Page 1

1/16/2012

Methodology Report Report on Best Practice for Participative Cultural Heritage Management

Author: CulturePolis


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

WP4 Methodology Report IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS AND METHODOLOGICAL OUTLINE Activity 4.2: Collecting and sharing methods and best practices for participative cultural heritage management in the SEE area through a questionnaire. Act 4.3: Identification of needs, expectations and proposals for a common methodology

2


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4.

SUSTCULT Project description Working Packages of SUSTCULT WP4 – Survey Activities Purpose of the survey

2. Methodology of the survey 2.1. 2.2.

Target group and survey period Survey tools

3. Results 3.1. 3.2.

Target Group Participation per partner Responses to the questionnaire

4. Concluding Remarks 4.1 4.2

Main Weaknesses in Management Planning Main Suggestions on Management Planning from Respondents

4.3

Developing a SUSTCULT methodology for Integrated Management of Cultural Heritage Sites Preliminary suggestions for developing the methodology

4.4

4.5 Best Practices Presentation 4.6 Methodological steps for proposing SUSTCULT methodology 4.6.1 Analysis

Bibliography ANNEX 1. WP4 QUESTIONNAIRE 2. BEST PRACTICES GUIDE

3


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

1.

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Introduction 4.1.

SUSTCULT Project description

The SUSTCULT partnership includes Italy, Slovenia, Albania, Greece, FYROM, Romania and Hungary; it involves 12 institutions with diverse competencies and experience. The partnership counts 5 cultural sites, 1 cultural landscape and 1 mixed site (cultural and natural). The sites by country are: Italy - Venice and its Lagoon, Slovenia - Vipava Valley, Greece – Old City of Corfu, Albania – Berat, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) – Ohrid, Romania – Bacau, Romania - Monastery of Hurezi. Local, regional and national authorities play a key role in the management of targeted sites and ensure that different government levels are involved in the management of cultural heritage. SUSTCULT also involves one NGO and two Universities contributing with their local and transnational expertise in awareness campaigns, organization of training activities and production of publications and technical studies. Three development agencies ensure effective links with local actors and provide excellent opportunities for dissemination and transferability. Transnational cooperation will benefit from the full involvement of all partners in achieving results: particularly, joint definition and assessment of the methodology to be applied for drafting/improving management plans is foreseen.

4.2.

Working Packages of SUSTCULT

WP1 Transnational project and financial management: Project Management guarantees coordination and responsibilities and a constant review of performance against objectives through a Steering Committee. WP2 Internal and external communication: Effective communication and dissemination is ensured, inter alia by the development of a Strategic Communication Plan. WP3 Building shared knowledge on cultural heritage sites: Building shared knowledge through local and transnational networks involving stakeholders as well as through a Web-GIS platform to build a consensus for further development, protection and promotion of the heritage network of sites. WP4 Common transnational methodology for the integrated management of cultural heritage in the SEE area: Developing a transnational common methodology for the integrated management of cultural heritage sites is a central activity. The common methodology will act as a supporting tool for managing authorities to develop and draft management plans that balance the protection and sustainable use of cultural heritage. WP5 Training and capacity building: The lack of skills in effective heritage management is addressed by the on-line and face-to-face capacity building 4


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

activities that encourage new attitudes and approaches to long-term sustainable management of heritage. WP6 Developing management plans and evaluation of the methodology: Partner heritage sites are seen as "learning resources", to be used both at local and transnational level to apply and evaluate the methodology through the elaboration of management plans. The combination of effective methodology, valuable management plans and adequate skills will allow the design of concrete actions aimed at stimulating local development and job generation. WP7 Stimulating jobs and income generation through the sustainable management of cultural heritage: coordinated guidance (through market strategies, business plans and a Blueprint) grounded in sustainable principles to promote SEE cultural heritage sites and enhance economic development is embodied in the WP7 - Stimulating jobs and income generation through the sustainable management of cultural heritage

4.3.

WP4 – Survey Activities

The survey was undertaken as part of the Working Package 4 whose aim is to transnational develop a common methodology for the integrated management of cultural heritage sites. In particular the survey represents the implementation of the Activities 4.2 and 4.3 that are described as follow: • Act. 4.2 Collecting and sharing methods and best practices for participative cultural heritage management in the SEE area. Numerous guidelines for the management of cultural heritage exist. However, one size cannot fit all; guidelines which are not rooted in an understanding of the complexity of a specific area risk being vague or irrelevant. The task provides a nonexhaustive but updated and relevant summary of best practices to be taken into account within the methodology for the development and effective implementation of management plans. The task will be carried out through a questionnaire by CULTUREPOLIS in close collaboration with project partners in order to capitalize practices and experiences from those who work closer to cultural heritage. The task goes beyond the limits of SEE borders with the aim of exploring local, regional, national and international experiences, outcomes and best practices. Outputs of relevant EU funded projects were also carefully considered and capitalized. A report on best practice for participative cultural heritage management will be produced • Act 4.3 Identification of needs, expectations and proposals for a common methodology. Responding to existing needs and challenges is a core objective 5


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

of the methodology. Local communities needs and stakeholders’ vision should therefore be better understood to be accommodated in the methodological framework. The task will identify main needs, expectations and proposals for a common methodology for the elaboration of management plans through the organization of a workshop during the project meeting in Corfu with partner delegations (period 2). CULTUREPOLIS will design the questionnaire for the collation of local needs which partners will work on with the local networks Both activities were implemented by CulturePolis in close collaboration with the other project partners through a unique specifically designed SUSTCULT questionnaire (see annex 1)

1.4.

Purpose of the survey

The survey aims at investigating all phases of the management planning activities undertaken in partner sites (preparation phase, basic planning, detailed planning and implementation) to assess existing gaps and black spots as well as sharing practices and expectations that will be considered in the development of the SUSTCULT methodology for integrated management of cultural heritage sites. Five out of seven SUSTCULT sites are in the process of drafting a management plan while three of them (Corfù, Berat and Ohrid) already drafted but they seem to have several problems in effectively implement it responding to the needs of conservation and valorisation of their cultural assets. All documents have been written on the basis of the Unesco Operational guidelines, nevertheless their implementation seems not to achieve stated goals.

2. Methodology of the survey 2.1 Target group and survey period The target group of the survey was composed by site’s management staff and relevant stakeholders of the seven partner’s sites. The survey was conducted from the 16th of November 2011 to the 25th of December 2011.

6


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

2.2 Survey tools The survey was conducted through a questionnaire entitled “Share a common transnational methodology for integrated management of cultural heritage sites” which was drafted by Culturepolis and consists of 8 sections with 22 distinct questions (see annex I). The content of the questionnaire was drafted on the basis of the results of preliminary assessment of partner’s gaps and expectations undertaken in November 2009 and followed the structure of the main sections developed into a site Management Plan. The questionnaire used for this survey was finalized after been shared with all partners in the Nova Gorica workshop (1920 October 2011). The questionnaire is structured to assess the different phases of planning, drafting and implementing a management plan. In addition to the survey an extensive bibliographic desk search was carried out by CulturePolis project team such as UNESCO material, and documents in reference. Furthermore several Skype meetings took place with LP and partners in order to finalize the report.

