Preservation at a Crossroads: The Need for Equity Preservation
Abstract
Historic preservation has an image problem. The field has evolved from a conversation among an elite few regarding select monumental buildings judged solely for their appearance or national significance, to a dialogue among many about collections of buildings appreciated for their pluralistic contexts and meanings. Despite these advancements, the discipline is still often accused of being elitist, exclusionary, and opposed to equity. Couched within the field's interdisciplinary expansion, preservation's supporters and critics increasingly demand greater and more comprehensive inclusion of minority and marginalized communities in the preservation process to ensure fairer distribution of its costs and benefits. Given the current climate of cause-driven social movements and vibrant social dialogue, ignoring such a clarion call threatens to stagnate the preservation field and its contributions to contemporary issues, as well as substantiate accusations that the field is incompatible with equity. There is extremely limited literature on preservation and equity. This research begins to fill that gap. It starts by tracing the discipline's conceptual evolution toward equity and diversity and emphasizes the anachronistic mismatch between the field's conceptual development and practical implementation. It then examines the scant literature directly connecting preservation and equity, contending that an equity preservation approach addresses three of the most common criticisms levied at…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
While preservation offers an opportunity to avoid carbon emissions, historically it has also been considered a problematic tool of NIMBYism.
“While preservation offers an opportunity to avoid carbon emissions, historically it has also been considered a problematic tool of NIMBYism (Cheong 2021).”
From Making embodied carbon mainstream: a framework for cities to leverage waste, equity, and preservation policy to reduce embodied emissions in buildings (2023) · cites this paper as Cheong 2021
In response to the unequal effects of preservation, both real and perceived, equity-centered preservation is beginning to emerge in practice.
“In response to the unequal effects of preservation, both real and perceived, equity-centered preservation is beginning to emerge in practice (Cheong 2021;Lephew and Gajewski 2022).”
From Making embodied carbon mainstream: a framework for cities to leverage waste, equity, and preservation policy to reduce embodied emissions in buildings (2023) · cites this paper as Cheong 2021
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teicher, H. M. (2023) · Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences · doi:10.1007/s13412-023-00836-7 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cheong, C.
- Corresponding author
- Cheong, Caroline
- Venue
- Change Over Time
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2021
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 66-83
- ISSN
- 2153-053X (ISSN-L)
- 2153-0548
- OpenAlex
- W3202226725
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 3.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Change Over Time (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Development and Cultural Heritage
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Planning and Governance
- Keywords
- historic preservation, social equity, marginalized communities, gentrification, social justice, public-private partnerships, community land trusts
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review