Forsvik, Sweden: Towards a People–Public–Private Partnership as a Circular Governance and Sustainable Culture Tourism Strategy

Abstract

Purpose: The objectives of this study are to (a) invest adaptively in the cultural assets which play a part in generating the cultural identity manifestations, (b) review a group of sustainable bottom-up-centred and/or circular economy-based projects (CHRISTA and Västra Götaland Regional Development Policy (SE); CLIC; Be.CULTOUR), and (c) strategically support the sustainable culture tourism process in Forsvik (a Swedish industrial heritage destination) by involving the local community members. Design/Methodology/Approach: The research was carried out in Forsvik as a circular governance model adopting a people-centred approach. The research qualitatively presents its review through a descriptive analysis of the aforementioned projects. In addition, the paper consists of two in-depth individual interviews with the key governmental decision makers, as well as the experience of the 1st author as a project leader. Findings: The results show a People–Public–Private Partnership approach, as a community-driven social innovation tool, that seeks to operationalize a strategic dynamic partnership mainly among three partners: (1) people or the host community, (2) the public sector, and (3) the private sector. Originality/Value: One of the contributions of this study is to develop a corporate committee valorising and emancipating the role of community engagement in circular governance providing a sustainable people-centred cultural tourism strategy.

1. Introduction

Cultural heritage (CH) is the main fingerprint of a community’s cultural identity (CI). It considers one of the local dynamics economically. CH “is recognized as a key element for local sustainable development, contributing to the identity of territories and the cultural diversity of local communities” [1]. Therefore, the CH site needs to collect the specific social and cultural elements of a region, and then implement economic and administrative assets in order to achieve an effective valorisation of culture as well as the impact on economic and social aspects of the territory ensuring the preservation of the heritage [2]. On the contrary, conservation and management actions [3] may require high funding by the public sector. Parallelly, using a circular economy (CE) helps develop a participatory governance or management system, mitigating financial risks and pressure. Thus, a CE fosters the socioeconomic contexts including equity, social inclusion and exchanged and/or joint responsibility in a sustainable manner [4].

The Larrakia Declaration on the Development of Indigenous Tourism (2012), adopted by the World Indigenous Tourism Alliance (WINTA), the Recommendations on Sustainable Development of Indigenous Tourism (2019), adopted by the World Committee on Tourism Ethics (WCTE), and Faro Convention (2005) outline that cultural tourism (CT) is an effective tool which enhances cultural diversity and improves the livelihoods of the autochthonous/Indigenous/local community, especially the youth, and their socioeconomic conditions and cultural assets. CT allow(s) people to retain their relationship with the land and nurtures a sense of pride throughout the engagement, in turn creating a partnership with other stakeholders: the local government and public institutions, academic institutions, the private sector, and the civic society [5]. “Feelings of belonging and attachment to the place of residence influence the residents’ preparedness to deal with problems caused by demographic and economic changes” [6]. Thus, investing in culture means improving the quality of life in a specific territory by attracting new economic, financial, and human resources that influence the growth of the society [2].

Well-managed CT-based activities are an income-generative and innovative socioeconomic approach to adaptively reuse the outstanding natural and cultural assets in abandoned cultural landscapes and historic buildings. These activities can preserve cultural asset(s) by providing multifunctionality on the ecological, social, cultural, and economic ground with less negative impacts on the host communities and slower/controlled modifications in the local economy. This could provide an authentic tourism experience with respect to the heritage community [4,7].

Safeguarding CH assets and identifying suitable adaptive reuse approaches, scholarly articles [4,8,9,10] have investigated the Public–Private Partnership (PPP) as a resource for supporting long-term conservation plans financially. On the other hand, some scholars [3] refuse to apply this method because of the side effects caused due to the customizing of cultural values.

Applying a people-centred approach and CE perspective, the research seeks to integrate community as a fundamental pillar. The community contributes to a site’s “genius loci”, and “sense of place” and is the generator of CI. Moreover, based on the circular governance perspective, a people-centred approach might sustainably safeguard and transmit the living heritage manifestations of the communities not only in the lifelong learning memory of future generations but also in the long-term memory or nostalgia of the visitors.

In this framework and with respect for both the Faro Convention (2005) and Burra Charter (2013), CI encompasses the tangible heritage forms, the intangible heritage expressions (ICH) and the consequences of a modern and contemporary interaction of the community. CI is the sociocultural affiliation shared by one (autochthonous/Indigenous/local) community, not one nation, with its exchangeable ethnocultural effects. Both tangible cultural heritage forms—which are stated in the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972) (paragraph 119 in UNESCO WHC Operational Guidelines)—and the intangible cultural heritage expressions—which are stated in UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of ICH (2003)—are one authentic integral value. From the ecosystem and/or biodiversity perspective (Florence Declaration on Heritage and Landscape as Human Values, 2014) of the cultural contexts, it recognizes socio-culturally the modern and contemporary alterations of the circular economy-derived requirements of the future generations as a regular intercultural consequence (article 2.6., 4.1. and 4.8. in Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, 2005) of the community’s interaction with the rest of the globe [11].

The research reviews the people-centred long-term/circular heritage economic strategies which both the Karlsborg municipality and Västra Götaland region (VGR) apply in the Swedish industrial heritage destination, Forsvik. The research investigates Forsvik as a bottom-up governance case study where the aforementioned projects were valorised and operationalized within a strategic and dynamic partnership among mainly three members: (1) the academic institutions and civil society, (2) the public sector, and (3) the private sector.

