During the last decade, we have witnessed an increased interest in Ecosystem Services (ES), including the so-called 'cultural ecosystem services' and its subcategory of 'cultural heritage'. In this article, a review of academic literature of ES and cultural heritage is carried out. ES has primarily been developed by scholars from the ecological and economic disciplines, and in this article, we discuss how this impacts the way in which cultural heritage is used and conceptualised in ES literature. Based on the conceptual review, we initiate a discussion of what the implications for cultural heritage management could be if the heritage sector adopts the rationales in the ES framework.

The past thirty years have witnessed a radical shift in European politics, as new far-right wing parties have entered national parliaments. Driven by discontent, fear and the notion of cultural struggle, they have gradually come to twist the political conversation around their core issues. For many far-right parties, cultural heritage is one such issue. While this ought to put them on the radar of scholars studying heritage politics, the topic of far-right heritage policy remains largely unexplored. This article seeks to ignite this field of enquiry by taking a closer look at what far-right heritage policies actually look like. Focus is set on three Scandinavian far-right parties with seats in national parliaments: The Danish People's Party, the Progress Party in Norway, and the Sweden Democrats. By examining the notion of heritage put forth in their party manifestos and the heritage priorities expressed in their parliamentary budget proposals, we consider the weight of their rhetoric.

This article provides a comprehensive empirical analysis of the composition, development and use of the List of World Heritage in Danger (IDL) under the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. The statutory records of this Convention have been coded in order to generate an overview of the development and use of the IDL between 1978 and 2017. The quantitative data was further developed by reference to World Heritage and transnational law literature. A key finding of this article is that the IDL serves a dual purpose in regulation: firstly, as a ‘fire alarm’ to alert the international community of imminent dangers at World Heritage sites; secondly, as a non-compliance procedure used for ‘naming and shaming’ states that breach the rules. The findings in this article have relevance for heritage scholars and policy makers concerned with the governance of World Heritage as well as those with a broader interest in non-compliance procedures under transnational environmental law.

No abstract

Uses of Heritage (2006) has been an important contribution to the development of Heritage Studies. Resting on a thorough ‘re-read’ of this modern classic, the article analyses the text applying some central concepts from Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Realism in order to review the arguments put forward. One of the linguistic features from Critical Discourse Analysis we draw on is ‘nominalization’, which refers to replacing verb processes with a noun construction. Re-reading Uses of Heritage and other succeeding publications, it is apparent that the phrase ‘Authorized Heritage Discourse’ is nominalized and reified into an entity obscuring who does what to whom, thereby making the ‘Authorized Heritage Discourse’ a self-evident unit of explanation. Furthermore, the insistence on viewing heritage as a cultural process rather than as ‘things’ is not readably compatible with Critical Realism’s non-reductionist stance. Wrapping up, we nonetheless argue that really taking Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Realism on board could provide a rule of conduct for the future developments of Heritage Studies, where multifarious conceptions of heritage can co-exist.