Next Article in Journal
Climate Adaptation Heuristic Planning Support System (HPSS): Green-Blue Strategies to Support the Ecological Transition of Historic Centres
Next Article in Special Issue
Land Management in Territorial Planning: Analysis, Appraisal, Strategies for Sustainability—A Review of Studies and Research
Previous Article in Journal
Coupling a New Version of the Common Land Model (CoLM) to the Global/Regional Assimilation and Prediction System (GRAPES): Implementation, Experiment, and Preliminary Evaluation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ski Resort Closures and Opportunities for Sustainability in North America
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/land11060772
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Stewardship of Industrial Heritage Protection in Typical Western European and Chinese Regions: Values and Dilemmas

by
Jiazhen Zhang
1,
Jeremy Cenci
1,
Vincent Becue
1,
Sesil Koutra
1,2 and
Chenyang Liao
3,*
1
Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Mons, Rue d’ Havre, 88, 7000 Mons, Belgium
2
Faculty of Engineering, Erasmus Mundus Joint Master SMACCs, University of Mons, 7000 Mons, Belgium
3
College of Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2022, 11(6), 772; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060772
Submission received: 26 April 2022 / Revised: 21 May 2022 / Accepted: 24 May 2022 / Published: 24 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Land Management in Territorial Planning: Analysis, Appraisal, Strategies for Sustainability Ⅱ)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Along with the increase in modern industry, original facilities and cultures have disappeared progressively, leading to the disappearance of traditional values. However, from the perspective of the stewardship of industrial heritage, preservation is vital for Western Europe, where the Industrial Revolution emerged firstly, and it has leading technology in terms of the advanced stewardship of industrial heritage protection. Meanwhile, there is a large market for industrial heritage growth in China, but its stewardship began later. Horizontal and vertical research into the stewardship of the industrial heritage of these two regions offers a review of the developed industrial regions and experiences for developing industrial regions in their future expansion. By analysing the values and dilemmas and the features of the legal, administrative, and fund guarantee systems, this paper summarizes the advanced expertise of the stewardship of industrial heritage in Western Europe and China and proposes strategies based on them.

1. Introduction

In the development process of urbanisation, we are facing the “retreat from the secondary to the tertiary” of industry. The secondary industry withdraws from the urban area, and tertiary industries, such as commerce and service, are developed. The “retreat of the secondary” refers to the relocation, transformation, or shutdown of industrial enterprises with heavy pollution, high energy consumption, and poor efficiency within and near the inner ring road of a city. The industrial structure significantly changed cities. Moving to tertiary industry from secondary industry has become an irreversible trend in urban development [1,2]. The industrial transformation involves the redevelopment and reuse of land, buildings, and urban structures [3]. This part of the architectural space is generally called the ‘industrial heritage’, including all buildings, equipment, and sites carrying the history and culture of industrial activity [4]. As the Industrial Revolution’s substantial inheritance, the industrial heritage contains varied values, including historical, economic, and cultural significance.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, capitalist production completed the stage of transition from workshop handicraft industry to large machinery industry, leading the Industrial Revolution to emerge, profoundly influencing humankind [5]. The protection and renewal of it have significant meaning in various levels of the urban environment. Along with the rise of modern industry, the original industries face decay, as this progress led to a large number of urban industrial heritage sites in the metropolitan area [6]. Protecting and renewing these sites instead of destroying them can minimise the urban construction workload and conserve the community’s industrial culture [7]. The protection of industrial heritage is not to preserve the past passively but to find new development opportunities more actively from a comprehensive and dynamic perspective while considering the coordination with the surrounding environment to meet different urban needs. The practice has proved that complete and advanced stewardship of industrial heritage is vital for its protection and renewal [8]. Despite a wide variety of stewardship systems globally, they all have a similar framework. Mature stewardship usually includes a legal system, an administrative system, and a fund guarantee system [9,10].
Western Europe is a geographical concept comprising the European Community and the European Free Trade Association [11,12]. In the mainstream view, it includes the U.K., Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, and Germany [13]. Industrialisation has wholly changed the environmental outlook and social development process of Western Europe, along with the rest of the world, as the birthplace of the world’s modern Industrial Revolution [14]. After entering post-industrial society, traditional industries left a large number of industrial waste sites in Western Europe due to the industrial recession, transformation, upgrading, or the location transfer of industrial enterprises. We can find many landmark industrial heritage resources. As the common heritage of Europe, the significance of industrial history and cultural protection has been widely recognised [15]. Like the Industrial Revolution, industrial heritage protection first emerged in Western Europe. Starting in the 1950s, industrial heritage protection emerged and expanded in the U.K. [16]. Since then, Western European countries have successively issued industrial heritage protection bills and stewardship and strengthened research in this field [17].
Along with the refinement of the industrial heritage protection acts, the protection system has matured progressively. In China, the industry emerged later, restricted by implementing the strategy of “shifting from a labour-intensive industry to service economy”; the protection of and research into industrial heritage appeared in the late 1990s [18]. It has obtained phased achievements, but compared with Western Europe, there are large gaps, especially in legislative protection and stewardship [19]. As two distinct industrial regions, the development progress, protection experiences, practical cases, etc., of these two regions are worth combined research in the scope of stewardship. It helps us understand the connotation of industrial heritage and comprehend the undergoing protection path. In sum, advances and detours have been experienced for developed and developing industrial areas worldwide. This research is discussed as follows:
  • Section 2 further explores the essential values and dilemmas of the stewardship of industrial heritage protection, from the perspectives of the sustainable development of the economy, context, and human settlements.
  • Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5 analyse and compare the stewardship systems between Western Europe and China, from the administrative, legal system, and funding aspects of typical regions, respectively.
  • Section 6 and Section 7 summarise the current situation and point forward to the future of industrial heritage protection in Western Europe and China. Corresponding improvement measures and development directions are suggested.