3.

Results The data presented in the following paragraphs represent an assessment of the Management Planning process and activities currently ongoing in partner’s heritage sites as well as the respondent’s opinion about opportunities for improvement and indication of best practices.

3.1

Target Group Participation per partner The total attempted responses were 113, Full responses: 35, incomplete responses: 81. The participation by country in the survey is as follows: COUNTRY

No of Responses

Albania

5

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

2

Greece

10

7


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Hungary

1

Italy

11

Romania

2

Slovenia

4

Total

35

3.2 Responses to the Questionnaire The Qualitative Results from the Questionnaire that follow identify the needs and gather a collection of suggestions. 1. PLANNING PROCESS OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN [1.1] Can you identify two weaknesses in the planning process of the existing management plan, if any, or if there is not a management plan, two reasons why it is not yet initiated? NB: Should you know similar weakness concerning other sites, please report them as well                    

lack of consultation and stakeholder engagement in the planning phase of the management plan No fiche projects were prepared Insufficient Local Capacities The risk management isn't included lack of human resources Lack of political willingness to implement a management plan fragmentation of authority on the area of Venice pre-existing plans lack of infrastructure The management plan has to be updated Incomplete Management Plan Weak action plan Lack of social consensus on a MP A problem in allocation of necessary resources caused by the economic situation of the country budget and of the private investors budgets inability in networking of local actors Decisional process no real inter-institutional cooperation lack of information leaflets it is not defined who is in charge for a management plan The site is not considered the most attractive cultural and natural resource in Slovenia

8


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4  

 

  

  

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Different interests, more often quite controversial, are a great obstacle. If citizens are not well informed on the advantages of an operating MP nothing can go on. the local stakeholders are inclined to networking only in achieving a specific goal; their ability to adapt their own plans to develop a unified plan of the area is very poor Difficulties in integrating the different aspects that may effect on the site management, issue and priorities are faced in a sectorial manner and with a short term vision the high number of public and private stakeholders and partner in the site management can be problematic The Management Plan the city of Berat was mainly created by national and international experts. It relied so much on outside help that it didn't create local ownership. So, after it was finished, few new how to further woρk with it and the plan stopped being updated The Vipava valley is not candidate to the WHL and the management plan for heritage assets has been imagined so far for WH sites (outside UK) VENICE OLD CITY 2011. different and conflicting interest in the use and the conservation of local heritage, for various population resident and guest in the Venice area there are too many different institutions with autonomous authority and different skills, which does not interact each other in planning their own space presence of too many pre-existing plans, and too many different point of view in planning matters Difficulty in involving stakeholder and responsible bodies due to lack of time and specific resources the mix of environmental, economic, cultural and artistic relevance of the site can be too complex to be managed

[1.2] If you had the opportunity to provide only a couple of contributions to improve the planning phase of the management plan of your site plan, if any, what would they be in priority? 

      

The staff that is responsible for the Management Plan should be trained to value more the need for a Management Plan. The Plan should guide them in situation analysis and decision making. In the revision process should be included as many local stakeholders as possible A dead line on any discussion regarding MP should be set (max. 6 months) This plan will contain the regulations of intervention in the protected area and the Buffer zone of the site and will be the base for the possible investments in the area. to avoid drift overarching you need to select priority actions, instead of adopting a too much “holistic” point of view too legal and institutional improvements It could be useful to have more grants to activate new agreement with different operators find an easy way to communicate with the partner identify and describe all the existing stakeholders in relation to the planning process

9


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4              

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Coordination of actions of different stakeholders. Leaflets with photos of proposed sites to combine with existing professionaly made walking map, which could help the tourist to choose how to spend his vacation time apart from seawater activities and sunbathing The planning phase should include many practical aspects such as site visits and the introduction of many case studies Any change has to be enforced from Day 1. You have to create a strong impact at the beginning in order to persuade citizens on the benefits of the MP evaluation for accountability and durability of cultural agencies and business (public private partnership), event and supply to develop new job opportunity and outside investment The study will contain the problems the site has and the way and timing for the interventions works. It will quantify the necessary financial resources for these interventions. Provisions for monitoring the application of the MP. specific targets allows you to measure your ability to make decisions in certain times, considering the evolutionary dynamics of the transformations of the territory restoration and conservation It could be useful to have more time to study all the items involved provide a kind of handbook/protocol to direct every local action the planning output should be the result of a participatory process Developing networks among local actors whose activities are common clearing important paths and sites, signing paths, installing an information kiosk

[1.3]If you do not have a management plan, please provide a couple of suggestions or contributions regarding what would be in priority the first starting actions during the planning phase of the management plan of your site plan.          

 

Publicity to create awareness so that citizens to have a clear vision of how the site will look after the MP implementation In order to protect and put in value the UNESCO site there are needed specialized studies in order to understand the outstanding value of the monument and the way to preserve them. This is the base of a management plan. cooperation with all stakeholders and bodies local and national consensus Clear up the pre-existing plans hierarchy Need to more actively involve and engage stakeholders, use specific strategies of participative methods to keep the interest high and to raise awareness Analysis of the local resources and identification of the main key of interpretation of the site and of its heritage focusing on 1 or 2 leading field of interest map all the key stakeholders and their possible implications in the planning process into agreeing which sites should be improved and turned into visit able sites so as to prioritize the sites and monuments needing fixing up urgently to be made visitable more quickly so as to enhance local economy In order to have a good management plan there are needed partners and stakeholders who understand the site value and the way it can be protected and put in value. Consulting other sites that already have a management plan

10


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4        

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Build up a case study inherent in part of the site, to prefigure an idea of the management plan, and make clear to the different administrations what their role could be Consultations and Communication campaigns Studying the economic opportunities of the territory and trying to connect with the local stakeholders knowledge of the existing management policy of the site design a step-by-step participatory process which would eventually lead to the plans Set up a responsible institution Finding partners and stakeholders in order to allocate the necessary resources for the protection and preservation of the site we have to make a realistic management plan

[1.4]Who do you think should be involved in the planning of the Management Plan? 

National Government 48.48%

Regional Authority 66.67%

Municipality/Local Authority 81.82%

NGO's 57.58%

Local Community / Citizen's Groups 75.76%

Private Enterprises 57.58%

Other Stakeholders 27.27%

11


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN [2.1]Can you identify two weaknesses from the implementation of the existing management plan, if any or if there is not a management plan, two reasons why your site has not yet one?                      

