Holistic Heritage Impact Assessment Model

Holistic Heritage Impact Assessment Model

The SoPHIA model aims at assessing the contribution of cultural heritage to sustainable development and its resilience through change. It provides an adaptable conceptual and practical framework that can be implemented by different users, and can grasp the characteristics of different cultural interventions´ impacts under a holistic perspective.

The model adopts a three-axes approach that highlights the quality of interventions in cultural heritage and implements the link between high-quality interventions and their impact:

  • DOMAINS – focus on relevant issues and potential areas of impact, including counter effects.

  • PEOPLE – focus on different needs​ of promoters/funders, beneficiaries/audience, managers.

  • TIME – focus on the impact assessment taking place before, during, or after an intervention.

The different aspects of the three axes of the model should be considered as a reference.

Click here for the full version of the SoPHIA Holistic Heritage Impact Assessment Model.

The European Commission (EC) has started to consider a broader perspective to account for outputs, results, and outcomes related to cultural heritage interventions, rather than prioritizing formal accountability.

The EC now stresses the importance of a deeper reflection on the desired, expected and non-casual impact(s) of the interventions on cultural heritage supported by EU funds.

Thus, in order to ensure and monitor the quality of the interventions, EU policymakers need shared standards and multi-domain assessment models.

This emphasis has to be seen in relation to the growing consensus in the field that cultural heritage can support sustainable development in many different ways and across various dimensions.

For policy makers at the local, national and international level, SoPHIA model plays a crucial role in drafting calls and policies on the quality of interventions and in choosing the criteria to grant funding and launch tender bids for high quality heritage interventions.

For managers and practitioners, the assessment helps to plan the expected impacts and monitor the results achieved in a consistent and efficient manner. In the case of negative effects, it offers the possibility to adjust the intervention accordingly.

For institutional observers and independent researchers, the SoPHIA model can be used in a longitudinal perspective to detect and assess ex-post impacts. This serves the fact that some impacts can be analysed only over time, and a longitudinal perspective is the only possibility to detect counter effects, if any.

The model is designed in a manner that allows for flexibility, and needs to be tailored considering contextual factors related both to the intervention and the assessment process.

When tailoring the assessment process the focus is placed on describing the environment and objectives of an intervention (context factors), as well as on transparently defining the objectives and resources of the assessment (assessment factors)

The Toolkit with further information and detailed steps will be available soon.

Any action that results in a physical change to an element of a historic place. SoPHIA proposes that well implemented cultural heritage interventions should understand their impact on various domains and aim toward being inclusive (accessible for diverse categories of stakeholders) and generative (producing impacts over time and ensure the transmission of a shared definition of “heritage” and the dynamism that derives from the active participation of people).

A process of identifying a measurable outcome in which some heritage interventions affect certain changes in the life of a community.

An overarching principle that should guide interventions in cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is our inheritance from previous generations and our legacy for those to come. Articulating the value of our heritage by providing quantitative and qualitative evidence of its impacts related to the Sustainable Development Goals dimensions, gives more strength to the relevance of interventions in cultural heritage.

Capability of a system or process to absorb disturbance. More specifically, cultural resilience refers to the capability of a cultural system to absorb adversity, deal with change and continue to develop. It implies both continuity and change.

The SoPHIA Model

CulturalHeritageImpact Assessment People’sPerspective PrimaryActors People Ex-Ante Ongoing Ex-Post Time Social Capitaland Governance Identity of Place Quality of Life Education, Creativityand Innovation Work andProsperity Protection Domains < Choose another axis

Quality of cultural interventions is connected to the people, including both the actors who are affected by the intervention and the stakeholders engaged in the assessment process. Frequently, they have different needs.

It is important to identify this network of stakeholders as well as distinguish their role and position in both the intervention and assessment. This also refers to mediation and mitigation effects that may overcome potential conflicts of interests between different stakeholders of the intervention and thereby also increase local ownership.

Stakeholders may include funders, managers, beneficiaries, artists, business and creative firms, educators, visitors/beneficiaries of the intervention, inhabitants, NGOs, and institutions as well as the broader public.

As the different perceptions on the impact need to be considered to achieve greater sustainability and resilience, they are included in the “people´s perspective” segment of the domain axis.

Ensures the balance between current needs and the legacy towards the next generations. SoPHIA model is useful in all key moments of the life cycle:

Ex-Ante
Ongoing
Ex-Post

The assessments before interventions mainly refer to tender and funding of cultural interventions. At this moment of assessment, the model provides an overview of the spectrum of criteria that can be considered in governance.

Ongoing assessments monitor the implementation of an intervention and detect both positive and negative impacts, modifying it if needed.

After the intervention, assessments detect the medium and long-term impact. The results provide information for updating, adapting, re-proposing or introducing policies, norms and projects.

Social Capital and Governance

Social Capital and Governance theme relates to the role that cultural heritage interventions can play in the creation of identity and feeling of cohesion, thereby enhancing the social capital of people interacting with it. 

The source of social capital stems from social, economic, and cultural structures that create power and status for certain individuals and not others.

It is manifested through benefits derived from social networks, and is an important asset for local development.

Click here to learn more about the theme through its story.

Subthemes

The aim is to assess the accessibility of cultural heritage resources to all groups of society.

Specific issues:

  • Reducing the financial, physical, architectural and other barriers of access
  • Efforts to provide access to societal groups with little access to intervention
  • Efforts to increase access via digital means

Number of Visitors (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years) in terms of age, gender, educational level, income, citizenship and mother tongues, visible and non-visible disabilities, and social marginalisation.

