Best practice encompasses a transfer of expert knowledge developed in one setting to address a particular issue and, through achieving some recognised benchmark, that technique, model and/or policy is applied in another setting to achieve the same desired improvement. Best practice can sometimes bring with it an inherent structure and assumed knowledge that may largely be absent in the new setting to which it is being applied. This type of “best practice” approach may come to represent the placeless-ness of externally derived and applied planning knowledge; removing itself from deliberative planning, placemaking and coproduction efforts where a collective and jointly aspired-to outcome is desired. The objectives of this paper are twofold: 1) to examine the implementation of a transfer of planning ideas across distances and in planning practice by investigating two very different “best practice” case studies (one in Australia and one in Nepal); and 2) to develop an adaptive “good practice” approach that can be used to structure deliberative planning efforts in placemaking. Central to this paper is the theoretical perspective of the diversity, interdependence and authentic dialogue (DIAD) theory of collaborative rationality and its emphasis on deliberation, collaboration and use of different knowledge types to aid with decision-making. The theoretical ideas of the paper are then worked through the two case studies to also illustrate that the DIAD may be applied to site-specific (design/planning) projects, thereby adding a new layer of good practice applicability to the theory.

Purpose: Placemaking is an established practice and research field. It takes on a spatial dimension created through a socio-political process where value and meaning are assigned to settings. An emerging concept, sustainability citizenship relies on social actors creating sustainable urban settings by working, sometimes, “outside” formal planning; offering an evolutionary step in the creation and understanding of community realised places. The purpose of this paper is twofold: examine one of Bogotá, Colombia’s informal settlements to explore the placemaking/sustainability citizenship relationship, and use this exploration as a means to argue the appropriateness of sustainability citizenship when investigating/realising settings in Bogotá’s informal settlements. Design/methodology/approach: To address the paper’s aim, books, journal articles and monographs related to citizen/community participation, placemaking, citizenship (in Latin America and conceptually) and sustainability citizenship were collected and critically reviewed. Identification of these documents was achieved through a literature review of the library database at Deakin University and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana and the co-authors of this paper contributing to and reviewing submissions to the 2016 Routledge publication, Sustainability Citizenship. Field observation and engagement with the citizenry living in the informal settlements of Bogotá, Colombia were conducted at various times in 2013, 2014 and 2017. Findings: Sustainability citizenship and placemaking are linked through their “process-driven” approach to realising places and use of the citizenry to enact change. In Bogotá, Colombia’s informal settlement of Caracoli, public spaces are created outside formal planning processes through alternative path dependencies and the resourcefulness of its citizens. Sustainability citizenship, rather than placemaking, can work outside formal planning and manoeuvre around established path dependencies, which offers an evolutionary step in the creation and understanding of community realised places in the global south. Originality/value: This paper provides insight into the use of placemaking when explaining the realisation process of Bogotá, Colombia’s informal settlements. The paper’s contents also explore the placemaking/sustainability citizenship relationship, which in terms of the latter is a new citizenry dimension that can be used to provide new insight into the realisation process of public spaces in Bogotá’s informal settlements.