In essence, a circular economy (CE) is an application which contributes to solving the economic issue by developing a participatory governance/management system. Thus, it sustainably fosters the socioeconomic contexts including equity, social inclusion, and the exchanged and/or joint responsibility [4]. Thus, integrating with the results of the aforementioned projects, this research aims to contribute to developing a pentagonal structure of the People–Public–Private Partnership approach (PPPP) as a corporate committee. This committee operates as a neo-endogenous development model or approach connecting the community to other key actors outside the locality [6]. This approach emancipates the level of community engagement in site governance and promotes the “sense of the place” aspect. The corporate committee interactively aims, with the key site stakeholders, to enhance the participatory/bottom-up approach by supporting CH-based socioeconomic activities. As the long-term vision, these activities facilitate the transmission process of heritage knowledge within the lifelong learning memory of the youth generation, sustainably preserve CI, and foster the site image through the visitors’ experience.

This paper reviews the multidimensional outlook of the CE in the CH field to address the interrelationship between cultural assets and the CE through the perspective of a sustainable CT. The authors then promote the people-centred approach establishing the partnerships as stepping stones in applying a circular bottom-up/participatory governance.

This paper is divided into three sections. It begins by establishing a framework that balances the CE and CH context. Then, it presents the applied projects and policies in Forsvik and its achievements. The projects show the significance of applying a bottom-up approach to innovatively conserve the dynamic interaction factor at the heritage destination. Finally, the research findings reflect this integration by drawing the main feature of PPPP as a circular model.

2. Research Methodology

This study is based on qualitative methods. It applies an integrated analytical framework. First, it shares a consequential experience with the applied projects and policies by the first author (the project leader—one of the board members of the implemented projects). Then, it integrates in-depth individual interviews with the key decision makers at the Karlsborg municipality and Västra Götaland region.

Many projects strengthen the local community of Forsvik to make them an attractive destination by promoting the local identity, including participation in collective events such as the enjoyment of nature, cultural events, and other socioeconomic activities. The empirical data consists of projects run under the Västra Götaland Region (Sweden). The authors have selected projects which can be defined as a circular economy, in that they have created new partnerships in which actors, from various perspectives, cooperate. Accordingly, we selected four projects or implemented policies as potential representatives of partnership, and collected, processed, and analysed the data on them using the narrative method. The core of its activities adopts the community-centred approach:

(1).

The initially generated policies of the European Regional Development Fund—Interreg Project CHRISTA “Culture and Heritage for Responsible, Innovative and Sustainable Tourism Actions”;

(2).

Västra Götaland site development policy;

(3).

The results of the European Research and Innovation Program—Horizon 2020 Project (CLIC) project “Circular Models Leveraging Investments in Cultural Heritage Adaptive Reuse” (It was led by Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche—Istituto di Ricerca su Innovazione e Servizi per lo Sviluppo (CNR IRISS));

(4).

Its integral consequences with EU Horizon 2020 Project Be.CULTOUR—“Beyond CULtural TOURism: Heritage Innovation Networks as Drivers of Europeanisation towards a Human-Cantered and Circular Tourism Economy” (2021).

The authors are able to build a narrative reflecting what has been occurring. A narrative is the principal means of analysing, showing, and arranging qualitative methods to make it intelligible. It is a documentation of what has been happening, an account of a connected story. Narratives are used in showing the rapport between the actions and the methods in which these linkages combine to generate the research results or the proposed theory as a consequence.

Two in-depth individual interviews were collected at the end of 2021 during the workshops of the Be.CULTOUR project with the Forsvik community (November and December). These interviews were conducted in English with the representatives at the local and regional levels:

(1).

Karlsborg Municipality—Be.CULTOUR local project coordinator in Forsvik and tourism industry planner in the Municipality;

(2).

Västra Götaland regional development and Be.CULTOUR project director in the region.

The interviews included eight open-ended questions about the initiative, drivers, actors and networks, aims, and consequences. The interviews aimed to:

(1).

Estimate the interactive and cooperative relationships among the main objectives of the implemented projects and the applied people-centred approach by those key decision makers regarding the safeguarding and preservation of CI and heritage assets;

(2).

Assess the approach followed for the needs and wants of Forsvik as a rural area and industrial heritage destination that is promoted in the heritage tourism market.

Interviews were tape-recorded and then manually transcribed for extended qualitative analysis. The interviewer also took notes during the interviews to reflect on the ideas being discussed. Interviews lasted from 20 to 30 min. The data were then analysed through interpretive-descriptive analysis that departs from efforts to build an understanding of the level of application associated with the people-centred approach to the CE and a partnership. The analysis was carried out manually through the process of organizing, sorting, grouping, categorizing, and interpreting the data. The applied analytical approach has some deductive and inductive characteristics. The descriptive analysis followed deductive reasoning, as inferred from the theoretical conceptualization. However, the interpretation of data builds on the narratives and personal experiences of research participants, which gives an inductive nature to the research. In summary, using the theoretical lens of the eight investigated questions to frame how the key decision makers (as one of the stakeholders) reasoned about the implemented strategy, this study proposes a more nuanced approach that is people-centred and based on the community and their CI.

3. Theoretical Framework

In this section, we build our theoretical framework by revisiting multidimensional views in CE which have an effective reflection in the CH field. By doing so, this part firstly addresses the interrelationship between the cultural asset and the CE through a sustainable CT perspective. Then, it promotes the people-centred approach representing the partnerships as a method of circular bottom-up governance.

3.1. Circular Economy and Sustainable Culture Tourism

CH and its associated community have a strong relationship. Both generate and sustain a local identity and memory. CH raises awareness of the community, sharing common values among them, and bringing stability, resilience, and cohesion. According to the Faro Convention (2005), CH values are developed by communities. The relationship between CH and the community is a proactive process. The community enhances the CH while the heritage ensures social cohesion and a sense of belonging for the people [1,7,9].

