been devised.
This paper investigates the interplay between the conservation and transformation
discourses around post-industrial sites and explores the ways in which industrial sites
can be given new life. The paper sets out to answer the following questions: (1) What
factors influence the transformation of post-industrial heritage sites and their urban
environment? (2) What business models and forms of tourism are emerging out of the
conservation-transformation discourse around post-industrial heritage sites?
By cross-fertilizing relevant managerial and urban development literature – on indus-
trial heritage and industrial WHSs’ conservation and management, industrial regener-
ation and heritage tourism – we build a conceptual framework to analyze, unlock and
catalyze pathways of sustainable transformation for industrial heritage sites. The
suggested conceptual framework is applied to a single case study on the Great Copper
Mountain WHS in Falun (Sweden); the evidence has been collected using mixed quali-
tative methods. Previous studies have focused on the effects of institutional context on
the initial stages of Falun’s transformation since its inclusion on the UNESCO WHL
in 2001 (Heldt Cassel and Pashkevich 2011; 2014), and its subsequent evolution (Della
Lucia and Pashkevich 2020). The framework used for the present study integrates the
institutional approach to conservation (Palthe 2014) with several additional factors
derived from industrial (world) heritage site management, regeneration and tourism
development, to identify Falun’s regeneration model (including both site and city) and
its developmental pathways. These pathways involve forms of post-industrial heritage
tourism that are emerging from the conservation-transformation discourse. We
propose preliminary managerial recommendations to dismantle lock-ins and empower
change to revitalize post-industrial heritage sites.

2. Theoretical background
2.1. Industrial heritage conservation
Industrial heritage is a complex endowment that includes
buildings and machinery, workshops, mills and factories, mines and sites for processing and
refining, warehouses and stores, places where energy is generated, transmitted, and used,
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 643

transport and all its infrastructure, as well as places used for social activities related to the
industry such as housing, religious worship, or education. (TICCIH 2003, 2)

Industrial remains go beyond material assets (immovable and movable) to include

immaterial ones (technical know-how, organization of work, local identity, memories,
tradition, habits) and the natural and built environment in which they are located (the
industrial landscape). The whole socio-cultural context of a former industrial area
(Cooke and Lazzeretti 2008) testifies to its human history and the industrial progress
made within it, and forms part of a place/country’s irreproducible cultural heritage
(KEA 2006).
While the importance of industrial history for understanding today’s society is
evident, the conservation of industrial sites is still controversial, not least because
different approaches, focusing on different (technological, socioeconomic, political or
cultural) objectives, are used to conceptualize industrial sites (Bridge 2004). Within
the (sustainable) development approach, the goal is to create effective institutions that
encourage the use of industrial heritage for socio-economic development. This goal
poses several dilemmas. It is not economically feasible to conserve all the – very numer-
ous – sites around the world; moreover, their significance varies greatly, as does the
degree of their obsolescence/degradation (Harfst 2015). The social and economic oppor-
tunities created may not always be evident, ownership may not be clear and funding
uncertain: all these issues make it difficult to ascertain the costs/benefits of resource
development over time/space (Bridge 2004). Conservation may also have to address con-
cerns about the dangerous or dark legacies of past industrial production (environmental/
wellbeing/safety issues), or find a compromise with other goals, such as tourism develop-
ment (Xie 2006).
The institutional settings of heritage site conservation mean that regulative and nor-
mative dimensions have to find resonance with the cultural-cognitive dimension of the
environment in which conservation is taking place (Palthe 2014). Sites recognized as sig-
nificant and/or of universal value are protected by legally binding conservation rules
defined through a multi-level top-down approach (Douet 2016). One global institution
helping to provide an overall framework for this process is the International Council
on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) – ‘the global non-governmental organization dedi-
cated to the conservation of the world’s historic monuments and sites’ (ICOMOS 2022).
Its main advisor is the International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial
Heritage (TICCIH) – which fosters an ‘international cooperation to preserve, conserve,
investigate, document, research, interpret and advance education connected to industrial
heritage’ (TICCIH 2022). Based on TICCIH’s advice, ICOMOS advises UNESCO on sites
to be listed as World Heritage. However, conservation programs are affected by higher
level institutional changes to management norms and by national and regional planning
and economic development policies (Della Lucia and Pashkevich 2020). Such changes
also precondition potential pathways for the sustainable transformation of industrial
areas (Alfrey and Putnam 2003; Garrod and Fyall 2000).
The outcomes of these evolving legal systems are (positively or negatively) affected by
context-specific expected and tacit norms (Nonaka 1991) – people’s moral commitment
to a (work) system (a specific activity, technology or marketplace), or their culturally
determined values, beliefs and assumptions (Palthe 2014). Since they are taken for
644 M. DELLA LUCIA AND A. PASHKEVICH

granted (as either moral obligations or change values), tacit norms (practical, unwritten
culture-cognitive models) may be associated with unawareness, ambivalence and uncer-
tainty: people/organizations may not realize that their particular mindset is shaping the
way in which they perceive (potential) changes in context (Ambrosini and Bowman
2001). For example, a local population may be enthusiastic about/uninterested in the
conservation or transformation of an industrial heritage site – or resigned to leaving it
to decay or even be demolished – because of their (mis)perception of (no or limited)
opportunities linked to post-industrial sites (Cruickshank, Ellingsen, and Hidle 2013;
Edwards and Llurdes 1996).

2.2. Industrial World Heritage Site management: towards dynamic conservation

and sustainable development
The most important industrial heritage sites globally are on the top-tier international and
European heritage lists, including UNESCO’s WHL, the various UK listed buildings
schemes, and their equivalents in Canada and the US. In 2022, the UNESCO WHSs
included 897 cultural sites: 37 of the 50 industrial sites recognized as having exceptional
and universal cultural value for humanity were in Europe, reflecting the continent’s
extraordinary economic and industrial development from the early nineteenth to the
early/mid-twentieth century (UNESCO 2022). Industrial sites are, in general, under-rep-
resented (Falser 2001) – they still account for only 4% of all WHSs.
UNESCO gives industrial WHSs not only an additional layer of protection but also a
new institutional perspective on their potential contribution to socio-economic develop-
ment more broadly (Rebanks Consulting Ltd 2009). International conservation regu-
lations increase protection of sites’ integrity and value and strengthen both the
evolving concept of WHS conservation (from static to dynamic) and the WHS manage-
ment recommendations (Landorf 2011). The latter’s current configuration integrates the
UNESCO Convention on conservation (UNESCO 1972) with the UNESCO operational
guidelines (UNESCO 2015) to work explicitly to develop a WHS sustainably. Previously,
industrial WHS planning frameworks were merely intended to ensure the static conser-
vation of a site’s historical physical fabric (Landorf 2009). Now, sites are dynamically pre-
served in ways that also foster local economic development, employment opportunities
and community prosperity.
The transition from static to dynamic conservation (Mose and Weixlbaumer 2007)
reveals a decisive shift in WHS development norms and paths (UNESCO 2015) and
forms of stakeholder engagement and governance (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013),
away from an against-growth norm (static conservation path) and towards a hybrid
norm that combines conservation with sustainable development goals (dynamic conser-
vation path) (Weaver 2012). The embedding of sustainability within conservation norms
reflects a shift from coercive to induced and to active stakeholder participation (Tosun
2006). The desire of many powerful interest groups for static conservation is counterba-
lanced by consultation with or information from (weak induced participation) other sta-
keholder groups, previously displaced or excluded, or the latter’s active participation in
decision-making (strong participation) related to the transformation of industrial (WHS)
sites (Lidegaard, Nuccio, and Bille 2017). When sustainability is embedded within WHS
management and planning (UNESCO 2015), industrial WHSs adopt integrated and
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 645

