A phenomenology of intra-play for sustainability research within heritage landscapes

In this article, we explore a phenomenology of intra-play for sustainability research, integral to the processes of transforming both cultural and natural heritage landscapes. Such processes are studied as active - always underway and in flux - across space and time, and through the intra-play between the human and more-than-human world. The authors have developed the exploration of intra-play within the fields of phenomenology and heritage studies with empirical examples of the processes of becoming, especially in experiential landscapes of post-industrial heritage sites. The article presents a phenomenology of intra-play as a haptic and ontogenetic philosophy of landscape studies, inspired by the anthropologist Tim Ingold, and a process methodology, inspired in part by the art of what Rita Irwin calls “a/r/tography”. Our approach animates the different forms, both human and non-human, that co-form heritage landscapes. The article traces these playful ways and discusses possible consequences for sustainability research and change within heritage landscapes.


Benjamin Richards & Per Ingvar Haukeland
The road continues around past a café and some other buildings converted to offices. In front of the café stands an old tree, the scar of a branch cut long ago draws me in, moss grows around the edges.
I climb up on a wall to try to get an overview. There are several routes into the complex of structures, but I continue north, following my own shadow around a large building. Moving between the side of the building and the fenced off railway track, I come to a closed museum.
Outside stands some sort of old machine part, a stone plaque in memory of the engineers and a statue of Professor Kristian Birkeland 1867Birkeland -1917. Inside the windows of the former museum hang logos for Yara International.
On the other side I emerge into the shade of another large building and am con fronted by a metal sculpture, composed mostly of rectangles and semi-circular shapes forged together into what appears to represent a man riding an animal. Nearby stands a large turbine repurposed as a sculpture, with three spotlights positioned around its base.
There are now several roads, one heading back in the direction I came and two heading south. But I am drawn to a desire path 2 that continues between the railway track and 30 Forskning og Forandring another building. I follow this path into an area that appears to be at the edges of official use. Away from the more curated displays of history, the office spaces and the remaining industry, here natural processes are engaging with the cultural traces. A derelict train track runs through a cluster of new growth trees that in turn grow through the derelict train track.
Leaves and moss cover the floor, rusting nuts and bolts can be found, I dig one out from under some stones, I want to take it with me but decide to put it back.
Next there is another small stretch of track on which sit two old wooden train carriages, windowless. The north-facing side of the carriages is covered in graffiti, the other side a painted sign to do with blues music. Trees are growing up around the edges on the north side and in between the carriages, one tree that captured my attention has grown between the metal of the underside of the carriage, curving itself in accommodation of the carriages form. On the south-facing side, the trees have been cleared. 3 The aim of this article is threefold. First, to outline a shift from viewing a landscape as being (what it is) to a landscape as forming (what it could become). This is similar to what the anthropologist Tim Ingold (2017b) speaks of as a shift from ontology to ontogenesis, or what Andrew Pickering (2008) calls "an ontology of becoming". Then, building on this, to describe a methodological and philosophical approach to sustainability research that is forming through the concept of intra-play. Here, rather than an assemblage of different things or objects, we describe the world in terms of forms inseparably made from the same basic stuff. Forms that are being formed in the process of forming other forms. We can then talk about human forms, building forms, bird forms, without implying that they are fundamentally separate and by acknowledging that they are composed of many other forms which pass through them (cells, water, minerals, atoms, experiences, thoughts). And although some forms may seem more permanent than others, in that they exist along different temporalities (e.g., a mountain compared to a human body), all forms are ultimately subject to the metabolic and metamorphic processes of existing in the world. Finally, in the article, we will relate 3 Notodden, 5 December 2018.

