Systematically Thinking About Heritage

Abstract

Heritage work requires collaboration across disciplinary specialties and with the people who create, use, and hold heritage. Communities of practice—like preservationists, interior designers, and historians—inherently rely on systems for structure, organization, relationships, boundaries, and identity. Systems thinking approaches are essential in rapidly changing circumstances. Modeling a complex interdisciplinary system of dynamic parts challenges heritage specialists to consider origins, implications, and consequences distant from, but linked to, heritage itself. Thinking about heritage as part of a system identifies a range of new opportunities and contexts for using and supporting heritage. This essay’s purpose centers on application—in how we use heritage in making decisions—rather than theory. Using a personal story about a longcase clock, the essay demonstrates how systematically thinking about heritage changes the focus of heritage work. The proposed heritage–human–ecology system model emphasizes the interaction of heritage and living.

Heritage encompasses the myriad ways we, as individual humans and communities, understand our pasts and activate that understanding through culture, tradition, political action, and the built environment (Harrison, 2015; Orthel, 2014; L. Smith, 2006, 2011). Heritage work is behavior and choice—in the changes and practices we consciously and subconsciously take because of heritage. Heritage work by professionals requires collaboration across disciplinary specialties and with the people who create, use, and hold heritage. While the disciplinary bases of heritage literature are diverse (e.g. archaeology, anthropology, built environment, geography, economics, tourism studies), these connections typically focus on supporting heritage and heritage practices as self-obvious entities rather than how heritage inherently interacts with the broader world. Heritage is deeply human and interior, not simply words on a page. We embed our identities in actions and environments surrounding us. A “comprehensive model of the relationships between heritage and its physical and social environments” is required to make sense of the whole (Strlič, 2018, p. 7261). Heritage-bound approaches focus too narrowly and do not recognize opportunities to develop interdisciplinary work affecting people’s lives in complicated ways (e.g. how heritage interiors might affect human health). This essay describes an interdisciplinary heritage model to inform how everyday people and heritage specialists use heritage in relationships with other fields of knowledge (e.g. the work heritage enables, supports, and guides). ¹ Using the personal story of a longcase clock, this essay demonstrates how systematically thinking about heritage changes the focus of heritage work. This interior-based, material culture example reinforces how heritage work is engaged with interiority, occupation, and living within human and ecological systems.

This essay relies on interdisciplinary literature bridging multiple contexts and disciplines, including preservation- and material-culture-focused literature from the United States, heritage-focused literature from the global discipline, systems thinking literature, and interiors-based literature. The essay is not a comprehensive literature review, but it necessarily links literature across disciplines to build ideas. Readers seeking a more in-depth understanding of contemporary heritage literature are directed to Laurajane Smith’s (2006) Uses of Heritage and the lines of scholarship that follow from it.

The global heritage studies literature expands and reshapes how preservation and heritage topics are frequently discussed within interiors and within the United States. The Journal of Interior Design first published articles about historic preservation in 1976 (Harwood & McKee, 1978; Hawn, 1987; Rogers, 1976; Weale et al., 1976). More recent work in JID provides increasingly critical and grounded explorations of heritage and preservation topics (Cunningham, 2015; Lanz, 2018; Liu & Cunningham, 2023; Mitchell & Fielder, 2018; Sarmiento, 2025). The broader interiors–preservation literature goes beyond the extensive and rich examples of design history and material culture study published in Winterthur Portfolio, the Journal of Design History, and reissued historic style guides (Allen, 2004; Bedell, 2000; Seale, 1993). Established lines of literature focus on the conservation of materials and furnishings (Grimmer, 1989; Meister, 2025; Park, 2006; articles in APT Bulletin; and resources published by the U.S. National Park Service). Other literature examines the rehabilitation of space for new purposes (Aguilar, 2001; Henry, 1985; Hyllegard et al., 2003; Jandl, 1988; Plevoets & Van Cleempoel, 2012; Shaded, 2025; Tepper, 2007; Tucker, 2021; essays in Int|AR). Yet, as a whole, interior-based literature on preservation and heritage remains largely disconnected from global heritage studies and critical heritage studies literature (W. Li et al., 2024). The interdisciplinary, parallel ideas between these literatures offer many opportunities for connection.

Heritage work covers an increasingly diverse range of epistemologies, topics, and approaches, but in its on-the-ground application retains long-held biases to objectify and frame heritage through positivistic values (Avrami, 2012; Wells, 2017). Critical heritage studies redefine the focus of heritage by challenging how power is used through and to create heritage (Harrison, 2015; Harvey, 2001; L. Smith, 2006, 2022; Waterton et al., 2006). Because heritage is created (and re-created) culture, heritage specialists are responsible for examining and questioning how heritage shapes society through inclusion, exclusion, and worldview. Avrami (2012) notes heritage is a socially focused enterprise, but:

The failure to contextualize its work within a broader perspective cum system of social, economic, and environmental factors has created unintended consequences. By looking too narrowly at what—and who—the field includes, the externalities and social costs of the preservation [heritage] enterprise are not fully understood. Likewise the field is not able to fully capitalize on the social, environmental, and economic benefits it engenders (p. 206).