participatory management (Landorf 2011). The conservation-transformation discourse is

extended to the site environment – a constellation of stakeholders and activities that must
manage conflicts, develop negotiation capacity, and try to find consensus around a (new)
place identity (Oevermann and Mieg 2021).
Overcoming the significant barriers that arise within a collective decision-making
process is the greatest challenge. Studies show that a local community’s engagement
with its industrial heritage that goes beyond the usual consultation is key if a site is to
be managed sustainably by blending pre-existing industrial structures with modern life
(Landorf 2009). Europe provides several insights into this, including many projects for
the effective regeneration of important industrial sites (van Knippenberg and Boonstra
2021) and the cultural regeneration of small industrial communities such as Odda in
Norway (Cruickshank, Ellingsen, and Hidle 2013). An analysis of integrated and partici-
patory management practices in industrial WHSs in European transdisciplinary
cooperation projects found community engagement to be a shared good practice (Oever-
mann and Mieg 2021).

2.3. The regeneration of industrial (WHS) sites

The sustainable development of a legally preserved industrial heritage site positions its
transformation at the nexus between conservation and (potential) dynamic innovation
(Jonsen-Verbeke 1999; Xie 2006). The preservation of a site’s historical integrity and
authenticity helps to retain its unique sense of place (Heldt Cassel and Pashkevich
2011) but makes it difficult to fully address the evolving needs of modern society. If
the site’s various sources of value and creativity are leveraged to enable the regeneration
of the whole industrial landscape, opportunities for new socio-economic pathways and
social innovation (Hall 2004), and place re-branding (Braun, Kavaratzis, and Zenker
2013), can be almost guaranteed (Heidenreich and Plaza 2015). However, this process
can lead to the serial reproduction of industrial landscapes.
Reconciling tradition and close continuity with the past with innovation has been
recognized as one of the possible pathways towards sustainable transformation (Sacco
et al. 2013). The discourse around the culture-based transformation of industrial
(WH) sites incorporates this interplay, recognizing its potential in post-industrial
societies as a way out of the crisis by previous industrial development models, and to con-
struct a new place identity (Cruickshank, Ellingsen, and Hidle 2013). A site’s WHS status
can act as a catalyst for this transformation through place marketing and branding
(Rebanks Consulting Ltd 2009), the development of complementarities and the hybrid-
ization of industrial heritage with the innovative thinking of both the creative class
(Florida 2002), and the culture and creative economy (Borseková, Vaňová, and Vitálišová
2017), and tourism (Long and Morpeth 2016).
As stated earlier, local involvement and consensus are key to the successful regener-
ation of industrial landscapes (Cruickshank, Ellingsen, and Hidle 2013). The tangible
and intangible transformations that revitalize industrial heritage sites may require time
(Langen and García 2009), if local communities cannot agree, and/or find themselves
unable to act (Oevermann and Mieg 2021). For example, the aims of the actors who
want to shift towards culture may well differ from those of the preservationists or
those who are sceptical about innovation in general (Xie 2015). If these aims are
646 M. DELLA LUCIA AND A. PASHKEVICH

firmly linked in new ways, new place identities can be forged (Cruickshank, Ellingsen,
and Hidle 2013). Examples of successful industrial brownfield regeneration across
Europe and in the former Soviet Union reveal the crucial role played by building, activat-
ing and hybridizing social capital. Bellandi and Santini (2017) point out that mobilizing
social capital increases actors’ adaptability and, through investments in welfare and heri-
tage innovation, makes mature industrial districts more resilient, enabling them to break
with the path dependence that dominates their institutional structures. Other research
has shown that shared governance models relying on broad public and private stake-
holder participation (Bosák et al. 2020; Kozak 2014) and cultural catalysts (Heidenreich
and Plaza 2015) allow communities to foster sustainable regeneration.
In this regard, a study by Della Lucia and Trunfio (2018) has contributed to the devel-
opment of a matrix that represents a process of cultural heritage regeneration. This
matrix can be seen as a dynamic framework that can also be applied to analyze the regen-
eration processes taking place at various industrial sites by capturing and blending the
accompanying conservation-transformation discourses (Figure 1). It integrates two
main drivers of regeneration – stakeholder engagement and heritage-creativity hybridiz-
ation – that shape the development/regeneration model adopted, and the evolutionary
processes and tourism experience design embedded within it. Patronage and Creative
City are the two (of four) opposite models in this matrix: the former depicts the static
conservation of cultural heritage sites, the latter the sustainable transformation of the
sites and their surroundings. In shifting from Patronage to Creative-City, stakeholder
engagement moves from weak (top-down) to strong forms (shared governance), while
site conservation moves to industrial landscape transformation through heritage-creativ-
ity hybridization, including new forms of tourism. Higher stakeholder engagement cap-
tures social inclusion in regeneration management processes; higher heritage-creativity
hybridization captures heritage innovation and experience that enhance and extract
value through tourism. A variety of evolutionary paths can lead to the Creative City

Figure 1. The theoretical and analytical framework for the sustainable transformation of industrial
WHSs.
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 647

model, passing through transitional states: managerial innovation arises from the main
interest groups’ desire to enhance heritage by extracting value through forms of cultural
and creative tourism (Richards 2014). On the other hand, the desire to increase commu-
nity stakeholder participation in heritage conservation is primarily based on the former’s
being seen as an opportunity to foster social relationships and rebuild the social capital
needed to catalyze new development paths (Social innovation model).
Another contribution to the discussion comes from urban development planning
studies (Oevermann and Mieg 2021). These emphasize that industrial heritage conserva-
tion (i.e. Patronage model) and transformation (i.e. Creative Cities model) are different
– and almost inevitably conflicting – discourses occurring at different scales (site vs.
whole urban area), although, when faced with new challenges/opportunities, they may con-
verge. Bridging values to overcome dissent and fostering convergence cluster around best
practices and pre-conditions (Falk 2000; Oevermann and Mieg 2021; Xie 2006). The latter
include accessibility and the adaptive reuse of heritage (spaces for culture and creativity,
business locations, neighbourhood spaces and tourist sites), new economic drivers to mini-
mize the losses associated with deindustrialization, and community perceptions and accep-
tance of what is worth preserving and regenerating. Ideally, both the local community and
audiences/visitors (actual and virtual) will guide and shape conditions for reuse, thus
embodying a vision of local-global network building (UNESCO 2012).