Benjamin Richards & Per Ingvar Haukeland
the phenomenology of intra-play in sustainability research within heritage landscapes to the commoning processes of becoming.
We seek to activate the landscape we study and to join with the continuous processes of movement and co-forming that are always underway in between different forms, spatially and temporally emerging from the intra-play. As such, the distinction between researcher, researched and the wider unfolding landscape becomes blurred.
Sustainability is understood here not as a static end to be achieved but as a creative, adaptive and active process that emerges through space-time. It is not, therefore, a matter of sustaining a landscape as something "out there", but of allowing the various forms that make up the co-evolving landscape to play freely. We propose a shift in sustainability research and the management of heritage landscapes from protection to process, from landscape to landscaping. 4 Sustainability involves a process of co-attending, co-listening and co-responding with the multitude of forms we intraplay with in a landscape, rather than a narrow focus on human intention. The approach to sustainability research that we propose is both re-evaluative and innovative, using terms such as research, heritage, landscape and sustainability as something to be experienced phenomenologically, rather than abstract concepts to be understood objectively or placed as backdrops to our lives.
We begin weaving different theoretical and methodological perspectives by pursuing the question: how do landscapes become heritage? Drawing inspiration from Tim Ingold, the a/r/tographer Rita Irwin and play-theory, we propose a phenomenological research methodology that plays with the world it meets in space-time. Thinking of space and time as separate entities allows for the "invention of places" and "attempts to define, and claim coherence and a particular meaning for, spe cific envelopes of space-time." Space-time is to think of places rather "as constantly shifting articulations of social relations through time" (Massey, 1995, pp. 187-189), where the past, present and future shape each other, in a process boundlessly open to multiple identities and the wider world (Cresswell, 2015, pp. 98-109).
We set out to explore what could be rather than what is or has been, while recognising that these temporal aspects are not separate but rather connected within the research process. The focus is on the intra-play between traces of the past, the en during potential of the future and you as a researcher in the present. Finally, we critically discuss the implications and consequences of a phenomenology of intra-play and the space-time dimension of sustainability research within the field of heritage landscape studies.

What are heritage landscapes?
In saying: "There's no such thing as heritage", Laurajane Smith (2006, p. 13) argues that heritage is discursively constructed through a nexus of power between technical 4 Erling Krogh (1995) described the process of "landscaping" as that which emerges from what we do.

Forskning og Forandring
and aesthetic "experts". Further, she argues that these self-appointed experts represent a particular class, worldview and aesthetic sensibility that maintains itself through shaped "practices, attitudes and behaviours" within the dominant heritage organisations. She uses Critical Discourse Analysis to characterise what she calls the "Authorised Heritage Discourse" and examines its uses in the modern period (Smith, 2006, pp. 11-43).

Direct and indirect critical heritage
This, above, is an example of what we call direct critical heritage, as she is directly critical of the discourses that dominate the field of heritage and the heritage industry. While recognising the value of such an approach, and its role in slowly reshaping attitudes and behaviours within these organisations, we find our approach more suit- In our approach to indirect critical heritage, we use heritage as Harrison (2013) does, as a verb: heritaging -similar to the process of landscaping or commoning. The commons refers to both the natural environment that sustains life and the cultural codes, systems and practices by which communities have maintained an environment collectively (Bollier, 2014;Bowers, 2006). As such, "there is no commons without commoning" (Peter Linebaugh in Bollier, 2014, p. 19); equally there is no heritage without heritaging. This indicates that heritage landscapes can be understood as a commons that may be freely engaged with. In this, we find it important to distinguish between two contrasting notions of freedom. What we propose is a move away from the idea of a freedom from, which has been prevalent in modern Western philosophical thought. We adhere rather to a Naessian interpretation of Spinoza's notion of freedom within, which is your ability to act within the greater body-mind (Haukeland & Naess, 2008, p. 120). It is what we see as a freedom to act and start something new, but from within the space-time we are situated in, and in ways that relinquish control of what is forming.
This view identifies the idea of heritage itself as something active in the present, always in the process of becoming through an intra-play between the traces, memories and stories from the past with the multitude of space-times that make up the present, always opening for futures of infinite potential. The interpretations, values, meanings and uses of these traces are dependent on the space-time they emerge from. One such thread may be discarded as outdated, another placed in a museum and sought to be preserved and yet another changed into something else entirely.

