Cultural Heritage Management As Institutional Factor In The Development Of Regional Economy

Abstract

This research defines the role of the cultural heritage objects in the process of population welfare formation and regional economic system development as a whole. The necessity of cultural heritage management as an institutional factor in the region development is proved. The components of cultural heritage management, i.e. scientific, legal, cultural, economic, organizational and managing are defined. The scientific component of cultural heritage objects management is designed to provide common terms and research work in this area. The legal component is designed to consolidate the cultural heritage definition, including all the aspects of this category – both material and intellectual, and that will make it possible to have a legal basis for the these objects management. The preservation of regional cultural heritage is also a cultural issue, which is now considered to be one of the foundations of sustainable society development. Moreover, cultural components are factors in the harmonious development of the individual, and, consequently, in the region population welfare. The economic component should determine the optimal size and structure of budget allocations for cultural heritage preservation and promotion programs and to search for new ways of mutually beneficial cooperation between government and business, including the form of public-private partnership. Organizational and managing component involves the definition of an object, a management subject, methods, stages, principles, tools and a management mechanism. .

Keywords: Cultural heritage objectscomponents of cultural heritage objects managementcultural heritage objects management of the region

Introduction

The importance of cultural heritage as a factor of regional development is becoming increasingly evident, as it directly affects the economic development of the region, its investment attractiveness and competitiveness (Bujdosó et al., 2015). Cultural heritage represents the region not only within the country, but also on the international arena, demonstrating the most significant cultural, historical and regional features. It is a part of cultural component of population welfare in the region.

Cultural heritage is now recognized as historical, cultural, social as well as anthropological phenomenon and is seen as a factor of sustainable development (Xiao et al., 2018).

That is why, it is necessary to use the regional cultural heritage so as to preserve, protect and promote it. At the same time, of course, the process of cultural heritage management should be debugged. This study is aimed at the development of cultural heritage management mechanism as an institutional factor of regional economic system development.

Problem Statement

The process of cultural heritage management and its evaluation is very complex and it is necessary to take into account various components: material, intellectual, economic, legal, etc. This is due to the fact that the "cultural heritage" category has an interdisciplinary nature and is discussed from different points of view by the scientists.

Cultural heritage is regarded as a key factor for the city and tourism development (Ismagilova, Safiullin, & Gafurov, 2015; Khakzad, Pieters & Van Balen, 2015), a factor in strengthening the local economy and investment attracting (Kutut, 2017). Cultural brands are now becoming a resource for sustainable development, and culture industry influences business development (Absalyamov, 2015). The existence and effective management of cultural heritage objects can determine both the future economic specialization of the region and the prospects for its socio-economic development (Safiullin, Bagautdinova, & Safiullin, 2015).

Recently, there have been scientific studies devoted to the creation of an algorithm for cultural heritage management with a view of future sustainable socio-economic development of the region (Vorontsov, Shikhalev, & Semushinа, 2015).

Many scientists consider the economic essence of cultural heritage in their papers (Serebryakova & Fedulov, 2016; Repkin & Shibaeva, 2016). These studies are conducted, as a rule, in order to assess the cultural heritage objects, representing the unity of material and intangible – cultural, spiritual, historical (Sirazetdinov & Pukita, 2017).

The cultural heritage objects preservation (Guzmán, Pereira Roders, & Colenbrander, 2017), search for effective methods of cultural heritage management and use of mineral resources in urban areas (Beer & Boogaard, 2017), the assessment of climate change impact on cultural heritage (Ezcurra & Rivera-Collazo, 2018), as well as public participation, its inclusion and social responsibility in heritage management (Babić, 2015; ŠmidHribar, Bole, & Pipan, 2015; Firmansyah & Fadlilah, 2016) are becoming thorny issues today.

Much attention is paid to the problems of cultural heritage digitization (Borissova, 2018), institutional constraints in cultural heritage management (Maksić, Dobričić, & Trkulja, 2018), determining social and environmental costs associated with cultural property loss (Trillo & Petti, 2016), searching for new forms of public-private partnership (Absalyamov, 2015; Ventura, Cassalia, & Della Spina, 2016).