Recognizing the Green Deal Strategy of the European Union (2016), the CE is informally defined as an ecological process that operationalizes cooperative partnerships among the stakeholders (public and private sectors). Acknowledging the role of CH values, the CE creates co-evolutive economic synergies, cooperation, and collaboration. Subsequently, CE and heritage conservation are integrated strategies to guarantee the sustainability of cultural resources. Valorising the unique values of tangible heritage and intangible cultural heritage expressions (ICH), the CE adopts a people-centred approach to upgrade their standards of living and provide predictions of the socioeconomic requirements of future generations. It maintains a sense of identity, belonging, and stewardship of a community to express the factors of creativity, cultural diversity, and collective memory [7,12,13,14,15,16,17].

According to the Nara Document (1994), the links between the CE, conservation, sustainable development and CH investments were observed. The CE is “an economic model wherein planning, resourcing, procurement, production, and reprocessing are designed and managed as both process and output, to maximize ecosystem functioning and human well-being; a workable socio-technical approach for attaining economic, social and environmental transition to sustainability” [10]. “Conservation works as the circular transmission of heritage values, as a circular environmental process, as a circular intangible process (arts and crafts), as a circular business, governance, and as financing models, and as a circular provider of new, innovative, and creative uses on-site and across the area” [18]. In other words, “the abandoned and underused (CH), both tangible and intangible, can turn from a “cost” to an “investment” for society, opening up new perspectives for local sustainable development, enhancing the urban landscape and communities’ well-being, and generating new jobs” [1]. Additionally, “both tangible and intangible cultural heritage is closely linked to creativity and often important starting points for innovation and start-ups in the cultural and creative industries” [19].

The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015), the New Urban Agenda (Habitat III) (2016)—adopted at the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, the European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON—Inspire Policy Making with Territorial Evidence), INTERACT, InterReg Europe and URBACT (2016), and the Chinese Circular Economy Promotion Law (article no. 1) recommend developing a CE model and an ecosystem-based conservation process to boost the national-level urban policies (by UN SDGs) and sustain the lifecycle of built heritage.

Additionally, the European Green Capital Award, and the Brussels Regional Program for a Circular Economy (BPRCE) (2016), an integrated bottom-up strategy (innovative co-creation among various stakeholders), outline that a CE stimulates adaptive reuse/regeneration proposals to set and manage urban, rural, and cultural landscapes. Adopting this strategy could provide opportunities for socioeconomic growth and promote a value-based sharing economy within climate change (mitigation and adaptation) and energy performance, sustainable urban mobility, land-use and green growth, as well as biodiversity and governance [3,9,10,17,19].

By implementing this strategy, the policy for site development could apply creative and innovative approaches to develop new ideas for adaptive reuse. These ideas must consider traditional social practices, CT, as well as requirements for residency. This idea could transform economically, socially, and culturally into a self-sustainable ecosystem [12,13]. Moreover, the Urban Agenda for the European Union (Pact of Amsterdam) argues that similar to a regenerative model, a CE could be integrated into urban development policies, in synergy with the policies for territory and/or regional development. Keeping the abovementioned statements in mind, the new ideas for adaptive reuse would support ecological ecosystems and prioritize the well-being of the community [7,15,19,20].

Adaptive reuse is a dynamic process that supports the vitality of buildings or public spaces by reacting with the stakeholders in a managerial capacity, thus building resilience and creating new knowledge and innovations [12,13]. Adaptive reuse is the most convenient approach to implementing a CE in the context of heritage. It valorises the role of a community in territorial development, enhances the transmission of cultural knowledge and creativity as well as reuses spaces innovatively for CT, therefore creating a collective memory. On the other hand, a CE identifies diverse activities and uses which are considered adaptive for cultural assets over time. This in turn helps conserve authenticity and integrity by realizing contemporary needs. In summation, a CE and adaptive reuse support each other to demonstrate the circularity of conservation interventions and the revenues from reuse initiatives [16,19,20].

A CE involves developing cultural frameworks and social systems. This involvement addresses the circular urban and regional policies to realize public–private partnerships and aims to understand the socioeconomic impact of the built environment and CH. As a result, it (1) reduces the percentage of land consumption, (2) reuses public spaces functionally, (3) revives tangible and intangible heritage values, (4) activates a sustained regeneration process, (5) increases cultural needs (goods and services), and (6) fosters interactive rapports and synergies among various stakeholders [3,4,9,10].

3.2. The Partnership: Bottom-UP/Participatory Governance Approach

The 1980s and 1990s conservative governments did not privatize cultural funding; rather, they instituted a powerful discourse of the market which was used to instil an increasingly orthodox concern with “value for money”. The rhetoric of enterprise culture significantly depended upon the promotion of partnerships between local authorities, (nongovernmental organizations), and supposedly the private sector. If heritage projects make appeals that are hotly contested, alien or simply irrelevant to the established canon of local images, then heritage can easily become a political burden to its local sponsors. Respectively, politicians have to be persuaded that the proposed project will gain sufficient popular acceptance to justify commitment [18,21].