2. The Stewardship of Industrial Heritage Protection

2.1. The Value of the Stewardship of Industrial Heritage Protection

  • From the scope of human settlements
The old industrial zone is an affluent industrial heritage resource. Usually, it has a close connection with the railway system, canals, ports, etc., with ideal location conditions and surrounding service facilities intact [20]. Generally, the abandoned industrial facilities provide or release a large number of vacant land resources. Most separate industrial buildings have a solid structure and open space. These features provide more flexibility and adaptability in their functional transformations [21]. In industrial heritage protection and regeneration, superior stewardship can effectively avoid the waste of construction resources and building energy and is more conducive to the sustainable development of human settlements [22].
  • From the scope of the social economy
With the adjustment of industrial structures, the protected or transformed industrial heritage sites can continuously stimulate the vitality of the regional economy and play a vital role in the economic revitalisation of areas of urban industrial recession [23]. A unique historical environmental atmosphere and a cultural space, with efficient stewardship, would not only promote the industrial tourism industry and stimulate the regional consumption level but also provide employment, increase entrepreneurial opportunities, promote industrial upgrading, improve urban competitiveness, reduce the regional crime rate, and so on and, finally, drive the social and economic development of urban post-industrial areas [24]. At the end of the 1950s, British industrial cities (such as Birmingham and Manchester), where industry first emerged, faced increasingly severe recession, which even triggered financial crisis and social unrest [25]. To this end, the British government launched the urban renewal movement relying on industrial heritage. The development and utilisation of industrial heritage sites in the late 20th century have become effective ways to promote urban regeneration in Britain and have been used as a reference by other Western European countries [26].
  • From the scope of the historical context
Industrial heritage is a significant witness to human development history, and it is a material record of social information [27]. It includes the production activities themselves and records the background information of the society, economy, and culture. This heritage has reference value for people to understand the emergence and development of industrial activities and explore the past and future of human history [28]. Proper stewardship is of far-reaching significance for preserving and utilising traditional cultural values and the inheritance and continuation of historical context and memory. From the perspective of the process of industrialisation, the development and utilisation of industrial heritage sites can not only effectively strengthen people’s understanding and cognition of industrial society; simultaneously, it can enhance the public’s respect for and recognition of the evolution, survival, and mode of production of human society, guide people to make a rational prediction of future society, and promote the sustainable development of a modern social lifestyle and urban culture [29,30]. Manufacture and production will change with the development of human society; the connotation and historical context of industrial heritage will always be in a dynamic state of development with the development of society, not only in developed countries but also in developing countries [31].
  • From the scope of ethical principles
An ethical principle can provide leadership in the stewardship of industrial heritage protection to ensure adequate protection and conservation. In 2011, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) issued the Joint ICOMOS–TICCIH Principles for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage Sites, Structures, Areas, and Landscapes [32]. It emphasised that industrial heritage has an outstanding universal value representing human life in the past, the appearance of social life, workers’ technology, and the community’s collective memory. It is an essential cultural asset worth recording, preserving, and transmitting by planning and implementing policies and actions to protect its heritage value, while providing an environment for the sustainable growth of local communities and tourists at the economic, social, and cultural levels. The same year, the Dublin principle articulated the diversity of industrial heritage value, emphasising the material and intangible heritage, which has become the primary principle followed by countries worldwide [33]. These principles strengthened the core connotation of industrial heritage and the overall framework of the stewardship of industrial heritage protection. In addition, they provide an example of the region’s planning and policymaking for Western Europe, China, and other parts of the world.

2.2. The Dilemmas of the Stewardship of Industrial Heritage Protection

2.2.1. Imbalance between Profits and Protection

As an essential part of urban and rural cultural heritage, industrial architectural heritage is the principal regional cultural value and characteristic style carrier [34]. At the same time, it also constitutes the common cultural assets of the population, which need to be protected and continuously utilized through the consensus of the whole society. However, in some places, the protection of industrial heritage is still lacking, there are deviations from the protection concept, and the protection situation is worrying [35]. For instance:
  • In the absence of preliminary research and analysis, large-scale demolition has caused the destruction of industrial architectural heritage.
  • Due to the dilapidated state of industrial heritage sites, some areas directly demolished their tangible industrial architectural heritage and rebuilt the “heritage buildings” on the original site to maximise benefits, with a lack of understanding of heritage value. This approach conveys the wrong historical information and wholly violates the principle of the authenticity of industrial heritage protection. These actions destroy a city’s historical features to a great extent and seriously damage the remains of industrial buildings with real cultural value.

2.2.2. Lack of Repair and Maintenance

Due to the fact that most industrial heritage covers a large area and has more fixed assets, the subsequent transformation cost is high after the factory closes down or moves [36]. Hence, it is difficult to find a suitable renewal and transformation investment scheme and capital investment in a short time. Much of the industrial heritage has been in disrepair for a long time, and the ageing and decay of buildings have become a common phenomenon [37]. If historical buildings dominated by steel lack daily maintenance and repair, the buildings are subject to rust, weathering, structural damage, or even collapse, which will also increase the maintenance cost of industrial heritage. There is a lack of timely and necessary repair and maintenance measures for the building’s main structure, roof, and production facilities [38]. The main buildings and facilities of the industrial heritage have problems such as rain leakage, chemical corrosion, and unstable geological structure, which accelerate the decline of industrial heritage sites and even lead to the damage and collapse of the heritage buildings themselves with the loss of historical value and style [39]. At the same time, whether in Western Europe or China, according to the law of urban development, many of the large-scale factories or industrial facilities were built in areas far away from the urban centre, and some are even distributed in rural areas [40,41]. Affected by urbanization, rural hollowing, and ageing, such industrial heritage is inaccessible and unmanaged for a long time. It has low commercial value, exacerbating the damage and decline of the industrial heritage sites.

2.2.3. Low Living Environment Level of the Industrial Community

The infrastructure construction of industrial facilities and their surrounding areas generally lag behind other areas. Urban commuter transportation was not developed in the past, and worker communities spontaneously formed around many factories [42]. Community residents were generally workers from nearby factories. These communities together formed the community ecology of early urban industrial areas. Such communities around industrial facilities have protection value and have been residential spaces for a long time [43]. Although industrial activities have ended with the closure and relocation of factories, many residents still live in the surrounding communities. The modernization, adaptive transformation, and renewal of these communities have become vital and a primary demand for industrial heritage protection and renewal [44]. However, due to the lag of infrastructure construction in industrial heritage or community concentrated areas, problems such as excessive building density, the underground pipe gallery, along with a severe shortage of sidewalk area and green infrastructure have seriously affected the quality of life of community residents and the quality of the residential environment in industrial heritage communities.

