Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.

Our Place in Time (OPT), the Historic Environment Strategy for Scotland (2014), defines the Historic Environment as 'the physical evidence for human activity that connects people with place, linked with the associations we can see, feel and understand'. This definition portrays the historic environment (HE) as an active feature within our lived experiences, i.e. something that 'connects' and 'links'. Too often, however, the HE is managed as a passive, static thing, rather than as a dynamic part of an ever-changing relationship between humans and their environment. Yet it is the human element that makes up the very fabric of the HE: human activity created the HE, and human interaction with the HE is what keeps it alive, giving it the significance it holds within our culture and communities today. Environmental change over time has always impacted the built environment; however, the combination of accelerating incremental change and increasingly frequent severe weather events triggered by the climate emergency have put increasing strain on the management of the HE. These climate changes have the potential to make HE loss sudden and severe. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) manages over 300 historic monuments, referred to as Properties in Care (PiCs), many of which are already directly impacted by climate change. How can HES manage PiCs in the face of climate change? And how can communities be a part of these decisions? While most projects have focused on the conservation and management of the HE and the physical aspects of climate change, few have properly addressed these questions in the context of community needs and engagement. Indeed, projects such as Learning from Loss (2018) highlighted the disparity between the focus on site management amongst heritage professionals and the pragmatism of local communities when it came to acceptance of loss, especially for coastal and island sites. A Social Value Toolkit (2021), created as part of a collaborative PhD thesis between the University of Stirling and HES, provides guidance for heritage professionals trying to ascertain social value, but has its limits. The toolkit functions only in one direction, run by heritage professionals to understand community value, and establishes a snapshot of social value at a single, fixed point in time. The same issue of a fixed-in-time community response is true for the Climate Vulnerability Index work carried out at World Heritage sites in Scotland (2019-22), though this method does actively assess Community Vulnerability independently of the monument, a process which is of key importance to understanding the 'connection' between humans and the HE. Is it possible, then, to manage the HE in the face of climate change that actively supports the 'connections' and 'links' between humans and their HE as defined in OPT? This fellowship will answer that question by generating a new approach to asking these questions, focusing on the active, human element of the HE. Instead of asking, 'how can we manage the HE in the face of climate change with communities in mind', we must ask, 'how can the HE support and connect with communities in the face of climate change'? How can HES's PiCs be at the forefront of this conversation? While the ability to keep PiCs in a 'preserved' state has always been a misconception, it is certainly no longer viable in the context of a swiftly changing climate. Once we step away from the passive management process that stipulates monuments should be maintained 'as is', what possibilities become open to us? If we see the HE as something that is active, ever-changing and alive, how does that shift our capacity to engage with it? This fellowship will ask these questions of diverse communities at PiC case studies, with the aim of understanding how policy and management for the HE can adapt to community needs, being flexible and resilient in the face of climate change, loss and the ever-changing environment.

Through CResCa funding, Historic Environment Scotland will significantly improve the way we develop and deliver visitor experiences at our sites, and the training and skills provision we offer through the courses we run. By investing in two immersive experience systems ('IESs') - one for visitor experiences and one for training - and the equipment to enable us to use them effectively, we will move from offering experiences and learning methods that can only engage a single visitor or learner at once, to being able to engage multiple individuals using virtual reality (VR). The AHRC's investment will allow us to undertake product design and testing, so that our 3D digital documentation and digital experience research can directly feed into practical impact. Accessibility is the fundamental theme across this investment, with the new equipment allowing us to cater to more people, including those with additional access needs.

This project has grown out of a long-standing relationship between Historic Environment Scotland, Nomad Exhibitions and Nanjing Museum, which has previously produced the award-winning 'A Tale of Two Cities' exhibition, as well as the touring exhibition by Nomad, 'Ming: The Golden Empire'. Nanjing Museum, which was extensively extended and reopened in 2013, currently welcomes 2.6m visitors a year, with that number increasing by 10% each year. In 2017 Nanjing Museum will host 'Romantic Scotland: Castles Land and Sea' - an exhibition curated by Historic Environment Scotland, Nomad Exhibitions and the Scottish National Gallery. Based on the experience of 'A Tale of Two Cities', and the current visitor profile, we expect Romantic Scotland to receive in excess of 500,000 visitors. The proposed research project will facilitate knowledge exchange between academic and cultural institutions in Scotland and China, with the aim of increasing understanding of audiences and capacity for audience research in both countries. In China this will allow Nanjing Museum to take the lead in expanding the standard practice in Chinese museums of simply gathering quantitative data, to a more sophisticated methodology, analysis, interpretation and presentation of qualitative audience research. In Scotland it will enhance understanding of what motivates Chinese visitors to engage with our culture and heritage. The project has four aims: to build the capacity of Chinese museums in gathering, analysing and interpreting audience research data; to capture the reactions of Chinese audiences to the 'Romantic Scotland' exhibition; to broaden understanding of Chinese perceptions of Western cultural heritage; and to discover how exhibitions, and those that construct them, influence the interpretation of key signifiers of Scottish cultural heritage. The project is strongly aligned to the AHRC Strategic Plan for 2013-18, as well as the Delivery Plan for 2016-20. It will help to deliver on AHRC's remit to 'enhance its contribution in policy development and public engagement, making explicit the contribution of arts and humanities research to the understanding of national life in an international framework' as well as to increase 'openings for international research and co-development with agencies operating overseas'. The project will also contribute to the AHRC's priority 'to support and strengthen international research in the arts and humanities through strategic partnerships'. China is a priority country for AHRC and RCUK, where the aim is to 'stimulate international collaboration at all career stages to enhance arts and humanities researchers' access to resources, schemes and initiatives'. With its partnership of heritage and academic bodies, its core of supported early career researchers, and its collaboration with culture and tourism institutions, all in both China and the UK, this project will make a significant contribution to achieving that aim.

Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.