However, in the articles mentioned above, cultural heritage is considered from one, maximum-two points of view, and that does not reflect all the components of this category and, consequently, all the stages of cultural heritage management process as the most important institutional factor in the regional economic system development.

In this study, the authors consider the process of cultural heritage management in the unity of its components: scientific, legal, cultural, economic, organizational and management.

Research Questions

Taking into account the gap identified in the analyzed scientific papers the following questions are raised in this research:

  • What components should be taken into account in the process of cultural heritage management?

  • What is the impact of cultural heritage management as an institutional factor on the regional economic system development?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to theoretically substantiate the importance of cultural heritage objects management as an institutional factor in the regional economic system development and to develop a mechanism for managing these objects.

Research problem:

  • to determine the components of and to build its theoretical model;

  • to show the importance of the process of cultural heritage objects management as an institutional factor in the development of the region and its investment attractiveness increase;

  • to reveal the content of the mechanism of cultural heritage objects management.

The subject of the research is the relations in society arising in the field of cultural heritage objects management.

The novelty of the research results is as follows:

1. The mechanism of cultural heritage objects management taking into account all the components of this category: economic, scientific, cultural and organizational and administrative is developed

2. It is proved that cultural heritage objects management is an institutional factor in the regional economic system development.

Research Methods

The following research methods were used in this study: analysis and synthesis, method of deduction, methods of graphical and tabular data presentation, methods of statistical analysis.

The study of the problem was conducted in 3 stages:

1) theoretical analysis of the “cultural heritage” category;

2) practical development of the cultural heritage management model;

3)development of the cultural heritage management mechanism.

Findings

In our opinion, the components of the cultural heritage objects management are as follows: scientific, legal, cultural, economic, organizational and managing (Figure 01 ).

Figure 1: Model of cultural heritage objects management. Source: Drafted by the authors.
Model of cultural heritage objects management. Source: Drafted by the authors.
See Full Size >

The scientific component of cultural heritage management actually appeared in the second half of the XX century, after World War II, accompanied by massive destruction of national and world historical and cultural values. Undoubtedly, from the scientific point of view it is necessary to define a single concept of “cultural heritage” term.

Article 1 of the Convention for the protection of the UNESCO world cultural and natural heritage classifies cultural heritage into three categories: ensembles, monuments and sights, which can be created either by a man or a man in collaboration with nature.

This interpretation gives a narrow view of the “cultural heritage” category (Hua, 2010). There is no intangible essence of the cultural heritage objects in it. When assessing the cultural heritage objects, which in the Federal law of 25.06.2002 № 73-FZ “On the Objects of Cultural Heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation” associated with “works of painting, sculpture, arts and crafts, objects of science and technology and other objects of material culture, ... and are the evidence of epochs and civilizations, the true sources of information about the origin and development of culture”, it is necessary to determine not only the cost of the material embodiment of the object, but also its intangible, intellectual side, that is, the copyright objects. It is the preservation of intangible cultural heritage that is a valuable source of the economy (Tudorache, 2016). The economic symbiosis between cultural heritage and intellectual property reveals the economic characteristics of cultural property and the possibility of using intellectual property to protect it (Borissova, 2018).

Moreover, there is a reverse impact of people on the cultural heritage objects, so their behavior, moral, ethical manifestations can also be considered as one of the parties of cultural heritage objects (CHO).

It is also necessary to define the basic principles of cultural heritage objects management. In our opinion, the principles of cultural heritage objects management are as follows:

  • scientific principle;

  • integrated heritage preservation;

  • cultural traditions preservation;

  • rationality;

  • optimality;

  • harmony;

  • humanity;

  • social partnership.

Undoubtedly, in order to implement the scientific principle of cultural heritage management it is necessary to work in the following areas:

  • to organize students research work in educational institutions in this direction;

  • to fund applied research in this field.

In Russia, from 2016 to 2018, there is a decrease in applied research funding for the main activity "Preservation, Use, Promotion of Historical and Cultural Heritage" of the "Heritage" subprogram from 2,594 million rubles to 1,971 million rubles (Table 01 ), that is, by 24%, which can negatively affect the process of cultural heritage preservation.