2.4. Post-industrial heritage tourism

Many former industrial regions and cities have relied on tourism as their main driver of
regeneration (Xie 2006). Industrial heritage tourism involves educational and learning
activities that take place in industrial plants/areas that are still active; post-industrial
tourism refers to initiatives at inactive sites which have the potential to drive and/or
benefit from industrial heritage regeneration (Oevermann and Mieg 2021; Szromek,
Herman, and Naramski 2021).
Heritage tourism is becoming a significant socio-economic phenomenon for several
reasons. By putting new emphasis on a sense of place and its regeneration, tourism
serves to revitalize a site’s memory and image, counterbalance preconceptions about
derelict industrial areas and their detrimental economic and psychological effects on
local communities (Xie 2015), enhance residents’ identity and the image of cities/
regions (Jonsen-Verbeke 1999; Szromek, Herman, and Naramski 2021). The picture,
however, is not entirely rosy. The extent to which an economy dependent upon industrial
heritage tourism can compensate for industrial decline appears (so far) to be limited: new
employment levels and value generation remain considerably lower. Moreover, when an
industrial area reinvents itself as service-oriented, local communities are forced to face
huge cultural changes which may result in conflicts between stakeholders (Xie 2006).
Comprehensive tourism planning is therefore crucial when developing post-industrial
heritage sites (Xie 2015). The process is complicated and expensive: it requires different
conditions along with close cooperation between public and private bodies, skilful man-
agement and appropriate business models (Kozak 2014; Xie 2006). The most frequently
adopted model is the post-production tourist organization, with the (nascent) tourism
function being established at plants/sites where industrial production has stopped
648 M. DELLA LUCIA AND A. PASHKEVICH

(Szromek, Herman, and Naramski 2021). This new business stage, however, occurs at the
end of an (often prolonged) transitional stage.
The transition from industrial production to service provision reshapes a site’s value
proposition, fundraising and management structure and strengthens its capacity to cope
with its new tourist function and improve access to its heritage (Szromek, Herman, and
Naramski 2021). While heritage remains at the heart of the value proposition (history,
regional culture, industrial culture), value creation may involve advanced forms of
tourism (Richards 2014; Trunfio et al. 2022) that capture the new place identity (Long
and Morpeth 2016). Extensive local and global collaborative networks are needed to
develop creative, relational and mixed reality cultural tourism since these new forms
build on the hybridization between social capital, cultural and creative content, and
new technology (Trunfio et al. 2022).

3. The mining area of the Great Copper Mountain in Falun, Sweden

Sweden has a long-established industrial tradition that dates to the second half of the nine-
teenth century. Since the early 1980s, Sweden has also been one of several European
countries which have transformed some of their old industrial areas in the wake of the col-
lapse of many primary and secondary industries (Hospers 2002; Pashkevich 2017).
National policies have fostered the reuse of industrial heritage to open new pathways to
wide-ranging socio-economic development (Della Lucia and Pashkevich 2020). Some
difficulties, however, have been encountered when attempting to create shared visions
that reconcile conservation with tourism development (Heldt Cassel and Pashkevich 2011).
The Great Copper Mountain in the Falun/Dalarna region is a complex mining area;
since 2001 it has been one of the two Swedish UNESCO industrial sites. It includes the
mine itself, its surrounding mine-related and domestic landscapes (urban districts with
wooden houses and countryside with small farmsteads), and the copper works; the
Great Pit lies at the heart of the complex. The site meets three (out of the six) criteria
for inclusion on the WHL (UNESCO 2019). Over two centuries, the Falun copper
mine profoundly influenced mining technology all over the world (criterion ii); the
mine-related and domestic landscapes testify to a centuries-old tradition of production
(criterion iii). The socio-economic development related to the copper industry in and
around Falun is an outstanding example of human-nature interaction (criterion v)
(Della Lucia and Pashkevich 2020).
This single case study (Yin 2014) was chosen to analyze the conditions for sustainable
industrial heritage site transformation because the regeneration of the Great Copper
Mountain combines several factors which have proved hard to reconcile. First, the
local and international value of the site: it has been central to local development for cen-
turies and was an icon of Europe’s copper industry during the seventeenth century (Heldt
Cassel and Pashkevich 2011). Second, the recognition of its universal value: site protec-
tion and management follow World Heritage Committee rules, thereby putting Falun on
the local-global map. Third, the evolution of the WHS’s development norms and paths:
although it was designated before the core tenets of sustainable development were
included in UNESCO’s guidelines (UNESCO 2015), site management is being affected
by UNESCO’s transition to dynamic and innovative governance and management
models (Heldt Cassel and Pashkevich 2014). Finally, Falun’s industrial heritage
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 649

tourism potential remains underexploited: since its WHS listing, tourism development
has been very modest, and visits to the mine and surrounding areas started to increase
in the years before the pandemic. Now, something needs to be done to kick-start
things again. Similar sites, such as the Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex (1.5
million visitors annually) in Germany, have designed much more successful overarching
strategies for fostering tourism development that go beyond mere heritage preservation
(Oevermann and Mieg 2021).

4. Research design
The single case selected (Yin 2014) provides a critical evaluation of the ability of former
industrial sites to bring about a sustainable transformation (Eisenhardt 1989). The
research design is based on a theory-informed three-step approach derived from the lit-
erature reviewed in the theoretical background (Table 1):

. As industrial heritage is a cultural endowment (KEA 2006), the current conservation-

transformation discourse of the site and its urban landscape (Landorf 2011) is studied
by utilizing the matrix of cultural regeneration models (Della Lucia and Trunfio 2018).
The drivers shaping the models and pathways of industrial heritage sites – stakeholder
engagement in decision-making and the hybridization between industrial heritage and
creativity – are proxies of social inclusion (exclusion) in industrial WHS management
and industrial heritage innovation (conservation), respectively.
. The forms of post-industrial heritage tourism that emerge from the conservation-
transformation discourse are examined through the business model’s transformation
of former production facilities (Szromek, Herman, and Naramski 2021) combined
with the major factors of industrial heritage tourism development (Xie 2015).
. The change (resistance) factors enabling (blocking maybe obstructing) site transform-
ation are studied by blending the main elements involved in change management in

Table 1. The tree-step research design: main theories and core issues.
Main theory/theories Core issues
First step. The current conservation-transformation discourse
The matrix of cultural regeneration models (Della Lucia and Drivers shaping cultural regeneration models: (low/high)
Trunfio 2018) stakeholder engagement and heritage-creativity
hybridization.
Models: Conservation vs. Transformation Model vs. Hybrid
Models
Second step. Forms of post-industrial heritage tourism
Business model transformation of former production or Models: post-production tourist organizations, production
extraction facilities (Szromek, Herman, and Naramski and tourist enterprises, tourist thematic organizations
2021)
Factors to develop industrial heritage tourism (Xie 2015) Factors: Potentials, stakeholders, adaptive reuse,
Economics, Authenticity and Perceptions
Third step. The resistance and change factors affecting stakeholder engagement in WHS management and heritage-
creativity hybridization
Change management factors in institutions (Palthe 2014) Regulative, normative and cognitive elements of
organizations
Criteria (and indicators) for good practice in industrial Criteria: management, conservation, reuse, community
heritage conservation and urban development engagement, sustainability/climate change, education,
(Oevermann and Mieg 2021) urban development and research
Source: our elaboration.
650 M. DELLA LUCIA AND A. PASHKEVICH

institutions (Palthe 2014) and selected criteria (and related factors) for good practice
in industrial heritage conservation and urban development (Oevermann and Mieg
2021). The latter overlap with factors that enable post-industrial heritage tourism
(Xie 2015).

