Models of cultural heritage management compressed

(1)

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295421974

Models of cultural heritage management

Article in Transformations in Business and Economics · January 2014

CITATIONS

27

READS

7,165

2 authors:

Virginija Jureniene Vilnius University

71PUBLICATIONS 192CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

Martynas Radzevičius

Kaunas University of Applied Sciences / Vilnius University 9PUBLICATIONS 60CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Martynas Radzevičius on 05 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

(2)

V. Jureniene, M. Radzevicius 236 ISSN 1648 -4460

M a n a g e m e n t D e v e l o p m e n t : M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y P e r s p e c t i v e

--- --- TRANSFORMATIONS I N --- Ju ren ien e, V ., R ad zev iciu s, M. (2014), “M o d els o f C ultural H eritage BUSINESS & ECONOMICS

M an ag em en t” , Transformations in Business & Economics, V ol. 13, N o

2 (32), p p .236-256. © Vilnius University, 2002-2014

MODELS OF CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

'Virginija Jureniene

Kaunas Faculty o f Humanities Vilnius University

Muitines str. 8 LT-44280 Kaunas Lithuania

Tel: +370 3 7 20 26 2 7

E-mail: virginija.jureniene@khf. vu.. It

2Martynas Radzevicius

Kaunas Faculty o f Humanities Vilnius University

Muitines str. 8 LT-44280 Kaunas Lithuania

Tel: +370 3 7 20 26 2 7

E-mail: radzevicius. martynas@gmail. com

Received: March, 2014 I s' Revision: April, 2014 2ndRevision: May, 2014 Accepted: May, 2014

•Virginia Jureniene - historian, PhD, professor at Vilnius University Kaunas Faculty o f Humanities. The main research areas are Lithuanian women’s political work in 20th - 21st centuries, cultural tourism/heritage, and creative industries.

2Martynas Radzevicius - MBA, Culture manager (BA), director at public enterprise “Open Culture”, laureate o f P. Vileisis Award by the Lithuanian Confederation o f Industrialists. The main research areas are culture industries, culture management, heritage management, city branding, and economic value o f culture.

ABSTRACT. Managing heritage sites act as a link between the national (most often ^- public) heritage institutions, cultural heritage consumers (tourists) and local community. The last item - the local community - is a factor, without which it would be impossible properly interpret the heritage and create an authentic experience for tourists. All o f the above given elements must work closely and productively collaborate in shaping o f particular area heritage tourism products, their supply and marketing. So the aim o f this article is to analyse the practices and models for cultural heritage management, which are practically used in the world.

There are many various models and concepts developed in the scientific literature and heritage management practice how to properly manage cultural heritage, but authors focus on the UNESCO practices, so there will be disccused three heritage management models - the ANZECC, AHC (developed by Australian heritage organizations) and NWHF.

KEYWORDS', cultural heritage, marketing, local community, heritage tourism products, models.

JEL classification: H4, L82, R11, Z1.

(3)

Management Development: Multidisciplinary Perspective Introduction

Cultural heritage management is the process of protection and management of abundant and individual cultural heritage elements, related to the enlargement of the society and its changing needs. Cultural heritage management is an inseparable part of the research of conservation, restoration, musicology, archaeology, history and architecture of heritage objects.

Today’s tourist requires impression and the need to sustain a vibrant past. Therefore, the last few years, the world begins to distinguish the three force components of cultural heritage tourism - heritage protection, heritage management and local community. The first covers legal and technical framework to ensure the qualified heritage care and control. Most often it is carried out by state institutions. Heritage management is an activity that provides consumers access to heritage, proper positioning, presentation and interpretation on the market, proper funding of the project, project dissemination, marketing, etc.

Managing heritage sites act as a link between the national (most often - public) heritage institutions, cultural heritage consumers (tourists) and local community. The last item -local community - is a factor, without which it would be impossible properly interpret the heritage and create an authentic experience for tourists. All of the above given elements must work closely and productively collaborate in shaping heritage tourism products of a particular area, their supply and marketing. So the aim of this article is to analyse the practices and models for cultural heritage management, which are practically used in the world.

On the one hand, there are many various models and concepts developed in the scientific literature and heritage management practice how to properly manage cultural heritage. On the other hand, there is a general attitude that at present the most effective models have been developed by Australian and UNESCO heritage specialists - namely, these are the heritage management practices that are taken over and adapted by many other countries of the world. Further on, the three heritage management models - the ANZECC, AHC (developed by Australian heritage organizations) and NWHF - will be analysed.

1. Theoretical Models of Cultural Heritage Management 1.1 Management based on ANZECC Model

The cultural heritage management, following the ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council) is related to the strategic management, identification and evaluation of heritage objects, distribution of resources, protection, conservation, interpretation as well as maintenance (.Figure 1). Further on, the simplified model of the ANZECC is provided and it best of all reflects the practice of the ANZECC with regard to cultural heritage objects.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 13, No 2 (32), 2014

(4)

Identification and evaluation Importance of cultural heritage

values

Formal and non formal D istribution o f resources for

maintenance of heritage objects

/ \

each organization and specific

values STRATEGIC HERTAGE

XL

^MANAGEMENT

Cultural heritage Presentation (Cultural industries)

Protection of cultural heritage values

Conservation plan

Source: created by the authors according to Anzecc (2001).

Figure 1. Cultural Heritage Management Model ANZECC

Following the model, the ANZECC is actually a consecutive process starting from the identification and evaluation. All the main stages are derived from strategic aims that include the systems, the main aims and standard situations (Table 1). There is a constant reciprocal relation between the main stages and the strategic management process. There is no need to apply all the stages of this model to each value of cultural heritage. There might also be such values that are not subject to the conservation stage, or there might be such values that are to be preserved, and not adjusted to the public needs.