2.3. Promote the Protection of Industrial Heritage through Stewardship

The protection and utilization of industrial heritage are being innovatively developed in Western Europe and China. Industrial heritage sites have an irreplaceable role and significance in constructing urban and rural heritage systems, highlighting urban characteristics, utilization, and inheritance. To protect, make good use of, and inherit industrial history and culture, all sectors of society should strengthen their protection, treat them carefully, plan systematically, and innovate continuously. First of all, we should implement the spirit of protecting and inheriting cultural heritage and highlight the historical and cultural value of industrial heritage, rather than simply mining the market value of heritage with commercialization logic. We should find the balance between industrial heritage protection and urban development, hold the bottom line of protection, prohibit destruction and demolition, clarify the industrial heritage protection scope and measures in urban and rural planning, and highlight their mandatory status.
At the same time, we should break through the existing difficulties such as the imperfect protection mechanisms and poor management systems, actively plan and innovate boldly, fully mobilize the majority of social resources and public forces to participate in the common protection of industrial heritage, stimulate the bottom-up protection and utilization mode, open up a new path for the protection and management of industrial heritage, further strengthen the protection and inheritance of cultural heritage, and promote the creative transformation and development of culture. This will make full use of the comprehensive value of the industrial heritage and maintain the historical context of the city (Figure 1).

3. The Legal System of Industrial Heritage Protection in Western Europe and China

3.1. The Organisation of Industrial Heritage Protection

The U.K. is the pioneer of the Industrial Revolution, and its protection of industrial heritage is relatively mature [45]. The concept of industrial heritage was derived from industrial archaeology. Industrial archaeology was born in the 1950s in Britain [46]. Its primary purpose was the excavation, protection, and utilisation of industrial heritage. It was a new field in archaeology, extending its connotation and application. In the 1970s, it evolved into the concept of industrial heritage [47]. Over decades of development, a series of research achievements have been made. Industrial archaeology has made breakthroughs from scratch, from quantity to quality, and the establishment of various research specialisations marks the gradual professionalization of industrial heritage [48]. Professional organisations play an indispensable role in protection work. They can not only formulate relevant protection specifications but also supervise and provide technical guidance in the specific protection process.
Since the 1970s, Western European countries have progressively moved into the post-industrial era [49], and industrial heritage protection has received extensive attention from all sectors of society. As the most direct social institutions of industrial heritage stewardship, industrial heritage stewardship institutions and organisations have appeared in various regions (Figure 2) [5,18].
After their establishment, these organisations successively promulgated documents and regulations related to industrial heritage protection. As can be seen from Figure 2, the development of Western European countries has been consistent not only in the birth and development of industrial heritage but also in industrial heritage protection. In 2014, the first formal industrial heritage protection organisation was created in China. Nearly 40 years later than the U.K., China’s industrial heritage protection has also entered the development stage of tackling vital technical problems [50]. As a socialist centralised country, the involvement of state-level institutions means that this field has been raised to the level of national government work. The foundation of the Industrial Heritage Committee in 2014 is subordinate to the State Administration of Cultural Relics, which the Ministry of Culture and Tourism manages. It is mainly responsible for the development of cultural relics and museums, the protection of cultural relics, the protection of world cultural heritage, archaeology, the public services of cultural relics and museums, the transformation of scientific and technological achievements in cultural relics protection, publicity and promotion, and so on.

3.2. The Statute of Industrial Heritage Protection in Western Europe

As early as the late 19th century, the protection of industrial heritage began in the U.K. and attracted attention [51]. Subsequently, industrial archaeology, industrial heritage, and other related concepts were primarily born in the U.K., Germany, and France. Today, the U.K., Germany, and France have the Ruhr Industrial Zone, the Glasgow Industrial Zone, etc., famous in the industry [52].
There are lists related to the protection of industrial heritage in Europe, which are formulated and published by different institutions and organizations, such as TICCIH and UNESCO. These directories partly overlap. This study selected the European Route of Industrial Heritage records (ERIH) specifically for Europe for research. In the list, Western Europe, especially the typical regions of Western Europe, occupies a dominant position. Moreover, all the sites in this list belong to developed industrial heritage projects, which are sustainable. The sites in this list are successful examples of the stewardship of industrial heritage. According to the ERIH, it is the most important industrial heritage network throughout Europe. Its basic structural framework includes industrial monuments with outstanding value built by Western European countries in the process of the Industrial Revolution and most industrial relics extending to the European border [53]. As of March 2022, there are 2118 sites in 52 European countries, 1075 sites in seven countries in Western Europe, accounting for 50.75%, whereas the typical Western European countries of the U.K., Germany, and France have 902 sites, accounting for 83.89% (Table 1) [54]. This study takes these three countries as representatives to analyse their formulation and implementation of acts and regulations in Western Europe (Table 2) [55].
Looking at the development process of industrial heritage protection in Western European countries, we find that the relevant system construction has been highly valued. A mature system is both the premise and guarantee to achieve the goal. Formulating high quality and strict acts and regulations is the premise for industrial heritage transformation and protection. In addition, the relevant acts and regulations need to be updated with the development of human society [56].
  • France was the first country to specify acts related to protecting historic buildings and industrial heritage.
  • Germany’s industrial heritage protection act and protection authority are the responsibility of each state.
  • The U.K. legislative system mainly takes national legislation as the core and establishes different protection methods for varying levels of protected objects. After long-term development, among Western European countries, the U.K.’s industrial heritage protection acts and regulations are the most complete.
After the development of traditional capitalism, Western European countries accumulated a lot of material wealth in industrialisation, and their spiritual civilisation has been gradually improved [57]. Respecting history and protecting culture have become mainstream trends of thought in the post-industrialisation period of Western European society. Under the influence of this reflection, since the 1970s, the large-scale transformation plan with single content, form, and living has gradually withdrawn from the stage, replaced by diversified human settlement construction and the pursuit of the sustainable development of settlements.