Historic (and current) approaches to heritage focused on humanist understandings of the world based in human experience and belief (Chilton, 2019; Hollis, 2014; Sterling, 2020; Winter, 2014). The resulting merger of power and heritage created authorized heritage discourses instrumentally structuring state-level identities (Harvey, 2001; L. Smith, 2006, 2022; Waterton et al., 2006). These socially enforced discourses control what, who, and how people are allowed to establish and maintain power (through politics, economics, religion, etc.). Critical heritage studies confronts authorized heritage discourses by asking how centuries of colonialization, exclusion, inequity, and bias have affected what we know and value (Fredheim & Khalaf, 2016; Lähdesmäki et al., 2019; Silverman, 2014; Sterling, 2020). While some critical heritage work directly supports equity and justice (Crawford-Lackey & Springate, 2019; Haggerty, 2016; N. Li, 2016; Roberts, 2019; L. Smith, 2022; Sorkin, 2016; Wells, 2017; Winter, 2014; Young, 2019), other parts question tradition, long-held beliefs, and the structural systems that guard authorized heritages (Emerick, 2009; Yan, 2015). Critically and responsibly working with heritage requires different tools and an inclusive perspective.

A systems thinking approach involves “understanding the interconnection and systemic structure of elements” that contextualize and engage heritage (Fouseki & Bobrova, 2018, p. 12; Richards et al., 2020; Van Balen, 2017). Systems models are used in other disciplines to contextualize how parts and actions influence each other. Thinking about heritage as part of a system (or systems) identifies a range of new opportunities and contexts for using and supporting heritage (Orthel & Anderson, 2018).

This essay is concerned with how heritage engages with non-heritage. Much of the heritage literature focuses internally (on how, why, and consequences). My interest is in how we use heritage to make decisions about other things that are not explicitly based in or on heritage (e.g. how heritage tacitly influences housing options, health practices, or educational approaches). (Thing is not a placeholder word. It represents a specific merging of tangible objects and intangible value. This idea is described further later in the essay.) As a result, the essay develops an interdisciplinary discussion about systems, which includes heritage as one part of a whole. Heritage is a deeply human-centric topic, often ingrained in how we live our lives. As a result, heritage embeds into interior spaces through tradition, socialization, habits and behavior, phenomenological experience, and material culture (Altman & Low, 1992; Amor, 2006; Bachelard, 1958; Cooper Marcus, 1995; Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Fehérváry, 2013; Hadjiyanni, 2019; Hollis, 2014; Pader, 2016; Pint, 2016). While this essay necessarily engages with definitions, theories, and discourse surrounding heritage and interiors, the purpose of the essay is not to reshape theory about heritage or interiors. This essay’s purpose centers on application—in how humans (whether professionally, amateurly, or unintentionally) use heritage in making decisions. The proposed system model focuses attention on the interaction of heritage and living.

The essay has four parts. The first part starts with the story of my grandfather’s clock. The second part outlines the value of systematic modeling and prior uses of system models in the heritage domain. The third part describes a heritage–human–ecology systems model to contextualize heritage within a rapidly changing social and environmental system. The fourth part demonstrates the model through the example of the longcase clock.

My Grandfather’s Clock

In May 2022, I drove 3,500 miles across the United States to retrieve a longcase clock. The clock is a hand-made copy (circa 1975) of a mass-produced kit sold to home hobbyists in the United States (see Figure 1). My maternal grandfather made the clock—just as he made nut bowls, side tables, lamps, and other similar pieces as gifts for his children and grandchildren. This longcase clock (commonly called a grandfather clock) is one of two he made.

Figure 1.

The longcase clock in its current setting.

My maternal grandparents owned a fruit orchard and relied on self-sufficiency. They canned voluminous quantities of fruit to eat year-round. My grandfather built their home and most of the buildings on the orchard himself. His woodworking projects were made of scrap fruit and nut wood and typically inlaid with geometric and floral marquetry or incorporating lathe-turned components. His technique and skill came from experience.