  • What are the experiences of different visitors’ groups accessing cultural heritage?
  • Who are the target groups and how are they reached?
  • Is there a specific ticketing policy (tickets with subventions or discounts/free events/online events)?
  • How is barrier-free access for people with visible and non-visible disabilities ensured?
  • How are information activities customized to ensure access for different groups of society?
  • Which languages are used for information material on and off site?
  • How and where is information & outreach material about the site/practice distributed?
  • How is digital access ensured?
  • To what degree does information material reflect the languages spoken in the city/region?

: Inclusive access also needs to be ensured in terms of the educational offer and learning of opportunities of the intervention.

, i.e. inclusive access also needs to be ensured in terms of the inclusive meaning and narratives of the intervention.

: Inclusive access also needs to be ensured in terms of access to social life and recreation.

: Inclusive access also needs to be ensured in terms of the economic potential cultural heritage offers (i.e. jobs).

: Access for everybody may be in conflict with the site’s capacity and safeguarding cultural heritage against human related risks.

: Access for everybody can be in conflict with peace and safety ensured at cultural heritage.

: Ensuring accessibility to everybody may be less profitable.

The aim is to assess the level of participation in cultural heritage.

Specific issues:

  • Actions that go beyond the mere visit to the intervention, promoting participation in cultural heritage in terms of outreach, educational and volunteering opportunities
  • Actual participatory character of actions that aim at empowerment of participants

Number of People/groups involved as participants and volunteers (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years) in terms of age, gender, educational level, income, citizenship and mother tongues, visible and non-visible disabilities, and social mariginalisation.

Number of associations and NGOs involved at a site/practice (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years) differentiated according to sectors they work in.

  • How and at which level are people invited to participate in cultural heritage?
  • Who is invited to participate in terms of age, gender, educational level, income, citizenship and mother tongues, visible and non-visible disabilities and social marginalisation?
  • What is the motivation behind participating?
  • What is the experience of participating like? What is the process or methodology applied through which people participate?
  • (i.e. a questionnaire, full-blown participatory workshop, etc.)
  • What trends of participation are recognizable during the last 5, 10, 20 years?
  • Do people feel their opinion counts?
  • What is the motivation in volunteering?
  • What is the experience from volunteering?
  • How does volunteering at a specific site/practice affect visitors/ participants perception of cultural heritage?
  • (How) do people feel empowered to participate?
  • In what ways can people participate virtually?

: Educational activities are a core activity to ensure engagement and participation; participation and engagement are also issues in terms of research activities (citizens science) and creativity that is promoted at the intervention.

The aim is to assess whether the gap between different societal groups and stakeholders is bridged.

Specific issues:

  • Ensuring diversity and avoiding marginalisation in terms of stakeholders and societal groups reached
  • Fostering exchange between different societal groups and stakeholders
  • Supporting solidarity between different societal groups

Ratio of participants of the intervention (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years) in terms of age, gender, educational level, income, citizenship and mother tongues, visible and non-visible disabilities, and social marginalisation.

Number of regional, national and transnational collaborations and projects (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years).

  • How are socially excluded groups reached and motivated to visit/participate/volunteer?
  • What is the experience of visitors/participants/volunteers in terms of acquaintance and perspective on other people, other societal groups?
  • How does the visiting/participating/volunteering support solidarity between people?
  • How does volunteering for a specific site/practice affect volunteers’ relation with their/other communities?
  • Percentage of people with a sense of pride in belonging to a city and region known for its cultural heritage.

: Social cohesion fostered via educational activities.

: Social cohesion fostered via inclusive narratives and meanings communicated.

: Social cohesion fostered via social life at the intervention.

: Social cohesion fostered via diversity of employees.

The aim is to assess the quantity and quality of alliances and collaborations in the heritage and cultural sector, across disciplines and/or policy areas.

Specific issues:

  • intellectual cooperation and knowledge sharing
  • advocacy through networks
  • broadening of perspectives and interdisciplinary work
  • local/national/international alliances and collaborations

Number of collaborative initiatives within and across sectors, policy areas and geographical scope: local/regional/national/international.

  • What are the objectives of the intervention in terms of partnerships?
  • What is the experience of stakeholders from partnerships and cooperations?
  • What is the subject and the range of networks and knowledge sharing within the sector?
  • What are the benefits of networks and knowledge sharing within the sector?
  • What is the subject of networks and knowledge sharing with other sectors?
  • What are the benefits of networks and knowledge sharing with other sectors?
  • What are the policy areas that co-operations take place in?
  • Are there also co-operations across policy areas?

: In terms of “Visibility and Reputation”, partnerships and cultural cooperation may support greater outreach.

: In terms of “Peace and Safety”: partnerships with interventions/sites of similar contexts can enable shared narratives and know-how. In terms of “Living Conditions”: The effective use of resources can be ensured via partnerships in common services.

: Partnerships can foster intellectual cooperation and know-how in the sector, result in greater ease foestering innovation based on the intervention/site, and can promote culture and cultural heritage as repositories of knowledge and innovation.

: Intellectual cooperation and know-how in the sector and advocacy through networks can foster the economic potential of the intervention; furthermore, they may contribute to improving conditions of precarious jobs directly related to culture and cultural heritage. Finally, partnerships may also result in generation of new jobs based on creativity.

: Intellectual cooperation and sharing of know-how in the sector can support the effective and sustainable use of resources.