The cross-fertilization of the main constructs and core issues of this selected literature
resulted in a novel theoretical and analytical framework that integrates several factors to
be considered for (studying and guiding) the sustainable transformation of the sites and
their surrounding urban areas (Figure 1). The former industrial system context in which
the conservation-transformation discourse is framed is shaped by the institutional setting
(Palthe 2014). The latter’s elements affect the local system’s capacity (resistance) to
undertake regeneration processes/models driven by stakeholder engagement and heri-
tage-creativity hybridization. The higher (lower) the participation and heritage-creativity
hybridization, the greater social inclusion (exclusion) in industrial WHS management
and the greeter industrial heritage innovation (conservation), respectively, reflected
also in post-industrial heritage tourism models.
Several mutually reinforcing change factors activate these drivers of regeneration
(Oevermann and Mieg 2021; Xie 2015). By contrast, if these factors are locked, they
become resistance factors and constraints for transformation. On the one hand, the
higher community-heritage engagement, (perceived) heritage authenticity and former
industrial area’s potential, the greater industrial site’s participatory management. On
the other, the greater the positive attitude towards a service-oriented culture and adaptive
reuse of industrial heritage for new functions. Community perceptions are crucial for
activating both drivers. They directly affect, first, envisioning and, second, creating
alternative development through commitment, degrees of participation, private-public
funding and transformative planning instruments.

4.1. Collection and analysis of case evidence

This three-step research design was applied using qualitative methods (Gibbert, Ruigrok,
and Wicki 2008; Xiao and Smith 2006). Secondary and primary data were collected to
identify the current conservation-transformation discourse around the site and the
urban landscape and then to analyze the factors activating or blocking the path
towards sustainable transformation and post-industrial heritage tourism. Secondary
data included previous studies (Heldt Cassel and Pashkevich 2011), archival and
official documents and marketing materials (printed and online content).
Primary data were collected through two series of semi-structured interviews with
representatives from the institutions and organizations involved in Falun’s WHS man-
agement (Table 2). The interview protocol was designed to cover the main change
factors of the industrial heritage and city of Falun. The interviews lasted 35–60 min.
The first series (30 interviews) dates back to 2009–2011, a decade after the site became
a WHS; its goal was to understand the perceptions of key stakeholders about Falun’s
mining heritage and the effects of institutional arrangements and norms (Palthe 2014)
on the site’s potential transformation. The second series (15 interviews) was conducted
in 2020–2021 as part of a research project. It was designed to investigate the factors
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 651

Table 2. Anonymous respondents to semi-structured interviews.

First series of interviews 2009– Second series of interviews 2020–
Institutions and organizations 2011 2021
The County Administrative Board of Dalarna x x
The Dalarna Museum x x
The Great Copper Mountain Foundation x x
The Mine Museum x x
The Municipality of Falun x x
The National Geological Survey x
The National Heritage Board x
The World Heritage Council x x
Visit Falun Destination Management x x
Organization
Managers of tourism accommodations (hostels, x
hotels)
Cultural event organization x
The Regional Development Council of Dalarna x
Province
Friends of Falun (Non-profit organization) x x
Source: our elaboration.

(Figure 1) that, through leveraging the site’s WHS status, and after almost two decades on
the WHL, had influenced the (sustainable) transformation of the site and city of Falun
(Oevermann and Mieg 2021; Xie 2015).
The information recorded during the interviews was analyzed and integrated with
additional information requests to stakeholders. Key questions and issues were triangu-
lated with content analysis of secondary data sources. Some interesting observations
about the conservation-transformation dilemmas experienced by key stakeholders
during the two decades of Falun’s development emerge from the comparison between
the two data sets.

4. Results and discussion

The main results of the study are twofold: firstly, Falun’s current conservation-trans-
formation discourse and the pathways taken (by both the heritage site and the city)
and, secondly, the forms of post-industrial heritage tourism produced by this interplay
and the change factors that explain the industrial heritage site’s management model
and tourist transformation. The results’ significance is discussed, building on the above-
mentioned theoretical and analytical framework (Figure 1).

4.1 The managerial innovation model and the post-industrial tourist pathway
of the Great Copper Mountain Foundation
The iconic copper mine in Falun finally closed in 1992. However, open pit mining at the
site had ended in 1979: underground mining soon became unprofitable due to rising
operational costs and low concentrations of copper ore; when initial hopes of finding
other mineral deposits near the site were not realized, the mine was forced to close.
The impact of this closure on the surrounding economy and society was limited,
largely because the former mining area had already started to encourage tourism in
652 M. DELLA LUCIA AND A. PASHKEVICH