The lack of the funding for the implementation Human resources need to be well prepared Lack of capacities The nature of the Plan (it is not regulatory plan) The actual Management Plan doesn't go into much detail and doesn’t' foresee activities on a daily basis There is not a good communication and involvement between the local, regional and national administration and the owner. In Venice in 2011 there are more than ten existing plans. This condition makes difficult to think to another plan that would not be a mere repetition of something already present. Too many different authorities and it's very hard to coordinate policies, plans and actions The existing staff has not been involved in drafting the Management Plan and has little knowledge about the process. Lack of relevant offices to draft management plan and have the entire area under the care of museum and buffer zone of the city. Berat. 14.12.2011 too many different levels of responsibilities not interacting each other the formal authority in charge has no power and serious intention in checking the proper implementation of the existing mngt plan authorities and private businesses consider tourists a for granted element of local economy; they will continue coming no matter what Not familiarized with the drafting of MP’s A low understanding of the necessity of a management plan in preserving and putting in value the site In Venice there are many interest, all represented by different associations; it happens these interests being radically antithetic. The management Plan is not considered and seen by institutions as a restrictive plan (like an urban plan). It is difficult to create the conditions to a formal engagement Authorities may not have more collaboration to develop a management plan. Them through lack of working together so far have not developed such a plan. Obstacle is ignorance and other practices, which you already have such management plan. lack of consciousness in local administrations having being a top down formal exercise the mngt plan is not a proper driver for the stakeholders involvement in its implementation local authorities and enterprises hardly know their homeland and local culture lack of a strategic vision

[2.2]If you had the opportunity to provide only a couple of contributions to improve the management of your site, if there is one, what would they be in priority? 

Qualified staff is necessary for the work needed to create and update the Management Plan. There should be at least one site coordinator that deals only with this issue

12


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4       

     

   

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

improve skills of personnel raising awareness more consciousness in local administration as well as in guides in the management policy The management plan must provide a protection against development and change that might have a negatively impact on the site’s outstanding value The preparation of the action plan for the implementation of it Creation of a coordination entity that is empowered for the coordination of the authorities and stakeholder involved Should be established a working group who meet all the needs of the management plan. This working group should also be familiar with other similar practices which will help develop a plan effective. Must first be recognized and existing situation in which our site is. more interaction between the involved stakeholders Creating a trustworthy net of communication and cooperation between local tourist agencies and local authorities the authorities in charge should constantly involve the key stakeholders The risk management plan motivate volunteers, who could be trained to present each monument in the right way giving necessary and interesting information about it Often, many decisions are taken in Tirana, the nation capital. The decisions made do not comply with the criteria of cultural heritage and local institutions have little competences to waive those decisions. Even if they are not harmful to the heritage, they have to follow the order of the priorities that the local institutions set. The management plan must incorporate traditional practices, existing urban or regional planning instruments the management plan should reflect more the process than the output Provision for access to the site of disabled people by agreeing on which monuments will be open to frequent visits weekly or daily and at which hours with or without guided tour, with or without a ticket etc

3. INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN [3.1] Does the management plan take into account the needs and interests of the following actors?

Not at all

A little

Enough

Much (A4)

Local private stakeholders

21.21%

30.30%

45.45%

3.03%

Local communities

15.15%

27.27%

39.39%

18.18%

Municipal Authorities

3.03%

33.33%

45.45%

18.18%

13


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Regional Authorities

3.03%

24.24%

54.55%

18.18%

Professional Associations

15.15%

30.30%

42.42%

12.12%

NGO's

27.27%

24.24%

39.39%

9.09%

[3.2] How would you evaluate the level of the present involvement of the stakeholders? Please put 1 for the minimum to 5 for the maximum level of action 1

The stakeholders are simply receiving information The stakeholders are being consulted All stakeholders participate in joint decision-making There is joint action of all stakeholders involved Stakeholders take independent action (according to joint decisions)

2

33.33%

18.18%

27.27% 36.36%

3

4

5

27.27%

12.12%

9.09%

18.18% 30.30% 21.21% 18.18%

15.15% 15.15%

9.09% 9.09% 6.06%

36.36%

15.15%

33.33%

9.09%

30.30%

27.27%

27.27%

12.12%

3.03%

[3.3]Is the involvement of stakeholders in the Management Plan satisfactory? * Please choose only one of the following:  

Yes 42.42% No 45.45%

[3.4]Do you think that the participation and involvement of local stakeholders and communities can be increased by the following actions: * Please choose only one of the following: 

Involving them in gathering information regarding local cultural heritage that could contribute to the already designated Management Plan areas 27.27%

14


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Compiling and providing ideas for a future development in the area as input to a Cultural heritage strategy 24.24%

Creating greater awareness on cultural/historical heritage and the Management Plan process 42.42%

Gathering input and ideas for the Management Plan process from other resources 6.06%

4. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE [4.1] From what kind of body can the management of a cultural monument be exercised more efficiently in particular in the South East Europe (SEE) region? * Please choose only one of the following: 

Public Bodies (Municipal/Regional Authorities)

Public Bodies (Governmental Authorities) 3.03%

NGO/Non - for - profit Organizations 12.12%

Private Enterprises 9.09%

Individuals 3.03%

15

72.73%


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

[4.2]If you were asked to describe two examples of best practice from the management structure responsible for a site in the region of SEE or in general , what would those be and why?           

Association of French Art Cities: They have created a balanced network within the country and abroad for the best practices of management of historic cities Cetinje, Montenegro: It has a well detailed management plan that gives importance to the condition of the site and defines well the persons responsible. Val d'orcia: It works at territorial level and could be taken as similar for the SEE region. They have made a management plan and stakeholders are cooperating, coordinated by an ad hoc agency. Dubrovnik: do not know the structure but I can tell by the results. The Laguna management plan Venice, Italy: Provide a good protection. Antonine Wall, Roman frontier built 140 AD: Exhaustive documented. Skocianske Jame, Slovenia: the UNESCO designations (both the WH and BR) have been used as opportunities to involve more stakeholders in a joint planning process regulating the tourism, since 2000. Plitvice, Croatia: stakeholders’ involvement regulating the tourism. Old Town of Rhodes: It applies a contemporary management plan from which local community benefits as well as the site is being preserved very well. Historic center in Budva: Its management. WH site Bath and Hadrian's wall- GB

[4.3]Do the Managerial Bodies of your site cooperate effectively with other relevant bodies and stakeholders in order to implement common actions? If yes, please specify with whom in the appropriate box e.g. Municipal Authorities, Ministry of Culture. * Please choose only one of the following:  

Yes, the managerial bodies are effectively cooperating with other bodies and stakeholders to materialize such initiatives 27.27% Sometimes the Managerial Bodies are cooperating with relevant institutions and stakeholders but only occasionally 63.64%

16


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4 

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

No, the managerial bodies are not cooperating with other institutions and stakeholders involved 9.09%

[4.4]Which of the following you think is the reason of low common action or interaction among the institutions and bodies who are actively involved in management of your site: 

Poor communication among offices 78.79%

Lack of time 24.24%

Tendency to retain the knowledge and know-how 27.27%

Lack of trust in other partners 18.18%

5. FUNDING ISSUES [5.1] What are the main funding sources of your site? * Please choose all that apply: 

The site is being funded by the National Government 57.58%

The site is being funded by the Municipality, Local or Regional authorities 57.58%

The site has the right to keep all the income gathered by visitors for their own needs 12.12%

Some percentage of the income gathered by visitors is going to the site 21.21%

Funding from National or EU projects 51.52%

Donations from citizens or private companies/organizations 15.15% 17


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

6. PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION MECHANISM [6.1]Which of the following you think would enhance the protection and preservation of your site? 