Table 1. The main stages of the ANZECC model

S ta g e s E x p la n a tio n

Strategic m an ag em en t

It in clu d es planning, policy dev elo p m en t, organ izatio n al culture and strategic in itiativ es th at are o f a w id er scope and vision th an a specific w ork practice. T he strategic m an ag em en t req u ires th at the pro cesses, structures and system s in clu d e the strategic aim s o f th e organization. T he general strategy m u st be visible in all the stages o f m anagem ent.

Id entification an d evaluation

It unites the p rocesses th at are u sed to id en tify the h eritag e places, to create the d escriptions o f those places an d evaluate th eir co m p arativ e significance. T his stag e includes the scientific research, reco rd in g , studies and evaluation.

D istrib u tio n o f resources

T he distrib u tio n o f reso u rces m ean s the d istrib u tio n o f financial, hu m an and o th e r resources th at exist and are ascrib ed to the A N Z E C C structure o f the organization.

P ro tectio n It is defined as a p assiv e action to protect the heritage w ith o u t a p h ysical intrusion. M o st often, it is related to the legitim ate protectio n , safeguarding as w ell as accum ulation.

C o n serv atio n

C o n serv atio n is the p ro tection o f cu ltural reso u rces retain in g th e ir values and p ro lo n g in g their physical life. It includes all the w o rk s th at are perfo rm ed in o rd er to co m p en sate and reduce the d e terio rated status o f cu ltu ral resources, no t inclu d in g those p assiv e m eans th a t are subject to p rotection. In this context, co n serv atio n m eans no t on ly m aintenance, bu t also an in terv en tio n al w ork, fo r instance, such as resto ratio n o r ad ju stm en t that is m en tio n ed in the d efin itio n o f IC O M O S Burra Charter o f A ustralia.

P resen tatio n (C u ltu ral

heritage in d u stries)

It unites all the p ro cesses th at are carried o u t in order to p resen t the cu ltu ral h eritag e resources to the society. T he presen tatio n includes both the activities o f in terp retatio n a n d education, p ro g ram m es and services: v isito rs’ centres, th e ir service sy stem s inclu d in g roads, b rid g es, auto m o b ile park in g spaces, sh o p s as w ell as pro fitab le services and p u b licatio n s, b u t the p resen tatio n d o es n o t include the pro tectio n and preserv atio n w o rk s (o r th ese w orks can be carried o u t u ntil the stage o f presentation).

T he presen tatio n o f cultu ral heritage is the creatio n o f cultural industries.

M ain ten an ce

It un ites all the stages o f the A N Z E C C process. It m eans the iden tificatio n and ev alu atio n o f cultural heritage, the effe ctiveness o f protectio n , p reserv atio n w orks and p resen tatio n as th e final stage o f the process. T his stage also inclu d es form al and n o n-form al sup erv isio n , au d it, ev alu atio n o f the activity, th e surveys o f visitors and o th er assessm en t and feed b ack m echanism s.

Source: compiled according to Anzecc, 2011.

(5)

______________________________________________________ M a n a g e m e n t D e v e l o p m e n t : M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y P e r s p e c t i v e

Therefore, in order to successfully carry out the ANZECC, it is necessary to clearly define the tasks of the strategic management. If the state has an effective ANZECC management strategy, then the main condition for a successful ANZECC is that the state must establish one or more organizations that would be responsible for cultural heritage. These organizations must be clearly and definitely be aware of their duties and rights as well as all restrictions. Different organizations are responsible for the identification and evaluation of heritage objects, heritage protection, preservation, and finally for their presentation and maintenance. The most important level of the ANZECC model is the effective presentation of heritage objects to the society in order to gain economic benefit.

The identification and evaluation of cultural heritage is one of the most difficult tasks which stimulate the subsequent tangible ANZECC process. It is important to establish the value of the cultural heritage item, as it enables to decide whether it is worth to protect the cultural heritage source. The object of the heritage value, in line with the document of Criteria fo r the Inclusion o f Properties on the World Heritage List, is the masterpiece of human creativity; it reflects meaningful change of the human values in architecture or technologies, monumental art, urban planning or landscape design in a certain defined period or the specific cultural region of the world; it is the only and exceptional evidence of a cultural tradition or civilization that is either existing, or already extinct; it is an exceptional structure, an architectural or technological ensemble, landscape, marking important stages of the history of the mankind; it is an exceptional example of the ordinary human life style, land usage traditions that pertain to a certain culture; also it is directly related to events or living traditions, ideas or attitudes, art or literature works that have the exceptional global value.

The identification of the heritage is important because as soon as the object of heritage is declared, all heritage management processes can start. The table provided below shows the levels of the heritage identification.

The heritage becomes final when it is included into the Registry of Cultural Values.

The values, included in the Registry, must be described (there must be minimum information about the site of the object of the heritage, the description of that territory and the object, the themes reflecting that object, the evaluation of the importance of the object, primary recommendations for management). The organization that is responsible for cultural heritage shall collect all the information about each object of heritage in the data base, and it shall update the information about the history of the site and the perspectives of the object management on regular basis. Such a data base must be related with data bases of foreign states and similar objects of heritage in order to compare the status of the heritage and planned management strategies, if that is necessary.

As we know, not all objects of heritage are state-owned. The assessment criteria can be adapted to the needs of an agency or an owner (responsible for an individual object of heritage), but also the criteria should be coordinated with a state organization that is responsible for the formation of the registry of cultural values.