My grandfather made two longcase clocks (kit and copy) loosely emulating a neo-Georgian style with broken scroll pediments and neo-classical entablatures. My clock is a copy, originally gifted to my aunt. The second clock (assembled from the kit) was gifted to my mother. The kit clock has more mathematically established proportions (being made primarily from pre-cut pieces) but was enhanced with my grandfather’s floral marquetry in the front pedestal panel. My grandfather used scrap fruit and nut wood to create the second clock, tracing pieces from the original kit. Decorative trims and other elements were crafted as he knew how, but typically with larger proportions and blockier relationships than the kit's original. The marquetry and applied decoration use diamond and starburst motifs. With typical pragmatism, my grandfather used scrap 2 × 4 structural lumber to partially construct the interior frame of the clock (see Figure 2). When the carcass is disassembled, multiple parts show the construction challenges he faced (e.g. mis-drilled holes, pieces cut short and then extended with blocks). Neither door is attached square to the carcass. In a few places, edges were unsanded or minimally finished. These characteristics expand the story of the grandfather clock my grandfather made—linking what I know of him with this physical heirloom. When the clock was offered to me, I did not hesitate, ignoring the realities that the clock was 1,700-plus miles away and I did not have a place to put it. I could have purchased a similar clock built from the same kit at a nearby flea market for about $100. My grandfather’s clock meant something more to me.

Figure 2.

Detail of the clock’s internal construction, showing 2 × 4 framing (marked with structural stamp), stacked internal blocks, and unfinished edges.

This summary of the clock fits a common heritage-bound approach to heritage analysis in the United States. The object—be it building, furniture, or other tangible element—can be described with technical terms of style and construction. The origin story—perhaps about the maker, perhaps about the owners—is added to contextualize the form. The meaning or value of the object is tacitly attached somewhere in between. A layperson’s perspectives are no less valuable than the expert perspective in the negotiation of heritage, although the expert perspective is typically given preference in regulatory and bureaucratic heritage processes. How might my (or our) understanding and use of this longcase clock differ if we considered it from different systematic and experiential perspectives?

Context for a Systems Approach to Heritage

Instrumental approaches to heritage work use heritage to advance other objectives (and vice versa) (Boito, 1893/2009; Buckley, 2018; Fredheim & Khalaf, 2016; Riegl, 1903/1982; B. H. Smith & Elefante, 2009). Yet, decisions made about historic and heritage properties are rarely based in a singular motivation (Avrami & Mason, 2019; Crouch, 2010, 2015; Fredheim & Khalaf, 2016; Koziol, 2008; L. Smith, 2006, 2022; Winter, 2018). Hutchings and Cassar (2006) note heritage “decisions made without the consideration of all pertinent factors will by nature be unrepresentative of all relevant influences and may, in the worst case, result in biased decisions that could be detrimental to the future care” of heritage (p. 202). Harrison (2015) provides questions about context to use in making heritage-based decisions. His questions highlight how heritage is part of social systems.

Systematic thinking guides analysis and exploration of complex ideas by providing a heuristic for how “events accumulate into dynamic patterns of behavior” (Meadows, 2008, p. 88; Nelson, 2023). Systems models imperfectly replicate real-world conditions but help structure thinking. Their structure represents the epistemologies shaping how people understand the problems they face. For example, legacy system models used in interior-based work presume an ecological framework linking human development and actions within complex social, environmental, and familial systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). Interior-based scholars who begin from human ecology theory understand human action and environment as inseparable (and sometimes deterministic), in ways that differ from how phenomenological or culturally focused interior scholars do. System models should be carefully selected because their core ideas lead to subsequent thinking and actions.

A systems thinking approach requires considering how the parts of a whole relate to each other. Meadows’ (1998) archetypal sustainable development model, for example, provides a graphic and textual explanation for the hierarchy, components, and influence points affecting sustainability broadly (see Figure 3). Understanding these relationships provides insight about where (and how) to act within the system to provoke change (i.e. leverage points; Meadows, 1998). Barton and Grant (2006) similarly developed a system model exploring how health and well-being are related to human habitat (see Figure 4). Their model (or “health map”) reveals how aspects of human identity are interrelated through relationships. For example, an individual’s social capital affects and is affected by their wealth, where they work and shop, and the built and natural environments surrounding them. A health researcher can use the model to recognize relationships that influence health outcomes. Both models are notable for their clarity and concise approach to explaining a complex set of relationships and parts.

Figure 3.

Meadows’s (1998) sustainable development model. The model distinguishes types of actions (e.g. scientific thinking, political thinking, ethical thinking, resources) to focus attention on how parts relate to a comprehensive understanding of the issue (i.e. what is necessary to achieve sustainable development).

Figure 4.

Barton and Grant’s (2006) health map (graphically adapted). The health ecosystem model is divided into layered parts (i.e. global issues, natural environment issues, built environment issues, activities, economy issues, community issues, and individual characteristics), each with sub-parts.