3.3. The Statute of Industrial Heritage Protection in China

Until now, China has had no national acts specifically for industrial heritage protection. Still, in places with relatively developed economies and rich industrial heritage resources, the local governments have issued a series of local acts, such as Shanghai, Beijing, and Wuxi (Table 3) [58,59].
  • In Shanghai, one of the most economically developed regions in China, the protection of industrial heritage mainly depends on the Cultural Relics Protection act, which includes industrial heritage in the form of cultural relics protection units or historic buildings.
  • As the capital of China, Beijing has been the core city of socialist social construction in various periods. Since 1956, a stable industrial landscape pattern has been formed.
  • Wuxi is the first city in China to propose and carry out the protection of industrial heritage. Industrial heritage was listed as the focus of the general cultural relics survey launched in 2000. At the same time, relevant policies were issued, which put the protection of industrial heritage on the government’s work schedule.
From the perspective of acts and regulations, unlike Western European countries, China’s industrial heritage protection is dominated by the government or government-led organisations, with few non-profit organisations participating. The government is responsible for repairing cultural heritage, the scope of protection, and the approval and supervision of new projects in the building control zone. However, with the improvement in marketization, the participation of third parties is also gradually increasing [60]. For example, the expert evaluation and demonstration mechanisms have been introduced into industrial heritage restoration, and public volunteers participate in the supervision of the process of project implementation. Yet, compared with Western European countries, the impact assessment mechanism of industrial heritage in China is still lacking [61,62].

4. The Administrative System of Industrial Heritage Protection in Western Europe and China

The establishment of a sound administrative system guarantees the protection and transformation of industrial heritage [63]. Most of the administrative management of industrial heritage protection in Western Europe implements a hierarchical management system.
In Western European countries:
  • France’s administrative management system has more prominent characteristics, reflecting centralisation and expert governance [64]. At the central government level, the government departments related to the protection and renewal of industrial heritage mainly include: (1) the Administration of Architecture and Cultural Heritage of the Ministry of Culture; (2) the Administration of Nature and Landscape of the Ministry of Environment and Land Management; and (3) the General Administration of Urban Planning of the Ministry of Construction, Transportation, and Housing. The Administration of Architecture and Cultural Heritage is responsible for determining the protected objects and their importance ranking and jointly manages the work of the provincial representative offices of national architects. The Nature and Landscape Administration is responsible for protecting critical areas [65]. The Port Museum in Dunkirk (Musée portuaire Dunkerque) (Figure 3) [66], which is part of the Federation of Eco-Museums and Social Museums, is managed and run by a specialised museum management body (la Fédération des écomusées et musées de société), which operates and manages a number of surrounding cultural business premises from the professional perspective of heritage development [67].
  • In the U.K., the National Environmental Protection Department and the local planning departments are the central and local administrative agencies for protecting industrial heritage and historic buildings, respectively [68]. The Ministry of Environmental Protection is responsible for the designation of relevant protection regulations and policies and providing advice to the state, local governments, and the public on protection issues. The local planning department is responsible for implementing and managing protection acts and regulations within its jurisdiction. In addition, a special committee and a public protection team are also set up to organise forums to exchange opinions and discuss countermeasures [69].
  • The German government’s protection of industrial heritage can be roughly divided into four organisational levels: national, state, county, and city. The national heritage protection institutions are mainly the Federal Council for Heritage Protection and the Department of National Parks, state-level cultural heritage protection directors, and state heritage protection officials. The local-level industrial heritage protection units are historic block committees and local governments. Germany adopts a typical hierarchical management model for managing historic heritage listed at all levels [70].
In China, the current administrative system for industrial heritage protection continues to use the cultural relics protection and management system, which mainly has the following characteristics:
  • The cultural and urban planning departments are relatively independent, and a parallel administrative system is in charge of historical and cultural heritage protection [71].
  • The local Urban Construction and Planning Management departments under the Ministry of Construction and the local Cultural Relics and Culture departments under the Cultural Relics Bureau are jointly responsible for protecting cultural relic protection areas and urban planning [72].
  • In protecting and utilising industrial heritage, a large number of administrative departments are involved, including but not limited to local governments, cultural relic bureaus, planning bureaus, and other departments that can carry out legislative management. Due to the lack of unified cooperation and overall consideration, various departments legislate one after another, which may lead to the phenomenon of repeated legislation [73].
  • The parallel and cross management mode may lead to a legal vacuum and can even lead to contradictions in the formulation of acts.
Furthermore, from a higher geographic and administration scope:
  • The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH), created in 1978, introduced industrial heritage protection at the level of global cooperation [74]. The first world industrial heritage list was published in the same year, mainly including industrial heritage sites in Western Europe [75]. In 2000, the association became the ICOMOS’s specialised agency in industrial heritage and undertook the identification, evaluation, and protection of industrial heritage projects worldwide [76]. This indicates that the stewardship in this region has moved towards regional coordination.
  • TICCIH issued the Nizhny Tagil charter in 2003 [77]. It includes a preface; the definition of industrial heritage; the value of industrial heritage; the importance of recognition, recording, and research; legal protection; maintenance and protection; education and training; and expression and interpretation. It reveals the most authoritative definition of industrial heritage in detail from three aspects: industrial heritage includes industrial cultural relics with historical, technical, social, architectural, or scientific value [78]. This indicates that the regional integration of stewardship has been strengthened.

