Search

Cultural heritage management at the local government level relies on community participation, mainly interested stakeholders, in the identification, nomination and, in some jurisdictions, the co-evaluation of heritage assets. These are then "listed," i.e., included in planning schemes and other development controls. Such inclusion in planning schemes is predicated on the assumption that the local community values its heritage, appreciates its protection and supports local council investment and actions in the matter. This assumption is treated as axiomatic but only very rarely formally tested. Drawing on a community heritage survey in Albury, a regional service center in southern New South Wales (Australia), this paper discusses the perceptions held by the community on the relative importance of heritage protection when compared with the other services offered by council. The findings show that the community ranked cultural and natural heritage places higher than cultural institutions (museums, libraries and theatres). The findings also showed that the community valued cultural and natural heritage more than traditional engineering services, such as roads/footpaths, rubbish removal and even sporting facilities. The survey highlighted intergenerational differences, with cultural heritage places and cultural institutions ranking high only among Generation X and the generations prior (Builders and Baby Boomers). This has clear implications for the present provisioning of heritage services and community education. The paper concludes with an exploration of the long-term implications of the observed intergenerational differences for local government authorities and community development in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contributing to a national policy reform intended to make meaningful advancements to the social and economic inclusion of disabled people, local government councils in NSW, Australia, have been required to have in place a Disability Inclusion Action Plan since 2017 under the Disability Inclusion Act of 2014. Five years on, this qualitative policy content analysis examined the key achievements promoted by 32 councils under the first generation of plans, and also identified where action has been limited. Councils were found to have invested significantly in making improvements to the built environment. Hosting accessible events and programs was also a commonly reported achievement, as was facilitating access to accessible information and technology. Councils took proactive roles in supporting and educating communities, business and their employees in inclusive practice. There were many achievements related to employment opportunities; however, these were generally narrow in expectation and impact, suggesting this was the area councils struggled with most. Councils also showed they were forecasting ahead, outlining consultative processes and policy changes, which would influence systemic improvements in accessibility and inclusion into the future. Councils have taken significant steps to advance the inclusion agenda; however, there remain areas where greater attention and support are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]