Experiential landscapes
According to the European Landscape Convention, a landscape means "an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors". To protect a landscape, it states, means "actions to conserve and maintain the significant or characteristic features of a landscape, justified by its heritage value derived from its natural configuration and/or from human activity" (Council of Europe, 2000). There is a potential conflict in this understanding of the landscape, between a landscape as perceived by people, always in flux, and the quest to conserve or preserve certain characteristic features of the landscape, such as a building or a story.
In his essay, "The Temporality of the Landscape", Ingold moves beyond the oppos ing ideas of what he calls the "naturalistic" view, where the landscape is seen as an "external backdrop to human activities", and the "culturalist" view, where every landscape is considered a "particular cognitive or symbolic ordering of space" (Ingold, 1993, p. 152). He proposes instead a "dwelling perspective" (which he later terms "inhabitation" (Ingold, 2013)) where the landscape is composed of the processes of formation that have occurred there before. It can be viewed as "a story" accessed through an "education of attention" (Ingold, 1993, p. 153).
This perspective involves not a separation, but an unbounded co-forming be tween the human and more than human, between nature and culture, body and mind. "Through living in it", Ingold says, "the landscape becomes a part of us, just as we are a part of it … each component enfolds within its essence the totality of its relations with each and every other" (1993, p. 154). Here the multiplicity of forms make up the landscape.
These forms are "generated and sustained in and through the processual unfolding of a total field of relations that cuts across the emergent interface between organism and environment" (Ingold, 2016, pp. 156-157). This unfolding does not result in a final form that is fixed but is a continuing process of becoming.
To inhabit a landscape, either as a visitor or a local, is to be a part of the intraplay that co-forms it. We attend and respond to other forms in the landscape as co-inhabitants, if only for a moment. The seeming permanence of a landscape is only a matter of the multiple relations to time experienced by various differing forms. The landform, the river or the deer exist within a multitude of overlapping temporalities.
If seen in a time lapse over thousands of years, the landscape, as with the daily intraplay of living things, would also be seen to exist in a movement through time (Ingold, 2016, pp. 161-64). A visitor that inhabits a landscape only for a short time still engages with this in space-time. Prior knowledge may enrich our experience of the forms in the landscape, but it may also prevent us from being there (Heidegger's Dasein) and engaging spontaneously with the other forms we meet.

Intra-play, A/r/thography and sustainability research
Sustainability research requires a long-term view across multiple temporalities and multiple forms rather than across a handful of human generations that we feel empathically

34
Forskning og Forandring connected to. What would it entail, then, to build a sustainability research on an experiential base of such a broad and longitudinal inhabitation? How can a phenomenology of intra-play be both a philosophical and methodological base for such research?