Increase the number of visitors so that the income gained could be invested in infrastructure projects for the site’s improvement and sustainability 27.27%

Adopt a specific set of actions common for all SEE region that ensure sustainability of the sites 27.27%

Set specific regulations regarding human intervention and development of the site 24.24%

Develop and adopt a plan for sustainable 18.18%

18


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

7. SUSTAINABLE USE AND VISION FOR THE FUTURE [7.1]Are there specific actions envisaged in your management plan regarding the sustainability of your site? Please choose only one of the following: 

Yes, in the management plan a set of actions to be taken is envisaged 36.36%

No, the management plan of the site has nothing like that

The management plan has some kind of written set of actions to be taken but not a complete policy 33.33%

Other

15.15%

15.15%

[7.2]Which of the following you think would enhance the sustainability of your site? Please choose at most 1 answers: 

Actions to preserve and improve the site (set of regulations on human intervention) 45.45

Complete review of transportation, parking, noise, business activities, garbage collection etc 27.27%

Safeguarding and maintenance of these monuments at local level with active participation of citizens, governments and private sector 51.52% 19


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Setting standards for the preservation of the monuments by using specific indicators 12.12%

Offer tourism guidelines to the local business 24.24%

Set an autonomous and effective monitoring body 6.06%

8. PLANNING OF THE METHODOLOGY [8.1]Please, rate how much the problems below affect the management and sustainability of your site:

Not at all Fragmentation of responsibilities of many 18.18% stakeholders involved in the management

Some impact

18.18%

Measura ble impact

Big but not critical Impact

12.12%

It is a critical Factor

24.24% 27.27%

20


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

Not at all Insufficient specialized personnel in the project management or cultural management sector

Some impact

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Measura ble impact

Big but not critical Impact

It is a critical Factor

18.18%

27.27%

30.30%

6.06%

18.18%

Insufficient training programs for responsible 18.18% staff and stakeholders involved

18.18%

27.27%

6.06%

30.30%

Low promotion activity

21.21%

24.24%

27.27%

18.18%

9.09%

Reduced cultural exchange, 24.24% national and internationally

30.30%

27.27%

15.15%

3.03%

Low fundraising activity

15.15%

15.15%

27.27%

15.15%

27.27%

Low number of partnerships with local authorities, non15.15% governmental organizations, other bodies, mass media

18.18%

30.30%

18.18%

18.18%

Natural risks (earthquakes, 45.45% floods, landslides)

21.21%

15.15%

3.03%

15.15%

Risks coming from Human Activities like 33.33% vandalism and rubbery, illegal constructions etc.

15.15%

27.27%

15.15%

9.09%

21


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

Not at all

Some impact

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Measura ble impact

Big but not critical Impact

It is a critical Factor

Excessive bureaucracy

3.03%

18.18%

33.33%

18.18%

27.27%

Lack of national protection plan

15.15%

12.12%

30.30%

21.21%

21.21%

Insufficient involvement of civil society due to lack of awareness on heritage potentials for development

9.09%

24.24%

24.24%

21.21%

21.21%

15.15%

30.30%

21.21%

18.18%

Lack of a common approach with other sectors in 15.15% order to put in value the cultural heritage

[8.2]Which of the following should be the focus area of a successful policy for the management of your site? Please choose at most 2 answers: 

Direct assignment of the administration of the site to a private managing body 0.00%

Marketing (introduce corporate identity/logo, advertisement) 33.33%

Develop Fund Raising strategies 27.27%

Educational campaigns/trainings/conferences etc for personnel and public 39.39%

Enhance cooperation among state bodies that participate in managing the site 39.39%

Engage stakeholders to the management of the site 21.21%

22


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012



Formation of an organization board for each site comprised of representatives from national authorities and from local stakeholders/public as well as a coordinator responsible for managing the site 21.21%



Other: 3.03% (Comment given by respondent: Improving the approach to heritage assets)

[8.3]According to your opinion, from which of the following you think your site would benefit the best? Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 9 1st: Promotion of cultural tourism 2nd: Advertising 3rd: Branding name 4th: Partnerships 5th: Development of new touristic products (Merchandising) 6th: PR campaigns 7th: Usage of IT services and internet (Web platforms, Social media, Multimedia technologies) 23


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

8th: Printed material (Brochures, leaflets, magazines, maps 9th: Participation in trade fairs and exhibitions [8.4]If you were asked to describe two examples of best practice from management plans of other sites worldwide, what would those be and why?    

      

  

Management Plan of Historic Cities in Germany: It has involved the best modern practices for the management of the cultural heritage Škocjanske jame Regional Park, Slovenia: A vast monitoring programme was prepared, involving experts from many fields as well as the local community and voluntary rangers. The involvement of many actors. Pilat Dune in Arcachon, France: A natural public site is protected and regulated with 'simple' access and parking supply Transport For London (UK): A metropolitan system of public transportation make the city easy to visit, immediately mapped in the visitor mind and economic to travel throughout with Oyster card. TFL demonstrates that we can manage at the same time and with the same devices different city population, resident, commuters and visitors. Since demonstrate that also natural monuments, as far as art heritage, can be promoted and preserved, regulating accessibility with simple devices at a low and inclusive price Museuminsel in Berlin: a unique complex of museum architecture that shows the change in the concept of the museum collection and outreach from the 19th to 20th century Talin, Estonia: Put in value the site Skocjan Caves, Slovenia: stakeholders involvement, concerted planning Venice, Italy: The laguna management plan Venice: city full of culture with growing tourism without losing its color. Venice, Italy: the long, systematic and constructive management plan preparation process. The evolution in time and space of the stakeholders involvement in the decision making process Folk museum in Porrua, Spain: An old farm house with all its auxiliary buildings, in the center of the village, with a large park surrounding it and an enormous avocado tree right in the middle, fully active as a real farm house, with real people (volunteers from the village) dressed in traditional clothing, working, cooking, raising children, spinning wool, making cider etca real life museum, giving the visitor a very realistic complete picture of everyday life in the particular village. Money gained from tickets is re invested in the local cultural association producing local music cds, keeping the local gaida music school functioning, renovating perfectly old Indian houses within the village Antonine Wall Dubrovnik Venice Val d'Orcia Naples

24


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

4. Concluding Remarks This is an effort to discuss some of the major findings with the aim to extract critical issues for further development of the final methodology. In order to do this, the main weaknesses and suggestions presented above are revisited in a critical manner.

4.1

Main Weaknesses in Management Planning: OUTCOME OF THE SURVEY

REFLECTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Fragmentation of authority, it is not The nature, status and set up of the defined who is in charge for a Management Authority seems to be a critical management plan, No real inter- factor and needs to be addressed with institutional cooperation. 2. There

are

too

institutions

with

genuine and flexible ways.

many

different Effective

ways

of

coordination

/

autonomous collaboration should be sought aiming at a

authority and different skills, which coherent

structure without conflicts in

does not interact with each other in decision making. planning. 3. Little involvement of partners and Difficulties in involving stakeholders at local stakeholders. The local stakeholders level

may

be

greatly

facilitated

are inclined in networking only for introducing

the

SUSTCULT

by

approach

achieving a specific goal; Different initiated by partners i.e. launching and interests,

more

often

quite supporting the Consultative Committees

controversial, are a great obstacle. City/Site Their ability to adapt their own plans The concept will be certainly improved and to develop a unified plan of the site is developed from the rich experiences to be very poor.

gained during the implementation of the SUSTCULT project.

