MEDIATION IN THE DESIGN AND OPERATION OF HERITAGE ZONES: INTERACTION BETWEEN OWNERS, AUTHORITIES AND RESIDENTS

Abstract

Introduction. Mediation is examined as a mechanism for reconciling the interests of property owners, authorities, and residents in the heritage zones of Russian metropolitan cities, using Ekaterinburg as a case study. The relevance of the research stems from the growing number of conflicts between urban development and the preservation of cultural heritage under conditions of limited resources and institutional fragmentation of governance. The scientific contribution lies in conceptualizing mediation not only as a procedure for dispute resolution with the participation of a neutral third party, but also as a specific mode of public communication embedded in municipal governance and assessed through early stakeholder involvement, the stability of agreements, and the reduction of conflict intensity in heritage zones.

Materials and methods. The study is based on the sociology of governance and combines institutional and actor–network approaches to the analysis of heritage zones as specific governance regimes. Actor–network analysis makes it possible to reconstruct stakeholder configurations (including public authorities, owners, developers, professional communities, NKO, and residents) and lines of conflict between the two logics of «economization» and «preservation». The empirical basis consists of the conflict cases around sites of historical and cultural heritage in Ekaterinburg, systematized in a table that records the type of event, the dynamics of the dispute, and its outcomes. Mediation is operationalized through such indicators as the timing of the introduction of mediation, the transparency of procedures, the existence of stable dialogue platforms, the participation of independent experts, and the reached agreements measurable durability. The notion of a «heritage zone» is treated as a municipality-governed space in which decisions simultaneously affect the symbolic capital of the territory, economic interests, and the everyday practices of urban residents.

Results and conclusions. Mediation is interpreted, first, as an alternative mechanism for settling disputes involving an independent intermediary that ensures a structured dialogue among the parties and the development of mutually acceptable solutions, and, second, in a broader sense, as a regime of urban communication that «interprets» the bureaucratic language of governance into formats understandable to local communities. The analysis of the Еkaterinburg cases reveals the predominance of late, reactive interventions and demolition-oriented scenarios, with only a few successful examples in which public mediation led to the abandonment of contentious projects. The key reasons for ineffective mediation include a shortage of qualified mediators, status and resource asymmetries between the parties, formalized and belated public consultations, and asymmetric access to information. The study demonstrates the negative economic consequences of unresolved conflicts, such as rising transaction costs, declining investment attractiveness, and the loss of cultural capital, which jointly deteriorate the quality of the urban environment. The authors conclude that mediation-based governance needs to be embedded at early stages of the planning and operation cycle of heritage zones.

Discussion. The discussion section correlates three ideal-typical models of interaction in heritage zones administration-centred, partnership-based, and community-centred with differing roles assigned to mediation. In the first model, mediation is reduced to a tool for «firefighting» conflicts; in the second, it becomes an integral element of interest alignment between public authorities, business, and professional communities; in the third, it may rely on bottom-up initiatives with the municipality acting as an intermediary. Evidence from the Еkaterinburg cases shows that stable mediation institutions lack leads to recurring losses of heritage assets and mistrust reproduction. The recommendations include institutionalizing mediation in municipal regulations, developing the competencies of managers and mediators, supporting NKO and local communities, and creating permanent multi-stakeholder platforms and digital participation tools that can effectively influence urban planning decisions.