the early 1970s. However, the proximity of the mining site to the residential town of
Falun means that the future is still felt to be uncertain (Falu Gruva 2022).
Local institutions manifested a sense of responsibility and duty. In 1999, the company
that had owned the mine from 1888 to 1992 (Stora), Falun’s Municipality and the Invest-
ment AB formed the Great Copper Mine Trust. The latter, which also included other
public bodies and private stakeholders, was intended to play a leading role in preserving
Falun’s mining heritage and surroundings after the mine’s closure. This same stakeholder
group was behind the successful application for UNESCO recognition and inclusion on
the WHS list (2001). The central role of the Great Copper Mine Trust and its represen-
tatives’ close ties with the regional cultural elite meant that both the local community and
its entrepreneurs found it hard to gain access to the joint management of the mining area.
WHS management was and still is a multi-level (local-regional-national-international)
top-down system. The World Heritage Council oversees the overall process of protecting
and developing the Falun World Heritage site: it comprises a narrow group of insti-
tutions, most of which were also involved in the site conservation and WHS recognition.
The WHC, however, also includes representatives from the regional destination manage-
ment organization (Visit Dalarna) and the regional Dalarna’s Museum. The Municipality
of Falun employs the WHS coordinator of public engagement with the site who also acts
as a link between the WHS, the National Heritage Board and UNESCO. The Great
Copper Mountain Trust – the current owner of the former mining area in Falun – is
responsible for the upkeep and ongoing development of the underground mine and
mining museum. The County Administrative Board, a governmental body that
manages the preservation of historical buildings, advises the National Heritage Board
which preserves and administers Sweden’s cultural heritage. And finally, reports are scru-
tinized by UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee which is legally obliged to request the
site’s removal from the WHL if it fails to meet certain criteria.
This narrow and homogeneous institutional WHS management system has remained
unchanged since 2001 and has strongly influenced the site’s management goals and the
conservation-transformation discourse. In the first decade (2001–2010) after its WHS
listing, the static preservation of the site’s historical industrial value was prioritized.
Development projects focused solely on the mining area and the preservation of the cul-
tural heritage connected to the sixteenth–seventeenth century development of the site.
The silo effect produced by this narrow vision has inevitably slowed the development/
regeneration of other cultural heritage attractions. Indeed, neither the several voices
that have called for wider community involvement (both at city and provincial level)
nor the various private entrepreneurial initiatives that reimagine and re-use the
mining landscape of Falun (Heldt Cassel and Pashkevich 2014) and the province of Berg-
slagen for heritage tourism (Pashkevich 2017) have received sufficient support.
Static preservation continued to be prioritized in the second decade (2011–2020);
however, the mine’s infrastructure has been repurposed in an instance of an incipient
hybridization between the area’s former industrial production and the provision of
tourist services. As noted above, this process had begun in the 1970s, when the first under-
ground tours were organized. Later, guided mining tours informed by the rich archival
resources preserved by the Mining Museum contributed to the reimagining of the
former mining landscape. Value generation has, to date, focused on traditional forms of cul-
tural tourism and educational activities. Moreover, tourism’s economic impact (visitor
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 653

numbers/expenditure) has been weakened by the limited involvement of private entrepre-

neurs in value creation. Visits to the site had started to increase in the years before and after
the pandemic. The few attempts made to extend tourism beyond the WHS area have slowly
started to generate spill-over and multiplicative effects. The economic (and thus also social)
success of tourism development strongly depends on both a site’s surroundings and other
efforts being made to develop tourism in the same geographic area. However, the infor-
mants in the second interview series said that trying to involve Falun’s own inhabitants
in heritage consumption was a slow process, as was strengthening collaboration between
the Trust and the main public authority, Falun Municipality. Nevertheless, public-
private partnerships must be encouraged since in Sweden the public authorities are the
biggest funders of cultural heritage preservation and development.
Since 2018, the official collaboration between the Foundation and the Falun Munici-
pality started to improve due to the political leadership becoming more actively involved
in the questions related to World Heritage, and signs of innovative post-industrial heri-
tage tourism are now evident. According to several informants from the second interview
study, this positive change in the attitude has enabled a shift from cultural to creative
tourism: visitors are being offered active experiences that build on creative content
and certain ICT applications (Richards 2014; OECD 2014). The newly renovated inter-
active mining museum reopened to visitors in 2018/2019; walking trails around the area
of the mine have been created; new B&Bs have opened; several enterprises, including bike
rental & repair shops, have started up at the site. This has resulted in an increase (16%) in
visitor numbers during the summer period (June-August) in 2022 compared to the last
tourism season of year 2018 prior to the Covid-19 pandemic.
These drivers of the conservation-transformation discourse – low stakeholder engage-
ment in WHS management (consultation only) and medium-low industrial heritage-
creativity hybridization – reveal Great Copper Mountain Foundation to be a Managerial
innovation model of industrial heritage regeneration (Della Lucia and Trunfio 2018),
with its tourist function still in a transitional stage (Szromek, Herman, and Naramski
2021). Although a narrow and homogeneous group of stakeholders currently manages
the WHS, urban community-heritage engagement appears to be increasing. Meanwhile,
the influence of the former mining and industrial elite within Falun’s public and private
institutions often coincides with UNESCO’s former conservationist approach to its
WHSs. This elite has prioritized the static preservation of the site, with its secondary
focus being the re-use of infrastructure for post-industrial heritage tourism and edu-
cational services that concentrates on the site’s historical legacy and memories. Progress
is still being made, and much remains to be done: production stopped and the mine
closed 30 years ago, but the implementation of a post-production tourist model based
on the provision of (innovative) soft service is still in its early stages. The evolutionary
pathway that has led the WHS to its current regeneration model and (somewhat reluc-
tant) embrace of post-industrial heritage tourism is depicted in Figure 2.

4.2 The factors affecting the conservation-transformation discourses within the

industrial WHS site and the nearby urban area
The institutional setting (regulative, normative and cognitive) (Palthe 2014) very largely
determined stakeholder participation in Falun’s WHS management and the persistence
654 M. DELLA LUCIA AND A. PASHKEVICH

of its rigid top-down approach to WHS conservation. In turn, the latter influenced the
interplay between some of the major factors known to affect (impede, if locked) good
practices in industrial heritage and urban development (Oevermann and Mieg 2021),
and post-industrial heritage tourism (Szromek, Herman, and Naramski 2021; Xie
2006) (Figures 2). As shown by previous studies (Cruickshank, Ellingsen, and Hidle
2013), local community perceptions also profoundly shaped these factors.
Having been listed in 2001, Falun’s WHS management approach followed UNESCO’s
pre-2015 recommendations focused on static conservation. The influence of expected and
tacit norms (Nonaka 1991) arising from the institutional and cultural systems in place
meant that the new recommendations promoting dynamic conservation and the creation
of preconditions for sustainable (tourism) development did not result in the management
body adopting participatory approaches to WHS governance and management (Heldt
Cassel and Pashkevich 2014). While stakeholders professed to be inspired by a commitment
to conservation, their continued adherence to a top-down conservation management
approach indicated the persistence of an industrial (mono)culture mindset (Alfrey and
Putnam 2003).

Figure 2. Factors affecting the model and the development path of the Great Copper Mountain site
and its urban area.
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 655