A public–private partnership was invented by the public sector to support public interventions and policies economically and financially in the management and conservation of heritage sites and buildings, especially abandoned ones. It has many benefits such as facilitating the constraints of the CH industry (conservation vs. valorisation) and valorising the added values from the adaptive reuse. In contrast, it transforms CH from being of public interest, a part of their collective memory and the identity of the communities into semi-customized and/or privatized as cultural goods. It has socioeconomic side effects on the social nature of culture. The private sector starts to follow the cherry-picking approach by selecting low-cost/high-revenue projects and leaving cold investment projects, or in other words, the poor profitability of cultural assets, for the public sector. Therefore, the former phenomena have high negative impacts on governance capacity. It impoverishes the public sector and impacts its future financial and managerial planning for CH projects. Subsequently, valorising hybridization as a strategic tool, the public–private partnership could be developed to support cultural assets innovatively by (1) creating shared values among actors and/or stakeholders, and (2) using innovative and relevant business models, which enhance the new entrepreneurial ecosystem and create a relevant value for money perspective for the public sector. Thus, the main aim of this partnership will be to sustain the culture and its positive impact on overall social inclusion and cohesion [3,7].

Considering this perspective, the bottom-up/participatory governance approach makes adaptive reuse play a strategic role and assigns collaborative responsibility for the safeguarding of CH. It enhances the co-relationship between social capital and the local CH. By doing so, the locals become the main actors in reusing abandoned spaces, buildings and landscapes, where they could propose innovative and creative uses for the regeneration of the social, cultural, and economic aspects of their heritage [9,14,17,19]. Furthermore, the public sector could be a moderator or an administrative driver that fosters these initiatives and promotes cooperation among all actors and/or stakeholders and decision makers. This collaboration must include the private sector, the social operators (NGOs), and the community, which together will have the ability to define CH and set its management system as a common resource [1].

The Italian project Discover Valtellina (Valtellina, Sondrio–Lombardy (Alpine)—ten years project—could be taken as an example of good practice, based on the creative and collaborative cultural practices as well as the informal application of the people-centred approach in the public–private partnership. With an aim of enhancing the sociocultural aspect, the project interlinks tangible and intangible heritage in their territorial development. It focuses on three fundamental keywords, community, cooperation, and creativity in order to invest sustainably in cultural, social, and economic values. They promote local social capital by integrating the adaptive reuse approach. As it is a destination management project, CH becomes the main driver or domain. The project develops the region by sharing, highlighting, and representing the manifestations of the local identity for the visitors. As a result, this regional project helps the locals to generate significant financial value for their local businesses [8,9,17].

Through this project, especially the tourism product Valtellina Corners, they target the visitors who are enthusiastic about cultural enrichment, as well as the ones who explore and learn about the living manifestations of the local culture(s). With that in mind, the 54 corners were unified to promote themselves on a common website. With this initiative, they aim to enhance the use of participatory models or a bottom-up methodology and promote community-based tourism. This approach ensures that the average spending time of visitors increases and the distribution channels are diversified. This also helps develop the region in terms of public–private partnerships which, within the cultural storytelling, provides a convenient space for experiential marketing by local entrepreneurs and investors [9,10,18]. Consequently, the marketization of culture might support, on the ground, the local identity including the heritage expression and its surrounding tourism services and facilities, in addition to valorising its impact on the sociocultural commemoration of the local people and their involvement level. “It is embedded in the complex inter-relations among different agencies of governance, systems of funding, and interest groups at local, regional, national, and international levels. It involves making dual claims in the public sphere: firstly, to the ideals of cost-effectiveness, partnership, and enterprise, and secondly, to the values of local public provision, cultural representation, and popular access to informal education” [21].

4. Forsvik: Beyond Participatory Approach, Circular Governance, and Community-Based Culture Tourism

Forsvik is a rural area that lies in the far south of Sweden between Stockholm and Göteborg (Gothenburg). It is an industrial heritage destination that belongs geographically and administratively to the Karlsborg municipality and VGR (Figure 1). It is considered one of the highly recommended seasonal attractions for local tourism. Avoiding a top-down governance approach, the region and municipality manage the destination with a circular approach. They consider the multidimensional needs of actors and people to better integrate local knowledge and ecological, economic, social, and cultural functions in a common framework. “The role of local knowledge and expertise is crucial. (…) it can be enriched through interaction with externally-acquired knowledge (…) of local needs and resources” [6].

Due to demographic degradation, reduction in job opportunities, lack of infrastructure, and the decline of productivity, the living areas have gradually deteriorated [15]. This makes Forsvik a kind of urban rural place, which can generate synergies among artists, architects, farmers, enterprises, associations, financing bodies, and institutions to produce both aesthetic and social values [17]. This proves that when the ecosystem and socioeconomy-based policies are multidimensional, they can enhance the community’s stewardship towards their CH assets [4].

The official report—enhanced by the study of the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth—for the Swedish government Ett land att besöka—En samlad politik för hållbar turism och växande besöksnäring (2017) (a Country to Visit—an Overall Policy for Sustainable Tourism and a Growing Hospitality Industry) considers CT as a high priority (along with culinary and nature tourism) and an important way for tourism development. Hence, heritage tourism in Sweden is moderated by many actors including cooperative societies and NGOs.

The following subsections review implemented projects and developed policies to study the level of involvement and engagement of the community. The first project is called CHRISTA Västarvet which highlights how industrial societies provide sustainable CT. Västra Götaland, which has been a part of the CLIC project and is currently a Be.CULTOUR project has already developed its policies for regional development.