4. Insufficient Local Capacities and These infrastructure.

problems

are

inherent

to

municipalities and public authorities. Some thoughts should be given to Public Private

25


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012 Partnership’s scheme applied and worked successfully in several sectors.

5. Lack of skilled human resources.

Training in WP5 may be the solution together with the “cultural entrepreneurs” concept to be proposed in detail.

6. Problems in allocation of necessary Human Resources issue: The issue on not resources.

Lack

of

budget

financial support.

and sufficient staff and most importantly staff not adequate/not skilled enough to face the requirement sof the tasks is of paramount importance. to the required skills Other resources: solutions must be sought in WP4 with the methodology and within WP7 for boosting economic development and attracting funds from all kinds of sources e.g. governmental,

local,

international

institutions, income generation by activities of the cultural site itself.

7. Lack of social consensus on a See point 3. Management Plan.

In addition communication campaigns and extensive use of social media

8. A huge market pressure.

These

problems

are

inherent

to

municipalities and public authorities and private initiatives when called to manage cultural sites. Special thoughts should be given to examine the possibility of applying the PPP- Public Private Partnership scheme which has proved records of success in several

sectors

worldwide

(with

the

necessary quation because of the character of the resources at stake)

26


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

9. Different and conflicting interests in Conflicting interests of Public authorities, the use and the conservation of local archeologists, local stakeholders, citizens heritage.

groups, private sector etc are by nature present in all sites. However there are many examples from other sites which have achieved a consensus among all different players. In addition, European Awareness Scenario Workshops can be proved to be a valuable tool in building consensus.

10. Weak action plan.

The methodology should be in line with new actions to be introduced. To reflect also in combination with point 4.

4.2 Main Suggestions on Management Planning from Respondents OUTCOME OF THE SURVEY

REFLECTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Prioritization of most urgent needs with To be identified in the Business Plan specific timeframe. Preparation of a priorities' formation list of activities with concrete targets and deadlines to achieve them. 2. Promotion of cultural tourism by studying the Ways

on

cultural landscape of the site, production of integrated

how

to

touristic

develop

an

development

informative booklets and planning of visitor’s concept will be an indispensable guidance concepts.

element

of

Methodology

the

SUSTCULT

which should be

incorporated in the respective MPs.. The activities and the Blueprint to be developed in WP7 will also be a valuable support for the promotion of the sites. 27


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

3. Identification of the person responsible for Specific proposals emanated from implementing the management plan.

best practices identified will be introduced contributing to better coordination and empowerment of assigned responsible.

4. Identify and mapping of the key local This aspect will be incorporated in stakeholders

and

their

eligibility

in the formation of the MPs

participating in the management. 5. The

staff

that

is

responsible

for

the As identified in the weaknesses part,

Management Plan should be trained to value training may be the solution together more the need for a Management Plan. The with the “cultural entrepreneurs” Plan should guide them in situation analysis concept to be proposed in detail. and decision making. More training in finances and in the field of marketing and management. 6. Revision of the existing Plan. In the revision To

be

proposed

in

detail

process the Management should enhance recommendations on how to involve stakeholders’ involvement.

stakeholders

7. Provisions on legal infrastructure.

Legal infrastructure may not be dealt with in coming proposals. However recommendations should be made wherever possible. The act.6.1 will be useful in defining the legal and policy framework at local level as a prerequisite for the proper design and implementation of planning instrument and integrated strategies.

8. More grants

A

comprehensive

strategy

know-how

fund

raising

will

be

introduced in the methodology and embodied in WP7 9. More

communication

among 28

responsible Approaches

for

specific


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

offices.

communication and dissemination action plan should be proposed consideration.

10. The plan must contain the regulations of This

is

a

matter

of

intervention in the protected area and foresee national/international regulation and a Buffer zone in the site where touristic may not be tackled by the proposed investments can be made.

methodology (out of scope). Only general recommendations may be addressed.

11. Evaluation procedures for accountability.

Accountability

concept

may

be

addressed in connexion with the launching

Monitoring

and

Management Committees. 12. A steering committee should be established Monitoring of the Management Plan who meets all the needs of the management is of paramount importance for an plan. This steering committee should also be effective management. Launching a familiar with other similar practices which performant Steering Committee will will help develop a plan effectively.

13. The authorities in charge should constantly involve the stakeholders.

be addressed.

As

described

above

involving

stakeholders at local level may be greatly facilitated by introducing the SUSTCULT approach initiated by partners

i.e.

supporting

launching the

and

Consultative

Committees City/Monument. The

concept

will

be

certainly

improved and developed from the rich experiences to be gained during the

implementation

of

the

SUSTCULT project. 14. The management plan must incorporate Approaches traditional practices, existing urban or regional traditional 29

for practices

incorporating should

be


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

planning instruments.

carefully examined and solutions be proposed.

4.3 Developing a SUSTCULT methodology for Integrated Management of Cultural Heritage Sites Methodology is a system of broad principles from which specific methods or procedures may be derived to interpret or solve different problems within the scope of a particular discipline. A methodology is not a formula but a set of practices. (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/methodology.html#ixzz1lY6vsZXd) Objectives of SUSTCULT Methodology 

To deliver a shared methodology for the elaboration of management plans.

To develop a common transnational methodology on how a cultural site should be managed in order to become a source of sustainable development.

Main Principles of the SUSTCULT Methodology 

Flexibility: the methodology will have a territorial setting and will allow the integration of sectoral policies, concepts, plans, actions, etc. which affect cultural heritage;

Participation: the methodology will encourage participation and a greater synergy of competencies among different actors;

Multi-dimension: the methodology will recognize the multifunctional characteristics of cultural heritage;

Sustainability: the methodological framework will be grounded in sustainable principles in order to sustain

Marketing and Job creation Oriented: the methodology will create the conditions for employment regeneration and development of local market.

Actions to be taken into consideration while developing the methodology:  Study on the role of culture for sustainable development, 

Collation of best practice on participative heritage management,

Identification of needs and expectations of local communities.