The objects of cultural heritage and their management must have bigger aims, and not only seek for a personal benefit. That is the reason why the owners of heritage, upon the evaluation of heritage, must follow not only their personal opinion, but also the opinion of professionals, be interested in the situation of other countries and their policies with regard to cultural heritage.

The management of cultural heritage of the Republic of Lithuania is rather complicated, because heritage is protected not by one, but by several institutions that often have disagreements among themselves because of the distribution of responsibility; moreover, the objects of heritage belong to different owners (the state, a municipality or private persons).

TRANSFORM ATIO NS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 13, No 2 (32), 2014

(6)

Cultural heritage belonging to different owners often appears to be the centre of conflicts and discussions. Conflicts arise because of the aim to change or restore the objects of cultural heritage and regulations by legal acts, as the laws pose certain restrictions on the possibilities to restore and repair the objects of heritage. Often several institutions do not agree which of them is entitled to protect and manage heritage, therefore, significant heritage is frequently left to languish.

The objects of cultural heritage become more significant by the wish of the owner to improve the conditions of the usage of the object. The object of cultural heritage that is used is better preserved than the one that is not used, because it has an owner who takes care of it and maintains it, and also seeks that the aims of the usage as foreseen by the owner would be achieved. The object that is not used (the object that is not adapted to any public needs) is deteriorated as it is affected by nature or people.

In Lithuania, it is often the case that the needs of the usage of a structure do not coincide with the requirements of heritage protection and, as it was mentioned above, various conflicts arise between the owners and civil officers that have to make sure the laws are observed. In such a case, they should seek for an agreement, to coordinate the usage of the object and the protection of the state. The cultural value should be used to the utmost and changed or complemented to the least to make it suitable for usage.

In order to adjust the objects of heritage to the needs of the society (tourism) and attract the attention of culture consumers, it is not enough to ensure stable physical conditions of the heritage object and its protection, it is also necessary to prepare strategies how the heritage objects must be adapted to satisfy the needs of consumers. In this way, cultural industries are created and they interpret historical culture of the country to gain commercial profit.

The way the site of heritage is introduced is determined by the choice of what is protected and how it is protected, and after the preservation - how to present it to the society.

Cultural heritage, its material remnants and non-material values reveal the concept of values specific to each generation. The management of heritage witnesses the decision to transfer the material cultural heritage and the values it embodies to future generations, and also to gain commercial (direct or indirect) profit from the heritage objects.

The ANZECC presentation stage includes the 3 main components - the resources, interpretation, heritage products, which assure heritage objects for the needs of the society (tourism) are properly adopted.

Cultural resources include objects of archaeology, history, art, science and technology, urban heritage, folklore, traditional and folk crafts, pieces of modem art and scientific achievements, collections, other cultural objects and protected territories, the values of which provide a possibility to use them for professional, cognitive, cultural and other type of tourism (Glemza, 2002).

The groups of cultural resources show such cultural values that can be interpreted, and out of which “heritage products” can be created. The objects where the set of cultural resources is harmonized are the best in demand.

Interpretation of cultural resources is necessary to transform the resources into

“heritage objects” (Ashworth, Howard, 2008). Interpretation is performed through the selection of the resources. Cultural resources are selected according to the needs of the consumers, the possibilities of the adjustment of heritage objects and their importance. Then they are interpreted (it is found out what is the best for both a consumer and a producer, what has the greatest demand and would bring the economic profit), introduced and finally presented as products of heritage.

(7)

V. Jureniene, M. Radzevicius 241 ISSN 1648-4460

______________________________________________________ M a n a g e m e n t D e v e l o p m e n t . M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y P e r s p e c t i v e

The term “heritage products" includes and links the way of life of a certain culture, traditions, historical past, heritage places and festivities (i.e. it presents not a single group of cultural resources, but a set of them). “Heritage objects" mean the products constructed from the resources that bring activity into the static heritage (various events, theatre-style presentations, art workshops, etc.) (Howard, 2008). Ashworth distinguishes three groups of heritage products according to the proposed impressions for a consumer:

1. monuments, museums, thematic parks, etc.;

2. events: re-enactment of historical events, music, theatre, dances, performances by art ensembles, festivals;

3. “traditional/historical” cultural attractions, the basis of which is formed by products of cultural heritage (museums, monuments and galleries) (Ashworth, 2008).

Having evaluated that today culture consumers look for their identity in cultural heritage, it is necessary pay a lot of attention to its representative presentation. Visits to immovable objects of cultural values are more popular when there are various cultural events organized in them or around them - entertainment events or thematic events, related to the history or presentation of a certain object. Consumers of culture are also attracted by festivals and holidays organized at the objects of cultural heritage. The success of events of such a nature depends upon the fact that they are especially loved by local residents, and in time they may become attractive also to tourists from abroad.

The ANZECC model is used in practice not only in Australia or New Zealand. It is practice that is also followed by the U.S. Heritage Institution in carrying out heritage development projects. Their experience proves that the model is effective: managing the heritage objects/locations under this model, heritage becomes the engine of economy of the region strengthening local public sector and significantly reducing the unemployment rate.

New Jersey Heritage Fund started working under this practice in 2000, and in three years they carried out a study to evaluate the return on investment allotted for the renovation and development o f the objects of cultural heritage, based on the presumption that the purposeful management practice is the basis for financial effectiveness (Jiang, Hornsey, 2008).

The specialists of the Fund paid most of their attention to how much of income was generated and how many work places were created by one investment unit. As the financing of the U.S. heritage renovation projects is ascribed to public expenditure (even in the case of concessions), therefore, the authors of the research compared the return on investment with the return on investment from the means allotted to the construction of new buildings as well as building of highways. Figure 2 clearly shows that the expenses on heritage give the biggest return.