Haptic and hylomorphic ways of knowing
In developing a phenomenology of intra-play, and relating it to the field of sustainability research in heritage landscapes, we find it necessary to clarify the distinction between what Ingold (2011Ingold ( , 2013 refers to as haptic and hylomorphic ways of know- ing. According to Ingold, to know haptically is to step in amongst and engage with the world from within, rather than to attempt to impose our will, intention or abstractions onto the world from without. He explores this with examples of craftmaking, where he describes making haptically as "a process of growth," where the maker is a "participant in amongst a world of active materials… adding his own impetus to the forces and energies in play" (Ingold, 2013, p. 21).
Juhani Pallasmaa (2012), in his critique of modern architecture, points to what he calls the "hegemony of the eye" (Pallasmaa, 2012, p. 28) at the expense of a haptic, multisensory approach. This "frontal ontology" (Pallasmaa, 2012, p. 33) removes the body from both the process of making and experiencing space, pushing us out of space. He highlights the importance of peripheral vision in drawing us in to a haptic sense of space: "Focused vision confronts us with the world whereas peripheral vision envelops us in the flesh of the world" (Pallasmaa, 2012, p. 14). This phrase, flesh of the world, borrowed from Merleau-Ponty, speaks of how we carnally extend into the world through the things and forms we co-respond to as we wander along our way of life (Merleau-Ponty, 2013).
Applied to sustainability research, we suggest a shift from the hylomorphic way of knowing, represented by abstract science, to the haptic way of knowing drawn from the flux of concrete experiences and correspondences situated in space-time. To sustain a landscape is not to preserve it as a museal artefact, or as a still image, but to animate it haptically through the spontaneous intra-play of co-inhabitants, including that of visitors passing through the landscape.
To know haptically is to feel and intuit what makes sense, not simply intellectually grasping its logic. If sustainability researchers study heritage landscapes in a hylomorphic way from "without", as exhabitants, this forms a different form of knowledge than if one studies the landscape haptically from "within", as inhabitants, remembering that researchers and scientists are also inhabitants of the field they study.
What we seek to do here is simply to extend this notion of haptic knowing to the process of doing research, considering the research questions, concepts and theories as something formed haptically, in amongst the different forces at play.

From objects to lines, from network to meshwork
The initial question, how landscapes become heritage, opened up the questions of what heritage is, and how something comes into being. The use of is often implies a defining potential is infinite and therefore its real qualities always beyond our reach, as Harman suggests, a criticism of this by Ingold is that the object, in object-oriented ontology, remains too static (Ingold, 2017b, p. 13).
With his concept of lines, Ingold shifts the focus away from the object altogether to its pathways of becoming as part of a meshwork (Ingold, 2015). Where Harman speaks of objects, Ingold speaks of things consisting of a myriad of lines interwoven intrinsically in the meshwork (as illustrated in the sketch 5 ). Walking through the heritage landscape of 5 Sketches drawn by first author.

36
Forskning og Forandring Notodden-Rjukan, the lines we so often divide into nature and culture are seen to flow through one another, woven together in forming the landscape. Whether it is the sound of the water as it runs freely in the river and channelled through the turbines, or the "presence of its absence" (Frers, 2013) in a dry gorge, nature and culture become inseparable.
Ingold criticizes Latour for presupposing a world of given actors/actants interacting with other actors/actants in a network extrinsically. Ingold (2011) argues that we are rather like "knots" in a meshwork, that can add new threads and discard others. Correspondence thinking, Ingold says, "necessarily entails a focus on ontogenesison the generation of being -and how this, in turn, allows us to imagine a world in which openness, rather than closure, is a fundamental condition of existence" (2017b, p. 9).
In this sense, sustainability research is an experiment with unknown lines which you should follow and respond to rather than describe and represent. It is about joining with the world and learning from rather than about it (Ingold, 2013, p. 8). Ingold re lates, as such, sustainability to inhabitation, not to abstract models of science that numb our senses and make us less attentive to the changes going on in the places we inhabit.
Sustainability research needs to step into what Ingold calls the "in-between", the life of lines, where "there are no subjects, no objects, no subject-object hybrids, only verbs" (Ingold, 2015, p. 152). A form of participant observation, open to its own becoming within the process of attending to the "affordances" (Gibson, 2014) the world we meet offers, which is a process that never really closes. If movement is life, as Ingold suggests, 6 then in order to study it, researchers must also be mobile, free to move and become along its path, free to play with what appears in the field of study.

Benjamin Richards & Per Ingvar Haukeland
Let us take an example. Consider the tree depicted in the field notes, growing straight upwards from the soil, reaching out with its young branches. After some time, it realised another form stood over it; we can call this the grain of the world. As is the canvas to the painter, the grain of the world is not an opposing object you can hammer down or ignore (that is to fight an unwinnable battle). It is the other forms we must form with. An object isolated from the intra-play can do nothing, just as a painter without a canvas, so the tree had to form with the forms it met. As it grew, the tree curved its way around the carriage, altering its form, finding a small gap between the metalwork of the carriage before straightening again.