: Values and narratives might conflict with the larger alliances.

The aim is to assess good governance and participation processes in the intervention.

Specific Issues:

  • the participation of stakeholders in decision making
  • transparency and responsiveness of cultural heritage planning and management
  • accountability
  • collaboration
  • consciousness orientation
  • responsiveness
  • effectiveness
  • efficiency
  • rule of law

Number of people/groups directly involved in decision-making concerning the intervention (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years)

Number of documents/resources made available to the public (for public consultation, before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years)

  • What is the structure of governance and decision-making in planning and managing the intervention?
  • Who is participating at which level of decision-making in planning and managing the intervention?
  • How do stakeholders participate in decision-making processes?
  • How inclusive is the rightsholder and stakeholder selection?
  • What is the experience of stakeholders in decision-making processes?
  • Do people feel adequately represented?
  • Do people feel included in decision-making processes?
  • How are the decisions in management and planning of the intervention responsive to the results of public consultation processes?
  • What is the experience of citizens from public consultation processes?
  • Do people feel consultation processes are transparent?
  • Are there feedback/monitoring/evaluation processes in place for planning and managing the intervention?
  • Are the international policies considered in decision-making processes?

: Transparency and responsiveness in governing, as well as participation in decision-making will also support the identification with the intervention.

: Good governance has a potential positive effect on the quality of life, by potentially improving services offered.

: Good governance in cultural heritage interventions will also support working conditions, working relations or potentially have also an spillover effect on social innovation and entrepreneurship, due to the transparency of and participation in processes.

: Green management can be supported by responsiveness and transparency in governance.

Identity of Place

This theme emphasises the importance of cultural heritage in defining and constructing identity and belonging. 

The identity of place can be accessed by exploring the interaction between identity and memory and the visibility and reputation of the heritage today. 

The use of space is also central in the identity of place, both in the context of heritage-led regeneration and adaptive reuse and in the intervention’s design and relation with the surrounding cultural landscape.

Click here to learn more about the theme through its story.

Subthemes

The aim is to assess the acknowledgement and appreciation of different contemporary, potentially historic, symbolic and cultural meanings.

Specific issues:

  • Safeguarding the various historic value of the intervention
  • Considering the diverse meanings/symbolic/memory values of intervention for different communities
  • (memory) discourses about the intervention

Number and form of actions taken to safeguard the diverse historic, cultural meaning and activities of remembrance.

  • What is the historic value of the intervention; i.e. to which historic events does the intervention relate?
  • What form does safeguarding the historic value take?
  • What symbolic value does this site have for different communities and in collective/local/regional/national identities?
  • How does individual memory relate to the specific intervention?
  • How does social/ collective memory relate to the specific intervention?
  • What are the main elements of dominant/official discourses about the intervention?
  • What are main elements of policy-discourses about the intervention?
  • How are dominant/official/policy discourses about the intervention challenged?
  • What (shared; dissonant; conflicting) narratives about these historic values/events are communicated on-site and off-site?
  • What spiritual values does the intervention have for communities?

: Acknowledgement of different historic and cultural meanings will support access of diverse public to intervention and be a prerequisite to engagement and participation as well as social cohesion.

: representation of different historic and cultural meanings must also be ensured in educational activities offered.

: Danger of exclusion of different people & communities if diverse historic and cultural meanings of intervention are not acknowledged.

: Exclusion of historic and cultural meanings will also undermine potential of intervention for livelihood and recreation for all. In terms of peace and security, the acknowledgment of only one/some historic and cultural meanings of intervention can provoke protest by communities whose histories, narratives, etc. are not acknowledged.

The aim is to assess whether the image of intervention is balanced against diverse contemporary discourses.

Specific issues:

  • Communication activities of the site
  • Contemporary understandings and discourses regarding the intervention
  • Communication and representation of intervention in public and media

Number of positive/critical/negative reactions/reflections in the public, (social) media and (professional) publications about the intervention (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years)

  • What image does the intervention have with different stakeholders/communities and what do main discussions about the intervention relate to?
  • What image does the intervention attempt to communicate to the public? How is this done?
  • What is the perception/image of the intervention in the eyes of the public/different stakeholders?
  • How is the intervention represented and discussed in the media? (traditional and social)
  • What do main public discussions about the intervention relate to?
  • What is the public perception of the contribution of the intervention to their spatial environment?
  • Is participating in the intervention an important element of people’s daily lives/routines?
  • What role does the intervention play in local traditions?
  • Is the intervention entangled in new daily rituals?
  • Is the intervention included in new activities?

: Visibility and Reputation is in close connection to ensuring an inclusive image and thereby, inclusive access to the intervention.

: Ensuring tourism through attractiveness and visibility of the intervention.

: The intervention’s visibility in scientific journals would potentially have an impact on scientific studies and academic research.

: Danger of exclusive image/reputation of intervention.

: Danger of exclusion from social life at the intervention/site if the reputation of the intervention is negative for certain groups.

The aim is to assess the relationship between the space designed/offered and local cultural identity

Specific issues:

  • Characteristics of urban design/planning/ development and its influence on the identity of place.
  • Participation in urban planning/development
  • Balancing aesthetic value and socio-economic needs of the local community.