Heritage specialists already work with explicit and implicit systems models, but the models are often used as rules, rather than tools for broader exploration. Definitions of authenticity, value, and significance in UNESCO policy and United States’ national regulation establish boundaries for what is considered relevant and important when assessing and managing heritage. The limitations of these definitions are well documented (Brumann, 2018; Brumann & Gfeller, 2022; Emerick, 2009; Fredheim & Khalaf, 2016; Silverman, 2014; Waterton et al., 2006; Waterton & Smith, 2010). The definitions and their boundaries are functionally systems models that sharply separate heritage from the non-heritage world. Design guides, policy frameworks, and heuristics of practice may also be, in effect, system models formalizing worldviews into policy structures (Arfa et al., 2022). These and other implicit groundings for heritage work are established through shared principles and prescriptive world views.

UNESCO Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) describes the purposes, definitions, and processes for globally protecting intangible heritage. Within the context of social and cultural change, intangible heritage is recognized as “practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills—as well as instruments, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces” associated with oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, knowledge, and traditional craft (UNESCO, p. 5). Such intangible heritage is also framed as living heritage. Notably, the convention treats intangible heritage as an entity itself—perhaps reliant on related tangible objects and intangible knowledge—but discrete from the individual people actively practicing the heritage. This definition may be pragmatic but has profound consequences in limiting how heritage is framed and shaped. U.S. preservation regulation follows similarly limiting conceptions of what heritage and preservation should be. To be clear, communities do not feel, engage, or react; only individuals have the capacity to experience emotion, senses, and understanding. ² Nonetheless, recognizing intangible heritage acknowledges more nuance in the role heritage has in our lives. Unfortunately, the shaping of living heritage continues to engage heritage as if it was separate from human living (e.g. a live-action, commodified experience for tourists or a craft demonstration for students) (Saxe, 2020; Schüttgren, 2025). Ultimately, the UNESCO and U.S. models are too narrowly focused on one part to recognize how the heritage relates complexly to individuals and other systems.

Only a few heritage specialists have developed other models conveying the core ideas they believe relevant. None of these models are widely adopted in heritage work. Koziol’s (2008) preservation discourse matrix graphs heritage values and motives into four categories (identity, curatorial, symbolic, or property) (see Figure 5). His approach grounds first principles of value (market value and intrinsic value) but is limited to the physical aspects of heritage (e.g. buildings). Hutchings and Cassar (2006) propose an eight-part systems model for material cultural heritage (see Figure 6). Their model examines how society and outside factors (e.g. economics, environmental issues) influence the decisions made about the care of material culture. The model not only provides an extensive listing of parts and sub-parts but also reveals the complexity of the relationships. A user following the arrows of influence is uncertain if (or where) the relationships end. This complexity is a strength (and honesty) of the model but also limits its potential use by heritage specialists. Bridgewater and Rotherham (2019) provide models exploring the relationship of biological and cultural diversity (primarily indigenous and local knowledge). Lo Iacono and Brown (2016) structure a model for heritage dance and living heritage around practices, rules, and perceptions, each influenced by sense-based and pragmatic conditions. Other models examine the how heritage and sustainability interact (Avrami, 2012; Brabec & Chilton, 2015; Fatorić & Egbert, 2020; Richards et al., 2020). These models engage a broad ecological understanding of heritage, the environment, and humanity but lack development for how the parts interact.

Figure 5.

Koziol’s (2008) preservation discourse matrix.

Figure 6.

Hutchings and Cassar’s (2006) highest-level framework for the conservation management of material cultural heritage.

Analysis of these system models reveals core strengths and caution. Relevancy and usability of the models are enhanced when core ideas are clear, heritage is contextualized with outside influences, decision making is guided, and leverage points are revealed. The models have more limited applicability when they primarily focus on physical resources, only consider heritage from a single perspective, and are visually and textually obtuse or confusing. A more comprehensive systems model examining tangible and intangible heritage and interdisciplinary factors is needed to guide future heritage work.

Heritage–Human–Ecology

Ecology offers an astute framework for developing a heritage systems model. ³ Whether beginning from human ecology (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Bubolz & Sontag, 1993), environmental psychology (Germain & Bloom, 1999; Stokols & Altman, 1987), or ecological study of biomes (e.g. watersheds, forests, prairies), ecology concentrates on interaction. Ecology focuses on the relationships between living organisms (including humans) and their environment—which provides useful parallels for heritage work in interiors. The heritage–human–ecology system model proposed in this essay scrutinizes how humanity (as individuals and societies) relates with tangible and intangible heritage and emphasizes the interdisciplinary and vibrant realities of heritage within complex ecological systems. The model relies on clarity about core ideas to interdisciplinarily contextualize heritage and guide decision-making.

Individuals and communities create the world around them. This world—comprised of tangible parts and intangible beliefs, knowledge, and structures—ultimately shapes human experience and action. This world entangles values with things to the extent that people do not separate objects, beliefs, and values in day-to-day interaction and living.