Nevertheless, the gradually increasing use of the preserved industrial heritage infra-
structure for tourism demonstrates the impact of new recommendations on developing
the WHS sustainably (Landorf 2011). Although the links between the County Adminis-
trative Board, the Municipality of Falun, and the Trust, including the involvement of the
regional DMO Visit Dalarna, have helped to legitimate the connection between industrial
production and tourism, the prolonged transitional stage to post-industrial heritage
tourism shows that industrial monoculture is still extremely influential. Sustainable
(economic and tourism) development has not yet taken off because the active partici-
pation of local stakeholders was not sought and so there are no – or not enough – entre-
preneurs around to effectively exploit the area’s mining heritage.
Local community exclusion from decision-making processes exacerbated community
misperceptions of the WHS’s management’s priorities and the benefits of WHS status.
Some recently interviewed informants felt that WHS protection measures (potentially)
limit autonomous local decision-making and any current or future plans to foster inno-
vation and progress in and around the site. Similarly, other stakeholders claim that some
actors directly involved in the socio-economic development of the Falun Municipality
(and beyond) do not appreciate the extent to which the universal material and symbolic
values of the WHS could contribute to the overall economic development of both the
urban area and the region. They believe that the only heritage that is actually valued is
that dating from a particular historical period (which conforms to the criteria that met
UNESCO’s original requirements), thus limiting value and experience creation to that
specific time frame. Local community misperceptions and concerns suggest a lack of
awareness and ambivalence typically associated with the persistence of taken-for-
granted tacit norms that implicitly shape beliefs and actions (Palthe 2014).
The potential of new development paths based on the adaptive reuse of Falun’s indus-
trial heritage has been obscured by path dependence. The global authority underpinning
the WHS system initially reinforced the emphasis on preservation and limited opportu-
nities for innovation in Falun. Other reinforcing factors were concerns about both heri-
tage authenticity and the industrial area’s tourist potential which was not perceived as
capable of fully compensating for the economic loss subsequent to the mine’s closure.
A community needs to agree on the industrial heritage potential of its surroundings
for the latter to be fully activated; fragmentation is detrimental (Edwards and Llurdes
1996). Several stakeholders mentioned that there is still no general agreement on how
the historical and cultural values connected to the site’s industrial development should
be highlighted when building its new identity and development path.
Stakeholders’ roles, and connections to the industrial past – which both fed misper-
ceptions and hindered social action – appeared evident in both their diversity of views
on how to preserve and develop industrial heritage and their levels of participation.
Some stakeholders have said that preserved buildings and historic zones should
become an integral part of the residential areas that have been (re)built in some parts
of the city. Others believe that the time for a reimagining of industrial heritage
through spectacular innovation ‘manifested in many different ways and forms’ has yet
to come; yet others are sceptical that it ever will. In addition, few synergies have been
developed to connect the industrial legacy to a well-recognized brand image, or to story-
telling strategies that would communicate the core values of the WHS and the city of
Falun (and the province of Dalarna). And, after 20 years as a WHS, one of the informants
656 M. DELLA LUCIA AND A. PASHKEVICH

– echoing what has already been said – claimed that ‘Falun has always been seen as a city
with a very cosy downtown area, but it has never been automatically connected to the
World Heritage [site centred on the mine]’ – (Heldt Cassel and Pashkevich 2011).

5. Conclusion
Managing the afterlife of former industrial sites has proven to be a challenge for the many
post-industrial regions now endeavouring to reinvent themselves. Focusing on this
topical issue, our paper considers the need to balance management, conservation and
regeneration and heritage tourism in such areas. Its novel contribution is the cross-fer-
tilization of core constructs in these fields and their combination into a theoretical and
analytical framework that integrates the factors influencing the process of successfully
transforming post-industrial sites sustainably.
This framework was applied to analyze and interpret the afterlife of a post-industrial
site in Sweden. The conservation-transformation discourses connected to the industrial
WHS site, and the urban area of Falun have developed in an institutional setting that
restrict conservation to the WHS area and limit the extent to which some of the preserved
industrial heritage infrastructure can be used for tourism. Great Copper Mountain Foun-
dation exhibits all the traits of the Managerial innovation model of industrial heritage
regeneration (Della Lucia and Trunfio 2018) and local community in WHS management
and urban development is slowly increasing, however still limited to consultation only.
This regeneration model is reflected in Falun’s prolonged transitional stage to post-
industrial heritage tourism which appears finally to be allowing innovation (Szromek,
Herman, and Naramski 2021).
The resistance to and controversy about the adaptive reuse of the site’s industrial heri-
tage and the surrounding urban area are rooted mainly in inherited socio-economic and
institutional structures and the norms of the industrial past. The persistence of a top-
down conservation management approach very largely excluded local community and
private entrepreneurs from the WHS management and urban development decision-
making processes. This exclusion has resulted in distrust and uncertainty on the part
of the local community, fuelling misperceptions about the WHS’s current sustainable
development priorities and, more generally, the (supposed) benefits associated with
UNESCO WHS status.
Although exploratory, our insights point towards several possible implications for
researchers, policymakers and site managers. From the theoretical viewpoint, the inte-
grated theoretical and analytical framework we have designed contributes to theory
building by combining institutional (Palthe 2014), cultural regeneration (Della Lucia
and Trunfio 2018; Oevermann and Mieg 2021) and heritage tourism perspectives
(Szromek, Herman, and Naramski 2021; Xie 2015) to shape a path towards the sustain-
able transformation of post-industrial heritage sites. The change factors comprised in this
framework add both a static and dynamic analytical approach to the conservation-trans-
formation discourses discovered in different industrial and cultural contexts and their
urban environment.
The managerial implications and recommendations appear evident when this theor-
etical framework is used to guide the process of sustainable transformation/evolution
in former industrial areas – in the Nordic countries and across Europe. If locked,
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 657

change factors generate resistance and policymakers and managers should bear this in
mind. To revitalize the site, the case examined suggests continuing efforts to dismantle
lock-ins to change at different (institutional) levels. It became clear that institutions,
and their managers, are key stakeholders because of their capacity to create the necessary
economic and social incentives to encourage individuals/businesses to engage in the
regeneration process. Community engagement is also needed to turn incentives into
good practices.
The current UNESCO recommendations that WHSs need to become sustainable
clearly encourage their managing institutions to adopt participatory planning and man-
agement involving broader and active stakeholder participation and transforming per-
spectives and beliefs. Dissatisfaction with the persistence of top-down models and
methods may gradually erode the legitimacy of previous norms and welcome a new man-
agement lead that can begin to shape an innovative, creative environment (Jonsen-
Verbeke 1999; Heldt Cassel and Pashkevich 2014; Heidenreich and Plaza 2015). As
has been shown (Zan 2000), a skilful management team with multiple competencies
(human, strategic, technological and structural) and methods can inspire change in
long-established conservation discourses.
Local communities and entrepreneurs can become agents of change by empowering
themselves to overcome distrust and uncertainty and to rethink any possible mispercep-
tions (Moscardo 2008). Critically, this is a matter of rethinking what stakeholder and
community engagement actually can or should be. People and businesses having
access to and gaining ownership of some parts of the site may become concretely
engaged with their heritage and aware that it is worth knowing about, sharing, and pre-
serving. And, industrial heritage tourism is a valid – and potentially lucrative – way of
doing this. Examples of catalyzing place marketing and branding through WHS status
and tourism can be provided (Rebanks Consulting Ltd 2009), including the knock-on
effects on adjacent regions (Getzner et al. 2014).
A common communication interface uniting different stakeholder groups needs to be
created to reconcile conservation and transformation. Developing a shared vision and
projects that combine heritage and urban transformation is also likely to be helpful.
These collaborative networks are needed to hybridize the creative potential of former
industrial sites through new mindsets, social and professional backgrounds, experiences,
narratives and tools while remaining faithful to a site’s sense of place. When it comes to
building capacity, however, cooperation is not always easily achievable and requires
appropriate participatory engagement tools. These tools include stakeholder education
and training, attracting talent, laboratories in which heterogeneous communities of prac-
tice participate, and ICT applications for enhancing heritage experience and
communication.