Intra-play as becoming
Conflicts within heritage studies between "preservationists, architectural productionists and developers" (Oevermann & Mieg, 2015, pp. 3-10) often revolve around the notion of authenticity. If heritage is understood (as we have proposed) as a continual process of forming, then the notion of "authentic preservation" becomes untenable; the two terms no longer fit together. Authenticity would instead be viewed as that change under the conditions of which competing discourses of heritage preservation, architectural production and urban development align. Not under a market-economising logic, but as an evolving creative process of engaging with the past in new ways.
Intra-play functions both as a theoretical concept of a world always underway in between forms and as a methodological approach whereby the research process is also formed through intra-play. It draws inspiration from a number of methodologies and philosophies but strives towards a simplicity, in that it leaves a freedom and openness for creativity, the forming of new concepts and unique ways of engaging with and expressing the world. In short, it encourages us to play.
Play is considered here as a fundamental aspect of the process of becoming, a force through which we do that which we have not done before, and is understood as such in art, innovation and creativity generally (P. Bateson & Martin, 2013;Bogost, 2016;Ryall, Russell & MacLean, 2018). "Play" (as described by Menke in his reading of Nietzsche) is the force of a "non-teleological… aesthetic concept of life", the nature of man "prior to the formation of rational faculties" (2010, p. 554). It is aesthetic "because it is not yet 'clear'; not cognition but feeling" (2010, p. 557), expressive. It is non-teleological as it does not adhere to external laws or organic desires as the other biological and mechanical forces do, it is pre-moral, pre-rational, it is not subject to these divisions, it is just a force (Menke, 2010, pp. 554-565). It is "to learn that faculties and forces and hence action and play, the good of action (as social purpose) and the good of play (as living self) are categorically different". According to Menke, it is from the artist that we learn the "aesthetic suspension of the practical exercise of faculties in the play of living forces" and that leads to the experience of this other form of good and the formation of new faculties (Menke & Jackson, 2013, p. 97).
Considering the distinction between action and play, we use the prefix intra (as Barad (2007) does with intra-action) instead of inter-play. The distinction being that with inter the play would be between separate things in a nodal network, whereas intra means play in between forms (Barad, 2003, p. 815), in which the different forms are inseparable from the play and the intentions, meanings, values and the forms themselves come into being in new ways through this process.
What "play" suggests is a continuous, unfolding process of engaging with and responding to a plurality of forms and a plurality of imaginative aesthetic expressions, through a haptic (or full sensory) engagement with the world. A process that does not seek end goals external to itself (such as good or rational action) but rather seeks the experience of the process. It is the aesthetic freedom that allows us to go beyond and experience or create something new (Menke & Jackson, 2013, p. 87).
As such, the word "play" invokes an openness and freedom to new intra-relations that dissolves the notion of a singular intentionality (or hylomorphic imposing of an idea on to a passive material world) that lingers over words like action or craft.