Existence of professional spatial planning documents relating to the intervention

Number of people/associations/stakeholders involved and consulted during spatial planning processes

Number of activities related to safeguarding the aesthetic value, built form and cultural landscape

  • What is the main characteristic of the space/landscape?
  • What is the space offered by the intervention used for by locals?
  • What relevance does the intervention have in terms of spatial planning?
  • What is the aesthetic value of the intervention for locals/visitors/participants?
  • What is the relationship between the intervention and social, cultural and environmental activities carried out by the community and other people/groups/communities?
  • Is the visual attractiveness of an intervention an element of pride for people?

: Impact on livelihood of locals, for instance in terms of recreation, events, cultural content, etc.

: Balancing the elements of the cultural landscape also supports a balance between different users in terms of planning and usage of space.

: Safeguarding built form related to the protection of built heritage and safeguarding against human and environmental risks; sustainable planning and usage of space considers also ecological aspects and green space and usage of resources.

& : (if negative) Balance of ensuring built form and capacity of space might challenge inclusive access and quality of life the intervention offers.

: Balance between sustainable planning and built form may reduce the economic attractiveness of the place due to less income generated.

The aim is to assess the contemporary usage of cultural heritage and whether the revitalisation and creation of new social, cultural or economic activities is in accordance with the needs of local communities.

Specific issues:

  • Participation and community engagement in heritage-led regeneration
  • Ecological sustainability of re-generation

Number of buildings and assemblies recycled/projects of adaptive re-use according to usage of space like social housing, start-ups, etc. related to the intervention

Amount of funds allocated to ensure sustainable adaptive re-use of buildings and assemblies (re-fittings, alternate and renewable energy resources) related to the intervention

  • What is people’s response to the transformation of built heritage and its integration in their lives under a new use?
  • What is the purpose of re-use?
  • How are communities/non-institutional and institutional groups engaged in heritage-led regeneration projects?
  • How inclusive is the planning and decision-making process of heritage-led regeneration?
  • What are the types of (public/private) sources of funding for adaptive re-use?
  • What is the public perception of the value of cultural heritage?
  • Is the site used for daily rituals, social engagements, festivals?

: Revitalisation and creation of new activities with the needs of the local community may support inclusive access, social inclusion, participation and engagement, etc.

: Heritage-led regeneration may support social innovation and entrepreneurship.

: Revitalisation is in close connection to a sustainable usage of resources and green management at the intervention.

: Re-use of tangible heritage spaces may reflect positively on the reputation and image of the area.

Quality of Life

Cultural heritage interventions improve quality of life in multiple levels. First, they can offer new job opportunities for residents and provide the context for social contacts. Also, they support collective memory, by enhancing the relations with our past and our ancestors and contributing to the community’s sense of belonging. Finally, they improve the attractiveness of the area as well as the connections formed between locals and the built environment.

Click here to learn more about the theme through its story.

Subthemes

The aim is to assess whether the cultural heritage intervention contributes positively towards living conditions for the people living, working or staying in the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Specific issues:

  • Availability, affordability and quality of housing
  • Adequate living income
  • Access to, and quality of education and healthcare
  • Access to, and quality of services (e.g. transport, shops, WIFI/Internet access, waste collection)

Numbers of people living, working and socialising in the area (in order to measure change/development/variation) before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years) in terms of age, gender educational level, income, citizenship and mother tongues, and disabilities for workers (by occupation), residents and local, national and international visitors.

Cost of living (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years) including average cost of rent in area, plus cost of services such as waste collection, transport, heating, electricity compared to average income levels.

Availability of services (public and green transport, waste collection, internet access, infrastructure) (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years).

  • What are the objectives of the intervention in terms of living conditions for residents and people working in the area?
  • How can a balance between residents, workers and tourists be achieved and maintained?
  • How do people view the quality of services in the area? How does the intervention impact this?
  • How do people view the quality of their built environment? How does the intervention impact this?
  • Does the intervention have a well-being strategy in place? In what ways can/does the intervention contribute to people’s well-being in the long run (5, 10, 20 years)?
  • Does the intervention contribute to equality, diversity and inclusion?

: Living conditions are also affected by the image of the cultural heritage and thereby matter to workers and residents.

& : Healthy economic activities can foster connections between workforce and residents and enhance living conditions.

: Good access to education enhances living conditions.

& : Modern amenities may not fit the identity of place or be in line with protection of cultural heritage (e.g. heating, double glassed windows, lifts).

: Over-tourism especially may have negative impacts on living conditions for residents (e.g. noise level, pollution traffic congestion).

& : Use of housing for Airbnb and other short-term lettings can result in gentrification, with local inhabitants not being able to afford to rent or purchase housing.

The aim is to assess whether the intervention promotes and ensures peace building, personal safety, and security of community.

Specific issues:

  • Availability and equal access to cross cultural programmes
  • Number of activities to engage local residents in the safeguarding of the intervention
  • Safety concerns of residents, visitors, and staff

Number of security incidents reported per annum (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years), including classification and impact measurement.

Number of on-site/off-site activities on cross-cultural dialogue and conflict prevention and resolution and total funds allocated to these activities (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years).

  • What are the safety and security concerns of the local community?
  • Does the intervention play an active role in a current conflict?
  • What are the safety and security issues being faced by the intervention?
  • In what ways has the intervention played an active role in peacebuilding?
  • Does the intervention contribute to people’s sense of security?
  • Will the intervention have a negative impact on the sense of security provided by the community solidarity if gentrification occurs?

: Education can help to promote peace and safety.

: Encouraging social cohesion between different stakeholders should result in a decrease in tension, and thus in enhanced peace and safety.

: An atmosphere of peace, safety and security impacts positively on the identity of place.