Jobs C re a te d f o r E v e ry $1 M i l l i o n In v e s te d A Co m pa rison o f H isto ric R e h a b ilita tio n 's Effects

T3

ra_£

U

£o

H is to ric R e h a b ilita tio n N e w C o n stru ctio n H ig h w a y C o nstruction

Source: created by the authors according to Nypan (2005).

Figure 2. The Comparison of the Return on Investment of Cultural Heritage Projects and Other Sectors TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 13, No 2 (32), 2014

(8)

Employment faces the same situation as well. As the ANZECC model is largely oriented towards the protection and maintenance of the heritage value both on the national and the regional levels, the demand for specialists related to heritage is also intensively growing, which is the reason for the increased employment. The mentioned study pays attention to the fact that heritage performs the catalyst function on the employment rate of the state: although, in the sector of heritage only few people work with the heritage sector directly, business fields related to heritage are rapidly developing. Thus, heritage contributes to the sustainable social development in the regions, as it is one of the elements of economy that encourages occupation and employment not only directly - it also includes many other economy sectors (Figure 3).

T o t a l J o b s C r e a t e d A n n u a l l y b y N e w J e rs e y H i s t o r ic R e h a b i li t a t i o n

Figure 3. The Affect of Cultural Heritage Upon Employment (New Jersey, USA)

There are also other successful examples in the USA. For instance, Florida is one of the ten states that are most often visited by cultural tourists in the U.S. (Rypkema, Cheong, 2010). It might seem strange but heritage tourism in Florida has indeed a huge impact upon economy - in 2000, only heritage tourism alone in this state generated the income of 37.1 billion dollars and created more than 100 000 new work places (Jiang, Hornsey, 2008). In the same year, in another state of the USA, Georgia (that is also included in the aforementioned top ten states), heritage tourism attracted more than 42 million tourists - here they spent more than 15 billion dollars. Besides, it should be taken into account that more than half a million of inhabitants work in the industry of cultural heritage in this state (Leithe, Tigue, 2000).

As it was mentioned before, much attention in the ANZECC model is paid to the heritage protection, heritage projects are exceptionally assigned to heritage specialists. In reality, such a structure changes with regard to a specific heritage site or object, as there are sites where there are not so many objects protected. In such a case, the representation of heritage becomes the most important aspect.

Norfolk (State of Virginia, USA) at present is a well-known location of military heritage. For many years, this city was the base of the U.S. Navy, therefore, it has accumulated a large amount of military engineering base (Jiang, Hornsey, 2008). In 1995, the military base was closed down, and the city was in a rush to find possibilities not only how to restore the employment rate in the city (many businesses were economically related to the service of the Navy), but also how to fill in the gap in the budget.

Norfolk Cultural Centre, the city administration and the National Tourism Centre decided to develop the military heritage tourism: making use of the remnants of the Navy buildings, objects of the military port, the old ships and weaponry, the heritage specialists and the local community launched a certain military theme park in Norfolk. This project was

(9)

V. Jureniene, M. Radzevicius 243 ISSN 1648 -4460 Management Development: M u ltid is c ip lin a ry Perspective

presented with the motto Discovery Your Freedom -authors of the project wanted to present the history of America through military heritage to the rest of the country.

The Norfolk Cultural Values Centre became the “managers” of the project that applied the practice of the ANZECC, especially stressing the development and presentation of the heritage legend. Despite the project was evaluated quite sceptically in the beginning, after an immense flow of visitors, the local business immediately got engaged into the project, which determined the fact that now the main activity in the city is tourism and businesses related to it.

The case of Norfolk is a perfect illustration how the values that we have should not be ignored, despite of the fact that they are not valuable as such for us. It is especially important when we speak about the cultural heritage from the Soviet period: what is not interesting to us may become a perfect attraction for a “person from the outside”.

Miami (the state of Florida, USA) is one of the most beautiful cities in North America, distinguished by the abundance o f art deco architecture. However, in the 1970s, this type of architecture was not regarded as sufficiently old and interesting to become a central axis in attracting heritage tourists (Jiang, Hornsey, 2008). Thus, the buildings of this style were often knocked down as unnecessary (the same situation is seen in Lithuania as the buildings o f the Soviet construction are being destroyed).

At present, the situation is quite different due to several factors. First of all, it is the belief of architects and design specialists that creative heritage is and can be economically profitable. In the 1980s, the Design Protection League was founded in Miami, and it has been organizing festival ,^\.rtDdeco Weekend South Beach” ever since. At first, it was a rather small and closed event that was devoted more to those who were really interested in the buildings of this style. But within 25 years of the activity, the festival has changed greatly.

Back in 1995, this organization became one o f the leading organizations in the USA that started working under the ANZECC practice, therefore, they searched for ways how not only to protect the unique architecture of the city, but also how to properly and attractively present it to the city guests. Today the festival includes sight-seeing tours, various cognitive tours, workshops, film watching, discussion concerts, exhibitions that attract more than 300 000 of participants. The lovers of art deco visit the city all year round, therefore, a large and strong heritage industry has been developed.

In spite of a rather wide application, especially in Western Europe and South-Eastern Asia, the ANZECC model is oriented towards the maintenance of heritage, not giving much concern to interested parties. Besides, the managers of heritage in this model, especially the supervising institutions, obtain a huge responsibility as well as a huge power to make decisions, independently of the functioning of the general heritage industry. Finally, it is also important that this model is more meant for the development of individual objects, and not for heritage site, in other words - it lacks complexity.