Table 1 -
See Full Size >

The scientific principle is closely related to the legislative support of cultural heritage management. At present, the Russian Federation has ratified the Convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, the European cultural Convention, the European Convention for the protection of archaeological heritage, the Convention for the protection of the European architectural heritage, and the domestic legislative framework for the protection of cultural heritage has been developed. The central place in this system is occupied by the Federal Law "On the objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation" dated June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ. At the regional level, there are relevant legislations. In particular, the law “On the objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation located in the Samara region” dated December 8, 2008 No 142-GD was adopted in the Samara region. It should be noted that the introduction of changes in civil, land, urban legislation in some cases leads to the inability of legislation on the monuments protection to solve the tasks set. Improvement of the legislative framework should be aimed at legislating the definition of cultural heritage, which includes all parties in this category – both material and intellectual, which will make it possible to have a legal basis for these objects assessment and management.

The preservation of regional cultural heritage is also a cultural issue, which is now considered as one of the foundations of sustainable society development. That is why, cultural heritage is a vector in regional, national and international cultural policy, and very often it is associated with the sustainable region and state development as a whole. Moreover, cultural components are factors in the harmonious development of the individual and social welfare.

The economic component is expressed in the amount of budget allocations for the preservation, use, and promotion of historical and cultural heritage. According to the Federal law “On the Federal Budget for 2018 and for the Planning Period of 2019 and 2020” dated December 05, 2017 No. 362-FZ, budget allocations for the subprogram "Heritage" and the main activity "Preservation, use, promotion of historical and cultural heritage" for 2018-20 are planned in the following amount (Table 02 ).

Table 2 -
See Full Size >

As it can be seen from the table, the increase in budget allocations for the Heritage subprogram under the state program of the Russian Federation “Culture and Tourism Development of” for 2013-2020 from 2016 to 2018 amounted to more than 16 %. However, the funds allocated for the main activity under the subprogram "Preservation, Use, Promotion of Historical and Cultural Heritage" are reduced from 2016 to 2018 by 42,3 %. For the planning period of 2019-2020, this trend continues (a further reduction of another 44,8% is planned). Thus, the costs of cultural heritage preservation and use from 2016 to 2020 will be reduced by more than 3 times, which will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the process of these objects preservation. Therefore, it is necessary to optimize the size and structure of budget allocations for the cultural heritage preservation and promotion programs.

One of the sources of funding for preservation, promotion the cultural heritage owned by the Samara region and the state protection of cultural heritage of regional importance is the regional budget. If we consider the budget allocations in the Samara region according to target items, expenditure type groups of the regional budget classification for 2018-2020, it should be noted that the amount of allocations for the culture financing increases by 26 % in the region, including those aimed at:

  • creating conditions for the citizens creative activity development and public initiatives support in the field of culture-by 31 %;

  • ensuring citizens’ access to cultural values and participation in cultural life, realization of population creative potential - by 18 %;

  • ensuring the safety and effective use of cultural heritage objects located in the Samara region; the increase is more than 7 times (Table 03 ).

Table 3 -
See Full Size >

In general, we can note the positive dynamics of spending on culture in the region. Nevertheless, for the effective regional cultural heritage management, it is necessary to search for new methods of financing, including, for example, various forms of public-private partnership.

The Republic of Tatarstan can be a good example of the development of public-private partnership in the field of cultural heritage preservation in the Russian Federation (Absalyamov, 2015).

The number of cultural heritage objects, the involvement of the population into the process of their preservation and satisfaction with their condition should be indicators of population welfare assessing in the region. In this study, it is proposed to modernize “welfare index of the population in the region” (WIPR), proposed by the authors in earlier studies (Domnina, 2011). In particular, in addition to the indicators “number of theaters spectators per 1000 people” and “a number of museums visits per 1000 people”, we propose to add “a number of cultural heritage objects per 1 million people” indicator to the quantitative indicators of the WIPR cultural component. In addition to the “quality of cultural sphere development” indicator it is proposed to include into the qualitative indicators of the WIPR cultural component the “satisfaction with the state and availability of cultural heritage” indicator. To obtain a qualitative assessment of the WIPR cultural component, a sociological study of the population in the region is carried out. These indicators will make it possible to more accurately take into account the cultural potential of the region and the population welfare, considering the cultural heritage factor.