4.1. European Regional Development Fund—Interreg Project CHRISTA “Culture and Heritage for Responsible, Innovative and Sustainable Tourism Actions” (2016–2020)

According to the relationship between the CH of industrial societies and sustainable CT, CHRISTA aims to enhance heritage tourism, civic society, and tourism development initiatives in VGR. Forsvik, as a Swedish industrial heritage destination, was included under a project Västarvet (the nature and cultural heritage administration for VGR). According to the CHRISTA objectives one and six, Västarvet, jointly with other national, regional, and municipal stakeholders (Prisma Västra Götaland; Västavet; Innovatum; Göteborgs Stads Kulturförvaltning; De Kulturhistoriska Museerna i Borås; Riksarkivet/Landsarkivet i Göteborg; Maritimt i Väst (MIV); Hembygd Väst (HV) samt Nätverket för Arbetslivsmuseer i Väst (NAV); the Swedish Tourist Board—Western Sweden; and the Municipal Tourism Organizations), developed a long-term cultural-historic participatory platform Prisma Västra Götaland as a common resource for sharing knowledge for CH and to promote the tourism industry.

This platform aims to review industrial societies and their culture, stories, livelihoods, industries or crafts, and attractions. It is considered a wide digital database for industrial heritage and social development in VGR since 1850. It informs visitors—who are interested in exploring places holistically—about the industrial historic destinations and the latest events. Prisma validates the cooperation/participatory environment among the actors of the regional soft infrastructure (tourism and cultural services), both public and private.

According to Västarvet and Prisma, VGR—destination management foundation centralizes its effort to promote the tourism entities that have qualified products and/or services either in Sweden, Nordic states, or worldwide. In addition to the platform, it not only encourages other entities to be an effective part of the tourism soft infrastructure but also raises the tourism competitors both public and private. As result, the level of place attachment or a sense of place and stewardship would upgrade either within the community members or other stakeholders.

According to CHRISTA objective four, strengthened by the regional strategic orientations and initiatives, the CH sector and tourism industry integrate. The first one has expertise in the CH field and has a good local network, while the latter is responsible for packaging and tourism marketing. Together, they answer two questions:

(1).

how can the knowledge of the CH-site stakeholders be invested as ICH for the tourism industry?

(2).

how does the knowledge of the tourism industry make the tourism attractions support each other?

According to CHRISTA objective five and through Interpret Europe Project (2019), they solve the issue by enhancing the cultural interpretation approach. They develop a series of capacity-building programs for stakeholders, exchanging professional experiences in the field of cultural interpretation, which in turn can provide a strong experience understanding for attracting visitors. Moreover, according to CHRISTA objective seven, they invest in the “Word-of-Mouth” perspective, raising the quality of visits to industrial historic buildings. They develop an emotional mapping model through the InterReg project “Culture and Heritage Added Value to Regional Policies for Tourism Sustainability” (CHARTS) (2018); as well as capturing the industrial historic destinations-related needs and wants of the stakeholders involved.

4.2. Västra Götaland Site Development Policy (2016–2019)

Although the VGR development policy is divided among different units, VGR develops the framework/project for sustainable spaces between 2016 and 2019 (Figure 2). The region operationalizes collaborative work towards regional service development, considering it community-based tourism.

Valorising the importance of the engagement of locals, the policy targets to fund (maximum 50% of the proposed budget) and/or to prioritize the projects moderated and monitored by the local actors, companies, or foundations (in contact with the municipality) such as an island council or a village team. Additionally, by strengthening the participatory approach, VGR was encouraged to create a cross-sectoral team for VGR development policy after completing the framework in 2019. This team was created by the representatives of VGR units and administrations.

In phase 1.A, the main focus was to encourage all of the relevant actors to identify the main purpose of the site development proposal. It is more coherent and effective when those, who are a part of the solution, are also involved in identifying the problem and obstacles faced by the proposed site development project. Moreover, in phase 1.B, many sites benefit from the results of the local economic analysis through cultural planning mythologies which include socioeconomic data and mapping of the site’s business background.

Cultural planning is an internationally developed methodology that includes conducting interviews with the site’s residents to define the site’s identity and values. Cultural planning often creates a participatory process on-site. It also helps to identify the site’s characteristics for tailoring long-term planning and development. An emotional survey then encourages the community members to mark the spots on a map where they feel either comfortable or insecure. This action clearly identifies the areas where the municipality may need to focus on and strengthen its development.

In phases 1.C and 2, the municipality, local actors, and other thematic working groups conduct a SWOT analysis of the results achieved. Then, they specify the goals and objectives of the action plan. The major challenges/issues are identified to contribute to a sustainable vision and plan long-term goals. These activities are a mix of what is a municipal responsibility, what the business community can contribute, and what the civil society can implement.

4.3. European Research and Innovation Program—Horizon 2020 Project (CLIC) “Circular Models Leveraging Investments in Cultural Heritage Adaptive Reuse” (2018–2020)

Recognizing finance and governance models as a domain of the circular flow of benefits, CLIC selects the private sector, both entrepreneurs and owners, the public sector and the local community as the main players [14]. CLIC takes adaptive reuse as the primary method environmentally, socially, culturally and economically to implement the CE approach in the heritage spaces on an interdisciplinary level; and to recreate cultural commons and rebuild the sociocultural rapport between the community and their heritage.

With that perspective, the project focuses on two fronts: knowledge development and exchange; promoting synergies and cooperation among the stakeholders and the community using the local identity. Based on a participatory approach, CLIC could identify the main characteristics of the circular businesses, finances and governance models for adaptive reuse [1,4,16,17,20].