5. The Source of Funds for Industrial Heritage Protection in Western Europe and China

Continuous and sufficient capital investment is essential for industrial heritage protection. In Western European countries, the sources of funds for industrial heritage protection are mainly governments, non-governmental organisations, social organisations, charities, and individuals [79]. Among them, the U.K.’s national and local financial allocation is the primary source of protection funds, which is matched by national investment and local government funds. The government plays a leading role. Among the 13 essential decrees or regulations related to industrial heritage protection from 1982 to 1990, more than half stipulated the source of protection funding costs and clearly defined the funding proportion of central and local governments [80]. France subsidises 50% of the maintenance funds for the buildings listed in the “national protection list” and actively attracts the participation of social forces [81]. In addition, Western European countries actively seek other funding, such as developing industrial tourism and setting up lottery funds. In addition, they provide a financial guarantee for heritage protection through legal means [82,83].
In general, China’s industrial heritage protection funds are mainly invested by national funds, driving the multichannel cooperation of local, collective, and individual funds due to its socialist centralised system [84]. The funds required to protect and repair Chinese industrial heritage protection units must be approved by the state, province, city, and county. However, the state only provides part of the required funds, and most of the protection funds are borne by local governments [85]. According to the annual financial revenue, the local government proposes a part of the urban maintenance fee for industrial heritage protection. There are three specific funding channels: the funds raised for urban capital construction, the housing maintenance fees of the real estate department, and the appropriation of local governments to protect industrial heritage. For example:
  • The state provides the necessary land for the relocation of factories that damage or pollute the landscape in reserve;
  • During the reconstruction of the reserve, special expenses are allocated for the protection of the budget;
  • For industrial heritage providing tourism, the local government draws corresponding funds from its tourism income to provide subsidies;
  • For the protection of industrial heritage, some cities implement the method of taking a percentage from the industrial and commercial profits of the city each year to increase the funds for maintenance and construction;
  • A special protection fund is established to provide stable and sustainable financial subsidies for essential projects.
China was cautious about social capital investment in industrial heritage in the early days. However, with the continuous improvement of the protection system and relevant acts and policies, social funds for industrial heritage have been gradually opened. Without violating the basic principles of protection, the government supports the “going out” of industrial heritage and encourages social forces to “come in” [86]. The Yangpu riverfront public space redevelopment in Shanghai is a major project of over 670 hectares of vacant factory buildings and abandoned piers. The regeneration includes land exchange and negotiation, planning and guidelines development, and construction management. It is a mega multisectoral, government-led and funded project (Figure 4) [87].

6. Discussion

Significant changes have occurred in Western European countries’ social and economic conditions since the end of the last century. The transformation from an industrial society to a post-industrial society is becoming more apparent. The three systems of industrial heritage, the legal system, administrative system, and fund guarantee system, are maturing. However, China’s situation is relatively unique. From the perspective of stewardship and synthesis, China still lacks overall planning and control over the reuse of industrial buildings, resulting in the lack of coordination of industrial building heritage projects within regions or cities, and it is difficult to form a “joint force”. The lack of an overall concept makes it impossible for public forces to intervene and fund. The result is that most reuse projects are “short-term and fast” to obtain market benefits. This single goal also dramatically limits the quality and methods of reuse. In this regard, the experience of Western Europe is also helpful (Table 4). The protection and renewal of industrial heritage is a complex and lengthy process. In today’s economic globalisation and advocating efficiency, it is still worth exploring how to protect industrial heritage and inherit its value to fit today’s modern architectural trend.

7. Conclusions

This study compared and analysed the current stewardship of industrial heritage protection in Western Europe and China from the scopes of human settlement, social economy, historical context, and ethical principles. Furthermore, it engaged with the perspective of the legal system, administrative system, and source of funding. It is considered that China should combine these characteristics and learn from the advanced experience of Western Europe to build a reasonable heritage policy and legal environment with protection law as the core, integrating into the international system of industrial heritage protection, select the appropriate administrative management mode, and establish a strong fund guarantee mechanism, to improve and establish an effective industrial heritage management system. In terms of stewardship, the most significant difference between China and the Western European countries is that the Western European countries have wider financing channels than China. In addition to the excellent reduction in national financial allocation tax, they can also attract social funds to participate in protection work by means of bank loans and issuing stock funds to ensure the continuity of funds.
Overall, combined with the stewardship modes of these two regions, the future development of the field of industrial heritage protection can occur through the following aspects:
  • Promote the coordination and interaction of stakeholders, strengthen the participation of the public and residents in the early stage of development, and improve the involvement of the government and the public in the later stages of development and application. For example, the England Heritage Committee in the U.K. is responsible for developing industrial heritage at the central level, including the planning and design, overall coordination, division of labour, and cooperation in the development of industrial heritage. Similar responsible or coordinating bodies can be established in all localities, at the same time encouraging the establishment of non-profit industrial and cultural heritage protection and development associations to promote cross-border cooperation among various industries and institutions.
  • Strengthen the guidance and management of industrial heritage development funds to promote development and protection and ensure that they do not deviate from the path of protective development, while building a reasonable funding source and management system, broadening the funding source channels, and establishing a fundraising and cost control mechanism in line with the market law.

