This paper examines how authenticity and its use as a way of conceptualising the past participates in processes of heritage production, which are here defined as both the social construction of heritage sites and the uses of heritage sites as resources to achieve social goals. We argue that the social production of place and the social values generated by place are linked by a common approach based on the use of ‘place attraction’ as a unifying social concept. The World Heritage Site of Røros has as an attractive place become a resource for the production of cultural capital among various stakeholders, taking the form of a large body of ‘heritage knowledges’. However, a symbolic capital production of ‘attractive authenticity’ has today generated an idealised past and a purified iconic image of Røros as World Heritage. The discourse of ‘attractive authenticity’ reveals a conflict of interests where symbolic capital unfolds and makes power relations evident. This exposes a discussion about cultural heritage management practices at World Heritage Sites.

Purpose: The paper explores the potential value of urban assemblage theory as a conceptual framework for understanding the role heritage has in social sustainable urban placemaking. The authors conceptualise urban placemaking as a dynamic and complex social assemblage. Heritage is one of the many dimensions of such a complex and dynamic urban assembly. Based on the approach to urban assemblage theory, the authors aim to uncover how postindustrial city-making unfolds. When approaching the case studies, the authors ask the following: Whose city for which citizens are visible through the selected case studies? How is social sustainability achieved through heritage in urban placemaking? Design/methodology/approach: The main research material is derived from theoretical literature and the testing of an assemblage methodological approach through three Norwegian urban regeneration case studies where heritage partake in urban placemaking. The three case studies are the Tukthus wall (what is left of an 19th century old prison), the Vulkan neighbourhood (an 19th century industrial working area) and Sørengkaia (an 19th century industrial harbour area) in Oslo, Norway. The three case studies are representing urban regeneration projects which are common worldwide, and not at least in a European context. Findings: The paper reveals the dynamic factors and processes at play in urban placemaking, which has its own distinct character by the uses of heritage in each of the case study areas. Placemaking could produce “closed” systems which are stable in accordance with its original functions, or they could be “open” systems affected by the various drivers of change. The paper shows how these forces are depending on two sets of binary forces at play in urban placemaking: forces of “assemblages” co-creating a place versus destabilising forces of “disassembly” which is redefining the place as a process affected by reassembled placemaking. Research limitations/implications: For research, the authors focus on the implications this paper has for the field of urban heritage studies as it provides a useful framework to capture the dynamic complexity of urban heritage areas. Practical implications: For practice, the authors state that the paper can provide a useful platform for dialogue and critical thinking on strategies being planned. Social implications: For society, the paper promotes the significance in terms of fostering an inclusive way of thinking and planning for urban heritage futures. Originality/value: The paper outlines dynamics of urban regeneration through heritage which are significant for understanding urban transformation as value for offering practical solutions to social problems in urban planning. The assemblage methodological approach (1) makes awareness of the dynamic processes at play in urban placemaking and makes the ground for mapping issue at stake in urban placemaking; (2) becomes a source for modelling urban regeneration through heritage by defining a conceptual framework of dynamic interactions in urban placemaking; and (3) defines a critically reflexive tool for evaluating good versus bad (heritage-led) urban development projects.

What is the significance of heritage for how welfare is defined? What function does heritage have in the public realm and how is heritage becoming a resource for citizens to gain influence in society? Who and what defines the public debates and the politics about heritage? Is there a knowledge gap between research communities, management, and the public understanding and use of heritage? These are some of the questions that the authors of this book reflect upon. They provide Nordic perspectives on how the management of the past takes place, and how it is carried out in the service of the society, offering new interpretations of the role of heritage in present society, where institutional heritage management has become just one of the many and multiple ways in which different publics engage with cultural heritage. This book addresses the main challenges faced by heritage managers today in light of the changing understanding of heritage in society.

Increased migration has prompted discussions regarding most of the prime functions of museums as societal institutions. When the population and potential users of museums become more heterogeneous and diverse, the idea of a shared common national history becomes contested. Immigrant cultures have an important function in history writing and in heritage production. Many museum officials are currently concerned about developing new means to enable museums to face the challenges arising from increased migration. Such societal changes effect both the larger, long established national institutions, and the smaller regional or local museums. Although their means and methods vary significantly, the degree of inventiveness, engagement and resourcefulness is not necessarily proportional to the institution’s age or size. In this article, we ask what are the means and approaches that Norwegian museums currently use to involve migrants in museum work and how do they include stories and experiences from modern migrants in their collections.

This chapter explores the concept of heritage ‘sustainability’ (which often implies ‘freezing’ heritage in time) through a provocative lens – that of change and continuity as a heritage value in itself. It will use Nordic case studies to demonstrate how change and continuity should be studied and assessed for heritage significance. We use three concepts from change theory (systems theory) – developmental, transitional and transformational change – as the epistemological background for understanding the relationships of change and sustainability in various heritage management practices. We theorize about what change entails as a strategic heritage approach to change management. In this way, we will also be able to define how change is an active social component in the organization of the practices that take place through the uses of heritage.