As it was mentioned before, those activities and services of cultural tourism that are aimed at visitors who seek to know and experience the culture and its heritage of a certain location, are called heritage tourism. Seeking for sustainable tourism development, it is important to properly take care, protect and present the values of cultural heritage, as heritage means limited and non-renewable cultural resources that are subject to conservation.

Moreover, the object of heritage or the site of heritage can be both a centre of attraction in developing the tourism industry of a certain location, and successfully complement to the already formed industry, in this way increasing the popularity of the location and gained income. For example, such specialized types of tourism, as eco-tourism, natural tourism, adventure, historical, architectural tourism, always include a lot of objects of cultural heritage.

(10)

Therefore, it is very important to manage the risk of different stakeholders as well as to assure their needs are met.

1.2 Specifics o f Management by AHC Model

That is namely how the model of the heritage risk management as formed by Australian Heritage Commission (AHC, 2000) differs from the ANZECC model: the risk management includes three groups of actors - tourism operators, heritage managers and the local community. Figure 4 presents the essential functions of the interested parties included in the AHC model in order to be more informative.

Source: created by the authors according to Australian Heritage Commission (2000).

Figure 4. AHC Model

Private companies that have the main aim to generate income and gain profit - just like all the other businesses are the driving force of almost all tourism industry. Therefore, tourism operators are under constant pressure because of the business profitableness and the needs of clients. This pressure often arises because of several essential reasons. First of all, tourism companies are largely dependent upon the seasons and unstable money flows.

Secondly, tourism operators are also very dependent upon the preferences of clients, what and where they want to see and experience, as well as upon the managers of heritage objects and national heritage regulations. Another important reason is the meaningfulness of heritage objects: as it was mentioned above, heritage may become the main and often the only motivation of tourists, the attractiveness and proper presentation of which determine the decisions of tourism operators such as what segments of consumers have to be developed and what services are necessary.

In the risk management model heritage managers are not so significant, as in the aforementioned ANZECC model; however, their functions and duties are also not limited only to heritage protection. Heritage managers must not only assure the maintenance, control and protection of heritage according to the valid legal acts and norms, but also take care of the proper declaration of an object as that of heritage as well as interpretation. The managers that are seen as institutions in this model, regardless of nature, scale or value of heritage objects they supervise, are responsible for the accessibility of these objects. In the risk management model, it is namely the managers that are the connecting link, as they must have strong relations both with tourism operators and local community, as well as follow the general flows of visitors. Heritage managers are also responsible for making the heritage object/site, submission of information as well as representation known.

The third interested group - the community — is the most important in the AHC model, as it is the community that is the owner of a specific heritage, and often local communities themselves are a part of heritage, i.e. they are either protected (for instance, the Maori in New

(11)

V. Jureniene, M. Radzevicius____________________ 245______________________ ISSN 1648 - 4460 ________________________________Management Development: M u ltid is c ip lin a ry Perspectiwe

Zealand or Indians in the USA), or they help to create the genius loci - the local spirit. These are the aspects why the community must be engaged into the tourism development in a specific heritage site as much as possible, as the engagement of the community helps to attract more visitors, and the members of the local community act as ambassadors of the site in a broader sense.

In the AHC model, the community also carries out a role of a “watch dog”, as the local inhabitants, forming the “critical mass”, have the greatest power in developing the local heritage: the community may stop the improper tourism development that is carried out by a specific company, constrain the restriction of the activity imposed by heritage specialists that are inadequate in a certain object of heritage, and also initiate certain activities or decisions, actively engaging the other two interested groups into it.

In line with this method, all three groups are regarded as the factors of the heritage risk, and in order to properly develop both the tourism industry and manage the heritage resources effectively, each of these interested parties have to coordinate their own decisions with others. However, attention should be paid to the fact that this model does not relate to tourists as one more acting party. The reason for it is that in reality tourists do not make any actual decisions, as to what should be changed in the heritage site/object and how, they also do not have a direct power in forming the local heritage industry. The authors of this model think that all three “local” interested groups make/have to make decisions for tourists and take the responsibility for the development of the heritage location, and thus any possibility of force majeure is eliminated.

1.3 NWHF^- Heritage Site Development Model

As the most rapidly growing and one of the most profitable industry branches in the world, tourism offers incomparable possibilities for the economic development of local communities of heritage. The economic crisis during the recent years was the reason of the increased international and local tourism significance and the increase of the economic influence of tourism upon the aforementioned regions. It encouraged both scientists and heritage and tourism organizations to pay more attention to culture and the influence of heritage upon the economic development.

It determined that UNESCO and the Northern Countries’ World Heritage Fund (NWHF, 2004) started creating heritage and tourism development practice that from the very beginning was mostly oriented towards South-Eastern Asia and the problems of those countries - the huge flows of tourists, the immense influence of international hospitality business and the education of local inhabitants. As the aim of both UNESCO and the NWHF is to turn tourism into a sustainably developing industry that invests into heritage as the preservation of the main tourism resources, these organizations constantly carry out the research on tourism industry as well as develop the industry management practices that would not only help to protect the cultural values of that site, but also would meet the economic expectations of the inhabitants of a certain site of heritage. As the evaluation of the experts of the NWHF shows, namely the communities of heritage are the most important constituent of the development of heritage tourism: in case the inhabitants do not cherish the cultural values they possess and do not contribute to the development of the heritage industry, tourism as well as heritage would also vanish in that region totally and irrevocably (UNESCO, 2000).

(12)

Source: created by the authors according to UNESCO (2000).

Figure 5. NWHF model

Attention should be paid to the fact that in the development of this model, the UNESCO organization was primarily oriented towards the development of the world heritage places, which was the reason for the particularity of this model, because the aim was to include as many aspects affecting the heritage tourism as possible.

The NWHF model (Figure 5) was formed in the course of the international project that lasted for five years and that was meant for the upgrading of the capacities of the communities of poorly developed Asian countries in the field of tourism. The project was implemented not only by the agencies managing specific world heritage places , but also tourism companies, representatives of local communities, also various non-governmental organizations working on the protection of heritage. The aim of the project was to discover the suitable cooperation and communication forms among tourism companies and heritage organizations. But when the project was about to finish, it was noticed that the largest influence upon these two countries is made by communities (just as it is the case of the AHC). Namely, the communities became the comer stone in the preparation of this model that formed the economically beneficial and socially acceptable cooperation of local inhabitants and interested parties.

(13)

This system o f the heritage management includes four elements, the so-called “Green plans” that can also act as separate models of heritage management. All four elements are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. The four fundamental elements of NWHF model

Strategy7 Description

Fiscal strategy

Due to this measure, the local heritage managers may properly evaluate the costs of the adjustment, presentation, declaration as heritage of the heritage objects as well as determine the main mechanisms of obtaining profit from heritage and find new sources of income.

Sustainable tourism strategy

This part of the system is meant for the analysis of the measures that should be taken in order to improve the knowledge of tourism operators and the information about the cultural heritage of a site, its value. It also establishes the means and methods how the tourism industry could contribute to the development of sustainable tourism and the conservation of heritage as the limited resource of tourism.

Education strategy

It is a social element that was included into the NWHF model because o f political reasons.

This measure aims to develop the capacities and knowledge of employees working in the field of tourism and heritage, and it is also meant to purposefully plan the engagement of socially vulnerably groups into the heritage and tourism development.

Cooperation strategy

As the NWHF model is based upon the creation of a network, it is necessary to form the organizational structure that suits all the interested parties and that would carry out the functions of the process supervision and monitoring. The main condition, that usually brings most difficulties in the formation of this strategy, is the fact that such an organization must be based upon the equality principle, but usually all the parties are very much concerned to have the decisive influence in the management of the organization.

Source: created by the authors according to UNESCO (2000).

The generalized NWHF model is provided in Figure 5. Attention should be drawn to the fact that not all the strategies in this model are equally significant. For instance, the education strategy is not obligatory, especially when the model is being introduced in those countries that have no harsh social problems or conflicts. On the other hand, if we want to achieve really high results, the developers of the model recommend going through all the strategies despite the fact that in the limits of the model the actors themselves may decide on how to modify this model.

Generally, the NWHF model is rather a structural scheme than an activity model: the application of this model first of all starts from the creation of the future vision with regard to present resources. Namely, the future vision becomes the foundation of the future heritage development network. In the next stage (in the best scenario case), the interested parties must form activity strategies for each element from 1 to 4, and discuss them. Later, with regard to the needs and aims of the interested parties, the consensus for the common network strategy is searched for - it is the most difficult and the lengthiest stage of the NWHF model that determines the success of the whole project. Finally, the evaluation system must be formed - how and in what way the success of the organization and the results of the activity will be evaluated - and to perform the monitoring. The monitoring states to what extent the general strategy must be/can be reviewed, as the “Green plans” can be modified upon the free decision of the responsible persons.

Speaking about the significance of the NWHF, we should pay attention to the fact that this model is regionally oriented, i.e. it is adjusted to the decisions and the limits of possibilities of the regional authorities. That is why after the project ended, the countries that started applying this model changed the total heritage protection system grounding it not only on the western heritage protection values, but also the principles of this model, for instance, it was refused to protect the objects that cannot be effectively adjusted to the development of

(14)

tourism or that do not have a real value for the local community. Thus, another advantage of the NWHF is that this model gradually helped to develop suitable and timely legal base to modernize the heritage protection.

The economic benefit of cultural heritage is not for cultural heritage itself, but for other businesses. Cultural heritage “feeds” other branches of tourism: hotels, dormitories, various transportation systems - air-planes, trains, taxi and automobile rent. Business uses cultural heritage for the purpose of marketing and advertising as well as events. Cultural landscapes, urban landscapes, individual places and buildings are used in cinema and television, and also in computer games as the decorations of sceneries or the elements related to the tasks of the games. The research shows that the “perfect” tourist of cultural heritage spends 60 per cent as more per day than a tourist lying on the beach. However, the direct income of heritage places is rather low. Only 6-10 per cent of the daily expenses of a tourist is spent on the object of cultural heritage, and all the rest (the income generated indirectly by heritage objects) goes to the businesses functioning beyond the cultural objects. The research carried out by the English Heritage Institute shows that 90 per cent of the turnover means that are generated by the cultural heritage are spent on the businesses working beyond the heritage object.

2. The Cultural Heritage Management Effectiveness: The Best Practices of Some Countries

The Norwegians were among the first to evaluate the economic effectiveness of heritage. Such a practice was developed naturally, as already in the middle of the 19th century the country was already concerned about the protection of heritage. The Old Monuments’

Protection Society was established in Norway in 1844 by Norwegian artists who travelled along the country and “discovered” the cultural heritage of Norway. This organization is the oldest civil organization of monument protection in Europe. The maturity and education of the civil society determined the fact that heritage in Norway is regarded as one of the most important resources of economic and regional development of the country.

The monument protection in Norway does not end in itself, but it is closely related to the usage of heritage and the creation of the added value, first of all, in the field of tourism.

The natural and cultural heritage is the most important element of the tourism brand name of Norway. Norway is among few countries in Europe that has not only cultural tourism, but also the specific heritage tourism product developed that started to be created more than a hundred years ago.