& Security and safety measures (e.g. security cameras, presence of security personal or handrails) may not be in line with identity of place.

Over-tourism may lead to conflict with peace and safety.

The aim is to assess whether participation of community groups and civic engagement is encouraged.

Specific Issues:

  • Availability of public space for community group activity
  • Number of outreach activities through intervention aimed local community groups, and local residents
  • Level of engagement in heritage by locals compared to local demographic breakdown

Number of public spaces and social interactions classified by type, for instance cinema, parks, places for education, sport and recreation (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years).

Number of active community groups and number of activities and outreach events (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years).

  • What are people’s perceptions of the quantity and quality of social activities/interactions related to the intervention?
  • Do people feel the area is welcoming and encourages social interaction?
  • Do people feel the area is accessible to all?
  • Do community groups identify with the intervention/are proud of it?

: Education and engagement through community groups may improve the quality of life incl.  mental health and well-being.

& : Engagement in community activities and events (online and offline) can lead to a stronger sense of belonging and more social cohesion which improves quality of life.

: Encouraging social life and participation may not achieve a balance among different interest groups.

: Development for the tourism industry can disrupt the social life of locals.

The aim is to assess whether the intervention provides recreational opportunities while also maintaining the integrity of the intervention/heritage.

Specific Issues:

  • Availability of environmentally integrated outdoor seating, opportunities for leisure, etc.
  • Protection/restoration of green spaces and fauna in the area
  • Active contribution of the intervention to recreational opportunities

Number and size of green spaces, public parks with public sports and recreational facilities (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years).

  • What kind of actions are taken to protect and education about  green spaces and fauna in the area?
  • How are people involved in the protection/restoration of green spaces and fauna in the area?
  • What kinds of recreational activities are being offered?
  • How is the intervention being used for recreational activities?
  • What are people’s perceptions of the quantity and quality recreational activities in the area?

& : Green spaces and recreational facilities may contribute to the visibility and reputation of the place, and can facilitate access to the intervention and foster exchange between different social groups.

: Green spaces and recreational facilities offer work opportunities.

: There is a close link between ensuring that the intervention does not negatively impact the built and natural environment while at the same time safeguarding it against human-related risks.

: Modern recreational facilities may not fit with the Identity of Place.

: Green spaces and recreational facilities leave less space for commercial use or housing.

: Built heritage may be endangered due to recreational infrastructure and activities.

The aim is to assess whether the intervention promotes the regional/local development through cultural investments.

Specific issues:

  • reduction of territorial imbalances
  • urban regeneration in deprived areas
  • repopulation of abandoned territories/ neighbourhoods
  • improved provision of superior urban services

Real estate market: average price of properties (selling, renting) by typology (e.g. housing, commercial areas, infrastructures, industrial areas, etc.) (before and after the intervention in 5,10, 20 years)

Demographics of inhabitants in terms of income, educational level, background, etc. (before and after the intervention in 5,10, 20 years)

Square meters of abandoned spaces reused (before and after the intervention in 5,10, 20 years)

  • How did the intervention influence regional and local development?
  • What were the expectations different stakeholders had regarding regional and local development related to the intervention?
  • What is the perception of inhabitants?
  • What is the perception of the main institutions (i.e. local governments; trade/industry associations?)

: Regional and local development may support a deeper bond of the locals with the cultural heritage due to its economic attractiveness.

: Regional and local development can be seen as the “economic environment” within the intervention produce direct effects on employment and business.

Education, Creativity and Innovation

Engagement with cultural heritage can be a learning experience which is organised around all three forms of education; formal, non-formal and informal. Within this spectrum, the exploration of what people learn from and within the context of cultural heritage – both material and immaterial – and the resulting ripple effect is a manifold question, that is explored within this domain.

Click here to learn more about the theme through its story.

Subthemes

The aim is to assess the diversity of educational offers, outreach activities and learning opportunities.

Specific issues:

  • Diverse (creative) forms of educational offers, outreach activities and learning opportunities,
  • Diverse target groups for educational offers, outreach activities and learning opportunities
  • Exploration of varying and critical narratives in the educational offer and outreach activities

Number of educational/outreach programs and activities provided to a diverse range of audiences (by age, gender, education level, citizenship and mother tongue, visible and non-visible disabilities), and socially marginalised groups – over a number of years (baseline), developments in terms of these programs

Participants demographics (age; gender; educational level; citizenship and mother tongues; visible and non-visible disabilities; relative to local population)

  • Expectations and experience of different stakeholders and communities with the educational offer, outreach activities and learning opportunities
  • Which groups of society are the programs open to?
  • Are people interested in learning more about an intervention? (intentionality)
  • What kinds of skills are imparted to the audiences of the educational programming?
  • Are the publications and educational resources open and accessible to people?
  • How balanced is the ratio between on-site and off-site educational activities?
  • In what languages are the educational programs offered?
  • What times of the day and week are the programs offered?
  • What is the nature of the content and narratives that are communicated on and off site?
  • How adequately are varying and critical aspects of the intervention’s narratives explored through educational activities?
  • In what languages are the educational activities offered?
  • What is the background of personnel in education?
  • Interconnectedness between rogram and education?

: Training opportunities and upskilling supports issues of work and prosperity, specifically it may support local and cultural production.

: Diversity in the educational offer may support inclusive access to cultural heritage

: Educational activities can support the area by raising level of intellectual social capital.

: Diverse narratives communicated in educational offer and outreach activities strengthen an inclusive identity of place.