Non-methodological renderings in the art of A/r/tography
Methodologically, Ingold is keen to point out the distinction between ethnography and anthropology, the method of which, he says, is participatory observation. He says that such research is a form of transformational learning that forms the person you become through your research rather than the objective documenting approach of the ethnographer (Ingold, 2013, p. 4;2017a, p. 23 Pink, 2006Pink, , 2007S. Pink et al., 2015;Redmon, 2019) and Sensory Ethnography (Knight, 2020;S. Pink, 2009;Vannini, 2015). These not only challenge the assertion that ethnography is not participatory or transformative, but do so by exploring creative methods such as video ethnography, soundscaping, drawing and other (traditionally) artistic practices.
One such research approach we draw much inspiration from is the "nonmethodology" proposed by Professor Rita Irwin at the University of British Columbia called "a/r/tography" (integrating the words artist, researcher, teacher-ography).
It is a "non-methodology", as Irwin instead regards it as a process "similar to an understanding of action research that does not follow a prescribed plan or method, but rather pursues an ongoing inquiry committed to continuously asking questions...
[where] knowledge is always in a state of becoming" (2008, p. 2). Such methodological gaps require an approach to research "that is playful, exploratory, and expressive" (Springgay, Irwin & Kind, 2005, p. 897), which we seek to promote in the phenomenology of intra-play and sustainability research within natural and cultural heritage landscapes.
In studying the heritage landscape of Notodden, methods such as soundscaping, videography, photography, sketching and field notes were used to capture and express the co-attentional encounters, exploring and documenting how particular senses attuned to the non-representational qualities of phenomena and the other kinds of stories these told. Through such methods, the body of the researcher becomes intertwined: "Bringing audiences into the world of the subject in striking, visceral ways". (Redmon, 2019, p. 3). Such methods become "entangled in relations and objects, rather than studying their structures and symbolic meanings, thus animating the potential of these meshworks for our geographical imagination" (Vannini, 2015, p. 320).
It is then in the writing, interwoven with multi-sensory mediums such as sound, imagery and sketches, that the intra-play continues; in dialogue, testing its validity "in conversation with the world, with other writing, and, reflexively, with itself" (Knudsen & Stage, 2015, p. 224).
As well as offering another way of expressing research, such methods offer a mode for reflecting back, using, for example, field notes, sketches, video, photos and audio collected as mnemonic triggers (Keightley & Pickering, 2012) to stimulate memories and imagination. Through reflection we can draw out themes and concepts that un folded during the intra-play, allowing us to look deeper into what was forming and propelling the research forward, asking new and deeper questions.

Four ways of intra-play
We have identified four ways of animating a phenomenology of intra-play for a non-prescriptive research methodology: co-attending, co-responding, co-forming and co-rendering. In both our research approaches, we use ourselves as a participant in ways that animate the various forms we intra-play with, in order to reveal new understandings of what the landscape could become and the possibilities it has to move, touch and form meaning. In the following, we alternate between "we", as identifying Forskning og Forandring the four ways, and "I", exemplifying them in reflections on field notes from Notodden by the first author.
First, we find that "attention" is a more haptic word than "intention" to describe how we open to the world of forms in the heritage landscape. To be attentive or "pay attention" is a way of opening our body-mind to forms we meet. This openness involves a wide-angle, peripheral vision at first. To follow the way of attention is to move with this sense of openness. The other side of attention is focused vision on the lines and knots we encounter. This is to "attend" to what we meet along the way. And as we attend to a form, it attends to us; we co-attend. What we seek through way of attention is to get a feel for the landscape. Abram (1996) speaks of perceiving a landscape as "reciprocal participation -between one's own flesh and the encompassing flesh of the world" (p. 128).  (1972, p. 459). There is something obliging us in the face-toface meeting with this form, as if the form "demands" to be seen or heard and in which we respond to each other.
On seeing the two carriages, their backs lined with trees and strewn with graffiti, their fronts pruned and neatly painted with a logo for a blues festival, I was drawn towards them.
The train carriage is made from metal and hardened wood; it is more solid, so the tree had to form around it. But the carriage too is changing. Not only in appearance but in form: the tree is changing the carriage in various ways. It tells us a different story about the carriage than the front side, or a carriage preserved in a museum it speaks more openly of the temporal nature of the carriage, that it is not separate from or frozen in time but moving in time. The leaves of the tree in summer create more shade, trapping moisture and encouraging animals, birds, insects and natural processes of decay and entropy. The story of the tree bending to the carriage is only a story of a particular moment in space-time that has already passed, but it does not define the tree or the carriage. A story can be read in the curve of the tree, but it does not tell the story of what is or will happen as they continue their co-forming.