Author Contributions

J.Z. developed the research topic; J.Z. wrote the original draft; C.L. and S.K. were responsible for the review and editing. The project administration was undertaken by J.C. and V.B. All the authors contributed to writing the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Mons, grant project CoMod, Compacité urbaine sous l’angle de la modélisation mathématique (théorie des graphes et des jeux) of the Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning and the Faculty of Sciences and the characteristic brand project of grassroots teaching organizations of Sichuan University (NO. 2021JCJX14).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Harcup, T. Re-imaging a post-industrial city: The Leeds St Valentine’s Fair as a civic spectacle. City 2000, 4, 215–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Castells, M. Space of flows, space of places: Materials for a theory of urbanism in the information age. In The City Reader; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 240–251. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ball, R. Re use potential and vacant industrial premises: Revisiting the regeneration issue in Stoke-on-Trent. J. Prop. Res. 2002, 19, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kohler, N.; Hassler, U. The building stock as a research object. Build. Res. Inf. 2002, 30, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Zhang, J.; Cenci, J.; Becue, V.; Koutra, S. The Overview of the Conservation and Renewal of the Industrial Belgian Heritage as a Vector for Cultural Regeneration. Information 2021, 12, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Del Pozo, P.B.; Gonzalez, P.A. Industrial heritage and place identity in Spain: From monuments to landscapes. Geogr. Rev. 2012, 102, 446–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lin, C.-Y.; Hsing, W.-C. Culture-led urban regeneration and community mobilisation: The case of the Taipei Bao-an temple area, Taiwan. Urban Stud. 2009, 46, 1317–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liburd, J.J.; Becken, S. Values in nature conservation, tourism and UNESCO World Heritage Site stewardship. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 1719–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Connolly, J.J.; Svendsen, E.S.; Fisher, D.R.; Campbell, L.K. Organizing urban ecosystem services through environmental stewardship governance in New York City. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fisher, D.R.; Campbell, L.K.; Svendsen, E.S. The organisational structure of urban environmental stewardship. Environ. Politics 2012, 21, 26–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Antrop, M. Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landsc. Ecol. 2000, 15, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fassmann, H.; Munz, R. Patterns and trends of international migration in Western Europe. Popul. Dev. Rev. 1992, 18, 457–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Clout, H.D. Regional Development in Western Europe; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  14. Schwab, K.; Davis, N. Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution; Currency: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  15. Stubbs, J.H.; Makaš, E.G. Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wicke, C.; Berger, S.; Golombek, J. Industrial Heritage and Regional Identities; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  17. Xie, P.F. Industrial Heritage Tourism; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Zhang, J.; Cenci, J.; Becue, V.; Koutra, S. Analysis of spatial structure and influencing factors of the distribution of national industrial heritage sites in China based on mathematical calculations. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 27124–27139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Zhang, J.; Cenci, J.; Becue, V.; Koutra, S. Research of the industrial heritage category and spatial density distribution in the Walloon region, Belgium, and Northeast China. In Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage Architecture XVII & Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures XIII; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2021; Volume 285. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lane, B.; Weston, R.; Davies, N.J.; Kastenholz, E.; Lima, J.; Majewsjki, J. Industrial heritage and agri/rural tourism in Europe. 2013. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/495840/IPOL-TRAN_ET(2013)495840_EN.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  21. Radziwon, A.; Bilberg, A.; Bogers, M.; Madsen, E.S. The smart factory: Exploring adaptive and flexible manufacturing solutions. Procedia Eng. 2014, 69, 1184–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Nikolić, M.; Drobnjak, B.; Kuletin Ćulafić, I. The possibilities of preservation, regeneration and presentation of industrial heritage: The case of old mint “AD” on Belgrade riverfront. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xie, P.F. Developing industrial heritage tourism: A case study of the proposed jeep museum in Toledo, Ohio. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 1321–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gospodini, A. Portraying, classifying and understanding the emerging landscapes in the post-industrial city. Cities 2006, 23, 311–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Martinez-Fernandez, C.; Weyman, T.; Fol, S.; Audirac, I.; Cunningham-Sabot, E.; Wiechmann, T.; Yahagi, H. Shrinking cities in Australia, Japan, Europe and the USA: From a global process to local policy responses. Prog. Plan. 2016, 105, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Couch, C.; Fraser, C.; Percy, S. Urban Regeneration in Europe; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lazarević, E.V.; Marić, J.; Barać, M. Industrial Brownfields as Restorative Environments: The Possibility of Transformation and Reactivation of the Abandoned Industrial Heritage. In Shaping Urban Change—Livable City Regions for the 21st Century. In Proceedings of the REAL CORP 2020, 25th International Conference on Urban Development, Regional Planning and Information Society, Aachen, Germany, 15–18 September 2020; pp. 1231–1238. [Google Scholar]
  28. Harvey, D.C. Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2001, 7, 319–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bilton, T. Introductory Sociology; Macmillan International Higher Education: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  30. Connolly, W.E. Politics and Ambiguity; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  31. Baker, S. Sustainable Development; Routledge: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  32. Araoz, G.F. Preserving heritage places under a new paradigm. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 1, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Principles, D. Joint ICOMOS-TICCIH Principles for the conservation of industrial heritage sites, structures, areas and landscapes. Dublin Novemb. 2011, 28, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jokilehto, J. A history of Architectural Conservation; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang, J.; Nan, J. Conservation and adaptive-reuse of historical industrial building in China in the post-industrial era. Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 2007, 1, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ezzamel, M.; Willmott, H.; Worthington, F. Manufacturing shareholder value: The role of accounting in organizational transformation. Account. Organ. Soc. 2008, 33, 107–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dragutinovic, A.; Pottgiesser, U.; Quist, W. Self-Management of Housing and Urban Commons: New Belgrade and Reflections on Commons Today. Urban Plan. 2022, 7, 267–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Seeley, I.H. Building Maintenance; Macmillan International Higher Education: London, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  39. Canuti, P.; Margottini, C.; Fanti, R.; Bromhead, E.N. Cultural heritage and landslides: Research for risk prevention and conservation. In Landslides—Disaster Risk Reduction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 401–433. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, Y.P.; Wang, Y.; Wu, J. Urbanization and informal development in China: Urban villages in Shenzhen. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2009, 33, 957–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Naess, P. Urban planning and sustainable development. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2001, 9, 503–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Storper, M. Keys to the City; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  43. Leigh, N.G.; Hoelzel, N.Z. Smart growth’s blind side: Sustainable cities need productive urban industrial land. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2012, 78, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ferm, J.; Jones, E. Beyond the post-industrial city: Valuing and planning for industry in London. Urban Stud. 2017, 54, 3380–3398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mokyr, J. Entrepreneurship and the industrial revolution in Britain. In The Invention of Enterprise; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 183–210. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hudson, K. Industrial Archaeology: An Introduction; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  47. Buchanan, R. Industrial archaeology: Retrospect and prospect. Antiquity 1970, 44, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Palmer, M. Industrial Archaeology: Principles and Practice; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  49. Cohen, D. Three Lectures on Post-Industrial Society; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  50. Berta, M.; Bottero, M.; Ferretti, V. A mixed methods approach for the integration of urban design and economic evaluation: Industrial heritage and urban regeneration in China. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2018, 45, 208–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ifko, S. Industrial architectural heritage–re-evaluating research parameters for more authentic preservation approaches. Archit. Urban. 2014, 48, 136–155. [Google Scholar]