Through four industrial heritage sites in West Sweden (Gustavsfors, Fengersfors, Strömsfors, and Forsvik), CLIC reviews the dynamic relationship between a CE, business and governance models, as well as entrepreneurship and adaptive reuse. Considering cultural resources and creativity, the reviewed cases, including Forsvik, indicate a lack of social cohesion. Thus, along with a series of workshops, CLIC implemented a cross-sectoral approach. The clarification of the relationship between cultural activities and (CH) facilities argues for a more systematic approach to evidence-based policy design and more participatory, bottom-up public decision making. In this framework, a paradigm shift could create heritage-led development where the cultural asset is recognized as a fundamental factor for regeneration and innovative adaptive reuse projects as well as a necessary investment in the process of conservation [19].

Perceiving Forsvik on a meso-urban scale (D3.3. Maps of Landscape Perception (Map n. 10.1.)), the community highlighted keywords—tourism and attractiveness, sustainability, training and skills, common good, community, awareness—which showcased their contemporary requirements, and recreation, creativity, aesthetic value, preservation, collective memory, authenticity—which outlines their motivation for preserving their authentic context.

Within the framework of the built environment and community empowerment, CH develops a common and hybrid synergy between the public and private sectors. It contributes to formulating the community’s CI. It is well-supported financially by the public sector for conservation. Thus, according to the CE-based EU Urban Agenda (2016) and the people-centred approach, CLIC presents innovative, collaborative, and participatory governance as a circular business model. Participatory governance develops a consistent and applicable framework and viable tools for the proposed adaptive reuse initiatives and facilitates the decision-making process. The sustainable development goals (UN SDGs) and the pillars of a CE could be effectively fostered by integrating both people and culture-centred approaches. This governance will smoothly transmit CH as a place-based resource for the future generation [3,10,14,19,22].

Moreover, based on this framework, CLIC, in cooperation with VGR, could establish a heritage innovation partnership (HIP), which combines all of the ecosystem actors. A HIP aims to measure and co-create culturally and socioeconomically innovative adaptive reuse schemes. A HIP assists decision makers and practitioners who are expecting multidimensional impacts from their proposed adaptive reuse approach. The HIP is led by representatives from municipal/regional or nongovernmental organizations and a local research institute. Additionally, it could include utilities, urban developers and planners, conservation organizations, community groups, schools/education departments and businesses as well as the local research team. Demonstrating dialogues among the former actors, a HIP creates and strengthens local multi-actor partnerships, co-creates local action plans, and enhances local knowledge, ideas, capacities, and cooperation. These dialogues aim to exchange local experiences by reviewing what has been achieved and what was not accomplished, as well as how to identify and solve the gaps and challenges [10,20,22].

Focusing on governance and management, CLIC defines auditing methods which test, implement, validate, and share innovative “circular” financing, business, and governance models for the systemic adaptive reuse of cultural heritage in the context of (historical) urban landscapes [22].

In 2019, in cooperation with Mötesplats Steneby—Kulturen Lyfter, CLIC valorised the rural entrepreneurship approach as an innovative development initiative, especially towards food and beverage crafts. This enables the community to guarantee long-term and circular financial support by developing a sustainable business model. This model aims to invest the cultural property’s resources as upfront capital for the long-run and self-financed investments (Figure 3).

CLIC then conducts a heritage impact assessment in order to estimate the human-induced impacts on historic buildings. The assessment results point to positive ventures through the following applications:

(1).

Heritage Interpretation: to operationalize cultural mapping and encourage a supportive perception of users for human preferences and its reflections, as well as capturing daily interactions with the cultural assets.

(2).

Public–Private Partnerships as a strategic tool for economical area development: to enhance business improvement districts (BID) by creating a memorandum of understanding, and setting up a hierarchy for developing management approaches at cultural sites and buildings in order to upgrade lifestyles for the community members. On the other hand, CLIC discusses the impacts of these partnerships. Local stakeholders are identified as local strategic partners and a business canvas for adaptive reuse. Local strategic partnerships have also been regarded as a convenient tool to address regulatory issues, bureaucracy, lack of involvement, and attractiveness.

4.4. EU Horizon 2020 Project Be.CULTOUR—Beyond Cultural Tourism: Heritage Innovation Networks as Drivers of Europeanisation towards a Human-Centred and Circular Tourism Economy (2020–2023)

In November 2021, at Forsviks Bruk, recognizing the local community as a main representative of CH and the interrelationship between site development and community-driven tourism, Be.CULTOUR hosted a technical workshop with the local community of Forsvik: to better understand their requirements and priorities and to assess certain requirements of the main site stakeholders. This could encourage the local municipality to develop community-based CT.

The workshop was proposed to attract the participation of all key stakeholders (the private sector, the public sector, the civil society, and the academia) working on all three levels (regional, municipality, and the site). Unexpectedly, most participants in the workshop represented the private sector, especially professionals who own local tourism services, facilities, and amenities in Forsvik. A lack of participation by Swedish universities and research centres was observed. Additionally, the workshop report highlighted the need for inviting other types of professionals and stakeholders who are out of the hospitality industry, as well as other regional actors.

Collaboratively, the workshop participants studied the tourism environment and made the following suggestions to entail Forsvik as a tourism attraction: to develop, promote and highlight the characteristics of the cultural asset; to provide dedicated hospitality services, transportation infrastructure and accommodation, especially during the high tourism seasons; to develop criteria which can help generate investments and entrepreneurial opportunities; to rehabilitate the landmarks; and to plan and design cultural events and activities.

Matching sustainable/circular CT and diversity-based cultural activities, the workshop moderators encouraged participants—the stakeholders of Forsvik—to identify the types of proposed activities based on their geo-cultural characteristics and the carrying capacity of the proposed spaces and buildings. Participants use the cultural mapping thinking process to draw out the landmarks which could probably attract visitors. The results showed that the maximum number of visitors come around Göta Canal by their own boat or as passengers on a boat. The participants then assert the necessity for developing a strategy that connects these landmarks spatially. Although Forsvik is a convenient destination for those who are interested in activities such as biking and hiking, other destinations, e.g., Tiveden National Park, outside Forsvik, are catering for people interested in nature-based tourism.