In densely populated settings like Chittagong, Bangladesh cities facing rapid urbanization and economic growth are challenged to provide open space for its citizens. For example, the population of this port city is 14,200 people per square kilometer and there is a struggle to provide open space. Again, the planning proposal did not set any open space standard to achieve its open space aspirations Hence, the objectives of this paper are four-fold: (i) Develop an understanding of open space standards to establish relative benchmarks for potential use in Chittagong. (ii) Examine existing formal open space in Chittagong. (iii) Document the existing informal open space areas in Chittagong according to the planning direction. (iv) Recommend an approach that can be used to realize open spaces in Chittagong. To achieve these, this paper documents the existing open space scenario in the city, examines the recommended open space standards developed by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Dhaka Structural Plan (2016–2035) (the planning document of the capital city of Bangladesh) to identify to what extent these ‘benchmark’ standards are appropriate for use in the city. A discussion on open space in Chittagong and the criteria used to ‘frame’ open space calculations in the city is then conducted to provide a foundation to reflect upon the world’s various open space recommendations. Ultimately, by analyzing existing open space recommendations and their associated well-being aspirations, the research suggests that a new standard relating to the unique characteristics of the city should be used when developing open space standards in Chittagong.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to identify “key processes” during the owner-driven reconstruction (ODR) process by implementing agencies, to enhance the long-term disaster-resilience of housing and community. Design/methodology/approach: A mixed methods methodology and “case-study” approach is adopted to compare good practice reconstruction projects in India in the past 15 years. This paper discusses findings from investigations conducted in two settlements of Bihar – Orlaha and Puraini, after major flooding in 2008. The sites were visited during 2012 and 2014. Findings: One of the key processes that lead to the success of the ODR process in terms of its effect on the long-term disaster-resilience in Bihar is community mobilisation it functions primarily as an information and communication device promoting the success (or otherwise) of the reconstruction project. Originality/value: The findings are based on empirical evidence gathered during in-field investigations and interviews to post-disaster reconstructed villages. While these findings represent a snapshot of diverse and complex disaster experiences in the Indian context, the comparison offers insight on how to turn the rhetoric surrounding “owner-driven” or “built back better” into positive long-term community outcomes.

The differences in the heritage perspectives of key stakeholders form an indispensable basis for formulating appropriate conservation strategies for living heritage. However, in existing practices, the differences in heritage perspectives between experts and local residents, who are both key stakeholders, often arise from expert experiences rather than being accurately measured. This study regarded traditional Chinese villages in the Luzhong region as a living heritage case for investigation and quantified such differences. Initially, this study provided a comprehensive description of living heritage using four dimensions: heritage value, heritage attributes, heritage composition, and heritage characteristics. Subsequently, a questionnaire tailored to traditional Chinese villages was developed, and a survey was conducted in the sample villages, resulting in 394 valid responses. According to the Pearson chi-square tests, the findings suggest that expert and local resident respondents showed slight disagreement regarding heritage attributes (x² = 5.619); however, they presented varying degrees of differences concerning heritage value (x² = 36.066) and heritage composition (x² = 36.525), accompanied by distinct preferences. Furthermore, significant discrepancies were evident regarding heritage characteristics. Regarding the four aspects of heritage characteristics, there was a slight difference in the symbiosis of heritage elements (x² = 3.877) but significant differences in the local resident as a heritage element (x² = 36.525); there was a minor difference in vitality and continuity (x² = 3.709) but a rare contradiction for integrity (x² = 47.649). This study can furnish case data support for surmounting the drawbacks of blindly relying on expert experiences, particularly by integrating local perspectives to safeguard living heritage globally.

As heritage cognition evolves, aligning conceptual understanding with conservation strategies becomes essential for effective practice. This study develops the Heritage Cognition–Conservation Paradigm Correspondence Framework, a methodological tool designed to evaluate the alignment between heritage cognition and conservation paradigms. Methodologically, the framework is constructed through document analysis, conceptual classification, and framing co-construction. Building on a critical review of the development trajectory of heritage conservation, it integrates four cognitive phases and three conservation paradigms into a dual-axis matrix, operationalized through six analytical dimensions for heritage cognition and four for conservation paradigms. The framework is subsequently applied through a case study of Traditional Chinese Villages, demonstrating its diagnostic capacity and analytical utility. The case study reveals a significant misalignment: while official discourse reflects pluralistic heritage thinking (within the most advanced, fourth cognitive phase), conservation practice remains rooted in value-based logics and material-based approaches (within the initial paradigms). This misalignment stems from fragmented object recognition, form-focused objectives, and top–down governance structures that marginalize local agency and overlook cultural processes as the heritage nature of those villages. By establishing and operationalizing the correspondence framework, this study provides a transferable tool for diagnosing cognition–practice disjunctions across heritage contexts. Beyond its empirical findings, the study advances a methodological contribution for heritage conservation and advocates a strategic shift toward process-oriented, community-embedded approaches that emphasize cultural continuity, reframed objectives, and participatory governance.