Analyzing the quantitative side of the WIPR cultural component related to cultural heritage in the Samara region, it should be noted that today 757 objects of cultural heritage (immovable historical and cultural monuments, representing buildings and structures) are located in the region, including 84 objects of Federal significance and 673 objects of regional significance; 893 identified objects of cultural heritage, including 351 in the city district of Samara (Website of the Department of Cultural Heritage State Protection of the Samara region). The Ministry of Culture of the Samara region annually works on identification of cultural heritage objects and their inclusion into the unified state register of cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation.

Taking into account all the above mentioned information, as well as all the components and principles of regional cultural heritage management, it is possible to present the mechanism of cultural heritage management in the form of the following scheme (Figure 02 ).

Figure 2: Mechanism of cultural heritage management of the region. Source: Drafted by the authors
Mechanism of cultural heritage management of the region. Source: Drafted by the authors
See Full Size >

Conclusion

The study proves that the cultural heritage objects management is an institutional factor in the development of the regional economic system. We can’t imagine modern life in any region of the Russian Federation and prospects for its development without cultural and historical heritage. It largely forms the mentality and lifestyle of the population in the region, testifies the universal values, as well as creates a certain image of the region and Russia as a whole in the world. Cultural heritage is included in many social processes, being a source of spiritual enrichment and a factor of welfare of the region population.

This research has proved that the “cultural heritage” category is complex and multifaceted, and its study through the prism of only one aspect does not meet modern requirements. In this regard, five components: scientific, legal, cultural, economic, organizational and managerial are justified.

Taking into account these aspects, the process of cultural heritage objects management is also considered. The mechanism of cultural heritage objects management of the region taking into account all above-mentioned components is developed.

Further research will be aimed at finding a model for assessing the cultural potential of the region.