The latter organization established the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Directorate (NKPD) that already in 1999 began developing communities’ heritage products following the UNESCO practice (the NWHF models with the social dimension). This organization started developing the so-called economic base model which later became the base of the NWHF model.

The essence of the economic base is that the branches of economy are divided into those that generate income from aside through the export of goods and services produced in the region, and other industries that sell their products mostly inside the region, therefore, they only re-distribute the earnings that are already present in the region (Uzpelkis, 2006).

Following this attitude, the investments should have the final positive impact on the local economy, stimulate the basic branches of economy, the production of which is sold beyond the boundaries of the local economy or reduce the import of certain goods. In this way, export will increase, and import will decrease, and the local economy will be stimulated.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS e> ECONOMICS, Vol. 13, No 2 (32), 2014

(15)

Management Development: Multidisciplinary Perspective The aim of this model is to stimulate the regional economy, hence the constant monitoring of processes of heritage industries is one of its constituent parts. That is what allowed Norway to evaluate the effectiveness of national investments into the management and development of heritage as well as the general economic effect.

In 2003, the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Directorate and the Cultural Heritage Research Institute carried out the analysis of the heritage industry of Borgund church - one of the first studies of such kind. Actually, earlier the maintenance of this church was ascribed to loss-making local objects: the structure called the symbol of Borgund did not generate enough income itself so that it could cover the expenses of the technical maintenance of the building and employees. Thus, according to the calculations of the authorities, the salaries of the employees providing services for the maintenance of the church and tourists need extra 62 000 Euro per year in addition to those means that are collected from the sales of tickets.

On the other hand, this church is like a magnet that attracts huge flows of tourists into the Laerdal region of Norway (Nypan, 2005). Thanks to this UNESCO heritage object, industry of the region is strong: this value of cultural heritage generates the flow of visitors for hotels, campings, souvenir shops, transport service providers and others. Even directly created work places generate the income that could be gained on average by 168 people per year, and out of this income almost 1.5 million Euros are collected as tax each year - and that is 22 times more than the annual subsidy from the regional budget. The significance of Borgund church for the revenues of the region is shown in Figure 6.

fis h in g e t at

Figure 6. Turnovers of Borgund Heritage Industry

The experience of Norway in the heritage management was taken over by a number of European countries - other Scandinavian countries, Findland, the Netherlands, Great Britain, France. The same functions as those of the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Directorate and the Old Monument Protection Society are carried out by the Heritage Fund in France. Not paying greater attention to legal regulations of cultural heritage of the country, the objects of national cultural heritage in France are financed at the intensiveness of 85 per cent (if we count the national subsidies and private initiatives all together) - the managers of heritage objects/locations are responsible only for 15 per cent of the budget that is necessary for the maintenance of the object.

The French Heritage Fund states that about 300 million Euro are allotted from the national budget each year for the maintenance of heritage objects of the country as well as for the development of new heritage objects. Here it should be underlined that there are many non-governmental organizations and private funds in France that finance the objects of cultural heritage. According to Nypan (2005), the sum they allot each year reaches about 600 million Euro. Thus, the total expenditure for the development of heritage comprises 900

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS,Vol. 13, No 2 (32), 2014

(16)

V. Jureniene. M. Radzevicius 250 ISSN 1648 -4460

million Euros per year. When preparing this paper, it was not possible to find revenues generated by heritage, but in line with the Greffe (2002) analysis of 2005, the objects of cultural heritage in France generate more than 15 billion Euro of revenues each year, i.e.

almost 17 times more than the total expenditures.

These revenues constitute an important part of the French GDP, but it is necessary to take into account another important factor of heritage industries, i.e. the number of created work places. As it was mentioned before, heritage objects/locations relate to a low direct need for the labour force, especially in the modem world (Nypan, 2005). That is because a remarkable part of work in the representation is performed by modem technologies, and also in many cases the popularity of a heritage site is determined by local events.

But the heritage development projects are characteristic of a big multiplier’s effect, when cultural values of the country form a separate heritage and tourism industry that requires a big labour force. For example, in France, only more than 40 thousand employees who directly work at heritage objects are employed, while the heritage industry consists of more than half a million employees (Table 3).

Table 3. Employment and heritage industry in France

Direct employment 43 880 8.38%

Indirect employment 41 714 7.97%

Employment in tourism sector 176 800 33.79%

Employment in other industries 260 830 49.85%

In total in France 523 224 100%

Another huge heritage tourism market, where the NWHF practice is followed, is Great Britain. However, it should be noted that the heritage specialists of this country have formed a slightly different system of management of cultural heritage, although it is also based upon good practice of Norway. And the English had to make changes because heritage in the United Kingdom is the pillar of economy (HLF, 2010) that creates a very big part of the GDP and employs a large number of people. Following the survey of VisitBritain, four tourists out of ten indicate the cultural heritage as the main factor for visiting Great Britain.

The main difference is that the British did not transfer the heritage project management and the heritage maintenance to a heritage protection institution, but they established a special fund called Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), and this organization uses the means of the National Lottery to finance heritage projects.

The English model also closely engages the community: in the Norwegian case, the community is engaged only as much as it is related to the development of local businesses, therefore sometimes aimless conflicts arise. On the other hand, the English also are not able to avoid them, as the public approval principle established in the country gives such a result that the implementation of certain projects gets stuck already in the planning stage.

Another important difference is the question of the image of the region.