Adopted after CLIC project results (2019), the SWOT analysis conducted by Be.CULTOUR workshop participants resulted in similar outcomes, with some additions (weaknesses and threats):

(1).

Demographic degradation: the village’s population consists of mostly elderly/aged people (average age 62 years old). The village faces a great threat of loss of cultural knowledge as they are unable to effectively transmit cultural knowledge and their lived experience to the younger generation. As a result, not enough young people are willing to participate in the conservation and maintenance of heritage buildings;

(2).

The lack of attractiveness for retaining residents and attracting new residents: some people move there only when they retire and hence, are not interested in being involved in the decision making;

(3).

Challenges due to bureaucracy, inflexibility and a lack of attractiveness to incentivize new businesses by the municipality;

(4).

A lack of communication and coordination among stakeholders;

(5).

A lack of housing opportunities both for long-term and short-term renting;

(6).

A lack of public and tourist services, e.g., cafés, hospitals, schools, recycling stations, B&B, and hotels;

(7).

A lack of job opportunities;

(8).

A lack of attractiveness for new businesses/enterprises/events;

(9).

Regulations in place that are preventing and hindering adaptive reuse, e.g., environmental regulations and working environment regulations;

(10).

A lack of involvement and engagement of people and private entities in the development of CH (Lack of Cultural Perception of the potential of CH for the development of societal and cultural values; a lack of understanding of the adaptive reuse concept which leads the residents to believe that it is against their interests);

(11).

A lack of means of transportation to travel to and from Forsvik;

(12).

Seasonality of activities and tourism: maximum tourism is seen during summer when most engaging activities are planned;

(13).

Poor maintenance of heritage because reuse is not allowed by municipalities;

(14).

A high financial demand, long and slow return of investment, and limited financial resources for CH and innovation of ongoing and new adaptive reuses.

Based on the results, Forsvik has to redevelop its plan in a socioeconomic context targeting two main strategies: to increase hospitality and cultural events targeted towards tourists, facilities, services, and amenities; to decentralize the governance and administrative system and redistribute the roles among diverse stakeholders.

These strategies will strengthen nature and culture-based tourism and newly instated mobility services could attract many investments and companies. This could provide more housing, especially in the semi-developed landmark areas which will diversify how tourists perceive attractions.

The Karlsborg municipality—including Forsvik—is a very small municipality of only about 7000 people. Two years ago, the tourism industry here was weak, with very few tourist-based businesses, services, facilities, and amenities. However, even though the municipality does not have the economic power and facilities to attract a high number of tourists, local politicians have started developing initiatives to incentivize more residents investors and diverse age groups to further develop the municipality.

Based on the labour policy and construction industry, the CH sector in Sweden usually seeks (1) to provide dedicated capacity-building activities including training for promoting traditional building techniques, (re)use and management of heritage spaces, and “establishing a network that aggregates a wide range of stakeholders and audiences; implementing a rich program of public encounters (…); (educating) Indigenous communities and ensure their involvement in the process of knowledge production”, and (2) to foster a participatory and collaborative approach among all the multidisciplinary national sectors. In this way, various stakeholders are enabled to solve common challenges and issues. Thus, as an outcome, CH and identity become a catalyst for regional competitiveness and sustainable development [19,23].

While the Swedish CH sector implemented some of the aforementioned activities, the Karlsborg municipality does not have the financial capacity to provide capacity-building actions and other development activities for the local community, especially for those who have small businesses in the heritage spaces. The municipality attempts to be included in various EU-funded projects, e.g., the food destination project, under the supervision of VGR. This creates a channel to develop actors for the tourism industry and helps the community to improve their businesses and entrepreneurial skills. Moreover, they invite the community members to the meetings and workshops of these projects such as the Be.CULTOUR project.

Additionally, VGR usually develops dedicated tools to foster the civic society (NGOs) and small businesses in the tourism industry, such as CHRISTA Västarvet and its long-term participatory platform Prisma Västra Götaland, as well as VGR development policy. While VGR takes steps towards establishing fundamentals for heritage-based businesses or small businesses that could be implemented at heritage places, there is an absence of a unified strategy among the municipality, local NGOs, and other stakeholders, for long-term heritage-based investments.

For the municipality, the industrial heritage buildings are considered historical icons that must be safeguarded. However, the hindrance is always the financial support to restore these buildings, not to create activities inside them. Due to the high costs of restoration and the complexity of the local regulations which forbid innovations, there is not enough budget to support the businesses in the buildings. Respectively, in the context of locally-matched public funding for heritage, the local sphere and its complex social and political relationships are of considerable importance [21].

The Karlsborg municipality is only responsible for saving the historical buildings and supporting entities which want to activate the historic buildings. The municipality does not seek to save the community itself or to preserve the continuity of its traditional sociocultural practices. Solving this issue, VGR, responsible for the Forsviks Bruk museum, is very active in this way. It designs and conducts regular activities and guided tours for the members of the Forsvik community and its different age categories to raise awareness for these industrial heritage buildings.