The resulting methodology will benefit from a bottom-up approach (participation of stakeholders and local consultations)

A learning-by-doing approach 30


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

4.4 Preliminary suggestions for developing the methodology According to the preliminary results of the CulturPolis desk some elements might be interesting to be introduced in the development of a SUSTCULT Methodology. While they are commonly referred to, they may convey new approaches. Some indicative topics might be the following:  Cultural Heritage Management  Cultural Industries  Cultural Tourism  Cultural Marketing  Cultural Sites Management Standards and Certification  Sustainable Development in the tourism and cultural sectors  Digital Cultural Heritage Initiatives

Cultural Heritage or Cultural Resources Management Cultural heritage management (CHM) is the vocation and practice of managing cultural heritage. It is a branch of cultural resources management (CRM), although it also draws on the practices of conservation, restoration, museology, archaeology, history and architecture. While the term cultural heritage is generally used in Europe, in the USA the term cultural resources is in more general use specifically referring to cultural heritage resources. Curation refers to the long-term preservation and retention of heritage assets and to providing access to them in a variety of forms. (Source: American Marketing Association http://www.marketingpower.com/AboutAMA/Pages/DefinitionofMarketing.aspx and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_resources_management) Cultural Industries Cultural Industries are defined as those industries which produce tangible or intangible artistic and creative outputs, and which have a potential for wealth creation and income generation through the exploitation of cultural assets and production of knowledge-based goods and services (both traditional and contemporary). What cultural industries have in common is that they all use creativity, cultural knowledge, and intellectual property to produce products and services with social and cultural meaning. (Source: http://culturalentrepreneur.org/blog/what-are-cultural-industries/)

31


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Cultural Tourism Cultural tourism has been defined as 'the movement of persons to cultural attractions away from their normal place of residence, with the intention to gather new information and experiences to satisfy their cultural needs'. The mutual dependence that exists between tourism and cultural heritage is becoming more evident. While culture heritage creates a foundation for tourism’s growth, tourism has the power to generate funds that make conservation possible. The challenge facing the cultural tourism sector is to find a balance between tourism and cultural heritage management. (The Nordic World Heritage Foundation (NWHF), http://www.nwhf.no/files/File/culture_fulltext.pdf, Whistler, Arts, Cultural & Heritage Tourism Strategy2007-2009http://www.whistler2010.com/OCPbasics/documents.cfm) Cultural Marketing Designing a methodology with reference to marketing Such as Corporate Identity / Logo, Public relations, Advertising, Printed materials, Promotional items, Better Signage, Trade fairs and exhibitions: any relevant shows, Group and travel trade promotions, Partnerships, Direct marketing, Merchandising Cultural Entrepreneurs Cultural Entrepreneurs are cultural change agents and resourceful visionaries who organize cultural, financial, social and human capital, to generate revenue from a cultural activity. Their innovative solutions result in economically sustainable cultural enterprises that enhance livelihoods and create cultural value and wealth for both creative producers and consumers of cultural services and products. (http://culturalentrepreneur.org/blog/cultural-entrepreneur-a-new-definition/) Cultural Sites Management Standards and Certification A common transnational methodology should be using clear standards and establish Certification and Accreditation of these standards. Such initiatives are a form of voluntary industry self-regulation that involve interested cultural sites undergoing an evaluation and certification progress leading to an award that they can use to differentiate themselves in the marketplace and use it for their benefit. Like Blue Flag etc. Cultural Sustainability Throsby (2003, p.183) has introduced a related concept of cultural sustainability, which he defines as arising from the broader notion of sustainable development: a concept that marries the ideas of sustainable economic development, meaning development that will not slow down or wither away but will be in some sense selfperpetuating, and ecological sustainability, meaning the preservation and enhancement of a range of environmental values through the maintenance of 32


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

ecosystems in the natural world. Furthermore, the term ‘sustainable development’ embraces an interpretation of ‘economic development’ that supersedes former notions of economic growth measured only in terms of increases in per capital GDP, and replaces it with the wider concept of ‘human development’, focused on the individual as both the instrument and the object of development, and measured by a variety of indicators of quality of life and standards of living that go well beyond measuring simply material progress. As a definition of cultural sustainability seems impossible to him, Throsby (2001, 2003) argues that a list of criteria may be used instead by which to assess sustainable management of cultural capital: material and non-material well-being, intergenerational equity, intergenerational equity, maintenance of diversity, precautionary principle, maintenance of cultural systems and recognition of interdependence. The final criterion, in essence, draws together the entire concept of sustainability when applied to culture, providing an overall framework within which the other more specific principles can be seen to operate. New Media-Technology Advances in information and communication technology (ICT) and the evolution of the Internet have been instrumental in transforming the production, interpretation, exchange, marketing and consumption of cultural services as well as in managing visitors experiences and behaviour (Sigala 2003). Moreover, the introduction of multimedia information systems enables the heritage-cultural industry to redefine its role and models by allowing it to redesign traditional products and promote new cultural experiences by involving a worldwide network of potential visitors, who may also be able to participate in the production of the cultural service (Sigala 2005)

4.5 Best Practices Presentation This is a short survey on best practices and experiences according to the most successfully managed sites recommended by the respondents in the questionnaire but also examples taken beyond the limits of SEE borders. Please see Best Practices Guide attached to the report.

4.6 Methodological steps for proposing SUSTCULT methodology This analysis is a rather provisional description of the methodological steps towards the SUSTCULT Methodology as it will be very much influenced along the process by the inputs and follow ups of the project partners.

33


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

The concept of sustainable development The concept of sustainable development is based on a ‘three pillars’ model (Keiner, 2005), addressing the interrelation between sustainable development and sustainable cultural tourism by investigating the role of cultural heritage in three sustainability dimensions, that of environmental, economic, and social sustainability.

The environmental dimension is mainly directed towards the conservative use of heritage assets, focusing on problems of maintaining the existing buildings and in general the site. The economic dimension is seen as the most important prerequisite for the fulfillment of human needs and for any lasting improvements to the living conditions of the community. The social dimension of sustainable development emphasizes enhancing the quality of life for all community members.

Change of paradigm The perspective from which we access the concept of sustainable development share the ideas of Agenda 21 that the understanding of development has evolved. Today human beings have the capacities but do not have some of the capabilities (tools, skills) to understand the world and to transform it so that it becomes really sustainable. These capabilities are literacy, creativity, critical knowledge, sense of place, empathy, trust, risk, respect, recognition... These capabilities can be understood as the cultural component of sustainability.

34


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

These capabilities are not included in any of the current three pillars. Of course, culture has an economic dimension (it generates income and employment), but it cannot be reduced to an instrument for economic growth. Also, culture has a social dimension (fight against poverty, participation, equality of rights) but it cannot be reduced to an instrument to create social inclusion or provide cohesion to a society, it is much more than that. Culture has an environmental dimension but it cannot be reduced to an instrument for raising awareness on environmental responsibility. The paradigm of sustainability needs an explicit cultural component. Therefore, transforming the three pillar model into a square, in which culture becomes the fourth pillar, needs serious consideration by the international community. Environment

Economics

sustainable development

Society

Culture The four dimensions of sustainable development

With respect to these three pillars the SUSTCULT Methodology will deliver a synthesis of:    

the survey findings, the contemporary approaches of site management, the best practices of other cultural sites and the findings and the outcomes of the other WP’s of the SUSTCULT project such as: WP1: Transnational project and financial management WP2: Internal and external communication WP3: Building shared knowledge on cultural heritage sites 35


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

WP5: Training and capacity building The SUSTCULT Methodology will introduce a series of initiatives to be applied into the SEE cultural sites with a delineated action plan. The Methodology will be a twofold proposal on the elaboration of site Management Plans and on the sustainable management of the cultural heritage sites. SUSTCULT Methodology is developed around five main methodological lines at all the different sectors of the management plan and constitute an integrated set of targeted actions to promote sustainable practices. The axes are governed by the growing demand and expansion of vertical and horizontal relationships and interaction between sectors that compose and surround sustainability. In the interior of the conservation process is both the vertical relationship of valorization – preservation and for the horizontal collaborative relationship among communities. The SUSTCULT Methodology is developed around four main methodological axes at all the different stages of implementation. The axes are: • Balancing the preservation of the heritage with the growth of tourism, • Balancing the need to ensure the long-term preservation of the remains with allowing access to the largest possible number of visitors, • Ensuring the site’s harmonious integration within the town as a significant part of the shared heritage, • Balancing all costs and benefits created by the need for development.