The aim is to assess whether the intervention supports awareness-raising on sustainable development.

Specific issues:

  • Educational offer and representation of issues of sustainable development in the intervention
  • Reputation/Visibility as an intervention that (in its actions, program, etc.) is in accordance with sustainable development

Number of programs/projects related to sustainable development and the SDGs (per year)

Number of educational exhibits/initiatives relating to issues of sustainable development and the SDGs (per year)

  • Ways in which awareness was raised on sustainable development from the perspective of different stakeholders
  • How are issues of sustainable development represented in the intervention?
  • In what languages are the awareness raising activities taking place?
  • How does the intervention become a voice for the marginalised?

: Raising awareness on sustainable development may include issues of the reduction of inequalities.

: Awareness raising and actions taken to be in line with sustainable development may also consider social needs in the surrounding area and thereby support Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

: Raising awareness on sustainable development may include issues of the sustainable usage of resources and green economy.

: Awareness raising will contribute to the construction of identity and memory.

: Awareness raising on issues of sustainable development may be in conflict with promotion of tourism economy, with regional and local development, etc.

The aim is to assess whether the intervention supports broad research in relation to the intervention.

Specific issues:

  • Areas and interdisciplinarity of research
  • Funding for research
  • Output from research

Number of research projects related to the intervention according to research focus/field.

Total amount of funds allocated to the intervention’s research.

  • Is the intervention open to research possibilities?
  • How accessible is archival material/the collection for researchers?
  • How are people rewarded for participating in research?
  • What are the sources of funding?
  • What are the affiliations of researchers?
  • To what extent is research towards incorporating sustainable practices (use of local/sustainable materials, renewable energy, circular models) supported?

: Through interdisciplinary research different perspectives on the intervention can be supported, thereby promoting participation, ownership, inclusive access, etc.

: Research may enable new economic perspectives and developments.

: Research may support the protection against human related risks, environment related risk, etc.

The aim is to assess the development of ICT tools for management and interpretation of the intervention.

Specific issues:

  • Increasing skills and competencies for employees as well external persons
  • Effects of the usage of ICT tools in management
  • Broadening inclusive access to intervention via ICT tools

Number of innovative ICT tools used in interpretation and sustainable management of the intervention

Number of innovative ICT tools aiming at increasing access to intervention

  • People’s rating of the effects of digitisation
  • How, and at which stages does the intervention aim to utilise digitisation, science and technology?
  • Accessibility to using innovative technology
  • How is digitisation, science and technology being employed to serve disabled persons engaging with the intervention?
  • What role is digitisation, science and technology playing to become inclusive?
  • How is digitisation serving to revitalise cultural and creative industries?

: Digitisation may enable economic development and potentially create new working places.

: Development of ICT tools for management and interpretation of intervention can support sustainable ecological development and usage of resources at the site.

: Digital tools may lower barriers to access intervention.

: Digitisation of intervention might change how it is (aesthetically) perceived.

: Digitisation can harm social life and interaction between people and challenge access to the intervention for some groups.

: Digitisation may harm access to cultural heritage if digital access is challenged through cost barrier or internet quality.

The aim is to assess whether the intervention enables creative/arts activities.

Specific issues:

  • Fostering creative activities for locals/visitors/volunteers
  • Inclusion of creative/artistic stakeholders in the intervention

Number of opportunities/programs fostering creativity related to the intervention

Number and demographics of people (artists/creators) involved

  • Perception of visitors and creative/artistic stakeholders on how the intervention creatively engages people
  • Do people consider the site/ practice to be inspiring?
  • How does the intervention creatively engage people?
  • Do people consider the intervention to be a source of creativity?
  • To what extent do tangible/intangible aspects of the intervention serve as inspiration for creativity?

: Enabling creative activities may also support participation in intervention.

: Enabling creative activities may support a positive reputation and image of the place.

Work and Prosperity

This theme focuses on the economic impact of a cultural heritage intervention, which can be linked to a wide range of economic activity. European cultural heritage is considered a valuable resource for economic growth and employment, and it can have crossover effects in other economic sectors like tourism. Interventions on Cultural heritage can be powerful driving forces of inclusive local and regional development, and enhance regional competitiveness.

Click here to learn more about the theme through its story.

Subthemes

The aim is to assess the quantity and quality of employment related directly to the intervention/site or indirectly/induced in the context.

Specific issues:

  • working conditions (fairer contractual conditions, job security and remuneration)
  • creative/knowledge base jobs vs. unskilled jobs
  • reduce gender gaps
  • jobs for disadvantaged people
  • reinforcing the local economy

Number of workplaces at the intervention and in the context (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years) by:

  • sex, age and educational attainment
  • typology (stable; temporary; skilled, unskilled)
  • sector of activity (core sector, tourism)

Average income of those employed at the intervention by:

  • sex, age and educational attainment
  • typology (stable; temporary; skilled; unskilled)

Example of drill down indicator:

Number of workers in preservation at the site/ practice by typology (stable; temporary; skilled; unskilled) and by sex, age and educational attainment

  • What is the perception of workers?
  • What are the working conditions at the site/practice disaggregated by typology (stable; temporary; skilled; unskilled)
  • How do people rank increase in employment rates in relation to other social; cultural or environmental benefits?
  • What is the characters of working relations at the site/practice?
  • Have there been any working conflicts at the site/practice and what did they relate to?
  • What is the employment policy in terms of diversity and equality of personnel?