  52. Couch, C.; Sykes, O.; Börstinghaus, W. Thirty years of urban regeneration in Britain, Germany and France: The importance of context and path dependency. Prog. Plan. 2011, 75, 1–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hospers, G.-J. Industrial heritage tourism and regional restructuring in the European Union. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2002, 10, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Available online: https://www.erih.net/ (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  55. Zhang, J.; Cenci, J.; Becue, V. A Preliminary Study on Industrial Landscape Planning and Spatial Layout in Belgium. Heritage 2021, 4, 1375–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, X.; Zhang, J.; Cenci, J.; Becue, V. Spatial Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of the World Architectural Heritage. Heritage 2021, 4, 2942–2959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pan, J. The Development Paradigm of Ecological Civilization. In China’s Environmental Governing and Ecological Civilization; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 29–49. [Google Scholar]
  58. Chen, J.; Judd, B.; Hawken, S. Adaptive reuse of industrial heritage for cultural purposes in Beijing, Shanghai and Chongqing. Struct. Surv. 2016, 34, 331–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chen, J.; Judd, B. Relationality and territoriality: Rethinking policy circulation of industrial heritage reuse in Chongqing, China. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2021, 27, 16–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yu, B. Ecological effects of new-type urbanization in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wang, Y.; Morgan, R.K.; Cashmore, M. Environmental impact assessment of projects in the People’s Republic of China: New law, old problems. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2003, 23, 543–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Niu, S.; Lau, S.S.Y.; Shen, Z.; Lau, S.S.Y. Sustainability issues in the industrial heritage adaptive reuse: Rethinking culture-led urban regeneration through Chinese case studies. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2018, 33, 501–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fan, K.-K.; Feng, T.-T. Sustainable Development Strategy of Chinese Animation Industry. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Maurice, M.; Sellier, F.; Silvestre, J.-J. The Social Foundations of Industrial Power: A Comparison of France and Germany; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  65. Lubatkin, M.; Calori, R.; Very, P.; Veiga, J.F. Managing mergers across borders: A two-nation exploration of a nationally bound administrative heritage. Organ. Sci. 1998, 9, 670–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Available online: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dunkerque_musee_portuaire.jpg (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  67. Association Pour la Création d’une Maison de la vie et des Traditions Portuaires (Acmapor) (Nord). Available online: https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications/association-pour-la-creation-dune-maison-de-la-vie-et-des-traditions-portuaires (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  68. Rodwell, D. The World Heritage Convention and the exemplary management of complex heritage sites. J. Archit. Conserv. 2002, 8, 40–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Landorf, C. A framework for sustainable heritage management: A study of UK industrial heritage sites. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2009, 15, 494–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Oevermann, H. Good practice for industrial heritage sites: Systematization, indicators, and case. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 10, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. McKercher, B.; Du Cros, H. Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management; Routledge: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  72. Shen, C.; Chen, H.; Messenger, P.; Smith, G. Cultural Heritage Management in China. Cult. Herit. Manag. 2010, 5, 70–81. [Google Scholar]
  73. Wang, Y.; Bramwell, B. Heritage protection and tourism development priorities in Hangzhou, China: A political economy and governance perspective. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 988–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Douet, J. Industrial Heritage Re-Tooled: The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  75. Cleere, H. The World Heritage Convention as a medium for promoting the industrial heritage. IA. J. Soc. Ind. Archeol. 2000, 26, 31–42. [Google Scholar]
  76. Turtinen, J. Globalising Heritage: On UNESCO and the Transnational Construction of a World Heritage; Stockholm Center for Organizational Research Stockholm: Stockholm, Sweden, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  77. Hain, V.; Löffler, R.; Zajíček, V. Interdisciplinary cooperation in the virtual presentation of industrial heritage development. Procedia Eng. 2016, 161, 2030–2035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Affelt, W.J. Technitas method for assessment of the values attributed to cultural heritage of technology. How Assess 2015, 9, 9–46. [Google Scholar]
  79. Selman, P. Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2004, 47, 365–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Edwards, J.A.; i Coit, J.C.L. Mines and quarries: Industrial heritage tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996, 23, 341–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Benhamou, F. Is increased public spending for the preservation of historic monuments inevitable? The French case. J. Cult. Econ. 1996, 20, 115–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bramwell, B. User satisfaction and product development in urban tourism. Tour. Manag. 1998, 19, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cole, D. Exploring the sustainability of mining heritage tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2004, 12, 480–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fan, X.; Dai, S. Spatial–temporal distribution characteristics of industrial heritage protection and the influencing factors in a Chinese city: A case study of the Tiexi old industrial district in Shenyang. J. Herit. Tour. 2017, 12, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Tao, R.; Su, F.; Liu, M.; Cao, G. Land leasing and local public finance in China’s regional development: Evidence from prefecture-level cities. Urban Stud. 2010, 47, 2217–2236. [Google Scholar]
  86. Mantzopoulos, V. China’s “going out” policy: Inception, evolution, implication. J. Bus. Behav. Sci. 2013, 25, 121. [Google Scholar]
  87. Shanghai Yangpu Riverside Promotes the Reuse of Industrial Relics and the Restoration of Original Landscape. Available online: https://www.archdaily.cn/cn/916772/yang-pu-bin-jiang-gong-gong-kong-jian-er-qi-she-ji-da-guan-jing-guan-she-ji (accessed on 1 April 2022).
Land 11 00772 g001 550
Figure 1. The intersection of values and dilemmas in the stewardship of industrial heritage protection.
Figure 1. The intersection of values and dilemmas in the stewardship of industrial heritage protection.
Land 11 00772 g001
Land 11 00772 g002 550
Figure 2. Establishment of major industrial heritage protection organisations in typical Western European and Chinese regions.
Figure 2. Establishment of major industrial heritage protection organisations in typical Western European and Chinese regions.
Land 11 00772 g002
Land 11 00772 g003 550
Figure 3. Port Museum of Dunkirk (Musée Portuaire de Dunkerque).