6. Limits and future research

Further research is needed to develop and integrate the theoretical and analytical frame-
work proposed in this contribution. A critical reflection on the single applied theoretical
approaches, and others as sense of place (Cresswell 2014) that was briefly mentioned but
not utilized, might well cast light on the connection between the institutional setting
(local and global) and people’s and organizations’ perceptions and sense of
658 M. DELLA LUCIA AND A. PASHKEVICH

(dis)empowerment. To develop and validate the framework more case studies must be
examined in order to compare the (former and/or current) challenges faced by other
industrial heritage sites/WHSs, in different sectors and countries. The WHS copper
mining area near the town of Roros, in Norway, the Hanseatic city of Visby, in
Sweden, and the city of Stralsund, in Germany, are potentially interesting cross-cases
which might reveal additional factors and best practices that could be integrated into
the general framework and implemented to catalyze the regeneration of industrial heri-
tage sites and/or urban areas. With regard to methodology, broader, more diverse groups
of stakeholders, at different governance levels, must be asked for feedback on the results
presented in this study; a longitudinal analysis could also be carried out to monitor the
evolution over time of the afterlife of post-industrial sites.

Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to all the anonymous interviewees, representatives from the institutions
and organizations engaged in the management of the WHS in Falun, for their valuable insights
into the role of their public, private or non-profit organizations in this management.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was partially supported by the Regional Council of Dalarna (Grant 2019/202). The latter
was involved neither in the conduct of the research nor the preparation of this article.

ORCID
Maria Della Lucia http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9738-7410
Albina Pashkevich http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8134-5999

References
Alfrey, J., and T. Putnam. 2003. The Industrial Heritage. Managing Resources and Uses. New York:
Routledge.
Ambrosini, V., and C. Bowman. 2001. “Tacit Knowledge: Some Suggestions for
Operationalization.” Journal of Management Studies 38 (6): 811–829. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.
00260.
Bathelt, H., A. Malmberg, and P. Maskell. 2004. “Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global
Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation.” Progress in Human Geography 28 (1): 31–
56. doi:10.1191/0309132504ph469oa.
Bellandi, M., and E. Santini. 2017. “Resilience and the Role of Arts and Culture-Based Activities in
Mature Industrial Districts.” European Planning Studies 25 (1): 88–106. doi:10.1080/09654313.
2016.1268096.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips, and T.
Sandwith. 2013. “Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding to Action. IUCN
Protected Areas Programme.” https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/
governance_of_protected_areas_from_understanding_to_action.pdf.
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 659

Borseková, K., A. Vaňová, and K. Vitálišová. 2017. “Building Košice European Capital of Culture:
Towards a Creative City?” In Tourism in the City. Towards an Integrative Agenda on Urban
Tourism, edited by N. Bellini, and C. Pasquinelli, 193–205. Cham: Springer.
Bosák, V., O. Slach, A. Nováček, and L. Krtička. 2020. “Temporary Use and Brownfield
Regeneration in Post-Socialist Context: From Bottom-up Governance to Artists
Exploitation.” European Planning Studies 28 (3): 604–626. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1642853.
Braun, E., M. Kavaratzis, and S. Zenker. 2013. “My City – My Brand: The Different Roles of
Residents in Place Branding.” Journal of Place Management and Development 6 (1): 18–28.
doi:10.1108/17538331311306087.
Bridge, G. 2004. “Contested Terrain: Mining and the Environment.” Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 29: 205–259. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.28.011503.163434.
Cooke, P., and L. Lazzeretti. 2008. Creative Cities, Cultural Clusters and Local Economic
Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cresswell, T. 2014. Place: An Introduction. Chichester: Blackwell.
Cruickshank, J., W. Ellingsen, and K. Hidle. 2013. “A Crisis of Definition: Culture Versus Industry
in Odda, Norway.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 95 (2): 147–161. doi:10.
1111/geob.12014.
Della Lucia, M., and A. Pashkevich. 2020. “Coming to New Life? Envisioning Sustainable
Development in Industrial (World) Heritage Sites.” In Conference Proceeding of the
International Conference on Heritage, Tourism and Hospitality 2020. Università della Svizzera
italiana, Lugano.
Della Lucia, M., and M. Trunfio. 2018. “The Role of the Private Actor in Cultural Regeneration:
Hybridizing Cultural Heritage with Creativity in the City.” Cities 82: 35–44. doi:10.1016/j.
cities.2018.05.003.
Douet, J. 2016. Industrial Heritage Re-tooled: The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage
Conservation. New York: Routledge.
Edwards, J., and J. Llurdes. 1996. “Mines and Quarries.” Annals of Tourism Research 23: 341–363.
doi:10.1016/0160-7383(95)00067-4.
Eisenhardt, K. 1989. “Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High-Velocity Environment.” Academy
of Management Journal 32: 543–576. doi:10.2307/256434.
Falk, N. 2000. “New Uses for Old Industrial Buildings.” In Industrial Buildings: Conservation and
Regeneration, edited by M. Stratton, 89–102. London: Taylor & Francis.
Falser, M. 2001. “Industrial Heritage Analysis. World Heritage List and Tentative List.” https://
whc.unesco.org/archive/ind-study01.pdf.
Falu Gruva. 2022. “The Stories.” https://www.falugruva.se/berattelser/.
Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.
Garrod, B., and A. Fyall. 2000. “Managing Heritage Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 27 (3):
682–708. doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00094-8.
Getzner, M., M. Lange Vik, E. Brendehaug, and B. Lane. 2014. “Governance and Management
Strategies in National Parks: Implications for Sustainable Regional Development.”
International Journal of Sustainable Society 6 (1/2): 82–101. doi:10.1504/IJSSOC.2014.057891.
Gibbert, M., W. Ruigrok, and B. Wicki. 2008. “What Passes as a Rigorous Case Study?” Strategic
Management Journal 29 (13): 1465–1474. doi:10.1002/smj.722.
Hall, P. 2004. “Creativity, Culture, Knowledge and the City.” Built Environment 30 (3): 256–258.
doi:10.2148/benv.30.3.256.54306.
Harfst, J. 2015. “Utilizing the Past: Valorizing Post-Mining Potential in Central Europe.” The
Extractive Industries and Society 2: 217–224. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2015.01.003.
Heidenreich, M., and B. Plaza. 2015. “Renewal Through Culture? The Role of Museums in the
Renewal of Industrial Regions in Europe.” European Planning Studies 23 (8): 1441–1455.
doi:10.1080/09654313.2013.817544.
Heldt Cassel, S., and A. Pashkevich. 2011. “Heritage Tourism and Inherited Institutional
Structures: The Case of Falun Great Copper Mountain.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism 11 (1): 54–75.
660 M. DELLA LUCIA AND A. PASHKEVICH

Heldt Cassel, S., and A. Pashkevich. 2014. “World Heritage and Tourism Innovation: Institutional
Frameworks and Local Adaptation.” European Planning Studies 22 (8): 1625–1640. doi:10.1080/
09654313.2013.784605.
Hospers, G. 2002. “Industrial Heritage Tourism and Regional Restructuring in the European
Union.” European Planning Studies 10 (3): 397–404. doi:10.1080/09654310220121112.
ICOMOS. 2022. “ICOMOS Missions and Visions.” ICOMOS. https://www.icomos.org/en/about-
icomos/mission-and-vision/icomos-mission.
Jonsen-Verbeke, M. 1999. “Industrial Heritage: A Nexus for Sustainable Tourism Development.”
Tourism Geographies 1: 70–85. doi:10.1080/14616689908721295.
KEA. 2006. “The Economy of Culture in Europe.” European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/
assets/eac/culture/library/studies/cultural-economy_en.pdf.
Kozak, M. 2014. “Innovation, Tourism and Destination Development: Dolnośląskie Case Study.”
European Planning Studies 22 (8): 1604–1624. doi:10.1080/09654313.2013.784597.
Landorf, C. 2009. “A Framework for Sustainable Heritage Management: A Study of UK Industrial
Heritage Sites.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 15 (6): 494–510. doi:10.1080/
13527250903210795.
Landorf, C. 2011. “A Future for the Past: A New Theoretical Model for Sustainable Historic Urban
Environments.” Planning Practice and Research 26 (2): 147–165. doi:10.1080/02697459.2011.
560458.
Langen, F., and B. García. 2009. “Measuring the Impacts of Large Scale Cultural Events: A
Literature Review.” IMPACT08. https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/impacts08/pdf/
pdf/Impacts08-FLangen_and_BGarcia_May_2009_Events_Review.pdf.
Lidegaard, C., M. Nuccio, and T. Bille. 2017. “Fostering and Planning Urban Regeneration: The
Governance of Cultural Districts in Copenhagen.” European Planning Studies 26 (1): 1–19.
doi:10.1080/09654313.2017.1364352.
Long, P., and N. D. Morpeth. 2016. Tourism and the Creative Industries: Theories, Policies and
Practice. New York: Routledge.
Moscardo, G. 2008. Building Community Capacity for Tourism Development. Wallingford: CABI.
Mose, I., and N. Weixlbaumer. 2007. “A New Paradigm for Protected Areas in Europe?” In
Protected Areas and Regional Development in Europe. Towards a New Model for the 21st
Century, edited by I. Mose, 3–19. London: Ashgate.
Nonaka, I. 1991. “The Knowledge-Creating Company.” Harvard Business Review 69 (6): 96–104.
OECD. 2014. Tourism and the Creative Economy. Paris: OECD Studies on Tourism.
Oevermann, H., and E. Gantner, eds. 2021. Securing Urban Heritage. Agents, Access, and
Securitization. New York: Routledge.
Oevermann, H., and H. Mieg. 2021. “Urban Development Planning and World Cultural Heritage:
Two Perspectives of Planning Practice Dealing with Industrial Heritage.” Planning Practice &
Research 36 (4): 430–441. doi:10.1080/02697459.2021.1874639.
Palthe, J. 2014. “Regulative, Normative, and Cognitive Elements of Organizations: Implications for
Managing Change.” Management and Organizational Studies 1 (1): 59–66. doi:10.5430/mos.
v1n2p59.
Pashkevich, A. 2017. “Processes of Reinterpretation of Mining Heritage: The Case of
Bergslagen, Sweden.” Almatourism: Journal of Tourism, Culture and Territorial Development
8 (7): 107–123. doi:10.6092/issn.2036-5195/6758.
Rebanks Consulting Ltd. 2009. “World Heritage Status. Is There Opportunity for Economic Gain?
(Research and Analysis of the Socio-Economic Impact Potential of UNESCO World Heritage
Site Status).” Author and Trends Business Research.
Richards, G. 2014. “Creativity and Tourism in the City.” Current Issues in Tourism 17 (2): 119–144.
doi:10.1080/13683500.2013.783794.
Richards, G., and L. Duif. 2018. Small Cities with Big Dreams. Creative Placemaking and Branding
Strategies. New York: Routledge.
Sacco, P., G. Ferilli, G. Tavano Blessi, and M. Nuccio. 2013. “Culture as an Engine of Local
Development Processes: System-Wide Cultural Districts. II: Prototype Cases.” Growth and
Change 44 (4): 571–588. doi:10.1111/grow.12021.
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 661

Szromek, A., K. Herman, and M. Naramski. 2021. “Sustainable Development of Industrial

Heritage Tourism – A Case Study of the Industrial Monuments Route in Poland.” Tourism
Management 83: 104252. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104252.
TICCIH. 2003. “The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage.” TICCIH. https://ticcih.org/
wp-content/uploads/2013/04/NTagilCharter.pdf.
TICCIH. 2022. “The International Committee for The Conservation of The Industrial Heritage.”
TICCIH. https://ticcih.org/about/.
Tosun, C. 2006. “Expected Nature of Community Participation in Tourism Development.”
Tourism Management 27 (3): 493–504. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2004.12.004.
Trunfio, M., M. Della Lucia, S. Campana, and A. Magnelli. 2022. “Innovating the Cultural Heritage
Museum Service Model Through Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality: The Effects on the
Overall Visitor Experience and Satisfaction.” Journal of Heritage Tourism 17(1): 1–19. doi:10.
1080/1743873X.2020.1850742.
UNESCO. 1972. “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and NATURAL
heritage.” UNESCO. http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/.
UNESCO. 2012. “Community Development Through World Heritage.” UNESCO. http://whc.
unesco.org/document/117040.
UNESCO. 2015. “Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention.” UNESCO. http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/.
UNESCO. 2019. “Mining Area of the Great Copper Mountain in Falun.” UNESCO. https://whc.
unesco.org/en/list/1027/.
UNESCO. 2022. “World Heritage List.” UNESCO. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/.
van Knippenberg, K., and B. Boonstra. 2021. “Co-evolutionary Heritage Reuse: A European
Multiple Case Study Perspective.” European Planning Studies. doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.
2019684.
Weaver, D. 2012. “Organic, Incremental and Induced Paths to Sustainable Mass Tourism
Convergence.” Tourism Management 33 (5): 1030–1037. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.08.011.
Xiao, H., and S. Smith. 2006. “The Making of Tourism Research: Insights from a Social Sciences
Journal.” Annals of Tourism Research 33 (2): 490–507. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2006.01.004.
Xie, P. 2006. “Developing Industrial Heritage Tourism: A Case Study of the Proposed Jeep
Museum in Toledo, Ohio.” Tourism Management 27 (6): 1321–1330. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.
2005.06.010.
Xie, P. 2015. Industrial Heritage Tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Yin, R. 2014. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Zan, L. 2000. “Managerialisation Processes and Performance in Arts Organisations: The
Archaeological Museum of Bologna.” Scandinavian Journal of Management 16: 431–454.
doi:10.1016/S0956-5221(00)00015-4.
Zukin, S. 1995. The Cultures of Cities. Blackwell: Malden.