& & : Good working conditions and diversity of the workforce does support inclusive access and social cohesion, may support a positive reputation of cultural heritage and may also support living conditions in the local area.

: Enhancing the quality and quantity of employment goes hand in hand with support skills development;

: Standards in terms of working conditions may also support an ecologically sustainable way of working at the intervention.

: In terms of “Participation and Engagement”, volunteering as a tool for community engagement may function as replacement of regular work / decrease of public financed work;

In terms of “inclusive access” women, low-income youth and minorities may be excluded by the job market.

The aim is to assess whether the intervention promotes local cultural production.

Specific issues:

  • production related to creative sector/creative industry;
  • preservation and support for sustainable traditional jobs, embedded in the local tradition.

Demographics of cultural and creative entities in the local area ( included  craftsmanship) (per year; size; sector of activity; before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years)

Museums/art spaces, cinemas/theatres, cultural spaces, libraries per 100,000 local residents (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years)

  • What is the perception of local artisans/artists on opportunities/challenges offered by the intervention to the artistic scene /creative sector?
  • What developments/conflicts/discussions are recognizable in the creative & art scene in the surrounding area?
  • What is the local businesses opinion/ perception of attractiveness of the intervention?
  • What determines their willingness to spend money on a site/ practice?

: Local cultural production may enable creative activities and learning opportunities

: Craft and creative industries as part of a circular economy and the production of sustainable products.

: Local/cultural production as an alternative to global homogenous low-profile markets.

: Local cultural production can be beneficial for regional and local development.

: The promotion of the cultural and creative industry in an area may also result in gentrification processes.

: Innovation vs Tradition in the creative sector and cultural production should be carefully considered.

The aim is to assess the quantity and quality of the surrounding tourism economy.

Specific issues:

  • contribution to local economy/resident workforce
  • quality of the touristic offer

Tourist spending (by selected items, per year) (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years)

Expenditure to protect/maintain sites/places (i.e. safety systems; cleaning services, etc.) (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years)

  • What are main challenges stemming from tourism at the site/intervention for the local communities?
  • What is the perception of tourists?
  • What is the perception of inhabitants?

: In urban peripheries and in deprived and marginal areas, tourism can be seen as a potential source of income that can contribute to a reduction of the economic/demographic imbalances and achieve new forms of sustainable economy.

: Tourism expenditure can contribute to the maintenance of local cultural traditions and thereby contribute to its visibility and reputation.

& : Exploitation of an intervention as a place of commerce and consumption can be in conflict with the Identity of Place, the promotion of contemporary arts and culture and the plurality of cultural production. Profiling policies and programs on what tourism markets find “appealing” and “typical”, instead of promoting local products and activities.

: In terms of safeguarding against human-related risks, the tourism economy may exert excess pressure on the environment and the society.

: Focus on tourism economy may be in conflict with access for other communities/people .

The aim is to assess whether the intervention attracts further economic flows, generating a multiplier effect and attracts investments/funding through the cooperation between the private, public and third sectors.

Specific issues:

  • attracting diverse investments and engaging business/firms in culture related activities
  • enhancement of “impact investments”
  • activate co-funding public-private / local-national-international
  • intellectual cooperation and knowledge sharing

Public/private funds (including sponsorship and crowdfunding) for the intervention

  • What are the different sources of funding? (government, donations, grants, subsidies etc.)
  • How is the site/intervention attractive to investors?
  • What are the experiences with cooperation and knowledge sharing between public and private actors?
  • How high is the attraction of investments for new cultural or other initiatives related to the intervention/urban regeneration?
  • What is the local inhabitants’ opinion/ perception on attractiveness?

: The involvement of the private sector might bring new approaches in regard to education, research, creative jobs and awareness raising.

: In terms of Partnerships and Cultural Cooperation a well-structured network may result in better investments; in terms of Inclusive Access diverse needs can be tackle by also involving the private sector.

: (if positive) Greater ease to safeguarding; (if positive) businesses win by attaching the investments on the intervention/site to their image and brands.

: Greater investments might foster the financial, economic and social return of the intervention, improve quality of services and increase areas for recreation.

: Greater ease to safeguarding.

: Economic Attractiveness may lead to the reduction / suppression of unprofitable services.

: Gratuitousness vs. economic sustainability.

: In some cases, renovations made could lead to loss of authenticity at the expense of increasing the economic attractiveness of a place.

The aim is to assess the innovation in terms of social change and growth.

Specific issues:

  • Identification of social needs in the surrounding area
  • promotion of projects related to the needs
  • support to and cooperation with social entrepreneurs

Number of new social entrepreneurs (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years)and start-up survival rate

Total amount of funds allocated for facilitating social innovation and entrepreneurship activities (before and after the intervention in 5, 10, 20 years)

Demographics of social entrepreneurs (age; gender; educational level; citizenship and mother tongues; visible and non-visible disabilities;social marignalisation)

  • How are social needs in the area identified in the context of the intervention?
  • What is the perspective of local stakeholders/inhabitants on social innovation and entrepreneurship processes?
  • What actions are taken to support social innovation and entrepreneurs in the area?
  • What are the subjects of social innovation initiatives?
  • How strong are the connections with other sectors?

: How to deal with social needs in the close area through social innovation and entrepreneurships is closely linked to issues of social capital and may support inclusive access, social cohesion, etc.

: Projects of social needs can easily overlap with issues of ecological sustainability.