4.6.1

Analysis The elaboration of a Site Management Plan may be divided in successive steps following the structure proposed by UNESCO for a management plan. The SUSTCULT Methodology will attempt to develop the successive steps by identifying its contents and recommending the more suitable actions. The methodology will also illustrate possible implementation and coordination procedures, the more appropriate management structure as well as specific monitoring indicators. The steps which local managers, planners and stakeholders should take into consideration during the planning phase of the Management Plan are as follow: Step 1

 What is your heritage place? 36


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Step 2     

Who has an interest in your heritage place? How do you find out who is interested? Who can you identify? Types of individuals and organizations who might be interested Example of different interests working together

Step 3 What do you need to know?           

Where is the boundary? What information is available? Heritage registers Finding out more about heritage How do you collect community knowledge? What is a thematic study? Good Practices Framework Studies of Management Plans of heritage places What additional information is required? What goes into a heritage study? Using your heritage study

Step 4 Why is this place important?        

Examples of heritage values Who should be involved in assessing heritage significance? Assessing the significance of a place Using criteria for assessing significance Compare this place with others What is a statement of significance? Expressing and communicating significance in other ways How have others prepared statements of significance?

Step 5 What are the issues?    

Issues to consider What is the condition of the place? What are the current and future trends affecting the place? Consulting about issues 37


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

 Doing a SWOT analysis  Doing a PEST analysis (Political, Economic, Social, and Technological analysis).  Identifying priority issues

Step 6 What do you want to achieve?  What other influences need to be considered?  Examples of objectives

Step 7 What do you need to do?      

What kinds of strategies and actions are needed? A new use for an old heritage building Developing your strategies Examples of strategies linked to objectives What are conservation processes? What are some conservation processes?

Step 8 What is your plan?       

What's the difference between a conservation plan and a management plan? What a management plan should include Types of studies and reports to assist you plan Who is responsible for what? Ensuring monitoring is included Factors that can be monitored Monitoring the ……site

Step 10 Review it!

38


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Bibliography Agenda 21 for Culture, http://agenda21culture.net/docs_circulars/Ideas%20for%20Rio+20%20-%20ENG.pdf American Marketing Association http://www.marketingpower.com/AboutAMA/Pages/DefinitionofMarketing.aspx Business Dictionary, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/methodology.html#ixzz1lY6vsZXd Feilden, B.M.; Jokilehto, Jukka, Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites,2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_resources_management Leask, A. and Fyall, A., eds., 2006. Managing World Heritage Sites. London: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann. Leslie, David. & Sigala, Marianna. (2005) International cultural tourism : management, implications and cases, Oxford ; Burlington, MA : Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann. Raj Isar , 2008, Cultures and Globalization: The Cultural Economy, Sage Publications Sigala, M. (2003). Internet heritage and cultural tourism under virtual construction: implications for online visitors’ experiences and interpretation management. Tourism Today, No. 3, pp. 51 - 67. The Nordic World Heritage Foundation (NWHF), http://www.nwhf.no/files/File/culture_fulltext.pdf Throsby, D. (2001). «Economics and Culture». Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Throsby, D. (2003) «Cultural sustainability», In: Towse, R, A Handbook of Cultural Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Whistler, Arts, Cultural & Heritage Tourism Strategy- 2007-2009 http://www.whistler2010.com/OCP-basics/documents.cfm

39


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

ANNEX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE WP4 Partners’ Contribution: Activity 4.3 Identifying good practices, needs, expectations, proposals

The questionnaire will provide a non-exhaustive but updated and relevant summary of best practice to be taken into account within the methodology for the development and effective implementation of management plans. As well as it help to identify main needs, expectations and proposals for a common methodology for the elaboration of management plans. Time needed for compilation: 15 minutes There are 25 questions in this survey Participants' Identification 1 [id1] Partners' Identification Please write your answer(s) here: 

Official name of the Institution (in original language):

Official name of the Institution (in English):

The personal data such as name/surname, e-mail addresses/organisation collected and further processed are considered important for the participation to the survey. This information will be used only for the analysis of the questionnaires within WP4 activities of the EU funded project SUSTCULT (SEE Programme). It will not be re-used for different purposes. The information will be treated by WP4 Leder (Culturepolis) and will not be divulged for marketing purposes.

40


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Should you have any query concerning the processing of your personal data, you may address them to the following address:: secretariat@culturepolis.org Personal data will be kept until the end of the SUSTCULT project (foreseen for 31/12/2013). Nevertheless, it is also possible not to provide personal data and thus fill in an anonymous questionnaire, although this may interfere with the analysis of questionnaires. 2 [id2]Full address and contact references Please write your answer(s) here: 

Street and Number:

Post code:

City:

Country:

3 [id3]Contact Person Please write your answer(s) here: 

Title - Family Name - First Name:

Position:

Telephone Nr:

Fax Nr:

E-mail:

1. PLANNING PROCESS OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 4 [1.1] Can you identify two weaknesses in the planning process of the existing management plan, if any, or if there is not a management plan, two reasons why it is not yet initiated? NB: Should you know similar weakness concerning other sites, please report them as well WEAKNESS/REASON 1 Title (25 characters max.) Description (site & date of reference) (180 characters max.)

41

WEAKNESS/REASON 2


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

E.g. Weakness: lack of consultation and stakeholder engagement in the planning phase of the management plan 5 [1.2] If you had the opportunity to provide only a couple of contributions to improve the planning phase of the management plan of your site plan, if any, what would they be in priority? Contribution 1

Contribution 2

Title (25 characters max.) Description (180 characters max.) E.g. Map and share knowledge on the responsibilities and initiatives already undertaken by the different bodies for the site’s protection and management in order to start with integration process planning 6 [1.3]If you do not have a management plan, please provide a couple of suggestions or contributions regarding what would be in priority the first starting actions during the planning phase of the management plan of your site plan Contribution 1

Contribution 2

Title (25 characters max.) Description (180 characters max.) E.g. Work preliminary on the stakeholder identification and analysis 7 [1.4]Who do you think should be involved in the planning of the Management Plan? * Please choose all that apply: 

National Government

Regional Authority

Municipality/Local Authority

NGO's

Local Community / Citizen's Groups

Private Enterprises

Other Stakeholders

2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN

42


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

8 [2.1]Can you identify two weaknesses from the implementation of the existing management plan, if any or if there is not a management plan, two reasons why your site has not yet one? WEAKNESS/REASON 1

WEAKNESS/REASON 2

Title (25 characters max.) Description (site & date of reference) (180 characters max.) E.g. Weakness: Fragmentation of responsibilities of bodies involved in the management etc 9 [2.2]If you had the opportunity to provide only a couple of contributions to improve the management of your site, if there is one, what would they be in priority? Contribution 1