References

  1. Absalyamov, T. (2015). Tatarstan Model of Public-Private Partnership in the Field of Cultural Heritage Preservation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 188, 214-217.
  2. Annex 9 to the Law of the Samara Region “On the Regional Budget for 2018 and for the Planning Period of 2019 and 2020” dated December 6, 2017 No. 116-GD. Samara region Duma Service. Retrieved from URL: http://asozd.samgd.ru/bills/2615. Accessed 12.09.2018
  3. Babić, D. (2015). Social Responsible Heritage Management - Empowering Citizens to Act as Heritage Managers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 188, 27-34.
  4. Beer, J., & Boogaard, F. (2017). Good practices in cultural heritage management and the use of subsurface knowledge in urban areas. Procedia Engineering, 209, 34-41.
  5. Borissova, V. (2018). Cultural heritage digitization and related intellectual property issues. Journal of Cultural Heritage,34, 145-150.
  6. Bujdosó, Z., Dávid, L., Tőzsér, A., Kovács, G., Major-Kathi, V., Uakhitova, G., Katona, P., & Vasvári, M. (2015). Basis of Heritagization and Cultural Tourism Development. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 188, 307-315.
  7. Domnina, S.V. (2011). The method of construction and analysis of the integral welfare index for inter-regional comparisons. Region: Economics and Sociology, 3, 70-77
  8. Ezcurra, P., & Rivera-Collazo, I. (2018). An assessment of the impacts of climate change on Puerto Rico's Cultural Heritage with a case study on sea-level rise. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 32, 198-209.
  9. Federal Law "On the objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation" dated June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ. The State Duma the Federal Assembly the Russian Federation Service. Retrieved from URL: https://duma.consultant.ru/documents/723283. Accessed 12.09.2018
  10. Federal Law “On the Federal Budget for 2016” dated December 14, 2015 No. 359-FZ. Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation Service. Retrieved from URL: https://www.minfin.ru/common/upload/library/2015/12/main/FZ359-FZ_ot_141215.pdf. Accessed 12.09.2018
  11. Federal Law “On the Federal Budget for 2017 and for the Planning Period of 2018 and 2019” dated December 19, 2016 No. 415-FZ. Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation Service. Retrieved from URL: https://www.minfin.ru/common/upload/library/2016/12/main/FZ415-FZ_ot_191216.pdf. Accessed 12 Sep 2018
  12. Federal Law “On the Federal Budget for 2018 and for the Planning Period of 2019 and 2020” dated December 05, 2017 No. 362-FZ. Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation Service. Retrieved from URL: https://www.minfin.ru/common/upload/library/2017/12/main/FZ362-FZ_ot_051217.pdf. Accessed 12.09.2018.
  13. Firmansyah, F., & Fadlilah K., U. (2016). Improvement of Involvement Society in the Context of Smart Community for Cultural Heritage Preservation in Singosari. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 227, 503-506.
  14. Guzmán, P.C., Pereira Roders, A.R., & Colenbrander, B.J.F. (2017). Measuring links between cultural heritage management and sustainable urban development: An overview of global monitoring tools. Cities, 60(A), 192-201.
  15. Hua, S. (2010), World Heritage Classification and Related Issues—A Case Study of the “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(5), 6954-6961.
  16. Ismagilova, G., Safiullin, L., & Gafurov, I. (2015). Using Historical Heritage as a Factor in Tourism Development. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 188, 157-162.
  17. Khakzad, S., Pieters M., & Van Balen, K. (2015). Coastal cultural heritage: A resource to be included in integrated coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 118(B), 110-128.
  18. Kutut, V. (2017). Specific Characteristics Of real Estate Development In Cultural Heritage Areas. Procedia Engineering, 208, 69-75.
  19. Maksić, M., Dobričić, M., & Trkulja, S. (2018). Institutional limitations in the management of UNESCO cultural heritage in Serbia: The case of Gamzigrad-Romuliana archaeological site. Land Use Policy, 78, 195-206.
  20. Repkin, A.V., & Shibaeva, N.A. (2016). Assessment of immovable objects of cultural heritage. News of Tula State University. Economic and legal sciences, 1(1), 111-115
  21. Safiullin, L., Bagautdinova, N., & Safiullin, N. (2015). Historical and Cultural Heritage and Region's Economic: Case Study Central and Eastern Russia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 188, 151-156.
  22. Serebryakova, V.A., & Fedulov, A.A. (2016). Assessment of objects of cultural heritage. Property relations in the Russian Federation, 2(173), 51-63
  23. Sirazetdinov, R.M., & Pukita, A.G. (2017). Features of assessing the market value of cultural heritage sites. Russian Entrepreneurship, 18(23), 3897–3906
  24. ŠmidHribar, M., Bole, D., & Pipan, P. (2015). Sustainable Heritage Management: Social, Economic and Other Potentials of Culture in Local Development. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 188, 103-110.
  25. Trillo, C., & Petti, L. (2016). A Novel Paradigm to Achieve Sustainable Regeneration in Historical Centres with Cultural Heritage. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223, 693-697.
  26. Tudorache, P. (2016). The Importance of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Economy. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 731-736.
  27. Ventura, C., Cassalia, G., & Della Spina, L. (2016). New models of Public-private Partnership in Cultural Heritage Sector: Sponsorships between Models and Traps. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223, 257-264.
  28. Vorontsov, D., Shikhalev, A., & Semushinа, K. (2015). Using of Cultural Heritage in the Socio-economic Development Strategy of the EU Regions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 188, 163-169.
  29. Xiao, W., Mills, J., Guidi, G., Rodríguez-Gonzálvez, P., Gonizzi Barsanti, S., & González-Aguilera, D. (2018). Geoinformatics for the conservation and promotion of cultural heritage in support of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 142, 389-406.

Copyright information

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

About this article

Publication Date

18 December 2019

eBook ISBN

978-1-80296-056-3

Publisher

Future Academy

Volume

57

Print ISBN (optional)

-

Edition Number

1st Edition

Pages

1-1887

Subjects

Business, business ethics, social responsibility, innovation, ethical issues, scientific developments, technological developments

Cite this article as:

Domnina*, S., Kurina, V., Salynina, S., & Kuregyan, A. (2019). Cultural Heritage Management As Institutional Factor In The Development Of Regional Economy. In & V. Mantulenko (Ed.), Global Challenges and Prospects of the Modern Economic Development, vol 57. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1429-1438). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.03.145