The heritage–human–ecology model encompasses three core ideas. First, tangible and intangible heritage are interrelated as a cohesive system (Chilton, 2019; Cooper Marcus, 1995; Harrison, 2012; L. Smith, 2011). The physical world—whether nature, building, landscape, material culture, or ephemeral objects (like a feast)—is not differently important than the ideas it embodies. Second, the system is a relationship of parts in flux. Heritage is in active, continual, contested creation through human–thing negotiation about what matters, what has happened, and what the future should be (Broom, 2019; Harrison, 2015; Orthel, 2022a; L. Smith, 2006, 2022). Most values and meanings remain in continuous re-examination and redefinition. As a result, it is not possible to frame a finite system. Instead, heritage specialists should come to understand the many evolving parts and possibilities. Since the system is not finite and outcomes not predetermined, solving problems within the system requires using wicked problem structures and abductive logic, rather than relying on analysis and calculation (Allison & Allison, 2008; Hutchings & Cassar, 2006; Orthel & Anderson, 2018; Schofield, 2024).

The heritage–human–ecology model is comprised of seven essential parts: influences and supports, tangible heritage, intangible heritage, individuals and communities, human implications, actions and flows, and cross-cutting associated issues (see Figure 7). Some aspects of this model require more explanation than others.

Figure 7.

Heritage–human–ecology model.

Influences and Supports

The influences and supports within the heritage–human–ecology approach vary from natural forces to physical materials (e.g. wood or soil) to energy to socially created technologies and systems (e.g. capital). These components are part of the daily workings of human life—even when individuals are not conscious of using them. Systems models help identify these components so heritage specialists can consciously consider how they relate to heritage. For example, a decision to replace a worn stair tread is reliant on the availability of a suitable replacement—made from trees grown for decades, crafted by skilled makers, and transported to the site. A replacement tread relies on information and communication systems, educational systems, economic viability, and energy systems. The influences and supports inherent to heritage should not be separated from heritage issues.

Tangible and Intangible Heritage

The components of tangible heritage are commonly understood (e.g. nature, built environments, material culture) whether those elements have existed for centuries or are created and consumed on a regular basis (e.g. ephemeral objects such as disposable coffee cups or ritual offerings). In practice, intangible heritage is often not distinguished from day-to-day living. Beliefs about how the world is structured are inherent to how people act and the decisions they make. These ideas may not be verbalized or made explicit. For example, a cultural foodway structures what crops are grown and what foods are prepared and consumed, but individuals may not make a conscious decision to select those foods (as opposed to the foods of another cultural group). The cultural foodway ingredients are available and affordable in local markets; they know the preparations; they are acculturated to the flavors and textures. Material culture (e.g. cooking vessels, utensils, eating place) used to prepare and consume foods interlinks with the foodway. Both tangible and intangible heritage are continuously in a process of use and becoming reliant on influences and supports, and produced by individuals and communities.

Individuals and Communities

Individuals and communities convert influences and supports into tangible and intangible elements. Individuals and communities should be understood critically—and not framed by stereotypical, controlling, or institutionalized definitions that limit how people establish their identity or engage in social relationships (Crenshaw, 1989; Nussbaum, 2011; Waterton & Smith, 2010; Waterton & Watson, 2013). Individuals and communities are active forces—deciding and doing. Individuals are the core unit (singular and indivisible). Heritage does not exist separately from individuals (in decisions, in action, in culture, in shared acts). Individuals have independent agencies to think and act; at the same time, individuals often work in collaboration with others. Communities of individuals may magnify actions, but do not replace the individual as the essential source of rights and thoughts. Individuals establish and maintain cultural ideas and values, which become shared culture. This outcome—developing community values—is more consequential than the actions individuals take to physically alter the world.

Human Implications

The values established by individuals (and amplified by communities) are core to the fifth element of the model: human implications. Human experience and action are entangled with values and objects. Thing theory describes these entanglements by examining what objects: ⁴

disclose about history, society, nature, or culture—above all what they disclose about us. . . The story of objects asserting themselves as things, then, is the story of a changed relation to the human subject and thus the story of how the thing really names less an object than a particular subject-object relation (Brown, 2001, p. 4, emphasis in original).

Thingly heritage, then, focuses on the human implications between tangible and intangible elements, values, and uses (Hodder, 2010, 2012; Orthel, 2014, 2022a; Sørensen, 2015). Human implications are based in actual, day-to-day living (Attfield, 2000/2020; Brown, 2001; Heidegger, 1971). Heritage’s human implications encompass the meanings of objects “as active constituents of social relations . . . ‘not only plural and contested, but also mutable over time and space’” (Pfaff, 2010, p. 345). Human implications are contingent, malleable, dynamically changing, and revealed through actions.