Both UNESCO, and the NWHF organizations do not give much significance to the development of the image of a site - these organizations follow the presumption that proper presentation of heritage naturally influences the image of the location. In Great Britain, there is another attitude regarding this issue: the heritage object, no matter how interesting it might seem, does not attract enough cultural tourists as such.

The British heritage specialists argue on the fact taking the results of their research. As the data of the aforementioned survey of VisitBritain carried out by the Tourism Centre of

(17)

Management Development: Multidisciplinary Perspective Great Britain show, the total majority of heritage tourists are educated people, they earn more than the average, they are of 30 - 50 years old and live in cities, and they choose attractive, but rather safe and reliable places for their holidays. That, of course, does not mean that they are inclined to choose the “beach style” holidays, but the reliability of a place is still very important for cultural tourists. Taking it into consideration, the objects of heritage financed by the HLF are being developed in a complex way, without extracting them from their natural environment and community - the genius loci principle is followed. According to Ashworth (2008), heritage tourism is the tourism of a specific location, there the location itself, not only a product in it, should be sold to the tourist.

Finally, the positive image gives also financial return. In 2009, the HLF carried out the economic analysis o f heritage development projects o f the last ten years. The study covered a very wide spectre of heritage objects in Great Britain: in the course of ten years, the HLF contributed to the projects of historical structures and monuments, historical cities, museums and galleries (except for modem art galleries), historical landscapes, parks, industry and transport heritage development in the entire United Kingdom.

In the course of this research, it became clear that only one third of all the money spent by cultural tourists go directly to the heritage object: 32 pennies from each pound sterling spent is alloted to a heritage object, and the rest is already spent in the location of the heritage.

These figures reveal the effect that is really given by properly managed and presented heritage, as well as economic benefit generated by the local heritage industry to a place or a region.

Besides, the extent of the heritage industry is also proven by other figures of this study. For instance, heritage tourism in Great Britain generates more than 14 billion Euro per year, and almost 200 thousand employees work in the heritage industry. Also heritage and the industry related to it largely contributed to the economic stability of Great Britain during the last economic crisis, as this industry functioned as a catalyst to keep up the internal consumption. According to Thurley (HLF, 2010), in 2009, the British themselves spent more than 8 billion Euro for their trips inside the country, which comprised almost 60 per cent of all the annual revenues of the heritage industry. It shows that the heritage economy is a remarkable part of GDP of Great Britain, and at the same time contributes to the growth of the internal consumption (Table 4 and Table 5).

Table 4. Heritage economy (Great Britain) Expenditure (per year) according to the type of a

visit

Without the natural heritage In total

International tourism 2,6 bil. £ 4,9 bil. £

Local overnight 0,5 bil. £ 1,1 bil. £

Local trips 4,2 bil. £ 6,4 bil. £

All the expenditure:

Part of GDP

7,2 bil. £ 12,4 bil. £

All the direct part of GDP 4,3 bil. £ 7,4 bil. £

GDP part with the effect of the multiplier 11,9 bil. £ 20,6 bil. £ Occupation

Occupation (works) 113,000 195,000

Occupation (works) with the effect of the multiplier 270,000 466,000 Source: created by the authors according to HLF (2010).

(18)

Table 5. United Kingdom’s GDP by sectors

Sector Part o f GDP (per year)

Publishing 10,0 bil. £

Farming 9,6 bil. £

Visiting heritage sites 7,4 bil. £

Energetics 6,5 bil. £

Advertising 5,8 bil. £

Industry of automobiles 5,5 bil. £

Movies 3,3 bil. £

Source: created by the authors according to HLF (2010).

It also should be noted that the heritage tourism promoted by the local community and based on a local cultural heritage, is interested not only for tourists from foreign countries - domestic residents are equally interested in it as well. Moreover, HLF analysis has revealed that cultural tourists tend to appreciate architecture and technical heritage or built heritage in 2009 generated 1.5 times more income than the natural heritage sites. Of course, it is related to a specific area heritage industry, which itself refers to larger and more developed urban areas.

In contrast to the previous deal heritage management models NWHF model is complex and not restricted. However, this is also a weak point of this model. Many other non

governmental heritage organizations have criticized this method due to the large volume and lack of depth. Also attention is drawn to relatively great impact on tourism operators. This model, unlike the previously discussed ANZEC, pushed heritage managers into the background because, according to UNESCO, it is important not only if an object appeared once, but what has happened to him over a period of time.

This concept allows for the development of tourism, even in those areas and facilities, which are not suitable for this model. It is based on the development of the heritage society initiative rather than government influence, but it is difficult to implement due model complexity, bureaucracy and complexity without government intervention. In addition, the model requires high competence of NWHF actors (i.e., individuals/organizations engaged in tourism and heritage development in this model) - the cornerstone of the model element is a consensus among different actors, so necessary, and perception, as one stakeholder solution work can affect other.

Another major weakness of this model is that tourists are not included in its analysis.

According to the practice of NWHF, actors must carry out regular monitoring, but it is carried out inside, i.e, between the heritage area actors. This approach, in principle, has no objective, and do not accurately assess whether self-imposed strategy is effective.

To sum up, attention should be paid that discussed heritage management systems are only subjectively selected from quite a few different models that have been formed in different countries at different times. In addition, according to Ashworth (2008), the global trends fashion and ‘best practices’ encourage to repeat what has already been done, and not to develop something new. These results in a particular place related to heritage, which originally was intended to highlight the local character and uniqueness, which in fact contributes to creating a homogeneous world of globalization. At the same time is not enough to say that the sites are very different. It is important that all three variables - tourists, heritage, heritage sites - are multiple and interact with each other in a specific place which produce very different structures. As a result, it is indeed very difficult to form a management model that is suitable to all heritage areas.