For competitiveness in the historic quarter, the municipality pointed out the absence of external investors in Forsvik. All the businesses in Forsvik belong to the local community. Hence, to ensure an innovative approach to adaptive reuse, the municipality, in collaboration with VGR, aims to connect all of their large-scale companies and the community’s small businesses. In other words, they would like to activate partnerships between entities responsible for planning luxury and cultural-based activities in the historical buildings with culture, music, and events. Adaptationally, by operationalizing the bottom-up economic decentralization approach in the historic quarter, the municipality attempts to moderate a cooperative relationship between local NGOs and local companies, which directly deal with the community. They also support these entities in order to find funds and improve their investments.

With a people-centred governance perspective, VGR follows the bottom-up approach as the community and their identity are the main focus of its site development policy. The financial resources—directed by the local authorities—are generated from tax revenues (every municipality has a regional planning monopoly. Hence, the local government, as a decision maker jointly with the municipality, is responsible for applying urban planning procedures).

In 1970, the heritage sector in the region took a step towards integrating heritage preservation procedures into urban planning procedures in order to become a full member of the planning society. Subsequently, the heritage sector could participate in inventories, mappings, research, etc., to understand heritage values, the host community, and the skills of heritage planners. Hence, it can be deemed useful to integrate these heritage values in the urban planning language to safeguard historic buildings and their surrounding environment.

With respect to adaptive reuse, VGR has taken a step towards renovating the regional development and innovation strategies for cultural planning. CLIC and Be.CULTOUR with its updated outcomes provides the main evidence for this renovation. The development toolkits could aid in the development of the heritage value while this value is saved in a well-conserved statement. Moreover, regional strategies usually focus on developing the heritage site through placemaking projects. Thus, the CH site becomes a part of the sustainable development goals (17 UN SDGs) movement or a part of the CE approach in cooperation with the local stakeholders.

In summation, a people-centred conservation approach seeks to preserve the existing cultural assets and resources sustainably. VGR implements a bottom-up approach and uses a CE by gathering their stakeholders to commence the development process and collaborate to estimate the applicability of the innovative adaptive reuse ideas.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

People–Public–Private Partnership—Corporate Committee

In the framework of adopting the CE approach and narratively assessing the implemented actions and ongoing projects at Forsvik, the research presents a People–Public–Private Partnership as a model, which is applicable to partially solve the human-induced impacts—in terms of management and governance—especially in the CI of the communities. In addition to Girard [12,13] and Stanojev [20], the research unifies the common characteristics observed among various stakeholders and adds the community as a backbone of the management system. Thus, the proposed model works like a corporate committee to apply a bottom-up/participatory governance approach effectively.

According to the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (2011), the Burra Charter (2013), and the Faro Convention (2005), as well as based on the proposed definition of CI [11], the research interlinks the tangible forms and ICH of the existing heritage destination in a practical manner. A community-based value was valorised, emancipating their engagement level in the management system [11]. Therefore, due to the risk of fragmentation, the proposed model—or having a corporate committee—would add the community to other key stakeholders to create a decentralized cultural policy and governance. This committee jointly shares a group of characteristics which constitutes the identity of the collective memory and its members.

The People–Public–Private Partnership as a hybrid governance model (Figure 4) balances and creates synergies among the priorities and interests of the public and private sectors, while integrating the community in the heritage context. Thus, various actors or stakeholders actively fully integrate the aforementioned interests and objectives in the site development and management while effectively using the financial resources available, such as the following:

• 1st stakeholder: Autochthonous/Indigenous/local community is an owner, witness, and generator of CH and identity. The community is a crucial building block for successful (CH) policies [22]. They are a fundamental actor who could achieve the responsibilities of civic society [1]. Within the framework of public policies, those communities may value CH and be motivated to sustain and transmit it to future generations.
• 2nd stakeholder: Governmental bodies and public institutions, as the moderators, play a central role. They develop the main cultural management and site development policies in parallel with the national development strategies. (The public administrations can play a relevant role in the vision and mission change in for-profit enterprises—from profit per se versus shared value for all. The same can be applied to nonprofit enterprises from the perspective of innovative hybrid enterprises [3]). The developed policies include the guidelines for multidimensional or interdisciplinary, protection, and conservation at CH spaces, which are innovative and creative [7,22].
• 3rd stakeholder: Universities and research centres, as consultants, investigate the problems at the site and propose applicable solutions and recommendations. The role of educational institutions can create the preconditions for local development firstly by processing local knowledge and integrating it into wider contexts of knowledge, and secondly by filtering global research information in locally applicable contexts. They must then identify and acquire indigenous knowledge about localities and locally embedded resources [6].
• 4th stakeholder: Civic societies, as mentors, are the supportive entities for the community and their entrepreneurial projects.
• 5th stakeholder: Private sector and financial institutions focus on providing resources, supporting small businesses financially, and using the available resources effectively to enhance the suggested proposals holistically, on multiple dimensions.

The model does not focus on only creating a group of integrated financial resources for the site stakeholders but also on upgrading the well-being of the heritage, its stakeholders, and its people. This could lessen the percentage of demographic degradation. It may also provide new public spaces and raise public awareness of the importance of heritage. Additionally, implementing the heritage-based entrepreneurship approach [3] could encourage the youth to stay in the heritage context as a generator of CI. Depending on the outstanding values and the socioeconomic requirements of that community, the research suggests reviewing the levels of modifications in the cultural asset, whether in the buildings, urban layout or in practising ICH, e.g., the social practices, the customs, the traditions, the events, etc.

In conclusion, to sustain the heritage context, the key site stakeholders or actors must jointly generate a series of creative CT activities, investments, as well as entrepreneurial projects rehabilitating and adaptively reusing the (living) heritage spaces on a socioeconomical level. Using cultural mapping as a heritage interpretation method, these stakeholders can interact with the site values by lessening the rapid modifications in the cultural asset and its significance.