It has been proposed that Outstanding Universal Values (OUV) define the concept of cultural heritage. Yet, statements of OUV are often inadequately informative because they are unable to fully reflect the value and meanings that heritage holds for its respective communities. Thus, these official statements often leave the public struggling to understand and connect with their heritage. This difficulty causes the ethical question ‘Who and what is involved in heritage preservation?’ to become increasingly complicated and difficult to answer. To approach this question, it is fundamental to understand the relationship between a community and its heritage. It is proposed here that the concepts of ‘we’ and ‘others’ suggest five distinct incentives that can foster the building of connections between members of a community and their heritage and thereby motivate the preservation of that heritage. Building these connections allows a sense of belonging to develop and encourages feelings of responsibility towards heritage. I argue that such developments on part of community members can do more to raise public awareness of the value and meanings of heritage than can institutional commitment to their definitions of cultural heritage and statements of OUV. Moreover, consensus, which ultimately could benefit preservation initiatives is more likely to arise from public commitment rather than from statements or definitions. Examples from both tangible and intangible cultural heritage are used to substantiate the argument.