Contribution 2

Title (25 characters max.) Description (180 characters max.) Justification (why may be considered as a priority) E.g. Improve skills of the existing personnel, adopt preservation standards etc. 3. INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 [3.1] Does the management plan take into account the needs and interests of the following actors? * Please choose the appropriate response for each item: Not at all

A little

Local private stakeholders Local communities Municipal Authorities

43

Enough

Much


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4 Not at all

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012 A little

Enough

Much

Regional Authorities Professional Associations NGO's 11 [3.2]How would you evaluate the level of the present involvement of the stakeholders? * Please choose the appropriate response for each item: 1

2

3

4

The stakeholders are simply receiving information The stakeholders are being consulted All stakeholders participate in joint decisionmaking There is joint action of all stakeholders involved Stakeholders take independent action (according to joint decisions) Please put 1 for the minimum to 5 for the maximum level of action 12 [3.3]Is the involvement of stakeholders in the Management Plan satisfactory? * Please choose only one of the following: 

Yes

No

If no, please explain why

Make a comment on your choice here: 13 [3.4]Do you think that the participation and involvement of local stakeholders and communities can be increased by the following actions: *

44

5


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Please choose only one of the following: 

Involving them in gathering information regarding local cultural heritage that could contribute to the already designated Management Plan areas

Compiling and providing ideas for a future development in the area as input to a Cultural heritage strategy

Creating greater awareness on cultural/historical heritage and the Management Plan process

Gathering input and ideas for the Management Plan process from other resources

4.MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE 14 [4.1]From what kind of body can the management of a cultural monument be exercised more efficiently in particular in the South East Europe (SEE) region? * Please choose only one of the following: 

Public Bodies (Municipal/Regional Authorities)

Public Bodies (Governmental Authorities)

NGO/Non - for - profit Organizations

Private Enterprises

Individuals

15 [4.2]If you were asked to describe two examples of best practice from the management structure responsible for a site in the region of SEE or in general , what would those be and why? EXAMPLE 1

EXAMPLE 2

Title (25 characters max.) Description (site & date of reference) (180 characters max.) Justification (why may be considered as a best practice) 16 [4.3]Do the Managerial Bodies of your site cooperate effectively with other relevant bodies and stakeholders in order to implement common actions? If yes, please specify with whom in the appropriate box e.g. Municipal Authorities, Ministry of Culture. * Please choose only one of the following:

45


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Yes, the managerial bodies are effectively cooperating with other bodies and stakeholders to materialize such initiatives

Some times the Managerial Bodies are cooperating with relevant institutions and stakeholders but only occasionally

No, the managerial bodies are not cooperating with other institutions and stakeholders involved

Make a comment on your choice here: 17 [4.4]Which of the following you think is the reason of low common action or interaction among the institutions and bodies who are actively involved in management of your site: * Please choose at most 2 answers: 

Poor communication among offices

Lack of time

Tendency to retain the knowledge and know-how

Lack of trust in other partners

5. FUNDING ISSUES 18 [5.1]What are the main funding sources of your site? * Please choose all that apply: 

The site is being funded by the National Government

The site is being funded by the Municipality, Local or Regional authorities

The site has the right to keep all the income gathered by visitors for their own needs

Some percentage of the income gathered by visitors is going to the site

Funding from National or EU projects

Donations from citizens or private companies/organizations

Other:

6. PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION MECHANISM 19 [6.1]Which of the following you think would enhance the protection and preservation of your site? * Please choose at most 2 answers:

46


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Actions to preserve and improve the site (set of regulations on human intervention)

Complete review of transportation, parking, noise, business activities, garbage collection etc

Safeguarding and maintenance of these monuments at local level with active participation of citizens, governments and private sector

Setting standards for the preservation of the monuments by using specific indicators

Offer tourism guidelines to the local business

Set an autonomous and effective monitoring body

7. SUSTAINABLE USE AND VISION FOR THE FUTURE 20 [7.1]Are there specific actions envisaged in your management plan regarding the sustainability of your site? * Please choose only one of the following: 

Yes, in the management plan a set of actions to be taken is envisaged

No, the management plan of the site has nothing like that

The management plan has some kind of written set of actions to be taken but not a complete policy Other

21 [7.2]Which of the following you think would enhance the sustainability of your site? * Please choose at most 1 answers: 

Increase the number of visitors so that the income gained could be invested in infrastructure projects for the site’s improvement and sustainability

Adopt a specific set of actions common for all SEE region that ensure sustainability of the sites

Set specific regulations regarding human intervention and development of the site

Develop and adopt a plan for sustainable tourism

Other:

8. PLANNING OF THE METHODOLOGY 22 [8.1]Please, rate how much the problems below affect the management and sustainability of your site: *

47


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Please choose the appropriate response for each item:

Not at all

Some impact

Measurable impact

e Fragmentation of responsibilities of many stakeholders involved in the management Insufficient specialized personnel in the project management or cultural management sector Insufficient training programs for responsible staff and stakeholders involved Low promotion activity Reduced cultural exchange, national and internationally

48

Big but not critical Impact

It is a critical Factor


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

Not at all

Some impact

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Measurable impact

Low fundraising activity Low number of partnerships with local authorities, nongovernmental organizations, other bodies, mass media Natural risks (earthquakes, floods, landslides) Risks coming from Human Activities like vandalism and rubbery, illegal constructions etc. Excessive bureaucracy Lack of national protection plan Insufficient involvement of civil society due to lack of

49

Big but not critical Impact

It is a critical Factor


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

Not at all

Some impact

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Measurable impact

Big but not critical Impact

It is a critical Factor

awareness on heritage potentials for development 23 [8.2]Which of the following should be the focus area of a successful policy for the management of your site? * Please choose at most 2 answers: 

Direct assignment of the administration of the site to a private managing body

Marketing (introduce corporate identity/logo, advertisement)

Develop Fund Raising strategies

Educational campaigns/trainings/conferences etc for personnel and public

Enhance cooperation among state bodies that participate in managing the site

Engage stakeholders to the management of the site

Formation of an organization board for each site comprised of representatives from national authorities and from local stakeholders/public as well as a coordinator responsible for managing the site Other:

24 [8.3]According to your opinion, from which of the following you think your site would benefit the best? * Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 9 

Advertising

PR campaigns

Branding name

Promotion of cultural tourism

Printed material (Brochures, leaflets, magazines, maps)

Usage of IT services and internet (Web platforms, Social media, Multimedia technologies)

50


SUSTCULT Methodology – WP4

CulturePolis Report v.1/06.02.2012

Development of new tourist products (Merchandising)

Participation in trade fairs and exhibitions

Partnerships

25 [8.4]If you were asked to describe two examples of best practice from management plans of other sites worldwide, what would those be and why? EXAMPLE 1 Title (25 characters max.) Description (site & date of reference) (180 characters max.) Justification (why may be considered as a practice)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONTRIBUTION

Submit your survey. Thank you for completing this survey.

51

EXAMPLE 2

SUSTCULT WP4 Report on Methodology  

This is the report on Methodology for Sustcult WP4

Advertisement