Heritage is a highly malleable concept that is constantly in flux and whose substance and meaning are continuously being redefined by society. From such a dynamic perspective, it is inevitable that new approaches and practices have developed for dealing with heritage in the context of planned development. While most scholars acknowledge the existence of various heritage approaches, one of the major defining features is often neglected: their distinctive outlook on spatial dynamics. In this article, the shifting role and purpose of heritage conservation in Dutch spatial planning is analysed. A conceptual framework is introduced that frames three approaches to the planning treatment of heritage; the sector, factor and vector approach, respectively. Although these approaches have developed in a historical sequence, the new did not replace the old but rather gained ground amongst different actors. Thus, three quite different ways of treating the past in the present now coexist in Dutch planning practice. Although this coexistence can raise conflict, we argue that contemporary heritage planning does not call for a one-size-fits-all approach, but rather for a mixed-mode model. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract

No abstract

The pressure on healthcare is increasing worldwide. The trend toward digitalization in recent decades and the emergence of modern technologies have enabled remote treatment and offered patients new ways to interact with physicians. Despite numerous studies showing promising results in the use of video calls for primary care consultations, some survey studies report lingering doubts about the effectiveness of this method among general practitioners (GPs) and patients. Because the organization of health care varies widely across countries, we set out to investigate the appropriateness of video calling in a Dutch health care setting. Unlike many survey studies, we collected real-life data where GPs evaluated the video call directly after the consultation, allowing a more realistic assessment of perceived quality. We find that video calls are appropriate 84.2% (95% CI 80.3%-87.8%) of the time for consultations with patients of moderate to low urgency. Importantly, the appropriateness of video calls decreased with increasing urgency. These results build on previous studies and confirm the positive use cases of video calls focused on primary care in the Netherlands.