Protection

This theme largely refers to the protection of the environment from natural and human related factors. The term expands to also include the protection and management of natural and manmade entities with distinct cultural heritage value. It highlights the importance to strategize towards climate change and other environmental and human related risks through the scope of green management and sustainability.

Click here to learn more about the theme through its story.

Subthemes

The aim is to assess the quantity and quality of actions to safeguard against environmental factors, in order to retain the objectives/integrity of the intervention.

Specific issues:

  • disaster risk reduction
  • support of biodiversity

Funds dedicated per year to preservation, maintenance, and disaster risk management

Total expenditure and actions taken towards protection of biodiversity and cultural ecosystems due to environmental risks

  • What kind of initiatives are employed by local authorities and the community to manage and utilise the vacant building stock?
  • What is the people’s understanding of the vacant building stock potential?
  • What steps are taken through the intervention to ensure safeguarding against environmental risks?
  • What is the people’s perceptions on climate change and their sense of accountability in dealing these issues?
  • What measures are taken to adapt to climate change?
  • What measures are taken to switch to renewable energy sources?
  • What measures are taken to implement a reduce, reuse and recycle strategy?
  • What measures are taken to share resources with surrounding communities/stakeholders and decrease carbon footprint?
  • Which pro-environmental behaviors are supported via the intervention?
  • Which types of stakeholders/institutions are involved ex-ante/during/post-intervention in safeguarding against environmental risks?

: In terms of research, safeguarding against environmental risk can be supported by the exploration of new technologies and methodologies; In terms of Digitisation, Science and Technology, the use of ICT tools can support safeguarding the intervention.

: Good Governance is crucial for effective management of the intervention against environmental risks, “Partnerships and Cultural Cooperation” can improve preparation and response to environmental risks.

: Safeguarding against environmental risks is required to maintain the surrounding cultural landscape.

: Inclusive access to and engagement with the intervention may be limited in order to avoid aggravating environmental risks.

: Employment, real estate value, local and cultural production, and the tourism economy may all be driven by factors that are detrimental to the environment.

The aim is to assess the quantity and quality of actions to safeguard against damage caused by humans.

Specific issues:

  • Over-tourism
  • Conflicts
  • Homogenisation
  • Increased carbon footprint
  • Protection of cultural ecosystems

Total expenditure and actions taken to safeguard against human-related risks through the intervention including over-tourism, conflicts, homogenisation, decreased carbon footprint.

Total expenditure and actions taken towards protection of biodiversity and cultural ecosystems due to human-related risks.

  • What steps are taken through the intervention to ensure safeguarding against man-made risks?
  • At what stages of the intervention and at what level are local communities consulted? (project design, data gathering and analysis, decision making, implementation, monitoring & evaluation)
  • What efforts are made through the intervention to avoid cultural homogenisation?
  • What efforts are made to prevent the daily lives of locals from being affected negatively by the intervention?
  • In what ways (if any) does the intervention manage/prevent illicit trading and trafficking of cultural artefacts?
  • What efforts have been made towards establishing respectful modes of tourism?
  • Were people eager to actively participate during the intervention?

: Safeguarding against human-related risks is required to maintain the surrounding cultural landscape; in terms of adaptive re-use/heritage-led regeneration: safeguarding against human related risks may affect the manner in which new and sustainable economic opportunities are created.

can serve as key drivers for finding ways to safeguard against man-made risks. Education and awareness raising play an imperative role in sharing knowledge and finding ways to decrease the negative impact of human activity through the intervention.

: In terms of Peace and Safety factors that are directly influenced by human-related risks through an intervention, such as conflict and over-tourism.

: Aspects of social capital such as inclusive access, good governance, social cohesion may be affected by efforts to safeguard against human-related risks.

: Provision of facilities and fewer economic opportunities may be experienced.

: Protection against human-related risks are likely to affect the economic attractiveness of a place/intervention to a variety of stakeholders.

The aim is to assess the quantity and quality of actions for ecological sustainability and countering climate change.

Specific issues:

  • Economically and environmentally sustainable and efficient management practices

Number and percentage of funding for projects/actions promoting green, circular and local economic practices

Number of partnerships/agreements formed with local partners for tangible/other resources

  • What measures are taken for green management and development through the intervention?
  • What is the level of people’s willingness to engage in greener economic practices?
  • What efforts are made through the intervention to support local sustainable businesses and increase local job openings?
  • What efforts are made to ensure the sustainability and longevity of the economic/financial model of the intervention?

: Sustainable practices through the intervention will have a direct impact on living conditions of people.

: Managing an intervention in a sustainable manner will give rise to opportunities for research, education and employing digitisation, science and technology methodologies.

: Moving towards greener management of an intervention will contribute to maintaining the Identity of Place.

: Green practices at or related to an intervention may affect employment opportunities; greener practices related to an intervention may also impact people’s spending behaviour.

The aim is to assess the usage of resources through the intervention in an efficient and sustainable manner.

Specific issues:

  • Re-use, sharing, re- and upcycling of resources
  • Partnerships for usage of resources
  • Waste management

Number of partnerships/agreements formed with local providers of tangible/other resources

Amount of funds allocated for waste management and re-use

  • What measures are taken to promote re-use, sharing, re- and upcycling of resources?
  • What measures are taken to employ/use local resources (food/skill-based; labor/materials)?
  • How are resources shared with other stakeholders/partners?
  • What steps are taken for circular bio-economy?

: Partnerships in the usage of resources and can support regional and local development.

: Partnerships in the usage of resources can support local and cultural production by reducing the expenditure of partners.