Human implications include positive and negative associations. Some heritage is politically created and used (Lazzaretti, 2021; L. Smith, 2006; Winter, 2018). Recently, in the United States, Hungary, India, Russia, and other nations, heritage has been unabashedly used as a political and social cudgel in ongoing cultural conflicts. Heritage—typically in the form of traditional values—is weaponized in war, educational policy, social interactions, historical knowledge, and medical choices. These uses of heritage have profound effects for human rights and societal stability. The human implications of heritage require fluid and systematic explorations of changing and contested values.

Actions and Flows

Flows encompass the movement of support, influences, and human action between parts of the model (Machlis, 2008). These flows are not singular or unidirectional lines that link the parts, because the flows are contextual to the specific heritage and situation. For example, the designation of a house with a heritage or historic label (e.g. house museum) will change who visits, how they visit, the resources and capital spent on the house, etc. These flows alter the actions that may occur (e.g. more capital prompting upgrades to roads to make visiting the site easier; new visitors expecting different types of experiences). The changed actions in turn alter the heritage and community. Even the introduction of new ideas (or reframing of existing ideas) can fundamentally alter how heritage and communities exist (Svensson, 2009). The relationships between the parts will vary by case and context, so a finite set of actions or flows is impossible.

Associated Issues

The most significant use for the heritage–human–ecology model is in considering how non-heritage interacts with heritage. (Non-heritage encompasses things that are considered separate from or unrelated to heritage. In many instances, arguments can be made to include something as heritage, but the initial impulse is otherwise. For example, fireworks are often part of national celebrations (heritage), but few people immediately consider the matches or picnic blankets used during these celebrations to be part of the heritage.) We know “the social, cultural, environmental and economic impacts of heritage are fundamentally intertwined” (Van Balen, 2017, p. 714). Clear boundaries do not separate heritage from society. Associated issues alter the values individuals and communities assign to heritage and the actions they choose to take. Heritage specialists may already be aware of these potential connections (e.g. sustainability, justice), but in other instances, heritage specialists are only beginning to recognize how heritage relates outside its field (Orthel, 2022b; Orthel & Anderson, 2018; Schofield, 2024; B. H. Smith & Elefante, 2009; Winter, 2013). For example, documentation of heritage foodways should encompass beneficial connections with human health, nutrition, activity level, and wellbeing (Baines, 2018; Tuomainen, 2009), as well as negative cultural consequences when foodways are altered by immigration and assimilation (Delavari et al., 2013; Holtzman, 2006). Using the heritage–human–ecology model, associated issues can prompt interdisciplinary and critical thinking about how interrelationships within heritage–human–ecology systems (see Figure 7). Expanding what is considered part of heritage provides additional opportunities to influence and protect heritage.

Consequences and Responsibilities

The heritage–human–ecology model guides heritage specialists and advocates to identify new consequences and responsibilities. The primary consequence of a systems approach is identifying connections between heritage, the human world, and its contexts. Looking for interdisciplinary connections requires developing knowledge about other aspects of the world and being open to alternative ways of understanding the same information. Heritage specialists already recognize some interdisciplinary consequences (e.g. climate change altering heritage sites). As new systematic connections are recognized, heritage specialists will gain new roles and different responsibilities.

The primary consequence of a systems approach is identifying connections between heritage, the human world, and its contexts.

Interdisciplinary consequences may make the heritage specialist’s job broader and more complex because of the ways heritage is entangled with the wider world. For example, sporting events mark key societal moments in the United States but are sometimes associated with spectator intoxication and offensive behavior. These events require immense physical and economic resources to create and maintain stadiums and fields. Playing the game (whether baseball, football, or Quidditch) invokes traditions, established cultural norms, and experienced histories. Fans establish elaborate lore and traditions centered on the events. Heritage specialists analyzing such sporting events with the heritage–human–ecology model may recognize new opportunities to amplify cultural values while separating individually and socially harmful behavior (e.g. excessive consumption of alcohol, verbal abuse, physical injury). Discussing public health issues, like alcohol consumption, may not immediately seem like a responsibility of a heritage specialist, but it may be a necessary part of promoting, protecting, and enabling the future of sports heritage. Heritage specialists must be open to and prepared for the expansion of their roles and the enhanced dynamism of heritage.