Figure 3. Port Museum of Dunkirk (Musée Portuaire de Dunkerque).
Land 11 00772 g003
Land 11 00772 g004 550
Figure 4. Phase II design of Yangpu riverside public space.
Figure 4. Phase II design of Yangpu riverside public space.
Land 11 00772 g004
Table
Table 1. Distribution of industrial heritage sites in Western Europe in ERIH.
Table 1. Distribution of industrial heritage sites in Western Europe in ERIH.
CountryAmountProportion/%Cumulative Proportion/%
U.K. *38035.3435.34
Germany *37735.0670.40
France *14513.4983.89
Belgium676.2490.13
The Netherlands666.1496.27
Ireland322.9899.24
Luxembourg80.75100.00
Sum1075100.00100.00
* Represents a typical region in Western Europe.
Table
Table 2. Evolution of major legal provisions for the protection of industrial heritage in typical Western European countries.
Table 2. Evolution of major legal provisions for the protection of industrial heritage in typical Western European countries.
CountryDate of IssueRegulationConnotation
U.K.1882Ancient Monuments Protection ActThe first historic preservation act in the U.K.
1944Urban Planning ActThe origin of the standard
1953Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments ActLegal basis for government departments to protect industrial heritage
1968/
1970		Town and Country Planning Act (Amendment)The participation and supervision of social organisations public and financial support were strengthened
1979Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas ActThe management method of industrial heritage was deepened
1990Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) ActProtection measures were specified
2004The Planning and Compulsory Purchase ActThe government and other public departments have a mandatory system guarantee for building protection and management
Germany1815Basic Principles of Prussian Cultural Heritage ProtectionThe basis of the German industrial heritage protection act
1960Federal Construction ActNational Planning Act
1971Urban Construction Promotion ActPromotion of old city protection
1973Bavarian Act for the Protection and Preservation of MonumentsThe model of the industrial heritage reserve appeared for the first time
1986Federal Building CodeClarified the provisions for the protection of industrial heritage
France1840Act on the Protection of Historic MonumentsThe first cultural relics protection code in the world
1887Act on the Protection of Historic Monuments (Amendment)Enumerated for the first time the specific criteria and procedure for the official classification of monuments
1913Act on Historic MonumentsMaintenance rules were specified at the national level
1962Malraux actHistoric blocks were divided into protected areas
Table
Table 3. Evolution of major legal provisions for the protection of industrial heritage in typical Chinese cities.
Table 3. Evolution of major legal provisions for the protection of industrial heritage in typical Chinese cities.
CityDate of IssueRegulationConnotation
Shanghai1991Measures of Shanghai Municipality on the Protection and Management of Excellent Modern BuildingsThe scope of excellent modern buildings is determined, and clear protection measures are put forward for important buildings
1991Notice of the Implementation Opinions of the Pilot Project for the Protection and Transformation of Historic Buildings and Blocks in this CityDeepened the research on industrial heritage, historic buildings, and block protection
2002Regulations of Shanghai Municipality on the Protection of Historic and Cultural Areas and Excellent Historic BuildingsExpanded the scope of the industrial heritage collection
2004Notice on Strengthening the Protection and Management of Excellent Historic Buildings and Authorised Real EstateStrengthened and deepened the legal mechanism for industrial heritage protection
Beijing2004Regulations on the Protection of Famous Historic and Cultural Cities in Beijing (Draft)It was proposed that specific industrial heritage be included in historic sites for protection and included in the protection scope of famous historic and cultural cities
2008Beijing Municipal Planning Commission on the Protection and Utilization Plan of the Industrial Heritage of the Second Beijing Cotton PlantPut forward the specific construction scheme for the protection and utilisation of industrial heritage
2009Guidance on the Protection and Reuse of Industrial Heritage in BeijingThe identification standard, protection mechanism, and relevant policies of industrial heritage were refined
Wuxi2000Wuxi Measures for Collection of Archival MaterialsIndustrial heritage protection on the agenda
2006Wuxi ProposalThe first charter document on the protection of industrial heritage
2007Measures of Wuxi Municipality on the Protection of Historic BlocksChina’s first local regulation on the protection of urban historic blocks
2007Measures for General Survey and Identification of Industrial Heritage in Wuxi (for Trial Implementation)Elaborated on the specific rules of protection
State level2002Interim Provisions on mandatory contents of urban planningThe specific location and boundary of the historical building complex are defined as the mandatory content of the planning
2014Measures for the preparation and approval of protection plans for famous historic and cultural cities, towns, villages and neighbourhoodsThe protection planning of famous historic and cultural cities must include the relevant contents of the protection of historic buildings
2020Guidelines for the preparation of provincial land and space master plans (for Trial Implementation)Historic buildings were included in the “key regulatory content”, the construction of the historical and cultural protection system was strengthened, and the protection list was compiled
Table
Table 4. The experience of the stewardship of industrial heritage in typical Western European and Chinese regions.
Table 4. The experience of the stewardship of industrial heritage in typical Western European and Chinese regions.
RegionExperience of the Stewardship of Industrial Heritage Protection
U.K.The protection and management of the U.K.’s heritage work have changed from early protection and declaration to operation management and rational utilisation; the connotation and extension of industrial heritage protection and management have been greatly extended, constantly interacting with social development topics such as ecological and environmental protection, full coverage of urban and rural planning, harmonious urban development and public participation, showing a more diversified and complex trend.
FranceBy organising academic research, technical training, and commercial activities on industrial heritage, France has promoted relevant activities and thematic practices of industrial heritage protection and established an industrial heritage list and catalogue. Bringing cultural heritage into urban and regional planning as a significant resource element has promoted the new growth of industrial tourism.
GermanThe German civil society movement raised heritage protection to the government level, and the protection of industrial buildings entered the scope of legal protection. Later, the protection and reuse of industrial heritage in the Ruhr district, Germany, appeared. With the holding of industrial heritage tourism and large-scale festivals in Germany, industrial sites are on display. The industrial technology and culture behind the industrial sites need to be better displayed and developed.
ChinaAlthough China’s industrial heritage protection and renewal started relatively recently, China has made rapid development based on foreign experience; in addition, due to its special system, China can quickly undertake large-scale industrial heritage regeneration projects. However, China still has many deficiencies compared to Western European countries. For example, the reuse methods of industrial heritage should be different according to different locations and actual conditions, and diversified protective utilisation modes should be adopted to make rational use of historical resources; China has no complete legal protection system for industrial heritage in some areas.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, J.; Cenci, J.; Becue, V.; Koutra, S.; Liao, C. Stewardship of Industrial Heritage Protection in Typical Western European and Chinese Regions: Values and Dilemmas. Land 2022, 11, 772. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060772

AMA Style

Zhang J, Cenci J, Becue V, Koutra S, Liao C. Stewardship of Industrial Heritage Protection in Typical Western European and Chinese Regions: Values and Dilemmas. Land. 2022; 11(6):772. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060772

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Jiazhen, Jeremy Cenci, Vincent Becue, Sesil Koutra, and Chenyang Liao. 2022. "Stewardship of Industrial Heritage Protection in Typical Western European and Chinese Regions: Values and Dilemmas" Land 11, no. 6: 772. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060772

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop