I definitely think that, that the kind of citizen science approach where you involve people in the science that is based on certain forms of heritage and forms of knowledge about the past. That is the way forward. If you think about the future, then obviously, the question about conservation is what kind of heritage will be sustainable? Right? How can it last so that people both continue to enjoy it, and respect it, and see it as something valuable in their own lives. As well as keep it in a way that retains that value also, for different stakeholders, such as expert scientists. And that will involve more participatory heritage management, I think. If you don't go in that direction, one of the results might be that you get huge heritage sites that are trampled underfoot by thousands and thousands of tourist. Just because the major interest, there are either, the scientist who can keep part of the heritage inviolate, and let the rest be destroyed by large visitor numbers, or the economic interests of tourist companies and governments, of course, that want to exploit these areas for their revenues. If you don't involve people closer by that are in daily interaction with those heritage site then it's difficult to think that they will last for a long time. Again, the Zanzibar example is interesting because the Stone Town houses originally meant for the huge families of the Arab elite and the Indian merchants that supported the Arab elite. Right, huge families that had one kitchen for groups of people numbering in the 30, 40, 50 family members sometimes. After the Zanzibar Revolution, which in a way meant that Africans once more took power and kicked out the Arabs and the Indians, took over these houses, but they took them over as almost nuclear families. So the houses were divided up by very much smaller groups of users, which meant that one family was cooking their dinner underneath a staircase, which obviously wasn't very good for the staircase. So shortly after the revolution, about 200 of those beautiful houses were destroyed. It's shows that everyday uses are essential in conserving heritage. And if you cannot share the value of those buildings with the people who live there or live very close by, which also goes for wildlife conservation or other forms of ecological conservation. The sustainability of those sites is very difficult to maintain. So you will need to push forward those initiatives that talk about shared wildlife management, or shared conservation policies. Or maybe designating buildings for new uses that do not conflict with the way they were used earlier and that allows for good maintenance of them.