Critical approaches are integrated into the heritage–human–ecology model structure. Engaging with individuals and communities ethically requires attention to who and how people are involved. The model requires heritage specialists to give up control and authority because the model centers heritage as emergent from individuals and communities (not society, authority, or objects) (Emerick, 2009; Mydland & Grahn, 2012; Waterton, 2005). Similarly, engaging the human implications and intangible aspects of heritage (from beliefs to experiences) emphasizes consideration of the phenomenological, humanistic, and social aspects of heritage. Engaging with the influences and supports of heritage, humans, and ecology should prompt critical questions about economies, political power, and the environment. Ultimately, the heritage–human–ecology model’s critical framing begins with how interdisciplinary foci are prepared to interact with heritage. Many focus topics—from health to education to economics—challenge the status quo from critical positions. Of course, the heritage–human–ecology model can be used in an uncritical way, just as a cell phone can be used as a paperweight. The model is a starting point to push on-the-ground conversations about heritage and heritage work in new directions.

Regardless of a heritage specialist’s focus, the heritage–human–ecology model guides them to consider many of the parts. Human implications of heritage entangle values and experiences with tangible and intangible heritage as people make decisions in day-to-day living. When we look at only one aspect of a system, decisions are based on limited context and knowledge. The model’s relevance and usefulness are demonstrated in how it expands our understanding of heritage and its uses.

Analyzing the Clock

The heritage–human–ecology model expands the relevance of heritage when the model is used for interdisciplinary exploration. An interdisciplinary, heritage analysis considers the tangible aspects of the clock (based on materiality, form, and construction), recognizes the clock’s original value (in intention and receipt), and notes my current objectives in keeping the clock (remembering, bolstering identity) (see Figure 8). The analysis reveals how my (individual) understanding of the clock stands in support and conflict with societally authorized heritage ideals. An interdisciplinary analysis expands the implications of the actions taken (in retrieving, caring for, and reflecting on the clock as a statement of personal values) (see Figure 9). The analysis also recognizes new consequences of these actions (expenditures, responsibilities, health implications). While a heritage-bound analysis offers insight into individual and social values and actions, the interdisciplinary analysis broadens and intensifies the consequences of heritage.

Figure 8.

Heritage-bound use of the heritage–human–ecology model (see Figure 7).

Figure 9.

Interdisciplinary use of the heritage–human–ecology model (see Figure 7).

Interdisciplinary analysis using the heritage–human–ecology model requires considering topics and frameworks often excluded from heritage discussion. For example, if the definition of heritage expands to consider the interdisciplinary relationships between heritage and health (Orthel, 2022b), the model reveals new relationships and consequences. How does the clock (as heritage) contribute to health? How does my valuing of the clock contribute to my health or the health of others? These are unusual questions for heritage specialists to ask or answer.

Heritage–human–ecology analysis depends on which individuals and communities are considered. The model biases toward individual values (over expert-driven societal claims). What is valuable and true for me differs from the perspective of others (e.g. differences in social values, familial connections, respiratory health). Tangibly, some aspects of the clock have immediate relationships to health. The clock’s ledges and hidden surfaces collect dust, contributing to indoor air quality concerns. The dust may alter the microbiome of the space, affect allergies, or require more frequent cleaning. If the clock is keeping time, the sound of the chimes affects hearing (volume) and induces startle reactions (stress reactions). The clock also requires particular care to avoid damage from direct sun exposure, humidity changes, or human contact (e.g. bumps, scrapes). Caring for the clock required changing the spatial layout of my office: moving the desk, seating, and storage to create a space for the clock out of direct sunlight. The office’s primary seating was relocated into direct sunlight and nearer heating and cooling vents and strong air currents. New window treatments help regulate heat and sunlight. These changes directly affected perceived thermal comfort, indoor air quality exposure, and how the office space is used. Each of the outcomes can have measurable effects on human health, but such effects will vary by individual (e.g. physiological reaction to temperature, respiratory symptoms, activity level).

The model also prompts consideration of how the clock’s social value might affect mental and physiological health. The divestiture of family heirlooms to the next generations often reduces stress in older individuals and increases their well-being (Ekerdt et al., 2012). Similarly, the acquisition of heirlooms can be an active part of maintaining heritage and individual ontological security (Grenville, 2007). Keeping the clock may have parallel experiences of stress (in moving and caring for the heirloom) and comfort (in knowing, observing, and enabling the heirloom’s care). These interdisciplinary consequences and responsibilities are distinct from a heritage-bound analysis. A more complete analysis might also consider how cleaning products for the clock affect indoor air quality, how the ritual of winding the clock affects my identity and purpose, or how visitors’ responses to the clock affect my sense of self. Interdisciplinary knowledge is relevant and necessary (in this example: public health, gerontology, thermal comfort, etc.). Similar interdisciplinary analyses from the perspective of ecological and social sustainability, fiscal responsibility, educational and cognitive development, psychology, justice, or other issues would also challenge heritage specialists to approach heritage in new ways.