42
Forskning og Forandring As we recall from David Abram, in this encounter it is not me over here and the tree over there; we are connected through the earth, touching each other through the ground, the flow of the air, the light and sound. I perceive through the tree: I am able to experience something with the tree and draw insights and understandings from that experience: understandings that speak of heritage, of landscapes and the nature of the becoming together of forms, of intra-play; understandings that, in a continuing process, extend far beyond the nature of the tree, or the carriage, or the history of that moment in space-time.
Third is the way of co-forming that arises from this "response-ability". It sets out to express that which comes through the intra-play. This working together to express what is there is a relational process, enhanced by the means of expression that you as a researcher choose. Yet, this choice is not completely "free", as the forms that you intra-play with, whether a tree or a river, have their "say" in the choices made. Poetry captures, perhaps, more of the haptic dimension of what we experience, but is also a human-centred means of communication. And even though we do not find anthropomorphism problematic, seeing as we are human, we can through what Naess calls "the process of identification" (Haukeland & Naess, 2008) also see the world from the perspective of the other. Expressing this perspective, we often find that sounds, photos, film or drawing are better suited. These means of communication, or expression, are also forms that are co-formed through intra-play.
Fourth, to open a way of understanding what a landscape may become, there is a need for what we call "haptic mapping", using our body-mind to bring forth what Irwin calls "renderings". Irwin is reluctant to speak of "concepts" in the expressive process, since that seems too defined, fixed and final. Renderings are, on the other hand, in flux and may change through space-time: "performative concepts of possibility" (Irwin, 2008, p. 4 This has been a small example of how we can begin to draw out meaningful understandings from the landscapes we encounter and discover ways into the plurality of potential qualities and the multiplicity of stories told through traces in time. The experience of moving through a heritage landscape in such a way opened up a contrast between the different sides, between the expected form of heritage and its edible aesthetic (front), described as authentic, historic and valuable. And the unauthorised heritage (back) consisting of desire paths, unofficial uses and the intra-play of trees and animals, usually described in terms of ruin, decay and neglect. It is within these edges though, where the two sides meet, that the intra-play is most visible, and where attempts to delimit cultural and natural objects within a landscape are shown to be temporary.
Notions uncovered here such as the edges that join the back and front, the attraction and edibility of certain aesthetics and our co-forming with the grain of the

44
Forskning og Forandring These experiences come into dialogue with other forms of research, theories, concepts and perspectives. Through the processes of reflection, writing and being presented, they provide openings for deeper questioning and new understandings of the heritage experience. This approach is not only a study of heritage landscapes as processes of becoming. Sustainability research within landscapes are also shown to be processes of becoming themselves, in which field work, conceptualization and theory are entangled. As such, sustainability research within heritage landscapes contributes to the continued flourishing of intra-play between all forms, which is a radical pluralism, opening up heritage as a commons that includes the more-than-human world. From a management perspective, this means a shift of focus from what is being preserved to how landscapes are forming. Where the objects and stories we value as heritage are seen as an unfolding lineage through time, within landscapes that are nature-culture, back-front and past-present-future intra-playing. Opening for the generation of multiple experiences, and opposing actions that hinder such pluralism from flourishing, enclose the commoning process and limit the possibilities for inhabi tants and visitors alike to touch and be touched by the heritage landscape.

About the authors
Benjamin Richards is a PhD-candidate at the Institute for culture, religion and social studies at the University of South-Eastern Norway. He is a researcher in the field of industrial heritage and sustainability and a member of the research group 'Cultural heritage in use'. He has a background in film making, heritage studies, ecological economics and borderology with an interest in visual, sensory and phenomenological research methods.
Per Ingvar Haukeland, PhD, is a professor in Outdoor studies at the University of South-Eastern Norway with a focus on ecophilosophy, pedagogy and entrepreneurship and the head of the research group 'Outdoor studies, society and sustainability'.
He is also a co-founder of the Alliance of wild ethics and the author of Life's philosophy (University of Georgia Press, 1998/2003. His academic interests lie in the field of nature-connection, phenomenology and action research.