Use of the model in other settings would result in consequential results because the role of heritage is addressed differently than in many contemporary heritage or preservation guidelines. For example, using the heritage–human–ecology model to examine a historic school would require examining how generations of students’ contradictory experiences and views on the space (e.g. learning, bullying, play). These socially complicated results would likely conflict with a heritage-bound analysis focused on form, authenticity of space and material, and aspects of the school unknown (or distant) to students’ experience (e.g. who designed the school or its style). As a result, heritage work regarding the school would differ from a typical preservation project. Or, for example, the model could be used for an in-depth analysis of specific non-heritage aspects of a heritage space. The rehabilitation of industrial buildings often focuses on scale and materiality contrasts, but does not address the social, economic, and political reasons a disused industrial building is a desirable residential loft or hospitality space. Or, as I mentioned above, the model could be used to explore health concerns relative to a given heritage space. These are complex analyses that may use heritage to obscure non-heritage things (e.g. patina over veracity; rehabilitation vs. redevelopment; likes vs. benefit). In other examples, uses of the model will introduce a seemingly unrelated subject to reveal unexpected connections (perhaps, ubiquitous phone photography and social media changing perceptions of heritage or heritage interiors).

Like other system models, the heritage–human–ecology model is a heuristic tool, guiding but not prescribing results. The model does not require consideration of any particular perspective but provides the framework for analyzing different aspects of heritage. Neither the results nor the analysis are formulaic. Results vary by situation, lens, and interdisciplinary frameworks. An analysis of the longcase clock for me versus a different person determines which consequences matter most. The model’s structure requires expanding the scope of consideration to a system’s multiple parts. As a result, different decisions and influence points emerge. Only considering the longcase clock as a heritage-bound object is distinct from considering it as part of an interdisciplinary, integrated interior environment. The consequences and responsibilities that are identified by heritage–human–ecology analyses are present, actionable, and interlinked with ethical concerns. Having accepted ownership of the longcase clock, my responsibilities require action to remain true to my motivations (values) and to support my own health. The longcase clock example demonstrates how the heritage–human–ecology model reshapes what heritage specialists consider.

Outcomes

The brief analyses of the longcase clock demonstrate how the heritage–human–ecology model can alter what heritage specialists consider. While this example (one clock, one person) helps explain the model, the model can be applied at multiple scales—so long as the application recognizes individuals have agency and is deeply contextualized through participatory and collaborative processes. As a planning and scoping tool, the model guides analysis of new topics. As a summative tool, the model contextualizes heritage in multiple, cohesive ways. For me, keeping my grandfather’s longcase clock was an instinctual decision; the consequences would be worked out later. In many other heritage situations, the decisions and consequences require more, broader, and a priori consideration.

Historic interiors are dynamic environments comprised of movable tangible objects (like longcase clocks), as well as immovable parameters (e.g. walls), changeable surfaces (e.g. materiality), environmental conditions (e.g. light, temperature), and human living (e.g. patterns, practices, behaviors, beliefs). We engage with these parts differently because they have different time scales, permanence, and adaptability to human interaction. A longcase clock that can be moved thousands of miles has (and develops) a different heritage value than a kitchen only experienced in situ (and for a short or set time). Regardless, the heritage–human–ecology model is useful to examine any of these parts—or the interior as a whole.

Heritage and culture are inherently human conditions. Heritage and culture interrelate with diverse topics—from scientific practices for conserving tangible objects to social norms and behaviors. Systematically thinking about heritage requires us to consider these relationships. Meadows (2008) argues that systems thinking approaches are essential for survival in rapidly changing circumstances. Interdisciplinary relationships are dynamic but also core to human rights and identity (Hadjiyanni et al., 2012).

Heritage and culture are inherently human conditions.

Asking people to question their motivations, biases, and misconceptions is difficult—especially without the guidance of nuanced tools. Thinking about how heritage influences everyday and more systematic, critical decisions introduces new ways for heritage specialists to protect tangible and intangible heritage and new ways to demonstrate heritage’s role across our lives. The heritage–human–ecology model reveals decisions made (and, with questioning, motivations for decisions). The model also prompts consideration of previously unconsidered information that may result in new decisions. The heritage–human–ecology system model offers an increasingly comprehensive framing for how heritage relates to its broader context.

For interiors scholars and practitioners, the heritage–human–ecology model brings together multiple lines of thought into a new tool. Heritage is deeply human and interior. Spaces people associate with memories, traditions, rituals, and intangible heritage are valued. By positioning heritage as inherently interdisciplinary, the model requires new consideration of issues that deepen heritage’s role in community and society. This approach to heritage includes phenomenological experiences of historic places but goes much further in linking those experiences and places to the complexity of human and ecological living. By positioning heritage as integrated with systematic issues, the model amalgamates heritage into daily living and forces people to consider the ways heritage influences their decisions. The heritage–human–ecology model shifts the scale of consideration—both broader and narrower—to guide this decision-making.